HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-6-11Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
JUNE 11, 2014
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
3:30 p.m. – Room 241
1. Call to Order.
2. 3:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. Joint Meeting with School Board.
3. a. Medical and Dental Insurance Programs. Lorna Gerome, Director of Human Resources.
b. Planning for Joint meetings of Board of Supervisors and School Board:
1. Retreat.
2. Legislative Representatives to discuss introduction of legislation.
4. Recess.
4a. 4:30 p.m. – Closed Meeting.
5:00 p.m. – Lane Auditorium
4b. Certify Closed Meeting.
5. 5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. - Work Session: CPA-2013-01. Comprehensive Plan Update/
Amendment, to begin with public comments and possible Board direction. Elaine Echols, Principal
Planner.
6. 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order Night Meeting.
7. Pledge of Allegiance.
8. Moment of Silence.
9. Adoption of Final Agenda.
9a. Recognition: Proclamation recognizing June 2014 as Business
Appreciation Month.
10. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
11. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
12. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
Public Hearings:
13. Resolution to Appropriate FY 15 On-going Funding of Multi-Year Capital Projects, Lori
Allshouse, Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
14. PROJECT: SP-2014-00004. Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops - Drive-Thru.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800-00-00-073A2. LOCATION: 2005
Abbey Road, on the south side of Route 250 in the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center. PROPOSAL:
Request for a special use permit to establish a drive-thru window associated with a fast food
restaurant on .75 acres under Section (s) 22.2.2 (10) Commercial, 23.2.2 (5) Commercial Office,
and 24.2.2(12) Highway Commercial, Permitted Uses, by Special Use Permit of Zoning Ordinance.
ZONING: PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial which allows large-scale commercial
uses and residential by special use permit at a density of 15 units/acre. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR:
Yes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Mixed Use – retail, commercial services, office, and a mix
of residential types (6.01 – 34 units/acre) in DA – Neighborhood 3 – Pantops. Claudette Grant,
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2014Files/0611/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/6/2020 12:44:11 PM]
Tentative
Principal Planner.
15. Six Year Secondary Road Plan. To receive comments on the proposed Secondary
Six-Year Plan for Fiscal Years 2014/15 through 2019/20 in Albemarle County, and on the
Secondary System Construction Budget for Fiscal Year 2014/15. David Benish, Chief of Planning.
Action Items:
16. Appeal of ARB Decision: ARB-2014-024. New Hope Church, Margaret Maliszewski,
Principal Planner.
17. Business Assistance Program During Road Construction. Lee Catlin, Assistant to the
County Executive for Community and Business Partnerships
18. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
19. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
20. Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
12.1 Approval of Minutes: August 14, October 2 and December 12, 2013; February 5, March 27 and
April 10, 2014.
12.2 Northside Library Lease Extension.
12.3 FY 2014 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
12.4 Resolution to Support Application by Buckingham Branch Railroad Company for Grant
Funds.
12.5 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) – Letter of Support.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ONLY
Return to Top of Agenda
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2014Files/0611/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/6/2020 12:44:11 PM]
Tentative
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2014Files/0611/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/6/2020 12:44:11 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Medical and Dental Insurance Programs
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of the proposed 2014-2015 health
and dental contracts, coverage and proposed rate
structure
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Gerome
PRESENTER (S): Lorna Gerome
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 11, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In November 2000, the Board of Supervisors and School Board (Boards) approved a Total Compensation Strategy to
target employee salaries at 100% of an adopted market median and benefits slightly above market levels. Medical
insurance and the Virginia Retirement System are the largest components of the benefits piece of that strategy. The
information provided in the attached Memorandum from the Health Care Executive Committee (HCEC) to the County
Executive and Superintendent (Attachment A) details the analysis of the medical and dental programs and prior
actions taken to meet the benefits target.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 7. Promote a valued and responsive County workforce that ensures excellent customer s ervice
DISCUSSION:
Each year the HCEC, with the assistance of a health care consultant, evaluates the Health Insurance plan’s claims
experience, trends in health care costs, policy design issues, market conditions as related to insurance benefits and
insurance regulations or policy mandates imposed by State or Federal law. The mandates in the Affordable Care Act
have particular relevance to this and future years of the plan.
The attached Memorandum outlines the HCEC’s recommendations for the County’s Medical and Dental Insurance
program based on the following objectives:
offer affordable options that meet varying needs of employees and their families;
maintain reserves at approximately 25% of claims;
ensure plans are in compliance with the Affordable Care Act; and
maintain the Boards’ competitive position for benefits (slightly above market).
Based on this year’s evaluation process, the HCEC has recommended a number of plan design changes as well as
premium adjustments to ensure continued solvency and sustainability of the County’s health care reserve fund and
compliance with Federal and State mandates. Some of these changes, particularly those involving premium
adjustments and the possibility of deductables, were foreshadowed last year during board work sessions, and the
anticipation of these changes was communicated to employees. Additional plan design changes and additional
premium adjustments are also recommended to be effective in plan year 2016, which staff believes should be carefully
evaluated over the next few months in preparation for work sessions with the Boards in late Summer or early Fall. The
additional time will also allow staff to communicate and engage employees in advance of implementing any approved
additional changes.
At this time, staff recommends that the Boards approve the implementation of an 8% increase in the County’s
contribution for health care and an 8% increase in employee contributions as discussed in the joint meeting of the
Boards in October 2013 and included in the proposed budget. Staff also recommends that we phase in the
implementation of deductables. Specifically, staff recommends the implementation of a $250 deductable, effective
January of 2015, to bring the plan into alignment with market and allow additional time for employee communications
regarding the change. Staff also recommends that the Boards direct staff to evaluate additional policy modifications,
AGENDA TITLE: Medical and Dental Insurance Programs
June 11, 2014
Page 2
including out of pocket m aximums, co-pays, deductibles and premium adjustments as proposed by the HCEC and as
may be necessary or advisable to maintain a competitive and sustainable health insurance program. Other
modifications may also be necessary to avoid the “Cadillac Tax” (effective January 2018) as required by the Affordable
Care Act, which is based on total plan cost for individual coverage. The plan, for example, may need to have changes
made to its subsidies for the dependent portion, including the subsidy formula, the rate for children and spouses, and
the subsidy provided to part-time employees and retirees. The HCEC will develop these recommendations in the late
summer/early fall time frame in preparation for a joint board presentation and discussion in October. Delaying the
implementation of all of these proposed changes would reduce the County’s reserve balance to below target levels in
the short term, but would restore the reserves within a two-year period.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The 8% increase in the County’s (employer’s) contribution was included in the County Executive’s and
Superintendent’s proposed FY15 budget. Future budgetary impacts will be dependent upon future plan changes
as may be approved by the Boards in the Fall.
RECOMMENDATION:
Medical Plan:
1. Continue to offer the Basic and Plus plans through Coventry.
a. Both plans are Point-Of-Service Plans with the same benefit coverage.
2. Increase the Board contribution by 8% for the new plan-year beginning on October 1, 2014.
3. Set full-time employee premiums (8% increase) at the rates shown in Attachment A.
4. Implement a $250 deductable effective January 1, 2015.
5. Retain a self-insured medical plan with Specific-Claim-Stop-Loss insurance to limit the County’s liability
against any single large claim .
Dental Plan:
1. Continue the contract with United Concordia.
2. Continue to offer the Basic and High Options with no change in benefit design.
3. Reduce the current rates for the new plan year beginning on October 1, 2014.
4. Approve the employee premiums as shown in Attachment A.
5. Continue the dental rate holiday (which began in February 2014) through September 2014 for all dental
enrollees for this period, regardless of hire date.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: HCEC Memorandum to County Executive and Superintendent
Attachment B: Health and Dental Premium Recommendations
Return to agenda
Attachment A
MEMORANDUM
To: Tom Foley, County Executive
Pam Moran, Superintendent
From: Health Care Executive Committee
RE: 2014-2015 Medical and Dental Insurance Programs
Date: April 2014
The Health Care Executive Committee (HCEC), the members of which represent several
departments in the School Division and Local Government, as well as other affiliated
organizations who participate in our health and dental plans, develops recommendations for our
medical and dental plans based on the following objectives:
offer affordable options that meet varying needs of employees and their families
maintain reserves at approximately 25% of claims
ensure plans are in compliance with Health Care Reform
maintain our competitive position for benefits (slightly above market )
Plan Review Process
The HCEC works routinely with KSPH Employee Benefit Management, to review our health
care plan. This includes:
Detailed reviews of claims utilization with Coventry/Aetna’s medical director
Analysis of market information on plan design and employee/employer premiums.
o Plan design includes: inpatient/outpatient coinsurance, co-payments, annual
deductibles, out-of-pocket maximums, emergency room co-payments,
prescription drug co-payments
Employee Feedback- input from employees via focus groups and surveys
Review and projections of reserve balance.
Health Care Reserve Fund
As our medical plan is self-insured, the County is responsible for all claims. Reserve funds
serve to cover any difference between claims paid, but not covered by the revenues (employee
premiums collected & Board contributions). If claims exceed our revenue collections, the
difference is paid from our reserves; if revenue exceeds claims, the difference is added to our
reserves. Ideally, a reserve balance of at least 25% of total claims should be maintained. To
protect the plan against potentially devastating single large claim(s), the County continues to
purchase reinsurance, referred to as Specific Stop Loss reinsurance. This type of coverage
limits our liability for a single claim to $200,000 (Specific Stop Loss).
Background:
Medical Scoring Analysis
The adopted benefits strategy is to target benefits slightly above market (105th percentile). The
benefits package is reviewed comprehensively and the medical plan is the cornerstone of that
strategy. In order to evaluate the plan design and premium costs to employees and Board
contributions, staff worked with Tom Mackay, our benefits consultant with KSPH Employee
Benefit Management, to develop a model quantifying those elements. Based on this model, last
year we were slightly above our target.
FY12-13 Plan Year (Plan year is October through September)
Three plans with varying co-pays and premiums had been offered for several years. A review of
national survey data of government employer-sponsored health plans indicated that we were
above market in terms of our high option plan design. The high option health plan was also well
above market in regard to employee cost-sharing. In order to maintain comparability with other
Attachment A
health plans and for cost savings, the HCEC recognized that we could not continue to offer the
high plan without significantly increasing the monthly premium rates to the point where they
would not remain affordable for our employees. Accordingly, we moved to a two plan option
structure and the following plan changes were made effective October 1, 2012:
Plan names were changed to Plus Plan (former Middle Plan) and Basic Plan
Enhanced women’s preventive and contraceptive coverage added (in accordance with
Health Care Reform)
The changes from the former High option plan to the new Plus plan were as follows:
o Change in coinsurance from 95% to 90% (in-network) for inpatient admissions,
specialty diagnostic services (CAT scans, MRIs, etc.), and outpatient surgeries
o Change in out of pocket maximums from $1500/$3000 to $2000/$4000
(individual/family)
o Employees on the High plan at employee only and employee + child continued to
pay the High plan premium with the move to the Plus plan; those at employee +
spouse/children or family levels saw reduced premium rates with the move to the
Plus plan. This was done to keep our premiums at each level in line with our
market.
No changes to the low plan design/premiums.
As we had communicated earlier in the year that premium rates would not change for the
upcoming plan year, we temporarily allowed those currently on the Middle plan at employee
only and employee + child tiers to continue paying the same premiums. The balance of the
premium cost was supplemented for one year by funds from the health care reserve.
FY13-14 Current Plan Year
Two plans (Basic and Plus) plans are offered through Coventry with the same benefit coverage,
but differ in cost sharing (co-pays, co-insurance, out-of-pocket maximums, deductibles) and
employee premium requirements. Both the employee and Board contributions were increased
by 7% this year. Because of the significant plan design changes implemented in the past two
years and in light of the premium increase, no plan design changes were made for this year.
Claims
The following chart illustrates our medical and prescription drug claims trend.
* Eliminated high plan.
$595 $637 $622 $701 $726 $701 $725
11%
7%
-2%
13%
4%
-3%
3%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
10/07 10/08 10/09 10/10 10/11 10/12 * 10/13-1/14
(4 months)
Claims Per Employee Per Month After Removing Claims Over Stop Loss
Claims
Attachment A
Claims Increase/Decrease
Average last six years 3%
Average last five years 3%
Average last four years 4%
Average last three years 1%
Average last two years 0%
Market Competitiveness
Offering a competitive medical plan that balances the benefit design against the cost to fund the
program is a major consideration each year. The benchmark data, while not an exclusive
comparison with our adopted market is used by the HCEC is developing recommendations
consistent with our strategy.
Plan Design
I
77% 83%
63%
49%
0% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Mercer Survey
(2012 data)
Govt 500+
Mercer Survey
(2013 data)
Govt 500+
Kaiser Survey
(2012 data)
200+ Ees
Kaiser Survey
(2013 data)
200+ Ees
Albemarle
Plus Plan (10/13)
Albemarle
Basic Plan
(10/13)
Percent with Annual Deductibles
$500 $400
$664 $696
$0 $0
$1,000 $900
$1,516
$1,650
$0 $0
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
Mercer Survey
(2012 data)
Govt 500+
Mercer Survey
(2013 data)
Govt 500+
Kaiser Survey
(2012 data)
200+ Ees
Kaiser Survey
(2013 data)
200+ Ees
Albemarle
Plus Plan
(10/13)
Albemarle
Basic Plan
(10/13)
Average Annual Deductible
Single Family
Attachment A
Total Cost- Employee Premiums and Board Contribution Amounts
Our employee contributions to single coverage remain above market.
$2,000 $2,000 $2,000
$2,500
$4,000 $4,000 $4,000
$5,000
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
Mercer Survey
(2012 & 2013 data)
Govt 500+
Kaiser Survey
(2012 & 2013 data)
200+ Ees
Albemarle
Plus Plan (10/13)
Albemarle
Basic Plan (10/13)
Out-of-Pocket Maximum
Single Family
$20
$25 $24
$15
$25
$40
$30
$38 $40 $40
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
Mercer Survey
(2012 & 2013 data)
Govt 500+
Kaiser Survey
(2012 data)
200+ Ees
Kaiser Survey
(2013 data)
200+ Ees
Albemarle
Plus Plan (10/13)
Albemarle
Basic Plan (10/13)
Physician Copayments
PCP Specialist
$100
$89 $76
$90
$43
$11 $0
$50
$100
$150
Mercer Survey
(2012 data)
Govt 500+
Mercer Survey
(2013 data)
Govt 500+
Kaiser Survey
(2012 data)
200+ Ees
Kaiser Survey
(2013 data)
200+ Ees
Albemarle
Plus Plan (10/13)
Albemarle
Basic Plan
(10/13)
Average Monthly Employee Contribution for
Single Coverage
Attachment A
Our employee contributions as a dollar amount to family overage remain above market, while as
a percentage paid by employer is comparable.
Adopted Market Data
The benchmark data collected from our adopted market indicated that the total premiums (Plus
plan) compare as follows:
Survey Average Cost for Individual Premium: $6,705.75
Survey Average Cost for Family Premium: $17,388.21
Albemarle Cost for Individual Premium: $7,733.16
Albemarle Cost for Family Premium: $10,673.16
Our average cost for individuals in slightly above our adopted market, while our average cost for
family premiums is significantly below market.
83% 85% 84% 82% 93% 98%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Mercer Survey
(2012 data)
Govt 500+
Mercer Survey
(2013 data)
Govt 500+
Kaiser Survey
(2012 data)
200+ Ees
Kaiser Survey
(2013 data)
200+ Ees
Albemarle
Plus Plan
(10/13)
Albemarle
Basic Plan
(10/13)
Average Monthly Employer Contribution for
Single Coverage as Percent of Premium
$328 $334 $358 $373
$288
$186
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
Mercer Survey
(2012 data)
Govt 500+
Mercer Survey
(2013 data)
Govt 500+
Kaiser Survey
(2012 data)
200+ Ees
Kaiser Survey
(2013 data)
200+ Ees
Albemarle
Plus Plan (10/13)
Albemarle
Basic Plan
(10/13)
Average Monthly Employee Contribution for
Family Coverage
78% 75% 72% 69% 68% 76%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Mercer Survey
(2012 data)
Govt 500+
Mercer Survey
(2013 data)
Govt 500+
Kaiser Survey
(2012 data)
200+ Ees
Kaiser Survey
(2013 data)
200+ Ees
Albemarle
Plus Plan (10/13)
Albemarle
Basic Plan
(10/13)
Average Monthly Employer Contribution for
Family Coverage as Percent of Premium
Attachment A
Considerations for FY14-15:
Although we have made plan design changes resulting in cost shifting to employees, we have
only had one employee premium increase since 2008. The HCEC is sensitive to the impact that
out-of-pocket costs have on our covered members. Due to good performance within our self-
insured pool, we are able to maintain high value plan for a low total cost to employees and the
Board. We are particularly fortunate in both these circumstances, given the recent increases
many employers have been faced with implementing.
However, this year, we are faced with increased costs. To manage our overall health care costs
and prepare for provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the HCEC evaluated plan design
changes to include increasing co-pays, out-of-pocket costs, implementing deductibles,
increasing prescription co-pays. The HCEC also evaluated different premium structures.
Upcoming fees required by ACA include:
Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) fee- this funds the Patient
Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which is intended to assist patients, clinicians and
policymakers in making informed health decisions through evidenced based medicine.
This fee is based on covered members and is due July 2014. Our PCORI fee is $14,075.
Reinsurance fee-a transitional reinsurance feel must be established in every state to help
stabilize premiums for coverage in the individual market from 2014 through 2016. This
program will provide payments to insurers that cover higher-risk populations to more
evenly spread the financial risk. This fee is based on covered lives and is due after
January 2015. Our reinsurance fee is $328,138.
Two options were presented:
Option 1 Option 2
Plan Design Changes
Per ACA, pharmacy copays
must be included in the out
of pocket maximum.
Therefore, OOP threshold
needs to be increased.
Increase out of pocket
$500/$1000 to include Rx
Add 20% to self-administered
injectables
Increase out of pocket
$500/$1000 to include Rx
Add 20% to self-administered
injectables
Add $250 Deductible to High
and $500 deductible to Basic
Add $500 Deductible to High
and $500 deductible to Basic
Dollar Change to Employee
Premium Increases per
month
Option 1
Plus Basic
Option 2
Plus Basic
Employee $12 $1 $3 $1
Employee + Child $26 $3 $7 $3
Employee +Children or Spouse $62 $11 $17 $11
Family $82 $15 $23 $15
The HCEC recommends Option 2.
Over the next several months, the HCEC will meet to evaluate contribution strategies for the
future. The Cadillac tax (effective January 2018) is based on total plan cost for individual
coverage. We may need to change strategy and subsidize the dependent portion and consider
the subsidy formula, the rate for children and spouses, the subsidy provided to part-time
employees and retirees. The HCEC will present recommendations in the fall.
Attachment A
Dental Insurance
FY12-13 Plan Year
There were no changes to our current dental plan premiums from that of the previous year. The
coverage of both the High and Basic plan options was enhanced by: increases to the amount
the plans pay annually, an increase to the amount covered for orthodontia (which is covered
under the High plan only), and an increased amount covered for major services, like crowns.
FY 13-14 Current Plan Year
Two plans (Basic and High) are offered through United Concordia. As our dental reserve
balance was favorably above the target, a dental premium holiday was given from March 2013
until September 2013 for all dental enrollees and from February 2014- September 2014.
FY14-15 Plan Year
Continue to offer two plans with no coverage changes and decrease current premiums by 5%.
Recommendations:
The HCEC considered a number of options in continuing to offer medical and dental plans that
balance the needs of employees with the fiscal realities of funding the plans, particularly given
the continuing escalation in costs for medical care. The recommendations:
Medical Plan:
1. Continue to offer the Basic and Plus plans through Coventry/Aetna
a. Both plans are Point-Of-Service Plans with the same benefit coverage
b. There are differences in cost sharing (co-pays, co-insurance, out-of-pocket
maximums, deductibles) and employee premium requirements
2. Increase the Board contribution by 8% for the new plan-year starting October 1st
3. Retain a self-insured medical plan with Specific-Claim-Stop-Loss insurance to limit our
liability against any single large claim
Dental Plan:
1. Continue the contract with United Concordia
2. Continue to offer the Basic and High Options with no change in benefit design
3. Reduce the current rates by 5% for the new plan year starting October 1st
Attachment B
Plan Option Plus Option Basic Option
Employee $55 $14
Employee + Child $118 $55
Employee + Children $280 $176
Employee + Spouse $280 $176
Employee + Family $373 $241
Plan Option High Option Low Option
Employee $17 $4
Employee + Child $40 $16
Employee + Spouse $40 $16
Employee + Family $78 $47
Board contributions are prorated to reflect the employee's part-time percentage. The employee
then pays the remainder of the Board contribution, plus the full-time monthly premium.
Visit the online calculator at www.albemarle.org/upload/images/webapps/insurance/default.asp
for assistance with estimating part-time monthly premiums.
Premium rates will be greater than the amounts listed above in relation to hire date, reflecting thenumber of paychecks remaining before June 30th. Contact HR Benefits Office with questions.
**Employees beginning coverage on or after Sept. 2014:
Upon completion of school year & issue of June paycheck, July-Sept. premiums will have been prepaid.
The Board contributes $25.30/month ($253 yearly) toward dental insurance per full-time employee.
* Part-time Employees:
Effective October 1, 2014
Southern Health VirginiaCare POS
United Concordia Advantage Plus
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
2014-2015 MEDICAL & DENTAL INSURANCE RATES
Full-time* Employee Monthly Premiums, 10-Month Rates
(for employees receiving 10 paychecks per year
The Board contributes $779.44/month ($7,794 yearly) toward medical insurance per full-time employee.
AND beginning coverage BEFORE Sept. 2014**)
Plan Option Plus Option Basic Option
Employee $46 $12
Employee + Child $98 $46
Employee + Children $233 $147
Employee + Spouse $233 $147
Employee + Family $311 $201
Plan Option High Option Low Option
Employee $14.00
Employee + Child $33.00
Employee + Spouse $33.00
Employee + Family $65.00
Board contributions are prorated to reflect the employee's part-time percentage. The employee
then pays the remainder of the Board contribution, plus the full-time monthly premium.
Visit the online calculator at www.albemarle.org/upload/images/webapps/insurance/default.asp
for assistance with estimating part-time monthly premiums.
2014-2015 MEDICAL & DENTAL INSURANCE RATES
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
* Part-time Employees:
Effective October 1, 2014
(for employees receiving 12 paychecks per year)
Full-time* Employee Monthly Premiums, 12-Month Rates
Southern Health VirginiaCare POS
United Concordia Advantage Plus
The Board contributes $649.54/month ($7,794 yearly) toward medical insurance per full-time employee.
The Board contributes $21.06/month ($253 yearly) toward dental insurance per full-time employee.
$3.00
$13.00
$13.00
$39.00
Plan Option Plus Option Basic Option
Employee $695.76 $661.10
Employee + Child $747.77 $695.76
Employee + Children $882.97 $796.30
Employee + Spouse $882.97 $796.30
Employee + Family $960.40 $850.61
Plan Option High Option Low Option
Employee $35.31 $23.91
Employee + Child $54.31 $34.36
Employee + Spouse $54.31 $34.36
Employee + Family $85.66 $60.01
Effective October 1, 2014
RETIREE / CAREER LEAVE / L.O.A. RATES
Southern Health VirginiaCare POS
United Concordia Advantage Plus
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
2014-2015 MEDICAL & DENTAL INSURANCE RATES
RETIREES
Plan Option Plus Option Basic Option
Employee $695.76 $661.10
Employee + Child $747.77 $695.76
Employee + Children $882.97 $796.30
Employee + Spouse $882.97 $796.30
Employee + Family $960.40 $850.61
Plan Option
Employee
Employee + Child
Employee + Spouse
Employee + Family
Plan Option Plus Option Basic Option
Employee $709.68 $674.32
Employee + Child $762.72 $709.68
Employee + Children $900.63 $812.23
Employee + Spouse $900.63 $812.23
Employee + Family $979.60 $867.63
Plan Option
Employee
Employee + Child
Employee + Spouse
Employee + Family
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
2014-2015 MEDICAL & DENTAL INSURANCE RATES
COBRA -- RETIREES -- CAREER LEAVE/L.O.A.
RETIREE / CAREER LEAVE / L.O.A. RATES
$54.31
Southern Health VirginiaCare POS
$23.91
$34.36
Effective October 1, 2014
United Concordia Advantage Plus
High Option
$35.31
$54.31
Low Option
$34.36
$55.40 $35.05
$87.37 $61.21
$85.66
$36.02 $24.39
$55.40 $35.05
High Option Low Option
COBRA RATES
Southern Health VirginiaCare POS
United Concordia Advantage Plus
$60.01
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
2014-2015 MEDICAL & DENTAL INSURANCE RATES
COBRA -- RETIREES -- CAREER LEAVE/L.O.A.
RETIREE / CAREER LEAVE / L.O.A. RATES
Southern Health VirginiaCare POS
Effective October 1, 2014
United Concordia Advantage Plus
COBRA RATES
Southern Health VirginiaCare POS
United Concordia Advantage Plus
BOS – CPA 2013-01
Page 1 of 2
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Echols
PRESENTER (S): Elaine Echols
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE:
June 11, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission’s recommended Comprehensive Plan has been provided in the draft dated January 23, 2014
and previously provided to the Board of Supervisors. The Comprehensive Plan may be found online here:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/Comp_Plan_2013/
Comp_Plan_Round_3/Table_of_Contents_Final_1-23-14.pdf.
Recommendations regarding focused topics and information since the Commission’s actions have also been identified for
the Board’s consideration. This work session is the fourth in the series of detailed Comprehensive Plan chapter reviews
based on the Board’s agreed upon review schedule which can be found here:
http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=17151. The Board’s direction to date has been
recorded in Action Memos from Board meetings at which the topic was discussed.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
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.
DISCUSSION:
At this worksession, the Board will review Chapter 5: Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources. This Chapter may
be found here:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/Comp_Plan_2
013/Comp_Plan_Round_3/05_Chapter_Hist_Cultural_Scenic_final_1-23-14.pdf
The Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources chapter provides information on
The definition of a historic resource (page 5.3)
The location of historic landmarks and districts in Albemarle County that are listed on the National Register of
Historic Places (page 5.5)
In addition, the chapter identifies the importance of
Identification and recognition of important historic resources (pages 5.7 – 5.8)
Pursuing additional protection measures (pages 5.8 – 5.9)
Providing educational programs about historic resource preservation (pages 5.9 – 5.10)
Promoting regional cooperation in preserving and promoting the overall community’s historic resources
(pages 5.10 – 5.11)
Enhancing scenic resources for residents and visitors (pages 5.11 – 5.13)
Maintaining the visual quality of the County’s roadways (pages 5.13 – 5.14)
Maintaining the visual integrity of the Entrance Corridor (pages 5.14 – 5.18
Protecting the scenic quality of the County’s streams (pages 5.18 0 5.19)
Preserving important views for tourism and recreation (pages 5.19 – 5.20)
Protecting the dark sky (pages 5.20 – 5.21)
AGENDA TITLE: CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment
May 14, 2014
BOS – CPA 2013-01
Page 2 of 2
The Goals, Objectives, Strategies, Implementation Priorities, Measures of Success, and list of Appendices and
Reference Documents are found in a single document – Attachment A.
The Appendix, found here -
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/community_development/forms/ARB_Application
s/Historic_Preservation_Plan.pdf, contains the current Historic Preservation Plan adopted in 2000. Much of the detail
needed to implement the different strategies for historic preservation is part of that Plan.
A table comparing the existing and recommended Comprehensive Plan regarding Historic, Cultural, and Scenic
Resources is provided as Attachment B. Only one topic has been identified by staff for particular focus – the
Monticello Viewshed (see page 5.11). The Planning Commission spent considerable time on this recommendation
and it represents a change from existing policy.
Staff comment: The Commission reviewed the existing Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the
Monticello Viewshed, recommendations from the Historic Preservation Committee, specific requests from the
Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF), and comments from several groups in the community. Attachment C
provides information on the TJF request and the Commission’s discussion and response.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan Draft include recommendations for future capital improvements and
operations.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Board is asked to identify any substantive changes to the recommendations herein presented and concur on
those changes, focusing on content rather than wordsmithing. Staff will then make any necessary changes and bring
them back to the Board for its approval prior to its public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Goals, Objectives, Strategies Goals, Objectives, Strategies, Priorities, and Indicators of Progress,
Appendices, and Reference Documents
Attachment B: Comparison of Goal, Objectives, and Strategies for Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Preservation
Attachment C: Background Information on Planning Commission Recommendations for Monticello Viewshed
Return to agenda Vision
Historic, Cultural,and Scenic Resources
Goals, Objectives, Strategies, Appendices, Reference Documents,
Priorities, and Indicators of Progress
*priority
** very high priority as recommended by Planning Commission on June 3, 2014
GOAL: Albemarle’s historic, cultural, and scenic resources will be preserved. Attractive entrance
corridors will welcome visitors and residents to and within the County.
Objective 1:
Continue to identify and recognize the value of buildings, structures, landscapes, sites and districts
which have historical, architectural, archaeological or cultural significance.
**Strategy 1a: Maintain a permanent Historic Preservation Committee and re-establish the full-
time Historic Preservation Planner position to assist in implementation of the Preservation Plan.
Strategy 1b: Compile and maintain a current and comprehensive information base on Albemarle
County’s prehistoric, historic, and cultural resources for use by all County departments and the
public.
*Strategy 1c: Document as fully as possible all historic resources prior to demolition and retain
historic records. Complete documentation with the assistance of County staff, the Historic
Preservation Committee, local preservation groups, applicants and property owners.
Objective 2:
Pursue additional protection measures and incentives to preserve Albemarle’s historic and
archaeological resources in order to foster pride in the County and maintain the County’s
character.
*Strategy 2a: Encourage landowners to pursue voluntary methods of preservation and
conservation, including requesting landmark and district designations, conservation easements, and
tax and other financial incentive programs, as outlined in the adopted 2000 Historic Preservation
Plan and its updates. Pursue historic district designations in cooperation with the surrounding
neighborhoods and in partnership with the City of Charlottesville, where applicable.
**Strategy 2b: Consider adopting regulatory measures for preservation and conservation such as
those outlined in the adopted 2000 Historic Preservation Plan and its updates.
Strategy 2c: Continue to practice good stewardship of the historic resources under County control
by using recognized practices for the preservation of historic resources.
Objective 3:
Provide educational programs in the community about historic resources and preservation.
Strategy 3a: Develop and engage in heritage education programs that foster community pride,
good citizenship, a strong school curriculum, and stewardship of the County’s historic resources.
**Strategy 3b: Use a variety of tools (brochures, video, workshops, lectures, the internet, oral
histories, a comprehensive database) to educate and provide guidance to County residents,
property owners, County boards and committees, and County staff about the County’s historic
resources and its preservation policies.
*Strategy 3c: Partner with the City of Charlottesville to prepare and maintain coordinated
information on requirements, responsibilities and support programs for historic resources that are
designated, eligible to be designated, or otherwise historically significant to the community.
Objective 4:
Promote regional cooperation in preservation and conservation efforts, including the promotion of
heritage tourism.
**Strategy 4a: Create and strengthen partnerships among all interest groups, including but not
limited to the City of Charlottesville, the University of Virginia, County and State officials, nearby
Counties, local businesses, historic sites (like Ashlawn-Highland and Monticello) and community
organizations to collaborate on and forward the cause of historic preservation and to promote
heritage tourism throughout the County and the region.
*Strategy 4b: Prepare and maintain a single map of formally designated City and County historic
resources and make it available as a layer on both City and County data systems.
*Strategy 4c: Provide information on Monticello vistas as a layer in the County’s Geographic
Information Service (GIS) application, which is provided at the County website.
Objective 5:
Continue to protect and enhance scenic resources for residents and tourists.
*Strategy 5a: Continue to promote voluntary measures of protection for scenic resources.
*Strategy 5b: Support enabling legislation for Albemarle County to provide for a scenic
protection and tourist enhancement overlay district.
*Strategy 5c: Work with the City of Charlottesville, the University of Virginia, and other regional
bodies to more consistently enhance the visual quality and multi-modal experiences along scenic
corridors. Focus on Entrance Corridors, shared boundaries, the creation of distinctive destinations,
urban area walkability, and consistent signage.
Objective 6:
Maintain or improve the visual quality of all of Albemarle’s roadways.
*Strategy 6a: Pursue additional scenic road designations to promote tourism and to maintain the
visual quality of the County’s scenic roads.
*Strategy 6b: Take an active role in the design of Virginia Department of Transportation road
improvements and bridges on scenic roads.
Objective 7:
Maintain the visual integrity of Albemarle’s Entrance Corridors.
*Strategy 7a: Taking into consideration the former Scenic Highway regulations, review the EC
guidelines for effectiveness in protecting the integrity of exceptionally scenic EC road corridors,
such as Route 250 East, Route 250 West, and Route 22/231.
Strategy 7b: Continue to use the Entrance Corridor design guidelines to help maintain the integrity
of Entrance Corridors in Albemarle County.
**Strategy 7c: Update EC Design Guidelines to better reflect expectations of the Neighborhood
Model for the Development Areas, including but not limited to recommendations on ways to
provide for relegated parking without buildings turning their backs to the Entrance Corridor, and
on coordinating landscaping requirements with utility corridors.
**Strategy 7d: Develop corridor-specific guidelines for all Entrance Corridors to reflect the
unique character of each corridor.
*Strategy 7e: Use recommendations from Development Area Master Plans for frontage
treatments of ECs to guide decision-making.
*Strategy 7f: Consider additional EC designations as appropriate, or as road classifications
change, for roads such as the John Warner Parkway, Route 614 (Sugar Hollow Road), Route
692/712 (Plank Road), and Route 810 (Brown’s Gap Turnpike).
Objective 8:
Protect the scenic quality of Albemarle’s streams.
*Strategy 8a: Pursue Virginia Scenic River designations for rivers meeting State criteria.
*Strategy 8b: Review the effectiveness of County Scenic Streams regulations and update them for
consistency with the Water Protection Ordinance.
Objective 9:
Preserve important views as they relate to tourism and recreational assets.
*Strategy 9a: Study ways to protect scenic views of and from the Blue Ridge Mountains
(Appalachian Trail and Skyline Drive), US Route 250, and Shenandoah National Park.
Objective 10:
Protect the dark sky of Albemarle County as one of the many natural, scenic, scientific and cultural
resources, for the benefit of residents, visitors, and the larger scientific community.
*Strategy 10a: Continue to pursue measures to reduce light pollution in the County caused by
uplighting, excessive lighting, glare, light trespass, and inconsistent light, including but not limited to
the development of guidelines to address these issues for street lights in the Development Areas.
Such guidelines should focus on providing a safe and secure pedestrian environment.
Strategy 10b: Protect the McCormick and Fan Mountain Observatories through Dark Sky
initiatives in the interest of scientific research, public education, and future economic development
opportunities.
*Strategy 10c: In cooperation with the University of Virginia and other interested parties, develop
a community-based educational program on the value of the Dark Sky and on technical lighting
topics. Target individuals in the building materials, electrical contracting, design, construction, and
associated industries, as well as individual homeowners.
**Strategy 10d: Take a leadership role in protecting the Dark Skies by designing lighting in public
building projects, including playing fields and parking lots, to serve as models of appropriate and
efficient lighting; by adopting a resolution asking power companies to cease promotion of
unshielded and inefficient outdoor lighting; and by exploring the feasibility of participating in the
Environmental Protection Agency’s Green Lights Program to promote energy efficiency in building
design and maintenance.
Priorities are indicated with *
Top 3 Priorities are indicated with **
Indicators of Progress:
1. Increase in state and national register designations for historic properties.
2. Reduction in the number of historic structures that are demolished annually.
Appendices
Historic Resources Plan
Reference Documents
There are no reference documents associated with this Chapter.
Attachment B
BOS 6-11-14
Page 1 of 10
Comparison of Goals, Objectives and Strategies, and other Key Information
Chapter 5 Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources
January 23, 2014 Draft
The goal, objectives, and strategies for the Proposed 2013 Plan are shown on the right in this table. Goals,
objectives, and strategies shown on the left are taken from different sections of the existing Comprehensive
Plan. The source of information from the existing Plan is shown by existing goal, objective, or strategy
number or by page number in the existing Plan.
Existing Comprehensive Plan
Adopted March 3, 1999, as part of Chapter 2 -
Natural Resources and Cultural Assets) Historic
Preservation Plan (HPP) Adopted as part of
Comprehensive Plan (under separate cover)
September 6, 2000 Amended September 6,
2001 CPA 00-04
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Update
Recommended by the Planning Commission
to the Board of Supervisors July 30, 3013
GOAL: Protect the County’s natural, scenic, and
historic resources in the Rural Areas and
Development Areas. (HPP Page 1)
GOAL: Protect the County’s historic and cultural
resources (Page 155)
GOAL: Albemarle’s historic, cultural, and
scenic resources will be preserved.
Attractive entrance corridors will welcome
visitors and residents to and within the
County. (Page 5.1)
OBJECTIVE: Continue to identify and recognize
the value of buildings, structures, landscapes,
sites and districts which have historical,
architectural, archaeological or cultural
significance. (Page 155, also HPP Page 1)
Objective 1: Continue to identify and
recognize the value of buildings, structures,
landscapes, sites, and districts which have
historical, architectural, archaeological or
cultural significance. (Page 5.7)
Strategy: Create a permanent Historic
Preservation Committee to provide assistance
and advice concerning the County’s historic
preservation program. (HPP Page 1)
Strategy for Preservation Plan Implementation:
Create a full time Review Board staff position to
assist in implementation of the Preservation Plan.
(HPP Page 3)
Strategy1a: Maintain a permanent Historic
Preservation Committee and re-establish the
full-time Historic Preservation Planner
position to assist in implementation of the
Preservation Plan. (Page 5.7)
Strategy: Make all Virginia Department of
Historic Resources historic survey inventory data
on Albemarle County resources accessible at the
County Office Building, either by maintaining
paper copies or by providing access to VDHR's
Integrated Preservation Software (IPS)
database. (HPP Page 3)
Strategy1b: Compile and maintain a current
and comprehensive information base on
Albemarle County’s prehistoric, historic and
cultural resources for use by all County
departments and the public. (Page 5.7)
Attachment B
BOS 6-11-14
Page 2 of 10
Strategy: Compile and maintain a current and
comprehensive information base for Albemarle
County’s historic resources. Implement a system
using the County computers and existing
computer programs (to the greatest extent
possible) to facilitate identification of historic
properties by all County departments. Identify
all sites by tax map and parcel number. (HPP
Page 3)
Strategy: Provide for the identification of
historic resources and the integration of pertinent
historic resource information in the County’s GIS
system, which is currently being implemented.
Maintain archivally stable photographic records
of the County’s historic and archaeological
resources. Utilize the digital
photographic records produced by other County
departments for reference on historic and
archaeological resources. (HPP Page 3)
Strategy: Until an ordinance is adopted which
requires documentation of proposed demolitions,
all historic resources to be demolished should be
first documented by County staff as fully as
possible. (HPP Page 3)
Strategy1c: Document as fully as possible
all historic resources prior to demolition and
retain historic records. Complete
documentation with the assistance of County
staff, the Historic Preservation Committee,
local preservation groups, applicants and
property owners. (Page 5.8)
OBJECTIVE: Pursue additional protection
measures and incentives to preserve Albemarle’s
historic and archaeological resources in order to
foster pride in the County and maintain the
County’s character. (Page 155, also HPP Page
1)
Objective 2: Pursue additional protection
measures and incentives to preserve
Albemarle’s historic and archaeological
resources in order to foster pride in the
County and maintain the County’s character.
(Page 5.8)
Strategy: Promote voluntary measures and
techniques such as historic and conservation
easements which serve to protect historic
resources and their settings. (Page 162)
Strategy: Encourage owners of historic
properties to seek designation on the Virginia
and National registers, thereby attaining
eligibility for financial incentives. Provide basic
information to help initiate the designation
Strategy2a: Encourage landowners to
pursue voluntary methods of preservation
and conservation, including requesting
landmark and district designations,
conservation easements, and tax and other
financial incentive programs, as outlined in
the adopted 2000 Historic Preservation Plan
and its updates. Pursue historic district
designations in cooperation with the
surrounding neighborhoods and in
Attachment B
BOS 6-11-14
Page 3 of 10
process and tax credit applications. Seek and
coordinate the work of interns and volunteers to
assist in the completion of documentation
required for nomination. (HPP Page 4)
Strategy: The County should encourage or
actively seek designation on the Virginia and
National Registers of all potentially eligible
villages (Advance Mills, Crozet, White Hall, and
Yancey Mills) as identified in the Historic
Architectural Survey of Albemarle County
Villages. (HPP Page 4)
Strategy: Initiate studies similar to the Southwest
Mountains historic district study in other areas of
the County that include numerous register
properties and potentially eligible properties.
(HPP Page 4)
Strategy: Promote historic and conservation
easements and other voluntary measures. (HPP
Page 4)
Strategy: Promote preservation by making
available information regarding tax incentives
and designation procedures. (HPP Page 4)
partnership with the City of Charlottesville,
where applicable. (Page 5.7)
Strategy: Adopt a Historic Overlay District
ordinance to recognize and protect historic and
archaeological resources, including individual
sites and districts, on the local level. (Page 162)
Supporting Strategy: The Board of Supervisors
should request enabling legislation which would
allow Albemarle County
to impose a meaningful civil penalty for
inappropriate demolition, razing or moving of
any designated historic resource. This enabling
legislation should also authorize the County to
use the civil penalties collected to fund
components of the County’s historic preservation
program. ( HPP Page 8)
Strategy2b: Consider adopting regulatory
measures for preservation and conservation
such as those outlined in the adopted 2000
Historic Preservation Plan and its updates.
(Page 5.8)
Strategy: The County should continue to be a
good steward of the historic resources under its
control.(HPP Page 7)
Strategy2c: Continue to practice good
stewardship of the historic resources under
County control by using recognized practices
for the preservation of historic resources.
Attachment B
BOS 6-11-14
Page 4 of 10
(Page 5.9)
Strategy: Educate all components of the
community about historic resources and
preservation. (HPP Page 5)
Objective 3: Provide educational programs
in the community about historic resources and
preservation.
(Page 5.9)
Strategy: Encourage community and
neighborhood programs and events that
celebrate the County's historic resources. (HPP
Page 5)
Strategy: Make local history a stronger and
more integral component of the County's school
curriculum, beginning with the elementary
grades. (HPP Page 5)
Strategy: Foster community pride, good
citizenship, and stewardship of the County’s
historic resources through heritage education
programs. (HPP Page 5)
Strategy: Using existing resources, including the
staff at Monticello, Ash-Lawn, the Albemarle
County
Historical Society, and the UVA Library
Department of Special Collections, develop field
trips to a wide range of historic sites throughout
the County. (HPP Page 6)
Strategy: Create a traveling exhibit on local
history and preservation, supplemented with
books related to the exhibition topic, to be
viewed at the Virginia Discovery Museum, the
Albemarle County Historical Society, and local
school and branch libraries. (HPP Page 6)
Strategy: Institute programs that encourage
students to practice historic preservation in the
community. (HPP Page 6)
Strategy: Use the Albemarle Resource Center as
a depository for all types of information
(printed and website bibliographies, videos,
workbooks, field trip information, local history
references, speaker's bureau listings, etc.) on
Strategy3a: Develop and engage in
heritage education programs that foster
community pride, good citizenship, a strong
school curriculum, and stewardship of the
County’s historic resources. (Page 5.9)
Attachment B
BOS 6-11-14
Page 5 of 10
preservation and heritage education. (HPP Page
6)
Strategy: Utilize technical resources provided
by the National Trust for Historic Preservation,
the National Park Service, the Center for
Understanding the Built Environment (CUBE), and
other established organizations to support
County heritage education activities. (HPP Page
6)
Supporting Strategy: Rather than make a
mandatory regulatory requirement for
maintenance, educate the owners of
historic properties about the importance of
voluntarily maintaining historic structures against
decay, deterioration, and structural damage to
avoid possible loss of historic resources. (HPP
Page 8)
Strategy: Enlist the media to publicize
community events and to promote preservation
in the County. (HPP Page 5)
Strategy: Create a notification program to
educate owners of historic properties, especially
new owners, about the significance of their
property and to suggest ways they might
protect those resources. (HPP Page 6)
Strategy: Seek citizen participation in County
studies and other preservation activities. (HPP
Page 5)
Strategy: Make available to residents, property
owners, developers, builders, realtors,
educators, and students an informative
database on Albemarle County’s historic
resources. (HPP Page 6)
Strategy: Enlist the assistance and support of
existing citizen groups to organize and promote
adult education programs in historic
preservation. (HPP Page 6)
Strategy: Use a variety of tools (brochures,
video, workshops, lectures) to educate residents
Strategy3b: Use a variety of tools
(brochures, videos, workshops, lectures, the
internet, oral histories, a comprehensive
database) to educate and provide guidance
to County residents, property owners,
County boards and committees, and County
staff about the County’s historic resources
and its preservation policies. (Page 5.9)
Attachment B
BOS 6-11-14
Page 6 of 10
about the County’s historic resources and its
preservation policy. (HPP Page 6)
Strategy: Capitalize on the popularity of the
Internet to educate the community about the
County’s historic resources. (HPP Page 6)
Strategy3c: Partner with the City of
Charlottesville to prepare and maintain
coordinated information on requirements,
responsibilities and support programs for
historic resources that are designated,
eligible to be designated, or otherwise
historically significant to the community.
(Page 5.10)
Objective 4: Promote regional
cooperation in preservation and
conservation efforts, including the
promotion of heritage tourism. (Page 5.10)
Strategy: Support the concept of heritage
tourism, which requires regional partnerships and
cooperation among the City of Charlottesville,
the University of Virginia, County and State
officials, local businesses, and community
organizations. (HPP Page 6)
Strategy: The Historic Preservation Committee
should investigate creating a Heritage Area such
as the Jefferson, Monroe and Madison corridor
(in cooperation with Orange County), or the
Rivanna River corridor (in cooperation with the
City of Charlottesville and Fluvanna County).
(HPP Page 7)
Strategy: The Historic Preservation Committee
should investigate community events for
Albemarle that recognize our historic resources,
to be coordinated with other statewide Heritage
Tourism activities. (HPP Page 7)
Strategy4a: Create and strengthen
partnerships among all interest groups,
including but not limited to the City of
Charlottesville, the University of Virginia,
County and State officials, nearby counties,
local businesses, historic sites (such as
Ashlawn-Highland and Monticello) and
community organizations to collaborate on
and forward the cause of historic
preservation and to promote heritage
tourism throughout the County and the
region. (Page 5.10)
Strategy4b: Prepare and maintain a single
map of formally designated City and
County historic resources and make it
available as a layer on both City and
County data systems. (Page 5.10)
Attachment B
BOS 6-11-14
Page 7 of 10
Strategy: To help protect the Monticello
viewshed, the Department of Planning and
Community Development should:
(1) Use current technology to precisely delineate
the Monticello viewshed. Make this information
available for use in development review.
(2) Enforce careful application of existing land
use regulations.
(3) Adopt a more formalized procedure that
which begins early in the planning process to
encourage cooperation between the Thomas
Jefferson Memorial Foundation (TJMF) and
developers of property within the viewshed.
(HPP Page 8)
Strategy 4c: Provide information on
Monticello vistas as a layer in the County’s
Geographic Information Service (GIS)
application, which is provided at the County
website. (Page 5.11)
GOAL: Preserve the County’s scenic resources as
being essential to the County’s character,
economic vitality and quality of life. (Page 141)
Objective 5: Continue to protect and
enhance scenic resources for residents and
tourists. (Page 5.11)
(Text on Page 142) Strategy 5a: Continue to promote voluntary
measures of protection for scenic resources.
(Page 5.12)
Strategy: Pursue wider enabling legislation for
regulating aesthetics in specified areas of
importance. (Page 142)
Strategy 5b: Support enabling legislation
for Albemarle County to provide for a scenic
protection and tourist enhancement overlay
district. (Page 5.12)
Strategy 5c: Work with the City of
Charlottesville, the University of Virginia,
and other regional bodies to more
consistently enhance the visual quality and
multi-modal experiences along scenic
corridors. Focus on Entrance Corridors,
shared boundaries, the creation of distinctive
destinations, urban area walkability, and
consistent signage. (Page 5.12-5.13)
OBJECTIVE: Maintain the visual integrity of all
of Albemarle’s roadways. (Page 143)
Objective 6: Maintain or improve the visual
quality of all of Albemarle’s roadways.
(Page 5.13)
Strategy: Pursue additional Virginia Byway
designations for roads meeting State criteria:
Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway),
Strategy 6a: Pursue additional scenic road
designations to promote tourism and to
maintain the visual quality of the County’s
scenic roads. (Page 5.13)
Attachment B
BOS 6-11-14
Page 8 of 10
Route 692/712 (Plank Road), and
Route 29 South (Monacan Trail Road).
(Page 146)
Strategy 6b: Take an active role in the
design of Virginia Department of
Transportation road improvements and
bridges on scenic roads. (Page 5.14)
Strategy: Use design standards to help maintain
the integrity of all roadways in Albemarle
County. (Page 146, also used in Strategy 7B)
Objective 7: Maintain the visual integrity of
Albemarle’s Entrance Corridors. (Page 5.14)
Strategy: Review the EC guidelines for
effectiveness in protecting the integrity of
exceptionally scenic EC road corridors, such as
Route 250 West. (Page 146)
Strategy: Analyze two Entrance Corridors (250
West and 29 North) by typical sections, such as
a village, farmland, and urban commercial.
Develop specific guidelines for each typical
section, and use guidelines as a model for other
Entrance Corridors, and to further protect
exceptional EC roads. (Page 146)
Strategy 7a: Taking into consideration the
former Scenic Highway regulations, review
the EC guidelines for effectiveness in
protecting the integrity of exceptionally
scenic EC road corridors, such as Route 250
East, Route 250 West, and Route 22/231.
(Page 5.17)
Strategy: Use design standards to help maintain
the integrity of all roadways in Albemarle
County. (Page 146, also used in Obj. 7)
Strategy 7b: Continue to use the Entrance
Corridor design guidelines to help maintain
the integrity of Entrance Corridors in
Albemarle County. (Page 5.17)
Strategy 7c: Update EC Design Guidelines
to better reflect expectations of the
Neighborhood Model for the Development
Areas, including but not limited to
recommendations on ways to provide for
relegated parking without buildings turning
their backs to the Entrance Corridor, and on
coordinating landscaping requirements with
utility corridors. (Page 5.17)
Strategy 7d: Develop corridor-specific
guidelines for all Entrance Corridors to
reflect the unique character of each corridor.
(Page 5.18)
Strategy 7e: Use recommendations from
Attachment B
BOS 6-11-14
Page 9 of 10
Development Area Master Plans for
frontage treatments of ECs to guide
decision-making. (Page 5.18)
Strategy: Pursue additional EC designations as
appropriate, or as road classifications change
(Meadowcreek Parkway, Airport Road, Rio
Road). (Page 146)
Strategy 7f: Consider additional EC
designations as appropriate, or as road
classifications change, for roads such as the
John Warner Parkway, Route 614 (Sugar
Hollow Road), Route 692/712 (Plank Road),
and Route 810 (Brown’s Gap Turnpike).
(Page 5.18)
OBJECTIVE: Protect the scenic quality of
Albemarle’s streams. (Page 147)
Objective 8: Protect the scenic quality of
Albemarle’s streams. (Page 5.18)
Strategy: Pursue Virginia Scenic River
designations for rivers meeting state criteria.
(Page 148)
Strategy 8a: Pursue Virginia Scenic River
designations for rivers meeting State
criteria. (Page 5.19)
Strategy: Using revised County Scenic Streams
criteria (Appendix 5, Open Space and Critical
Resources Plan), pursue local designation of
qualifying streams, including designated Virginia
Scenic Rivers. ( Page 147)
Strategy: Review the effectiveness of County
Scenic Streams regulations. Coordinate
regulations with the Coordinated Water
Resources Ordinance. (Page 147)
Strategy 8b: Review the effectiveness of
County Scenic Stream regulations and
update them for consistency with the Water
Protection Ordinance. (Page 5.19)
Objective 9: Preserve important views as
they relate to tourism and recreational
assets. (Page 5.19)
Strategy 9a: Study ways to protect scenic
views of and from the Blue Ridge Mountains
(Appalachian Trail and Skyline Drive), US
Route 250, and Shenandoah National Park.
(Page 5.20)
GOAL: Protect the dark sky of Albemarle
County as one of our many natural, scenic,
scientific and cultural resources, for the benefit
of residents, visitors, and the larger scientific
community, now and in the future. (Page 121)
Objective 10: Protect the dark sky of
Albemarle County as one of the many
natural, scenic, scientific and cultural
resources, for the benefit of residents,
visitors, and the larger scientific community.
(Page 5.20)
OBJECTIVE: Reduce light pollution caused by Strategy 10a: Continue to pursue measures
Attachment B
BOS 6-11-14
Page 10 of 10
uplighting, excessive lighting, glare and light
trespass. (Page 123)
OBJECTIVE: Provide a safe and secure
developed environment, through quality lighting
design which minimizes glare and avoids
creating dark areas near well-lit areas. (Page
124)
to reduce light pollution in the County caused
by uplighting, excessive lighting, glare, light
trespass, and inconsistent light, including but
not limited to the development of guidelines
to address these issues for street lights in the
Development Areas. Such guidelines should
focus on providing a safe and secure
pedestrian environment. (Page 5.20)
OBJECTIVE: Protect the McCormick and Fan
Mountain Observatories through Dark Sky
initiatives, in the interest of scientific research,
public education, and future economic
development opportunities. ( Page 124)
Strategy 10b: Protect the McCormick and
Fan Mountain Observatories through Dark
Sky initiatives in the interest of scientific
research, public education, and future
economic development opportunities. (Page
5.20)
Strategy: Develop a community-based
educational program:
• Initiate public information and education
programs about dark sky and lighting
topics in cooperation with the University of
Virginia McCormick and Fan
Mountain Observatories and other interested
parties;
• Develop workshops on technical lighting topics,
for individuals in the building
materials, electrical contracting, design,
construction, and associated industries, and
individual homeowners. (Page 124)
Strategy 10c: In cooperation with the
University of Virginia and other interested
parties, develop a community-based
educational program on the value of the
Dark Sky and on technical lighting topics.
Target individuals in the building materials,
electrical contracting, design, construction,
and associated industries, as well as
individual homeowners. (Page 5.21)
Strategy: The Board of Supervisors should adopt
a resolution asking power companies to cease
promoting unshielded and inefficient outdoor
lighting in the County. ( Page 125)
Strategy: Explore the feasibility of Albemarle
County participating in the Green
Lights Program established by the Environmental
Protection Agency
to promote energy efficiency in building design
and maintenance. ( Page 125)
Strategy: Albemarle County should take a
leadership role in developing exemplary
lighting in its public building projects, including
playing fields and parking lots. ( Page 125)
Strategy 10d: Take a leadership role in
protecting the Dark Skies by designing
lighting in public building projects, including
playing fields and parking lots, to serve as
models of appropriate and efficient lighting;
by adopting a resolution asking power
companies to cease promotion of unshielded
and inefficient outdoor lighting; and by
exploring the feasibility of participating in
the Environmental Protection Agency’s Green
Lights Program to promote energy efficiency
in building design and maintenance. (Page
5.21)
1 of x
Attachment C
BOS 6-4-14
ATTACHMENT C
Background on Planning Commission Recommendations for Historic, Cultural,
and Scenic Resources
The existing Comprehensive Plan, the Historic Preservation Plan, and two of the County’s Master Plans
speak to the importance of preserving scenic views from Monticello. The Historic Resources section of
the Natural Resources chapter of the existing Comprehensive Plan provides this recommendation:
Strategy: Defining the Monticello viewshed as all property visible from the Monticello
mountaintop, protect Monticello’s setting and viewshed as follows:
Notify the TJMF of proposed developments in the designated viewshed area so that they are afforded
opportunity to provide comment during the approval process;
Strongly encourage the developer to consult with the TJMF about the visual impact of the project;
Strictly enforce existing regulations;
Carefully review by-right development plans with suggestions for voluntary protection measures;
Require protection measures as appropriate on discretionary land use proposals, and
Consider the impact of proposed land use regulations and decisions on Monticello’s viewshed.
As part of the Comprehensive Plan update process, the Historic Preservation Committee endorsed these
existing strategies and also asked that more up-to-date mapping of the Monticello viewshed be provided
in the County’s GIS Web mapping.
During review of the Comprehensive Plan draft by the Planning Commission, the Thomas Jefferson
Foundation (TJF) wanted recommendations for greater protection to be included in the County’s Plan.
They asked that the County require viewshed protection for all properties visible from Montalto as well as
Monticello. TJF asked that the County adopt the TJF viewshed map into the Comprehensive Plan.
Prepared by the Piedmont Environmental Council for TJF, this new map showed a much more extensive
area than previously identified as Monticello’s viewshed. The request by TJF met with resistance by some
groups in the County.
This item was the focus of several Planning Commission work sessions and the staff report and minutes
of the meetings can be found here:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/community_development/forms/Com
prehensive_Plan_Update/Staff_Report_Monticello.pdf
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/P
C_Minutes/2013/FINAL_PC_02_12_2013_minutes.pdf
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/community_development/forms/PC_
Reports/CPA_13_1_April_16,2013_PC_Worksession.pdf
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/P
C_Minutes/2013/FINAL_PC_04_30_2013_minutes.pdf
2 of x
Attachment C
BOS 6-4-14
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/P
C_Minutes/2013/FINAL_PC_05_07_2013_minutes.pdf
After much discussion on the County’s role in helping Monticello achieve viewshed protection, the
Commission ultimately recommended that the Plan:
Advise that information related to a property’s potential inclusion in the viewshed area be
provided in the required legal description for development proposals.
Advise that both applicants and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation be informed of a proposed
development potentially in the viewshed,
Recommend that the viewshed map be placed on the County’s GIS website; however the area
covered by the viewshed should include Monticello and not Montalto,
Advise that applicants/developers contact Monticello Foundation about their proposal or that the
Foundation may contact them.
Advise that applicants be provided with link to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation’s website and
tell applicants/developers this is how they can find out more about the Monticello design
guidelines.
Describe this procedure in the Plan but, also provide a value statement on why Monticello is
important to the County.
Business Appreciation Month
WHEREAS, Governor Terry McAuliffe has recognized June 2014 as Business Appreciation Month in the
Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, Virginia is currently home to more than 30 Fortune 1,000 firms and more than 70 firms with
annual revenues in excess of $l billion; and
WHEREAS, Virginia ranks among the top ten states best prepared—in knowledge, innovation and internet
technology—to navigate the demands of an increasingly globalized economy; and
WHEREAS, economic vitality is a stated goal of Albemarle County’s Strategic Plan and an important
component of our Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County businesses play a pivotal role in strengthening our County by embracing job
creation, innovative technologies, and employing a diverse workforce to preserve the economic
well-being of all our citizens; and Albemarle County businesses play a pivotal role in
strengthening our County by embracing job creation, innovative technologies, and employing a
diverse workforce to preserve the economic well-being of all our citizens; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County applauds the success of local businesses that provide economic opportunity
while supporting the County’s goals and values of resource protection and an attractive, vibrant,
and livable community; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County appreciates community partners including the Charlottesville Regional
Chamber of Commerce, the Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development, the
Economic Development Authority, and the Charlottesville Business Innovation Council.
Together, these organizations work collaboratively to support the many faces of the Albemarle
business community; and
WHEREAS, this year Albemarle County became one of the 1.5% of counties nationwide to have received
triple AAA bond rating (including Fitch, Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s) which reflects the
positive contributions of our business in creating a stable and diverse economy; and
WHEREAS, preliminary data shows the FY 13/14 sales tax revenue will be about 19% above the Great
Recession bottom level, which occurred in FY 09/10, and will surpass pre-recession levels of FY
06/07, as an indicator of our economic vitality; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County recognizes the environmental stewardship of our local businesses, as
evidenced by the Better Business Challenge, first created in 2011 as a friendly competition
among local businesses to increase efficiency and sustainability in daily operations (energy,
water, waste, transportation and purchasing) which is now celebrating the achievements of 184
competition participants.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby
recognize
June 2014
as
BUSINESS APPRECIATION MONTH
in the County of Albemarle, and express our appreciation to our local, regional and state
business partners for their valuable contribution to our community.
Signed and sealed this 11th day of June, 2014.
___________________________________
Jane D. Dittmar, Chair
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Northside Library Lease Extension
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approve Third Lease Modification and Extension
Agreement
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Kamptner, Herrick and Henry
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 11, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The County currently leases 15,572 square feet of space from Rio Associates Limited Partnership at 300 Albemarle
Square for use as the Northside Library. The original 1991 lease was extended by a First Lease Modification and
Extension Agreement entered into on November 1, 2004, and by a Second Lease Modification and Extension Agreement
entered into on October 1, 2009. The current lease term expires October 31, 2014.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
The new Northside Library and Storage Facility is currently under construction at 705 Rio Road (former Phillips
Building Supply building) and will provide a permanent location for the library. The County is planning on substantial
completion and occupancy of the new library in mid-January, 2015.
Because the new library will not be ready for occupancy by October 31, 2014 when the current library lease at the
Albemarle Square location expires, a lease extension through January 31, 2014 at the current location is necessary.
The landlord, Rio Associates Limited Partnership, has agreed to a 3-month extension, from November 1, 2014 to
January 31, 2015, at the current monthly rental amount of $25,953.33, subject to the same terms and conditions as set
forth in the previously modified and extended lease.
The County Attorney’s office has prepared a “Third Lease Modification and Extension Agreement” (Attachment A) to
extend the lease for 3 months, which has been executed by the landlord.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County share of the extended rent payments for 3 months would be 83.6% of $77,860, or $65,091. This amount
is proposed to be funded from the Northside Library and Storage Facility project budget, the majority of which would
come from a $50,000 credit from the construction contractor for the County providing him more time to complete the
project, as well as a $17,500 cost-avoidance in storage space rent. A transfer of project funds to cover the costs is
expected in the new Fiscal Year (FY15).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) authorizing the County Executive to
sign, in a form approved by the County Attorney, the Third Lease Modification and Extension Agreement between the
County of Albemarle and Rio Associates Limited Partnership to extend the Northside Library lease through January
31, 2015
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Third Lease Modification and Extension Agreement
B – Resolution Approving the Third Lease Modification and Extension Agreement
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE THIRD LEASE MODIFICATION
AND EXTENSION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
AND RIO ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
FOR THE NORTHSIDE LIBRARY
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle leases from Rio Associates Limited
Partnership 15,572 square feet located at 300 Albemarle Square for use as the Northside
Library; and
WHEREAS, the original lease for the Northside Library was first dated January
31, 1991, and was extended by a First Lease Modification and Extension Agreement
entered into on November 1, 2004, and by a Second Lease Modification and Extension
Agreement entered into on October 1, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the current lease term expires October 31, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the attached Third Lease Modification and Extension Agreement
extends the lease of the Northside Library through January 31, 2015.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby authorizes the County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the
County Attorney, the Third Lease Modification and Extension Agreement between the
County of Albemarle and Rio Associates Limited Partnership to extend the Northside
Library lease through January 31, 2015.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct
copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a
vote of _______ to _______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on
______________________.
_________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Ms. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Ms. McKeel ____ ____
Ms. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Sheffield ____ ____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2014 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations
#2014103, #2014104, #2014105, #2014106, #2014107,
and #2014108 for general government and school
division programs.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Walker, Kamptner, and Allshouse, L.
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 11, 2014
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 increase to the FY 14 budget due to the appropriation itemized below is $67,694.00. 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.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
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.
DISCUSSION:
This request involves the approval of six (6) appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2014103) for $(16,411.00) to reconcile the various sources of revenue of the Office of
Facilities Development Internal Service fund;
One appropriation (#2014104) to appropriate $25,000.00 from the Reserve for Contingencies to the
Department of Parks and Recreation and to adjust the budgeted amounts for the County’s share of the
services for the Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail and Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center. This
appropriation will not increase the total budget;
One appropriation (#2014105) to allocate salary lapse between department budgets. This appropriation
will not increase the total budget;
One appropriation (#2014106) to appropriate $2,506.00 for the Individual Student Alternative Education
Plan grant;
One appropriation (#2014107) to appropriate $7,647.00 in funding associated with a Strategic Prevention
Framework – State Incentive Grant (SPF-SIG); and
One appropriation (#2014108) to appropriate $73,952.00 for an Emergency Communications Center
maintenance agreement.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2014103, #2014104, #2014105, #2014106, #2014107, and #2014108 for
general government and school division programs as described in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Appropriation #2014103 ($16,411.00)
Source: Reserve for Contingencies $ 16,411.00
Use of Fund Balance – Stormwater $ 9,339.00
Use of Fund Balance – School CIP $ (25,751.00)
The Office of Facilities Development (OFD) provides project management support for School and General
Government capital projects and the office staff also provide services for General Government projects that fall
outside of the Capital budget such as their staff work on the Belvedere and Lewis and Clark projects or other
administrative and non-designated CIP activities. An internal service fund was established for OFD in FY 13, and OFD
charges hourly-based project management (PM) fees for their work on individual projects in order to capture the true
full project costs.
At the beginning of each fiscal year, an estimate is made regarding how OFD’s project management activities will be
budgeted and at the end of the year a reconciliation is prepared to properly account for and capture actual project
costs. This request is to reconcile OFD’s FY 14 sources of revenues with the expenses incurred in FY 14.
This request is to (a) appropriate $16,411.00 from the County’s Reserve for Contingencies to the General Fund’s
Project Management Services for the project management efforts on Belvedere and Lewis and Clark and other
administrative costs. This portion of the appropriation does not increase the County Budget; (b) appropriate $9,339.00
in the use of Stormwater CIP Fund fund balance monies for Stormwater Project Management Services incurred in FY
14, and (c) reduce the appropriated use of Sc hool CIP Fund fund balance by $25,751.00 for a reduction in required
School Project Management Services in FY 14.
Appropriation #2014104 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center $ 140,308.00
Reserve for Contingencies $ 25,000.00
This request is to appropriate the following:
$140,308.00 from the County’s budgeted Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center contribution to the
Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail to fund the County’s projected share of costs based on the funding
formula established by each entity’s regional agreement.
$25,000.00 from the County’s Reserve for Contingencies to the Department of Parks and Recreation to
fund expenditures for utilities and equipment repairs, both of which exceeded the historical numbers (used
to develop the FY 14 budget) due to an unusually cold winter season and significant equipment repairs.
Appropriation #2014105 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: Existing Budgeted Salary Lapse $ 122,690.00
At the beginning of each fiscal year, a budget estimate is made regarding which departments salary lapse is
expected to occur and at the end of the year a reconciliation is prepared to properly account for actual salary lapse.
This request is to allocate salary lapse between department budgets to reflect where the actual salary lapse
occurred. This request will not increase the total County Budget.
Appropriation #2014106 $2,506.00
Source: State Revenue $ 2,506.00
This request is to appropriate the following School Division request approved by the School Board on May 8, 2014:
The appropriation of $2,506.00 for the Individual Student Alternative Education Plan (ISAEP) grant. The
purpose of the ISAEP grant is to supplement existing General Equivalency Diploma (GED) services by
developing specialized occupational training and employment necessary for students to become productive
and contributing citizens in support of the School Division’s strategic plan. The Virginia Department of
Education increased state funding for FY 14 by $2,506.00 from the original budget amount of $23,576.00.
These funds will be used to purchase GED Testing Service Official GED Practice Test and computers.
Appropriation #2014107 $7,647.00
Source: Federal Revenue $ 7,647.00
This request is to appropriate $7,647.00 of an $273,550.00 Strategic Prevention Framework – State Incentive Grant
(SPF-SIG) for the time period of June 1, 2014 through June 30, 2014. The remainder of the grant will be appropriated
in FY 15 for the time period of July 1, 2014 through May 31, 2015. The purpose of the grant is to reduce the number
of motor vehicle crashes involving alco hol-impaired drivers between the ages of 15 and 24 and to decrease the
amount of binge drinking frequencies (4 or more drinks within a couple of hours) by 5% among college students . The
County will work with the University of Virginia regarding the initiative associated with college students.
The SPF-SIG grant funds are received from the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention through Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU). VCU, as the Prime
Awardee, provides these federal grant funds to the County as its Subcontractor.
The County, in its previous capacity as fiscal agent for the Commission on Children and Families (CCF), received the
first SPF-SIG Project grant for the time period of February 1, 2012 through January 31, 2013 in the fall of 2011. CCF
was dissolved in December 2012, so the second SPF-SIG Project Grant was awarded directly to the County for the
time period of February 1, 2013 through May 31, 2014 .
Appropriation #2014108 $73,952.00
Source: ECC Fund Balance $ 73,952.00
The Emergency Communications Center (ECC) requests that the County, acting as fiscal agent for the ECC,
appropriate funding in the amount of $73,952.00 from the ECC’s fund balance for a maintenance agreement related
to hardware and equipment for the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system for the time period of January 1, 2014
through December 31, 2014. This request has been approved by the ECC Management Board.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution to Support Application by Buckingham Branch
Railroad Company for Grant Funds
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Buckingham Branch Railroad Company requests support
of its application for grant funds from the Virginia
Department of Rail and Public Transportation Rail
Preservation Fund
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Kamptner, and Henry
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 11, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Buckingham Branch Railroad Company (BBR) has requested a resolution of support from the Board for the
company’s application for grant funds from the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation Rail Preservation
Fund. A description of the projects and improvements to be undertaken with the requested funds is provided in
Attachment A. BBR is not requesting any financial support from the County for this work.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3. Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy.
DISCUSSION:
The Buckingham Branch Railroad Company leases approximately 200 miles of track from CSX between Clifton Forge
and Richmond, including the CSX rail line located in Albemarle County. BBR commenced operation on this line in
December 2004. BBR needs to make improvements to this track in order to reduce future maintenance requirements
and to improve the riding quality of the rails/surfacing, and is pursuing Rail Preservation Funds to help cover the cost
of this work. Applicants for Rail Preservation Funds are required to obtain support from each locality where work will
take place. The only impact to Albemarle County citizens would be the potential for temporary traffic/access
interruptions while rail improvements are made at any at-grade road crossings. Based on a review of the County
mapping, there are approximately twelve (12) state route and ten (10) private road/private drive at-grade crossings of
the Buckingham Branch rails in Albemarle County.
The BBR coordinates with VDOT on any work at state route crossings. County staff will assist VDOT with issuing
news releases to notify citizens of any potential traffic impacts. According to the BBR project manager, BBR will
provide advance notice to the private crossing users and will coordinate its work so that it does not coincide with the
morning and evening commutes. County staff will also work with BBR to assist with issuing news releases to inform
citizens of any potential traffic impacts.
A Resolution of Support is attached (Attachment B) for the Board’s consideration.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There will be no budget impact to the County of Albemarle related to the adoption of the attached Resolution. BBR will
provide all local matching funds for the grant. Neither the Buckingham Branch Railroad Company nor the Virginia
Department of Rail and Public Transportation is expecting financial assistance from the County for these projects.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution of support (Attachment B).
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Letter dated 4/17/14 from the Buckingham Branch Railroad Company Requesting Support
B. Resolution of Support
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
BB
BUCK'NGHAM BRANC'I RATLROAD COMPANY
P.O. Box 336 - 1063 Main Street - Dillwyn, VA 23936
Phone 434-983-3300 (ext. 228)
Fax 434-983-3270
Apil 17,2014
Albemarle County
County Administrator's Offi ce
401 Mclntyre Road
Charlottesville, V A 22902
Dear County Adm inistrator,
Buckingham Branch Railroad company is a family-owned short line,railroad that operates 275 miles of-
railroaiin Central Virginia. Buckingham Branch was founded in 1988 by Robert and Annie Bryant and
ran its first train on March 6, 1989. Since then it has grown from a 17 mile line with two employees to its
current size today of275 miles with approximately 95 employees'
Buckingham Branch leased 200 miles oftrack from csx and commenced operations ofthe Richmond and
Alteghiny Division on December 20, 2004. This operating l€ase was for track from clifton Forge, vA to
niat"rnorri, Va, including 9.9 miles known as the drange Branch. Since that time rve haYe leased 58 miles
oit a"t to,n No.fok So-uthem Railroad and now operie our Virginia Southem Division which has tracks
fiom Burkeville to Clarksville. Virginia.
We ar€ r€questing a resolution fiom Albemale County supporting Buckingham Branch lailroad
Co.p*y;'r uppliiution for grant funds fron te Virginia pePdtncrrto{ Rail and Public Transport*ion
nuif it il"uho" fund. Bu&ingham erarch R.ilroad win provide 8ll local maiching funds for lhe garts'
Attached is a summary ofthe applications and estimated project costs that may impact your locality Th€re
.uy U" .o." tt an one proiect apptlcation that affects your locality' Applications may be for projects that
arsdistributed over more than one county or municipality'
The work outlined in the identified projects will help us to betttr s€rve you and all ofthe present and future
industries located in the cities, towns and cormties on the lines that we operat€'
some projects are multi-year projects. The resolution amount requ€sted reflects total estimated costs for all
of the identified projects.
A sample resolution and a map showing the location ofour operations, are included with this letter. A copy
oftfr" lpprouaO ."rolution should be se-nt .o Mr. Claud€ Morris at mailing address shown in the letterhead'
If you have questions or commenr' please feel free to contact me at ow Dillw)'n office Additional
iniormation about ow company and operations may be found at our web site:
wrvw.buckinghambranch.com
We sincerely appreciate all ofyour past support' We look forward ttt many morc )/ears of serving
you. "o-*r,niii".. Please do not hesitat€ to contact me if I can be of assistance'
Sincercly,
km*,(*
I'-'ai€{rt l\ranager
5A FE 7-/ :.5 E C U RI T Y : -S E R v7C E
Albemarle County: Buckingham Branch Railroad Resolution Request tor Rail Preservation Proiects
Installation of Switch Heaters on the l{orth Mountain Subdivision is a one year project that will install
approximately 23 new switch heaters between MP 160 (Gordonsville) and MP 276 (Clifton Forge). The
new heaters will be more efficient and more reliable than the present gas fired switch heaters. The new
heaters may be remotely controlled by the railroad's Rail Traffic Control Center.
Total Estimated Cost of Project is S437,m0.00.
Surface lmprovements on the Richmond and Alleghany is a three year project that will focus on
improving the railroad surface between MP 85.5 (Richmond) and MP 275.5 (Clifiton Forge) and will also
include the Oran8e Branch, MP 0 - MP 9 (Gordonsville to The Town of Orange). The project will include
adding ballast, surfacing, welding railjoints, crosstie replacement and replacing rail as needed in order
to reduce the maintenance requirements and improve the ride quality for Amtrak, CSX and Buckingham
Branch trains. Total Estimated Cost of Project is $s,rm,qD.oo.
Rail lmprovements to the t{orth Mountain Subdivision is a four year project to replace up to 12,OOO
linear feet of curve worn rail. The project will include replacing rail and welding railjoints in selected
areas in most need of replacement between MP 160 (Gordonsville) and MP 276.5 (Clifton Forge),
Total estimated cost of the project is s8m,00o.m
Total Cost of Projects Requested to be Included in Resolution of Support: 96637,0(x).fl)
Attachment B
RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT APPLICATION
BY BUCKINGHAM BRANCH RAILROAD COMPANY
FOR FUNDING FROM RAIL PRESERVATION FUND
WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad desires to file an application with the Virginia Department
of Rail and Public Transp ortation for funding assistance for its projects; and
WHEREAS, Buckingham Branch Railroad has identified projects that are estimated to cost
$6,637,000.00; and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly, through enactment of the Rail Preservation Program, provides for
funding for certain improvements and procurement of railways in the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad is an important element of the County of Albemarle
transportation system; and
WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad is instrumental in the economic development of the area,
and provides relief to the highway system by transporting freight, and provides an alternate means of
transportation of commodities; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle supports the projec t and the retention of the rail service; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has established procedures for all allocation and
distribution of the funds provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby
request the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation to give priority consideration to the projects
proposed by the Buckingham Branch Railroad.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, cor rect copy of a Resolution duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on ______________________.
______________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ___ ___
Ms. Dittmar ___ ___
Ms. Mallek ___ ___
Ms. McKeel ___ ___
Ms. Palmer ___ ___
Mr. Sheffield ___ ___
Kenneth C. Boyd COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Diantha H. McKeel
Rivanna Office of Board of Supervisors Jack Jouett
401 McIntire Road
Jane D. Dittmar Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Liz A. Palmer
Scottsville (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Samuel Miller
Ann H. Mallek Brad L. Sheffield
White Hall Rio
June 11, 2014
The Honorable Mark R. Warner
475 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Tim Kaine
B40C Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Robert Hurt
1516 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Senators Warner and Kaine, and Representative Hurt :
On behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and a member of the National
Association of Counties (NACo), we write to ask you to support passage of the bipartisan, bicameral
legislation, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity, H.R. 803 (as amended). This legislation would
reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998.
WIA is long overdue for reauthorization, as it expired in 2003. A strong streamlined workforce
system will increase investments and resources for quality training and help to ensure that localities and
states can continue to meet the needs of jobseekers and employers. The bipartisan WIOA bill provides
the needed framework for a modernized workforce de velopment system by maintaining the local role in
system, which Albemarle County supports, since there have been attempts to undermine the local role.
The bill also provides added flexibility for local workforce boards by reducing the overall size and
allowing more training funds to be used for incumbent workers. This will help local boards build and
enhance relationships with businesses and help localities meet the training needs of jobseekers and
businesses. The bill would also standardize performanc e goals for adults and youth to determine
workforce program success, which will simplify the current varied and complex measures.
In Albemarle County, WIA is making a real difference for both jobseekers and employers. Per
the most recent quarterly report, WIA operations exceeded their performance goals in 10 out of 12
categories and met the goals for the remaining two metrics. In terms of the number of people assisted
by WIA this reached 9,698 by December of 2013 and the placement rate for the Adult Worker program
was at 83%. WIA employer services in 2013 and 2013 included several new large -scale enterprises
The Honorable Mark R. Warner
The Honorable Tim Kaine
The Honorable Robert Hurt
June 11, 2014
Page 2
such as HomeGoods, Trader Joe’s, Hyatt Place hotel, Fresh Market, and Burton’s Grill, as well as
existing enterprises such as Lowe’s, CustomInk, Frontline Test Equipment, NIITEK, LUMI juice,
Northrop Grumman, and JC Penny. Without WIA resources, HomeGoods and Burton’s Grill were at risk
of missing their grand opening schedules due to a lack of appropriate workforce talent.
Albemarle County urges you to support the passage of WIOA by voting yes on H.R. 803 (as
amended). WIOA will enhance localities’ ability to address workforce challenges in their communities
and meet the training needs of workers and businesses. We hope that the County of Albemarle can
count on your support of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Jane D. Dittmar, Chair
JDD/ewj
cc: Daria Daniel, National Association of Counties
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution to Appropriate FY 15 On-going Funding
of Multi-Year Capital Projects
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriation
#2015001
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Allshouse, and Burrell
PRESENTER (S): Lori Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 11, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The County’s Special Revenue and Capital Project Budgets most often affect multiple fiscal years, thus requiring a re-
appropriation of the remaining funds from one fiscal year to the succeeding fiscal year.
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 cumulative total of the FY 15 appropriations included in the comprehensive resolution itemized below is
$36,902,072.63. Because the cumulative amount of the appropriations exceeds one percent of the currently adopted
budget, a budget amendment public hearing is required in order to re-appropriate unspent and unencumbered Capital
Improvement Projects and Special Revenue funds.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
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.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed FY 15 Budget Amendment and the comprehensive resolution funds and appropriates the remaining balance
of $36,902,072.63 for encumbered purchase orders and contracts and the unencumbered special revenue projects and
capital projects in a single resolution. The estimated expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are
shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
Capital Improvements Funds $ 35,860,452.17
Special Revenue Funds $ 1,041,620.46
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 36,902,072.63
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenue $ 1,244,560.61
State Revenue $ 1,772,668.00
Federal Revenue $ 520,062.00
Bond Proceeds $ 3,830,516.61
Other Fund Balances $ 29,534,265.41
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 36,902,072.63
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the $36,902,072.63 Budget Amendment for FY 15 and adoption of
the Resolution to Appropriate FY 15 On-going Funding of Multi-Year Capital Projects Appropriation #2015001 (Attachment
A) that appropriates a total of $36,902,072.63 to various capital improvement projects and special revenue projects that
were funded in FY 14 but are on-going in FY 15.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – FY 15 Resolution of Continuing Multi-Year Capital Project Appropriation #2015-001
Return to agenda
Page 1
Attachment A
Resolution to Appropriate FY 15 On-going Funding of Multi-Year Capital Projects
For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2015
Appropriation # 2015001
Whereas, purchase orders and contracts encumbered at the end of the fiscal year must be carried o ver into the next year
for payments; and
Whereas, capital and special revenue projects are not completed within one fiscal year, necessitating the budgeting and
appropriation of the remaining balance of project funds from one fiscal year to the succeeding fiscal year;
Whereas, the encumbrances are estimated at $13,576,961.74 as of June 30, 2014, and approval of an estimated
remaining balance of $23,325,110.89 for unencumbered capital project balances and special revenue project balances will
give the responsible departments and agencies continuous access to project funding; and
Whereas, the total amount of estimated encumbrances and unencumbered capital project balances and special revenue
project balances is $36,902,072.63, set forth as follows:
Total School Division Capital Improvement Fund (9000):
School Division Capital Improvement Fund Appropriations
Agnor Hurt E S Renovation/Addition $ 99,898.29
School CIP Maintenance 1,314,228.67
Telecommunications Network Upgrade 818,614.69
Total School Division Capital Improvement Fund Appropriations $ 2,232,741.65
School Division Capital Improvement Fund Sources
Loan Proceeds $ 1,625,991.00
Use of Fund Balance 606,750.65
Total School Division Capital Improvement Fund Sources $ 2,232,741.65
Total General Government Capital Improvement Fund (9010):
General Government Capital Improvement Fund Appropriations
ACE Program $ 751,454.60
County View Project 8,339.12
GIS Project 376,719.36
Ivy Landfill Remediation 820,461.45
Pantops Master Plan 108,731.45
Places 29 Master Plan 1,170,921.12
Records Management 161,308.37
Rivanna Master Plan 50,000.00
Street Lights 35,231.74
ECC Emergency Telephone System 1,343,208.00
ECC Integrated Public Safety Technology Project CAD 150,000.00
Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal 263,909.24
Tax/Rev System Replacement 290,424.35
Apparatus Replacement Program - Deputy Chief Command Vehicle 75,035.16
Apparatus Replacement Program - CARS AMBULANCE 142 288,750.00
Apparatus Replacement Program - CARS AMBULANCE 143 288,750.00
Apparatus Replacement Program - CARS COMMAND 131 75,600.00
Page 2
General Government Capital Improvement Fund Appropriations Continued
Apparatus Replacement Program - CARS SQUAD 134 819,000.00
Apparatus Replacement Program - E. RIVANNA ENGINE 21 28,562.20
Apparatus Replacement Program - EARLYSVILLE AMB - MEDIC 4 288,185.17
Apparatus Replacement Program - EAST RIVANNA COMMAND 20 75,600.00
Apparatus Replacement Program - Ivy Ambulance Medic 15 32,416.78
Apparatus Replacement Program - Monticello Ambulance 14,290.91
Apparatus Replacement Program - Monticello Ambulance 112 21,051.41
Apparatus Replacement Program - SCOTTSV-AMB 707 & EQUIP 26,250.00
Apparatus Replacement Program - SCOTTSVILLE - AMB 705 26,250.00
Apparatus Replacement Program - SCOTTSVILLE-AMB 706 43,420.86
Apparatus Replacement Program - SEMINOLE COMMAND 80 29,848.51
Apparatus Replacement Program - SYSTEM AMBULANCE 11,435.43
Apparatus Replacement Program - WARS - AMB 501 288,750.00
Apparatus Replacement Program - WARS AMBULANCE 502 26,250.00
Apparatus Replacement Program - WARS AMBULANCE 503 26,250.00
Apparatus Replacement Program - WARS COMMAND 507 45,522.35
Fire Rescue Lifepacks 16,187.04
Fire Rescue Mobile Data Computers Replacement 3,572.43
County Library Facilities Repair/Maintenance 22,105.60
Court Square Maintenance/Replacement Program 375,488.69
Keene Landfill 40,000.00
Old Jail Facility Maintenance 21,000.00
Public Works Facility Maintenance-General 451,069.36
Public Works Facility Maintenance-Old Crozet School 73,469.00
Roadway Landscaping 65,413.30
Sheriff's Office Maintenance/Replacement 7,006.50
County Server Infrastructure Upgrade 274,554.59
Microsoft Upgrade 42,018.36
City-County Branch Library Repair/Maintenance 365,108.27
Crozet Library 64,888.95
Crozet Streetscape Phase II 2,145,144.11
Health Department Maintenance/Replacement 46,200.00
Ivy Fire Station 829,255.61
J & DR Court Maintenance/Replacement 28,000.00
Public Works Facility Maintenance-Preston Morris Building 36,720.00
Public Works Facility Maintenance-Wheeler Building 31,750.00
Transportation Revenue Sharing Program (FY14-15 Match) 2,019,439.61
Rio Property-Northside Library & Storage 8,078,595.76
Seminole Trail VFD Renovation/Addition 2,188,174.41
Sidewalk, Avon Street 70,992.22
Sidewalk, Crozet Avenue North 818,889.71
Sidewalk, Fontaine Avenue 87,524.66
Sidewalk, Hollymead-Powell Creek Drive 187,699.24
Sidewalk, Hydraulic & Barracks Rd 780,246.00
Sidewalk, South Pantops Dr/State Farm Blvd 814,998.50
Page 3
General Government Capital Improvement Fund Appropriations Continued
Sunridge Road 6,696.42
Transportation Improvements - Local (Brocks Mill Rd plat) 8,050.16
Cory Farm Greenway Connector 50,000.00
Greenway Program 27,211.11
Parks Maintenance 283,771.26
Preddy Creek Park Phase II 86,250.00
YMCA Recreation Facility Contribution 2,030,000.00
Police Technology Upgrade 489,174.27
Voting Machine Replacements 301,258.18
Total General Government Capital Improvement Fund Appropriations $31,329,850.90
General Government Capital Improvement Fund Sources
Revenue from Local Sources (Other Transfers) $ 1,942,324.21
Revenue from Other Local Sources 556,760.00
Revenue from the Commonwealth 1,772,668.00
Revenue from the Federal Government 520,062.00
Bond Proceeds 1,516,725.00
Use of Fund Balance 25,021,311.69
Total General Government Capital Improvement Fund Sources $31,329,850.90
Total Regional Firearms Training Center Capital Improvement Fund (9010):
Regional Firearms Training Center Capital Improvement Fund Appropriations
Regional Firearms Training Center $ 1,375,601.22
Total Regional Firearms Training Center Capital Improvement Fund Appropriations $ 1,375,601.22
Regional Firearms Training Center Capital Improvement Fund Sources
Revenue from Other Local Sources $ 687,800.61
Bond Proceeds $ 687,800.61
Total Regional Firearms Training Center Capital Improvement Fund Sources $ 1,375,601.22
Total Stormwater Capital Improvement Fund (9100):
Stormwater Capital Improvement Fund Appropriations
Stormwater Management Program $ 28,252.86
Stormwater TMDL Study 214,300.00
Church Road Basin 342,149.40
Stormwater Multi-facility Maintenance 291,418.71
WAHS Stormwater Improvement 46,137.43
Total Stormwater Capital Improvement Fund Appropriations $ 922,258.40
Stormwater Capital Improvement Fund Sources
Use of Fund Balance $ 922,258.40
Total Stormwater Capital Improvement Fund Sources $ 922,258.40
Page 4
Special Revenue Fund Appropriations
UVA Research Park (Fund 8525) $ 117.72
Hollymead Area C Proffer (Fund 8527) 62,264.79
Hollymead Area D Proffer (Fund 8528) 31,146.37
Avon Park Proffer (Fund 8534) 64,596.33
Wickham Pond Proffer (Fund 8540) 104,303.05
Westhall 1.2 Proffer (Fund 8542) 23,925.91
Westhall 1.1 Proffer (Fund 8541) 53,728.70
Liberty Hall Proffer (Fund 8544) 22,530.49
Hollymead Town Center A1 Proffer (Fund 8545) 31,056.42
North Pointe Proffer (Fund 8538) 8,451.43
Stonefield Proffer (Fund 8547) 1,170,700.00
MJH @ Peter Jefferson Place Proffer (8529) 369,503.00
Total Special Revenue Capital Improvement Fund Appropriations $ 1,942,324.21
Special Revenue Capital Improvement Fund Sources
Use of Fund Balance $ 1,942,324.21
Total Special Revenue Capital Improvement Fund Sources $ 1,942,324.21
Total Belvedere Bond Default Project Fund (9011):
Belvedere Bond Default Project Fund Appropriations
Belvedere Bond Default Project $ 1,041,620.46
Total Belvedere Bond Default Project Fund Appropriation $ 1,041,620.46
Belvedere Bond Default Project Fund Sources
Belvedere Bond Default Project $ 1,041,620.46
Total Belvedere Bond Default Project Fund Sources $ 1,041,620.46
Whereas, approval of an estimated remaining balance amount at the beginning of the fiscal year facilitates the payment of
outstanding bills and ensures continuity of ongoing projects; and
Whereas, a properly advertised public hearing was held on June 4, 2014 on the proposed amendment to the FY 15
budget and all interested citizens were heard;
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors:
1. Does hereby budget and appropriate the remaining balance of $36,902,072.63 for encumbered purchase orders and
contracts and the unencumbered capital and special revenue project balances of June 30, 2014, as set forth above;
2. Does hereby authorize the County Executive to adjust this amount downward, if necessary, to accurately reflect the
actual encumbered amounts and actual unencumbered capital and special revenue project amounts at the end of
FY 14; and
3. Does hereby authorize the County Executive to close out a Capital project and transfer any unencumbered residual
funds to the Capital Improvement Fund fund balance.
This resolution shall become effective on July first, two thousand and fourteen.
Page 5
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors by a vote of ______ to ______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on June 11,
2014.
________________________________________
Clerk, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Aye
Nay
Mr. Boyd
Ms. Dittmar
Ms. Mallek
Ms. McKeel
Ms. Palmer
Mr. Sheffield
ZMA 201400004
BOS June 11, 2014
Executive Summary Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP201400004, Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops –
Drive-Thru Window
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request for a special use permit to establish a drive-
thru window associated with a fast food restaurant.
STAFF:
Cilimberg, Benish, Grant
PRESENTER(S):
Grant
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE:
June 11, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
On May 6, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops –
Drive-Thru Window special use permit request (ZMA201400004). The Commission, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of the special use permit with the conditions recommended by staff.
DISCUSSION:
Two revisions have been completed to the plans since the Planning Commission public hearing, as
recommended by staff.
1) On the original cover sheet, the applicant requested a parking waiver for one parking space. Staff
determined that enough parking was provided and a parking waiver request was not needed since the
applicant is providing 2 additional parking spaces than the number of parking required. The cover sheet is
now revised to show this clarification in the parking analysi s.
2) On the original plan Sheet 4 of 4, has been revised to eliminate the arrows and reference to one way in
the middle of the two way travel isle.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit 201400004/Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops–Drive-Thru
Window with the following conditions:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the following revised plans prepared by Shimp
Engineering, P.C. Sheet(s) 1 of 4 (cover sheet) and 4 of 4 (Conceptual site layout), dated February 18,
2014, revised 4/14/14 (hereafter “Layout Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the
Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the specified plans, development and use shall
reflect the following major elements as shown on the plans:
– Building location, orientation and mass
– Relationship of drive-thru lanes to the building and the parking lot
– Location and general character of landscaping
Minor modifications to the plan that do not otherwise conflict with the elements listed above, m ay be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices including but not limited
to signage and pavement markings at the entrance and exit points of the drive -thru lanes, subject to
county engineer approval to ensure appropriate and safe travel patterns.
3. The use shall not commence prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the
ZMA 201400004
BOS June 11, 2014
Executive Summary Page 2
Architectural Review Board.
4. The use shall commence on or before June 11, 2016 or the permit shall expire and be of no effect.
5. The northern most travelway located on the property parallel to U.S. Route 250 shall be a two -way
travelway for the entire portion of the property.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Application Plan, dated February 18, 2014 (Revised 05-14-2014)
View PC actions and staff report
Return to 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
May 23, 2014
Justin Shimp,P.E./Shimp Engineering
201 E. Main Street
Charlottesville, VA. 22902
RE: SP201400004 – Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops – Drive-Thru
TAX MAP PARCEL: 078000000073A2
Dear Mr. Shimp:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 6, 2014, by a vote of 7:0
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this recommendation is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the following revised plans prepared by
Shimp Engineering, P.C. Sheet(s) 1 of 4 (cover sheet) and 4 of 4 (Conceptual site layout), dated
February 18, 2014, revised 4/14/14 (hereafter “Layout Plan”), as determined by the Director of
Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the specified plans,
development and use shall reflect the following major elements as shown on the plans:
– Building location, orientation and mass
– Relationship of drive-thru lanes to the building and the parking lot
– Location and general character of landscaping
Minor modifications to the plan that do not otherwise conflict with the elements listed above, may
be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices including but not
limited to signage and pavement markings at the entrance and exit points of the drive-thru lanes,
subject to county engineer approval to ensure appropriate and safe travel patterns.
3. The use shall not commence prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the
Architectural Review Board.
4. The use shall commence on or before [date two years from Board approval] or the permit shall
expire and be of no effect.
5. The northern most travelway located on the property parallel to U.S. Route 250 shall be a two-way
travelway for the entire portion of the property.
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to Planning Commission recommendations
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Board of Supervisors public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to executive summary
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
Planning Division
cc: Wilgo Bo Pantops LLC
703 E. Jefferson St.
Charlottesville, VA. 22902
Rivana Ridge Charlottesville LLC
1385 Hancock St.
Quincy, MA. 02169
SP201400004 – Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops Drive-thru Window
Planning Commission: May 6, 2014
Page 1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP2014-00004 Bojangles
Restaurant @ Pantops, request for Drive-thru
Window
Staff: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing: May 6,
2014
Board of Supervisors Hearing: To be determined.
Owner(s): Rivanna Ridge Charlottesville, LLC Applicant(s): Wilgo Bo Pantops, LLC
Acreage: .75 acres Special Use Permit for: Drive -Thru window
permitted under Section (s) 22.2.2 (10) Commercial,
23.2.2 (5) Commercial Office, and 24.2.2(12)
Highway Commercial, by Special Use Permit
TMP: 07800-00-00-073A2
Location: 2005 Abbey Road, on the south side of
Route 250 in the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center
(See Attachments A and B)
By-right use: PD-MC, allows large-scale
commercial uses and residential by special use
permit at a density of 15 units/acre.
Magisterial District: Rivanna Proffers/Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: Not
Applicable
DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 3 - Pantops
Proposal: Request for a special use permit
to establish a drive-thru window associated
with a fast food restaurant. (Attachment C)
Comp. Plan Designation: Urban mixed use –
retail, commercial services, office, and a mix of
residential types (6.01 – 34 units/acre)
Character of Property: The subject property is an
undeveloped pad located between Applebee’s
Restaurant and First Citizens Bank in the Rivanna
Ridge Shopping Center.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The area is
characterized by a mix of commercial and
residential development.
Factors Favorable:
1. The ARB has completed a preliminary review
of this proposal and had no objection to the
proposed drive-thru use.
2. There is no conflict anticipated between
vehicles stacked in the drive-thru lanes and
vehicles in the parking lot or off-site traffic.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. No Unfavorable factors
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of SP 2014-00004 Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops for
Drive-thru window with conditions.
SP201400004 – Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops Drive-thru Window
Planning Commission: May 6, 2014
Page 2
STAFF CONTACT: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: May 6, 2014
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
PETITION:
PROJECT: SP201400004/Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops - Drive-Thru
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800-00-00-073A2
LOCATION: 2005 Abbey Road, on the south side of Route 250 in the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center
PROPOSAL: Request for a special use permit to establish a drive-thru window associated with a fast
food restaurant on .75 acres under Section (s) 22.2.2 (10) Commercial, 23.2.2 (5) Commercial Office,
and 24.2.2(12) Highway Commercial, Permitted Uses, by Special Use Permit of Zoning Ordinance.
ZONING: PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial which allows large-scale commercial uses
and residential by special use permit at a density of 15 units/acre.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Mixed Use – retail, commercial services, office, and a mix of
residential types (6.01 – 34 units/acre) in DA – Neighborhood 3 – Pantops.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The property contains three pad sites, two developed and one undeveloped. This proposal is located on
the undeveloped middle pad site. First Citizens Bank is located just to the east of the subject site and
Applebee’s Restaurant is located to the west. This property is located in the Rivanna Ridge Shopping
Center. The surrounding area (See Attachment A) is characterized by a mix of commercial and
residential development. The Mountain Top Montessori School is located across U.S. Route 250
(Richmond Road) to the north/northeast. SunTrust Bank is located to the west and the Giant
supermarket along with a mix of other commercial and retail uses are located within the Rivanna Ridge
Shopping Center to the south. A variety of uses inclusive of drive-thru windows are located in the
surrounding area.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
This property is a portion of the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center and also fronts on an Entrance Corridor
(Rt. 250). A variety of site plans and Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviews have been approved for
the shopping center and this property in particular. SDP2003-00052 was a final site plan that was
approved for a restaurant, fast food restaurant and bank. SP200200070 was approved for a bank drive-
thru window and SP200200076 was approved for a different fast food restaurant drive-thru window in the
same location as this subject request, which has since expired. This special use permit request (SP2014-
00004) is a revised request for the expired SP. More recently SDP200700070 was approved on August
16, 2007 for the adjacent First Citizens Bank.
DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to build a Bojangles fast food restaurant with a drive-thru window and associated
drive-thru lane. The proposed restaurant is a by-right use in the PD-MC zoning district. Only the
installation of the drive-thru requires the Special Use Permit. The applicant proposes to convert forty-
four (44) existing perpendicular parking spaces into twenty-two (22) angled parking spaces and 12
stacking spaces for the drive-thru window. Vehicles enter the drive-thru system from the travel aisle
located on the west side of the building. Vehicles line up in the order lane. After placing orders at the
drive-thru menu board located on the west side of the building, vehicles continue in a single lane,
proceeding to the drive-thru pick up window located on the east side of the building. After pick-up,
vehicles can either return to the parking lot or exit out of the property. The proposed drive-thru layout
provides for a bypass lane and also meets the minimum vehicle stacking requirement. (See Attachment
C-proposed site layout)
SP201400004 – Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops Drive-thru Window
Planning Commission: May 6, 2014
Page 3
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
Section 33.8 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
shall reasonably consider the following factors when reviewing and acting upon an application for a
special use permit:
No substantial detriment. The proposed special use will not be a substantial detriment to
adjacent lots.
There are two existing travelways at the northern and southern portions of this property that provide
connections internally and externally for the shopping center. The proposed on-site layout is expected
to accommodate all stacking movements on site. Due to the location of the drive-thru lanes, circulation
is such that drive-thru traffic is not expected to delay off-site traffic and, therefore, is not expected to
negatively impact adjacent property.
Character of district unchanged. The character of the district will not be changed by the
proposed special use.
The drive-thru use is well-established in the immediate area. Drive-thru windows and lanes are found
at the Rite-Aid pharmacy, UVA Community Credit Union, Guaranty Bank, Department of Motor
Vehicles, and adjacent First Citizens Bank. This proposed drive-thru does not appear to be any
different than other drive-thru’s for similar uses. The ARB has completed a preliminary review of the
proposal and determined that the location of the drive-thru lane is sufficiently mitigated by the
proposed landscaping, the treatment of the topography, and the building design. (See Attachment C)
With a design meeting the Entrance Corridor design guidelines, and consistent with the design
already reviewed by the ARB, the character of the district is not expected to change with the proposed
use.
Harmony. The proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
chapter,
The PD-MC zoning district is established to permit large-scale commercial uses and residential by
special use permit at a density of 15 units/acre. A fast food restaurant with a drive-thru window is an
appropriate use in the PD-MC district and would be of service to the Pantops community.
…with the uses permitted by right in the district
Eating establishments, fast food restaurants, and financial institutions are among the uses permitted
by right in the PD-MC zoning district. Drive-thru windows are common with these uses and are
present throughout the district. A drive-thru window at this site is expected to be in harmony with other
by-right uses in the district.
…with the regulations provided in section 5 as applicable,
There are no supplemental regulations in section 5 applicable to this use.
…and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Drive-thru windows require a special use permit due to concerns regarding access, circulation, and
traffic volumes. Zoning Ordinance section 4.12.17.c.2(a) allows the county engineer to require a
bypass lane when necessary based on travelway length, nature of the land use, and internal traffic
circulation. The applicant shows a one way travelway heading west on the northern side of the
property parallel to U.S. Route 250. This small portion of the one way travelway has two way traffic
SP201400004 – Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops Drive-thru Window
Planning Commission: May 6, 2014
Page 4
on the same road at the west and east side of the travelway. Staff finds this confusing for traffic
flowing through this area of the site and does not believe this was the original intent for this section of
travelway in the shopping center. The applicant feels this section needs to be one-way for additional
back up queuing space. He believes it is easier to direct the adjacent traffic for Applebee’s and the
bank to the southern section of the site if the vehicle needs to access one of the adjacent businesses
and believes with the angled parking for the Bojangle’s site, it is important to direct traffic in a
counter-clockwise circulation around the entire site. The applicant has indicated he will work with staff
during the site plan stage to resolve the circulation issue. A condition is included to address this
concern and ensure the two way travelway remain for all three businesses. Zoning Ordinance section
4.12.17.c.2 states the minimum travelway width for one-way access aisles shall be twelve (12) feet
with exceptions…..The applicant is proposing a drive-thru aisle width of eleven (11) feet, which would
require a waiver of the Zoning Ordinance requirement for a twelve (12) foot aisle width. The County
engineer is supportive of the applicant requesting this waiver, which will be processed as part of the
site development phase review.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The use will be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property for Urban Mixed Use, which encourages a mix of
retail, commercial services, office and a variety of residential types. The Pantops Master Plan includes
this site in the Rivanna Ridge mixed use neighborhood, which it identifies as an area for
Neighborhood Services. There are opportunities in this neighborhood for future infill and enhanced
pocket parks to capture scenic views. Due to the topography and visibility in the Monticello viewshed,
care is needed with any infill or redevelopment of the neighborhood. The plan calls for establishing
blocks with the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center to help create a street grid and better distribute traffic
on the south side of Route 250. The proposed Bojangles building is oriented perpendicular to Rt. 250
with traffic circulating around the building. Sidewalks are proposed to be located around the interior
and exterior of the site. With the proposal as shown on the plan, the use is considered consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable to this proposal and has identified no unfavorable factors:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The ARB staff has completed a preliminary review of this proposal and had no objection to the
proposed drive-thru use.
2. There is no conflict anticipated between vehicles stacked in the drive-thru lanes and vehicles in
the parking lot or off-site traffic.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. No unfavorable factors.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP 2014-00004
Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops for Drive-thru window with the following conditions (The conditions for
SP2002-076 are shown for reference with strikethroughs :
1. The drive through lanes shall be designed in general accord with the improvements that are shown
on the preliminary site plan, entitled “ Preliminary Site Development Plans for Rivanna Ridge
Shopping Center”, last revised on January 13, 2003; Development and use shall be in general
accord with the following revised plans prepared by Shimp Engineering, P.C. Sheet(s) 1 of 4 (cover
sheet) and 4 of 4 (Conceptual site layout), dated February 18, 2014, revised 4/14/14 (hereafter
SP201400004 – Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops Drive-thru Window
Planning Commission: May 6, 2014
Page 5
“Layout Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in
general accord with the specified plans, development and use shall reflect the following major
elements as shown on the plans:
Building location, orientation and mass
Relationship of drive-thru lanes to the building and the parking lot
Location and general character of landscaping
Minor modifications to the plan that do not otherwise conflict with the elements listed above, may
be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The drive-through shall be limited to a single lane that follows through to the pick -up window and the
bypass lane extending to the southern parking lot;
3. Signage and pavement markings shall be provided at the entrance and both exit points of the drive-
through lane, subject to Engineering Department approval to ensure appropriate and safe travel
patterns; The applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices including
but not limited to signage and pavement markings at the entrance and exit points of the drive-thru
lanes, subject to county engineer approval to ensure appropriate and safe travel patterns.
4. The menu board shall be installed at the south end of the fast food restaurant, and not on the main
travelway of the drive-through, which extends between the northern and southern portions of the
parking lot;
5. This site shall be subject to the Architetural Review Board’s issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness; The use shall not commence prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness by the Architectural Review Board.
6. Awnings, canopies, signs, lights and other elements associated with the drive-through use shall be
coordinated with the appearance of the building and shall not be the focus of the design, as
determined by the ARB. The use shall commence on or before [date two years from Board approval]
or the permit shall expire and be of no effect.
7. The planting strip located to the east of the drive-through lane shall be plated with evergreen
screening trees; and
8. The planting strip located to west of the drive-through lane shall be plated with evergreen screening
trees and/or shade trees and evergreen shrubs.
9. The northern most travelway located on the property parallel to U.S. Route 250 shall be a two-way
travelway for the entire portion of the property.
The following are the clean proposed conditions without strikethroughs:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the following revised plans prepared by
Shimp Engineering, P.C. Sheet(s) 1 of 4 (cover sheet) and 4 of 4 (Conceptual site layout), dated
February 18, 2014, revised 4/14/14 (hereafter “Layout Plan”), as determined by the Director of
Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the specified plans,
development and use shall reflect the following major elements as shown on the plans:
Building location, orientation and mass
Relationship of drive-thru lanes to the building and the parking lot
Location and general character of landscaping
Minor modifications to the plan that do not otherwise conflict with the elements listed above, may
be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices including but not
limited to signage and pavement markings at the entrance and exit points of the drive-thru lanes,
subject to county engineer approval to ensure appropriate and safe travel patterns.
3. The use shall not commence prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the
Architectural Review Board.
4. The use shall commence on or before [date two years from Board approval] or the permit shall
expire and be of no effect.
SP201400004 – Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops Drive-thru Window
Planning Commission: May 6, 2014
Page 6
5. The northern most travelway located on the property parallel to U.S. Route 250 shall be a two-
way travelway for the entire portion of the property.
Motions:
Special Use Permit
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this special use permit:
I move to recommend approval of SP 201400004 Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops for
Drive-thru window with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
I move to recommend denial of SP 201400004 Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops for Drive-
thru window with reasons for denial.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Location Map
Attachment B – Tax Map
Attachment C – Application Plan
Return to PC actions letter
STONYPOINTRDSOUTH
P
A
N
T
OPSD
R
RICHMO
N
D
R
D
}ÿ53
§¨¦64
RoadsStreamsWater BodyParcels
Parcel of Interest
Prepared by Albem ar le CountyDivison of Inform ati on Ser vicesMap created by Elise Hackett, April 2014.
Note: The m ap elem ents depicted are graphic representations and are not to be constr ued or used as a legal description.This map is for display pur poses only.
Aerial Imagery 2013 C omm onw ealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect pl ats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2013
±
0 1,000 2,000500Feet
SP 2014-004Bojangles Restaurant at PantopsDrive-Thru Window
78-73A2
City ofCharlottesville
Pad Site
ABBEY RD
RICHMOND RD
ROLKIN R D
H A N S ENRD£¤250
4' ContoursRoadsStreamsWater Body
BuildingsDrivewaysParcels
Parcel of Interest
Prepared by Albem ar le CountyDivison of Inform ati on Ser vicesMap created by Elise Hackett, April 2014.
Note: The m ap elem ents depicted are graphic representations and are not to be constr ued or used as a legal description.This map is for display pur poses only.
Aerial Imagery 2013 C omm onw ealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect pl ats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2013
±
0 100 20050Feet
SP 2014-004Bojangles Restaurant at PantopsDrive-Thru Window
78-73A2
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 6, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES SP-2014-00004 Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops – Drive-Thru
Submit to BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
May 6, 2014
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, May
6, 2014 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Cal Morris, Chair; Karen Firehock, Richard Randolph, Thomas
Loach, Bruce Dotson, Mark Keller, and Mac Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP,
Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of
Planning; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer; Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; Greg
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney and Joel DeNunzio, VDOT representative, was
present.
Call to Order
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a
quorum.
Public Hearing Items
a. SP-2014-00004 Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops - Drive-Thru
PROPOSAL: Request for a special use permit to establish a drive -thru window
associated with a fast food restaurant on .75 acres under Section (s) 22.2.2 (10)
Commercial, 23.2.2 (5) Commercial Office, and 24.2.2(12) Highway Commercial,
Permitted Uses, by Special Use Permit of Zoning Ordinance.
ZONING: PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial which allows large -scale
commercial uses and residential by special use permit at a density of 15 units/acre.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Mixed Use – retail, commercial services, office, and a
mix of residential types (6.01 – 34 units/acre) in DA – Neighborhood 3 – Pantops.
LOCATION: 2005 Abbey Road, on the south side of Route 250 in the Rivanna Ridge
Shopping Center
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800-00-00-073A2
Magisterial District: Rivanna
(Claudette Grant)
Staff Presentation:
Ms. Grant summarized the staff report for SP-2014-00004 Bojangles Restaurant @
Pantops- Drive Thru in a PowerPoint presentation, noting the applicant requests to
amend approved SP-2002-00076 to establish a drive-thru window associated with a fast
food Bojangles Restaurant.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 6, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES SP-2014-00004 Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops – Drive-Thru
Submit to BOS
2
Staff reviewed the concept layout plan noting the following two (2) issues that will be
resolved:
1. The first issue has to do with one -way circulation in the middle of the two-way
travelway.
Staff finds this a bit confusing and unsafe. A condition is provided to address this
issue.
2. The second issue has to do with the minimum travelway width for one -way access
isle being 12 feet. The applicant proposes a width of 11 feet, which will need to be
addressed with a waiver request during the site development phase.
Factors Favorable:
• The ARB staff has completed a preliminary review of this proposal and had no
objection to the proposed drive-thru use.
• There is no conflict anticipated between vehicles stacked in the drive -thru lanes
and vehicles in the parking lot or off-site traffic.
Factors Unfavorable:
• None
Staff’s Recommendation
Based on the findings contained in the staff report, staff recommends approval of SP-
2014-00004 Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops for Drive -thru window with the
recommended conditions listed in the staff report.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Randolph asked if there was another case in the county where they have a similar
type of restaurant with a drive-thru where there is a connecting road that has two-way
traffic at either end and one-way traffic for the restaurant in the middle.
Ms. Grant replied she was not aware of any other example like that.
Ms. Firehock asked if condition (#8) concerning the planting strip to the west being
removed was because there not being enough space for a planting strip or if it impaired
the visibility.
Ms. Grant replied that condition (#8) was an old condition in the previous approved
special use permit, which is shown as a comparison to show the differences.
Mr. Dotson questioned condition (#5) of the new version, which says the use shall not
commence prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness by the
Architectural Review Board. If they are saying the “use” it appears the building is fully
constructed and everything is ready to go . However, he questioned if that would be too
late for the ARB to take action. He would have expected the condition to say building
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 6, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES SP-2014-00004 Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops – Drive-Thru
Submit to BOS
3
construction shall not commence prior to the issuance of the Certificate of
Appropriateness by the ARB. He asked if this is the way they usually phrase it.
Ms. Grant replied it was the standard language used previously.
Mr. Benish pointed out the use in this case was the drive-thru.
Mr. Dotson acknowledged this was a narrow consideration.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the
Commission.
Justin Shimp, project engineer, said they don’t actually ha ve any particular items to
address. However, he would clarify the item Ms. Grant mentioned about the confusion
of the traffic circulation as something that there is a condition to address that, which
they have agreed to. They have discussed and worked that issue out with staff and with
the county engineer as appropriate to get the signage and striping right during the site
plan stage. Otherwise, they have no particular comments. He would be happy to
answer any questions.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and
the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Randolph noted despite Mr. Shimp’s explanation he remains concerned about
having the throughway whereby traffic move s two ways on either side of the property,
but in the center of the property it is a one-way street. It just seems like a very odd
configuration. He keeps looking at the design and trying to understand why in fact it
could not be reversed the other way so the traffic is moving in a counter clockwise
direction. It would seem to make more sense if the traffic would move in a clockwise
direction and therefore as it came out of one drive-thru window it would be going into a
lane of traffic that is quite appropriately moving in the same direction. It would not
interfere with the operation of the two-way street at all. This configuration automatically
creates this hybrid whereby they have a two-way street at either end and then a one -
way street in the middle going against the traffic flow.
Mr. Morris invited the county engineer to address this issue.
Glenn Brooks, county engineer, said they don’t disagree because they place it in
context. Generally they have a rule that they don’t want the site circulation to be on a
public thoroughfare, the roadway. In this case they did not judge those to be roadways.
They judged those to be internal travelways to the shopping center. If it would have
been on Hansen Road, Abbey Road or Vulcan Road they would have said no go and
they don’t want to do that. However, in this case they thought it was internal to the
commercial strip on the outside of Giant and the impact is relatively small. Those
concerns are still there, but just smaller in context.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 6, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES SP-2014-00004 Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops – Drive-Thru
Submit to BOS
4
Mr. Keller requested an explanation from the developer.
Mr. Morris invited Mr. Shimp to address the question.
Mr. Shimp said he was trying to understand the question. He thinks he is saying that as
the cars are queued up in the back of the building that they are adjacent to traffic
moving in the opposite direction. He asked if that is correct.
Mr. Randolph noted if he looked at the diagram he has the traffic moving counter
clockwise, which means the exiting car goes into what for the vehicles coming from the
left would be their lane. Then he has created a one-way street where that traffic can no
longer go to proceed down that street. He is using street in a generic sense. He knows
it is within a parking area. So if they reverse that and have the traffic moving in a
clockwise direction it is moving with the actual normal flow of traffic. He is concerned
because it creates a situation where the logic of the motorist suddenly is arrested, they
have to stop, and are going to have signs there that say one-way do not enter.
Mr. Shimp replied that is correct.
Mr. Randolph said understanding at night and with fog, etc, people may not see the
signage and may proceed with the assumption, which is reasonable for the motorist,
that is a two-way “street” and proceed right into the traffic. Whereas, he thinks if they
reverse the direction they would not have a problem.
Mr. Shimp said that it was not exactly because it seemed if the vehicles went clockwise
it would put the wrong side of the car in the drive-thru.
Mr. Randolph suggested that he might have to reverse the building. They could just turn
the building around 180 degrees and he would have solved the problem.
Mr. Shimp said that he did not know if that was quite right . He did not quite understand
what the issue is. This is probably not the best forum to debate it honestly. They
looked at this site and met with county staff on several occasions about how this layout
was best accommodated on this parcel. It was already set up for a drive -thru
restaurant. This was a layout he thinks is better versus having two-way circulation on
the travelway because then they would have people potentially going against the flow of
the drive-thru stacks. That seems to be a very awkward drive -thru if it was that way. On
the sides that parallel the building traffic is moving in the same direction and people
backing in and out of parking spaces only have to worry about traffic in one direction
rather than two. They felt like it is a very reasonable layout in that respect.
Mr. Benish explained with the travelway going in the direction on the right or west side
of the building it allows for that lane to be a bypass lane. When people are queuing in
and the line is too long and they want to queue out then they can move out of the drive-
thru lane and go out of the site. That is one of the reasons why that counter clockwise
motion kind of works as long as the building is facing this way. He thinks the way the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 6, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES SP-2014-00004 Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops – Drive-Thru
Submit to BOS
5
building is facing here puts the windows and the place where they take the orders
behind the building, which is where the ARB prefers. This is sort of the typical setup for
the building to put the windows and the menu board to the back of the building away
from the Entrance Corridor. So that is one of the rationales for that counter clockwise
movement.
Mr. Randolph said he understands the logic behind the drive -thru window. However, he
is just a little concerned here about the traffic flow and just raising questions about it.
Mr. Morris asked staff and the applicant to look at this prior to the request coming before
the Board of Supervisors regardless of the Commission’s recommendation.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of SP-
2014-00004 Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops – Drive Thru with the conditions outlined
in the staff report.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the following revised plans
prepared by Shimp Engineering, P.C. Sheet(s) 1 of 4 (cover sheet) and 4 of 4
(Conceptual site layout), dated February 18, 2014, revised 4/14/14 (hereaf ter
“Layout Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning
Administrator. To be in general accord with the specified plans, development and
use shall reflect the following major elements as shown on the plans:
– Building location, orientation and mass
– Relationship of drive-thru lanes to the building and the parking lot
– Location and general character of landscaping
Minor modifications to the plan that do not otherwise conflict with the elements
listed above, may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices
including but not limited to signage and pavement markings at the entrance and
exit points of the drive-thru lanes, subject to county engineer approval to ensure
appropriate and safe travel patterns.
3. The use shall not commence prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness by the Architectural Review Board.
4. The use shall commence on or before [date two years from Board approval] or
the permit shall expire and be of no effect.
5. The northern most travelway located on the property parallel to U.S. Route 250
shall be a two-way travelway for the entire portion of the property.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2014-00004 Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops – Drive Thru
would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval on
a date to be determined.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
VDOT Secondary Six-Year Plan FY15-20
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing - VDOT FY 15-20 Secondary Six Year
Program
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Walker, Davis, Cilimberg, Benish
PRESENTER (S):
David Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 11, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this public hearing is to receive input on the proposed Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Secondary Six Year Program (SSYP), FY 15-20 (Attachment A). The SSYP is the funding program for the construction of
secondary road projects based on the County’s Priority List and reflects available State road funding allocated to the
County. The Board held a work session on the SSYP and the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements on
May 14, 2014 (Attachment A – Executive Summary). Due to limited available funding for this SSYP, staff recommended
and the Board agreed to no changes to the County’s Priority List for this year (Attachment B). It was agreed that a more
complete update of the County’s priority list would be undertaken next year when it is expected the updated
Comprehensive Plan and the MPO’s regional Long Range Transportation Plan will have been adopted.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
Goal 5. Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
VDOT staff has provided a draft of the FY 15-20 SSYP (Attachment C) that is based on the priority list agreed to by
the Board at its May 14th work session. Projected funding allocations for this SSYP were provided to the Board in the
May work session’s Executive Summary (Attachment A). Since then, VDOT has revised these allocations slightly
downward, but with no impact on the projects that can be funded. As indicated last month, all available funding for
the FY 15-20 SSYP will be used to complete projects previously listed in the FY 14-19 SSYP:
Dry Bridge Road (Rt. 708) bridge replacement (under construction)
Black Cat Road (Rt. 616) bridge replacement
Broomley Road (Rt. 677) bridge replacement
Dick Woods Road (Rt. 637) bridge replacement
Dickerson Road (Rt. 606) bridge replacement over the N. Fork Rivanna River
Pocket Lane (Rt. 703), from Rt. 715 to end state maintenance – paving project (RRR project)
Midway Road (Rt. 688), from Rt. 824 to Rt. 635 – paving project (RRR project)
Keswick Drive (Rt. 731), from Rt. 744 to Rt. 22 – paving project (RRR project)
Rio Mills Road (Rt. 643), from paved section to US 29 – paving project (non-RRR paving project)
Doctors Crossing (Rt. 784), from Rt. 600 to Rt. 640 – paving project (RRR project)
BUDGET IMPACT:
The Six Year Secondary Road process establishes the County’s priorities for the expenditure of State/VDOT
secondary road construction funds and does not impact County’ funding.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment D) approving the FY15-20 SSYP and authorize the
County Executive to sign the SSYP.
AGENDA TITLE: Review of County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and the VDOT SSYP
June 11, 2014
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS:
A – May 7, 2014 Executive Summary
B – County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements
C – VDOT Secondary Six Year Program (FY15-20)
D – Resolution approving the VDOT FY 15-20 Secondary Six Year Plan and the FY14 Construction Program
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Review of County’s Priority List of Secondary Road
Improvements and the VDOT Secondary Six-Year Plan
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work session to review the County’s Priority List of
Secondary Road Improvements and the VDOT
Secondary Six-Year Plan Funding Expectations
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Cilimberg, Benish
PRESENTER: David Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 7, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements establishes the priorities for County road improvements in
the State’s Secondary Road system (roads with a route number of 600 or higher). The Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) Secondary Six-Year Plan (SSYP) is the funding program for the construction of secondary road
projects based on the County’s Priority List and reflects available state road funding allocated to the County. A separate
program exists for the Primary and Interstate road systems. The County’s Priority List and the VDOT SSYP are typically
reviewed annually. Based on Board direction regarding projects to be funded, VDOT will draft a revised SSYP.
Attachment A is the current County Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and Attachment B is the current VDOT
Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program, both approved by the Board on June 12, 2013.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
Goal 5. Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
This work session is focused on receiving Board input regarding the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road
Improvements. Staff will then prepare a revised County Priority List that reflects the Board’s input and VDOT will
update the SSYP, both of which will be the subject of a Board public hearing planned for June 11, 2014.
VDOT Secondary Six Year Improvement Program (SSYP)
VDOT has provided the following projected funding allocations for Albemarle County for the FY15-20 SSYP:
FISCAL YEAR
SECONDARY
UNPAVED
ROAD FUND1
CTB UNPAVED
ROAD FUND 2
REG. STATE
FUNDS3
(Telefee Funds)
SECONDARY
FORMULA
FUNDS3
TOTAL FUNDS
2014-15 $0 $208,838 $298,065 $0 $506,903
2015-16 $0 $390,726 $298,065 $0 $688,791
2016-17 $0 $571,125 $298,065 $0 $869,190
2017-18 $0 $578,873 $298,065 $0 $876,938
2018-19 $0 $622,461 $298,065 $0 $920,526
2019-20 $0 $602,355 $298,065 $0 $900,420
Totals $0 $2,974,378 $1,788,390 $0 $4,762,768
Notes:
1- Roads must carry 50 vehicle per day (VPD) or greater.
2- Roads must carry 50 vehicle per day (VPD) or greater. This is a change from the previous 200 VPD
requirement.
3- Funds can be used a broad range of secondary road improvement project (construction, paving, etc.)
AGENDA TITLE: Review of County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and the VDOT SSYP
May 7, 2014
Page 2
Funding for the next six years of the SSYP is projected to be significantly lower than anticipated at the time of the
adoption of last year’s SSYP because state revenues used to fund the transportation program are lower than what
had been projected at that time. Staff provides the following observations and comments:
For the five (5) common years of last year’s SSYP and this year’s SSYP (FY2014-15 through FY2018-19) the
following funding changes are anticipated:
o The estimated total funds have fallen from $8,220,496 to $3,862,348.
o The estimated total funds for unpaved road projects have fallen from $4,970,393 to $2,372,023.
Last year, two categories of unpaved road funds were created: 1) Secondary Unpaved Road Funds, and 2)
the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) Formula Unpaved Road Funds . No funding is now
anticipated for the Secondary Unpaved Road Fund ($512,376 was anticipated in last year‘s SSYP), leaving
the CTB Formula Unpaved Road Funds as the sole source of unpaved road funding.
The $900,420 in the “new” sixth year of the SSYP (FY2019-20) will need to be totally devoted to projects
already included in the SSYP to offset the reduction in fund allocations for those projects in the first five
years.
Due to the limited available funding, staff proposes that no additional projects be added the SSYP and that available
SSYP funding be used to complete the projects currently identified in the SSYP. (Please note that bridge projects
included in the SSYP also utilize federal bridge funds.) The projects included in the current SSYP are:
Dry Bridge Road (Rt. 708) bridge replacement (under construction)
Black Cat Road (Rt. 616) bridge replacement
Broomley Road (Rt. 677) bridge replacement
Dick Woods Road (Rt. 637) bridge replacement
Dickerson Road (Rt. 606) bridge replacement over the N. Fork Rivanna River
Pocket Lane (Rt. 703), from Rt. 715 to end state maintenance – paving project
Midway Road (Rt. 688), from Rt. 824 to Rt. 635 – paving project
Keswick Drive (Rt. 731), from Rt. 744 to Rt. 22 – paving project
Rio Mills Road (Rt. 643), from paved section to US 29 – paving project
Doctors Crossing (Rt. 784), from Rt. 600 to Rt. 640 – paving project
Two paving projects in the current SSYP (and on the County’s Priority List) have now been completed: 1) Gillums
Ridge Road (Rt. 787), from Rt. 682 to Rt. 708, and 2) Blufton Road (Rt. 672), from Rt. 810 to the end of state
maintenance. These projects will be removed from both documents.
County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements (Priority List)
Many of the transportation projects on the County’s Priority List are derived from the recommendations of the
County’s Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) Long Range Transportation Plan
(LRTP). The Comprehensive Plan and the LRTP are currently in the process of being reviewed and updated by the
Board of Supervisors and the MPO, respectively; therefore staff does not propose any changes be made to the
Priority List this year. In consideration of the anticipated completion of these plan updates in the next year as well as
the current status of funding for the SSYP, staff suggests a more comprehensive review of this Priority List and other
transportation priorities should be undertaken next year.
VDOT staff has reviewed the Priority List’s Regular Road Paving Project list to determine if any of the listed projects
are now eligible for the Rural Rustic Road Program (RRRP). Because RRRP paving is of a lower scale than Regular
Road paving and does not involve right-of-way donation, those projects cost less and more of those projects can be
undertaken with available funds. VDOT staff has found that 11 of the 29 listed Regular Road Paving projects are now
eligible for RRR paving (and staff has noted those projects on page B-2 of Attachment A). However, because
available SSYP funds are already completely obligated as noted above, none of th ose projects can be undertaken in
the FY15-20 SSYP. Therefore, staff proposes that all RRR eligible projects be moved to the RRR Paving Project List
in conjunction with the comprehensive review of the County’ Priority List next year.
AGENDA TITLE: Review of County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and the VDOT SSYP
May 7, 2014
Page 3
Public Requests
Staff has received two (2) requests for new road construction improvements. Other requests received over the year
have been for roads already listed on the County’s Priority List of Road Improvements or were associated with
primary roads. The public requests are:
Midway Road (Rt. 688) — To pave the section of road from Burches Creek Road to Patterson Mill Road,
which carries 160 VPD. The section of Midway Road from Millers School Road to Burches Creek Road (310
VPD) is currently in the VDOT SSYP and scheduled for paving this year . It was first listed in the County
priority list in 2001 based on citizen requests. Staff notes that complaints have been received in the past
about speeding along this road. It is not uncommon for speeding issues to increase once a gravel road is
paved. Should the Board decide to pave this new section of Midway Road, both sections should be paved at
the same time.
Ed Jones Road (Rt.728) — To pave the section of road from Rolling Road (Rt. 620) to Buck Island Road
(Rt.729) due to damage caused by weather and logging operations. The most recent (2012) VDOT traffic
count for this road is 20 VPD, which would make it ineligible for paving. However, it should be noted that
VDOT recently made some repairs to this road.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The Six Year Secondary Road process establishes the County’s priorities for the expenditure of State/VDOT
secondary road construction funds and does not impact County funding.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests that the Board: 1) confirm the County’s Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements (Attachment A)
for public hearing, and 2) schedule a public hearing on this Priority List and VDOT’s FY15-20 SSYP on June 11, 2014.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Albemarle County Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements
B – VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program (FY14 to FY19)
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Recommended June 11, 2014
Strategic Priorities (Projects 1-21)
VDOT's
Secondary
Program
County's
Proposed
Ranking
Route Number and Name Location From - To
Estimated
Advertisement
Date
Estimated Cost Description/Comments
Justification for
project/Source of
Request
Year Project
was placed on
Priority List
Most Current Traffic
County and year of
Count
Y 0 County wide County wide N/A varies County services/improvements: signs,pipe,plant mix projects,
raised median, crosswalks, restripe, lighting, etc
safety, maintain
function/staff, public req.
Y 0 County wide Traffic mgmt. Program N/A varies Designated for traffic calming projects through out the County
that meet requirements and sidewalk improvements.
Safety/Public Request,
studies-plans
Y (Urban
Program)
1 Hillsdale Drive Greenbrier Dr. to
Seminole Sq.
designed, constr.
not funded
$9,800,000 Connector Rd., Greenbrier Dr to Hydraulic Rd; constr. w/ urban
system funds; $15.5 M. donated ROW expected
Places29 Master Plan;
UnJAM 2035
N/A
2 Berkmar Dr Ext. &
Bridge
End of Berkmar Dr to
HTC
$38,000,000 New parallel road in Rt. 29 Corridor; Bridge location design first
phase; ROW cost variable w/ development approvals
Places29 Master Plan;
UnJAM 2035
2006 N/A
3 649 Proffit Road Rt 29 to 1.6 miles east $10,000,000 improve alignment, urban x-section with bikelanes/sidewalk and
multi-use path
Capacity, safety/Land Use
Plan
5,00-2010
4 781 Sunset Avenue Fontaine/Sunset
Connector
Improvements to Sunset Ave. and Fontaine/Sunset Ave.
Connector
Area B Study,Capacity/ LU
Plan
2007 4,600-2006
5 631 Old Lynchburg Rd 1.35 MI. S. I-64 to Rt
708
Spot improvements at various locations to serve development in
Southern DA/County
Capacity/Land Use Plan 4,600-2006
Y 6 Bridge Improvement
Projects
Various locations (See
Att. A)
Improve/replace low sufficiency rated bridges based on County
and VDOT priority
varies
7 726 James River Road Rt 795 to Rt 1302 Spot improvement to improve sight distance Safety/Scottsville 1,900-2006
8 601 Old Ivy Road Ivy Rd to 250/29 Byp Widen, improve alignment , coordinate with UVA Gateway
project
Capacity/Land Use Plan 5,500-2010
9 Southern Parkway Avon St to Fifth St Extend to 5th St., with pedestrian/bike facility, and Neighborhood
street design/speed
Capacity/Southern City
Study
N/A
10 795 Blenheim Road Intersection of Rt 790 Intersection improvement. Safety/Scottsville Request 1500-2010
11 Eastern Avenue Rt 240 to Rt 250 Interconnect future neighborhood streets, includes RR
underpass and bridge over Lickinghole Crk
Capacity/Crozet Master
Plan
N/A
12 631 Rio Road MCP to Agnese Street Improve substandard intersection, add bikelanes and sidewalks Safety/pedestrian 22,000-2010
13 643 Polo Grounds Road Rt 29 to Rt 649 Improvement alignment, spot improvements. Safety/Public Request 2,400-2009
14 Main Street Crozet Ave to Eastern
Ave
New road as recommended in the Crozet Master Plan, to be built
with development of site
Capacity/Crozet Master
Plan
2003 N/A
15 743 Hydraulic Road Intersection with Rt 29
(29H250)
Improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study Capacity,safety/29H250
Study
2003 18,000-2007
16 866 Greenbrier Drive Intersection with Rt 29
(29H250)
Improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study Capacity,safety/29H250
Study
2003 8,200-2006
17 Eastern Connector Rt 250 to Rt 29 Initial study of new road concept completed. Further study of
alignment on hold
Capacity/CHART 2006 N/A
18 702 Reservoir Road Fontaine Ave. Ext to
Dead end
Paving and spot improvements, to be done as part of the
reservoir reconstruction project
Safety/Public Request 2003 430-2009
19 606 Dickerson Road N. of Rt 850 to just S.
of Rt 1030
Paving of unpaved road segments--no state unpaved road funds
available for the foreseeable future
UnJam 2030; DA location;
Rt 29 alternate route
2008 480-2009
Y 20 Brocks Mill Road, Rural
Addition
Rural addition projects to be funded upt the available $250 ,000
in VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program
Public Request 2011 N/A
Y 21 Unpaved road Projects Various locations -- see
attached lists
Bold-- Projects in Development Area
Italics -- New Projects Page 1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS
Recommended June 11, 2014
[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]
Bridge Priorities - In Priority Order
VDOT's
Secondary
Plan
Route Number, Road Name Location From-To Sufficiency
Rating**
Traffic
Count Description/Comments Estimated cost/funding source
Y Route 708, Dry Bridge Road Buckingham Branch Railroad 26 950 suff rating, high traffic count -- Advertisement Date
(EAD) 5/14/13
$3,399,237 / federal bridge funds
Y Route 616, Black Cat Road Buckingham Branch 54.4 800 suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD 3/30/14 $3,755,171 / federal bridge funds
and secondary road funds
Y Route 677, Broomley Road Buckingham Branch 42.2 750 suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD 12/30/14 $4,677,092 / federal bridge funds
Y Route 637, Dick Woods Road Ivy Creek 36.1 1100 suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD 12/30/14 $2,458,161 / federal bridge funds
Route 795, Presidents Road Hardware River 19.4 200 low sufficiency rating
Route 745, Wheeler/Arrowhead
Valley Rd.
Norfolk Southern Railroad 20.9 90 RR to reconstruct bridge in 2012 & dedicate to
State/VDOT (low sufficiency rating)
Route 641, Frays Mills Road Marsh Run 49.6 510 low sufficiency rating
Route 649, Proffit Road Norfolk Southern Railroad 35.2 3800 upgraded in Summer 2007, has high traffic count
Y Route 606, Dickerson Road North Fork of Rivanna River 480 low suff. Rating; in Devel. Area; parallel road to Rt.
29
$5,075,557 / Federal bridge funds
* Programmed into future allocations of federal bridge funds in Culpeper District.
**Sufficiency Rating is utilitzed by VDOT to rate bridge structure.A
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, PAVING PROJECTS
Recommended June 11, 2014
[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]
RURAL RUSTIC ROAD PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW)
VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT.
Route Number, Road
Name,County Priority Location From - To Funding Status Estimated Cost
Regular/RRR
Most Current
Traffic County and
Year of Count
Description/Comments
Year Project
placed on
Priority List
Estimated
Advertisement
Date
703 Pocket Lane Rt 715 to Dead End in VDOT SSYP $322,964 110-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2005 no date
784 Doctors Crossing Rt 600 to Rt 640 in VDOT SSYP $933,109 130-2006 School Request in 2007, public request as well no date
688 Midway Road Rt 635 to Rt 824 in VDOT SSYP $195,191 310-2009 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date
731 Keswick Road Rt 744 to Rt 22 in VDOT SSYP $402,113 230-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2005 no date
637 Dick Woods Road Rt 691 to Rt 758 Not Funded $754,377 110-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2005 no date
747 Preddy Creek Road Rt 600 to Rt 640 Not Funded 110-2006 School request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date
600 Stony Point Pass 2.5 miles east to Rt. 231 Not Funded 100-2009 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date
769 Beam Road Rt 1484 to Dead End Not Funded 60-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date
629/624 Browns Gap
TP/Headqrters Lane
Rt 810 to end of Rt 624 Not Funded 80/40-2009 Public request. ranking due to traffic count/new project
2010.
2010 no date
824 Patterson Mill Lane
Rt. 688 to unpaved section
(abt. 1.04 mi)
Not Funded
200-2006
Public request. Ranking due to traffic count/new project
in 2011.2011 no date
760 Red Hill School Road Rt. 29 to Rt. 712
Not Funded
70-2006
Public request. Ranking due to traffic count/new project
in 2011 2011 no date
Italics -- new projects to this list (moved from Regular Paving Projects list)
Staff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase. B1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, PAVING PROJECTS
Recommended June 11, 2014
[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]
REGULAR PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW)
Route Number, Road
Name,County Priority Location From - To Funding Status Estimated Cost
Regular/RRR
Most Current
Traffic County and
Year of Count
Description/Comments
Year Project
placed on
Priority List
RRR FEASIBLE
643 Rio Mills Road Rt 29 to Rt 743 in VDOT SSYP $3,932,301 620-2003 Staff request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2003 N/A
689 Burch's Creek Road Rt 250 to Rt 635 Not Funded 140-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.
(previously Pounding Creek Rd)
NO
671 Ballards Mill Road Rt 609 to Rt 674 Not Funded 260-2006 School transportation request 2007 NO
685 Bunker Hill Road Rt 616 to Dead End Not Funded 230-2009 Public request. No longer qualifies for RRR due to align-
ment and utility problems, will have to be reg. paving project.
YES
720 Harris Creek Road Rt 20 to Dead End Not Funded 170-2006 Public request 2007 YES
736 White Mountain Road Rt 636 to Dead End Not Funded (sect.
btwn Rt 635 & 636
doesn't meet VDOT
requirements)
230-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.YES
683 Shelton Mill Road Rt 751 to Dead End Not Funded 70-2009 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2007 NO
712 North Garden Lane Rt 692 to Rt 29 Not Funded 350-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.YES
712 Coles Rolling Road Rt 713 to Rt 795 Not Funded 220-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.YES
712 North Garden Lane Rt 29 to Rt 760 Not Funded 220-2006 This project will be paved as part Rt. 712 -btwn Rt. 713
to Rt. 795
YES
671 Wesley Chapel Road Rt 609 to Rt 601 Not Funded 100-2006 School transportation request 2007 NO
829 Horseshoe Bend
Road
Rt 601 to Dead End Not Funded 210-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004 NO
645 Magnolia Road Rt 608 to Orange County
Line
Not Funded 190-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.YES
637 Dick Woods Road Rt 691 to Rt 635 Not Funded 140-2009 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2006 YES
674 Sugar Ridge Road Rt 614 to Rt 673 Not Funded 180-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.NO
761 Briery Creek Road Rt 622 to County Line Not Funded 160-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2005 NO
682 Broad Axe Road Rt 637 to to current paved
sections
Not Funded 160-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.NO
678 Decca Lane Rt 676 to Rt 614 Not Funded 160-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.NO
640 Gilbert Station Road Ashleigh Way Dr to paved
section
Not Funded $1,500,000 120-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.NO
856 Burton Lane Rt. 711 to Dead End Not Funded 120-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2007 YES
605 Durrett Ridge Road Rt 743 to Swift Run
(including bridge)
Not Funded 140-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date
723 Sharon Road Route 6 to Route 722 Not Funded 130-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.YES
*NOTE: Projects highlighted in yellow are eligible for RRR paving
Staff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase. B2
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, PAVING PROJECTS
Recommended June 11, 2014
[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]
REGULAR PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW)
Route Number, Road
Name,County Priority Location From - To Funding Status Estimated Cost
Regular/RRR
Most Current
Traffic County and
Year of Count
Description/Comments
Year Project
placed on
Priority List
RRR FEASIBLE
*NOTE: Projects highlighted in yellow are eligible for RRR paving
633 Cove Garden Rt 29 to Rt 712 Not Funded 130-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004 YES
707 Blair Park Road Rt 691 to Dead End Not Funded 130-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.YES
698 Hungrytown Road Rt 633 to Dead End Not Funded 90-2006 School transportation request 2006 NO
813 Starlight Road Rt 712 to Dead End Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004 YES
600 Stony Point Pass 2.5 miles west to Rt 20 Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.TBD
634 Spring Valley Road Rt 633 to Rt 635 Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2007 NO
637 Dick Woods Road Rt 151 to Nelson County
Line
Not Funded 70-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2007 NO
721 Old Dominion Road Rt 6 to Rt 630 Not Funded 70-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2006 YES
Staff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase. B3
ATTACHMENT D
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 33.1-23.4 provides the opportunity for each county to work
with the Virginia Department of Transportation in developing a Secondary System Six-Year
Construction Program; and
WHEREAS, the Board has previously agreed to assist in the preparation of this Program, in
accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation policies and procedures, and participated
in a public hearing on the proposed Program (FY 15-20) as well as the 2014 Construction Priority
List for Albemarle County on June 11, 2014, after duly advertised so that all citizens of the County
had the opportunity to participate in said hearing and to make comments and recommendati ons
concerning the proposed Program and Priority List; and
WHEREAS, Joel Denunzio, the Resident Administrator of the Virginia Department of
Transportation, appeared before the Board and recommended approval of the Secondary System Six-
Year Construction Program (FY15-20) and the 2014 Construction Priority List for the County of
Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, the Secondary System Six Year Construction Program (FY15-20) and the 2014
Construction Priority List, as presented at the June 11, 2014 public hearing, are in the best interest of
the County and of the citizens of the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board hereby approves the Secondary
System Six-Year Construction Program (FY15-20) and the 2014 Construction Priority List as
presented at the June 11, 2014 public hearing, and authorizes the County Executive to sign the Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the clerk of the Board shall forward a certified copy
of this resolution to the District Administrator of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and c orrect copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors by a vote of _____ to _____,
as recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________.
________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. McKeel ____ ____
Mr. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Shefield ____ ____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
New Hope Church – ARB Appeal
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Appeal of the Architectural Review Board’s issuance of
certificate of appropriateness for New Hope Church
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Kamptner, Graham, Maliszewski, Yaniglos
PRESENTER(S): Margaret Maliszewski
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 11, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
An overlay district is a zoning district in which the requirements of the overlay district must be complied with, as well as
the requirements of the underlying “base” zoning district; thus, one district overlays another. The entrance corridor
overlay district (ECOD) is one of seven County overlay districts. County Code § 18-30.6.1 provides that the ECOD is
intended to implement the comprehensive plan’s goal to preserve the County’s scenic resources because those
resources are essential to the County’s character, economic vitality and quality of life. An objective of this goal is to
maintain the visual integrity of the County’s roadways by using design guidelines.
New construction and site improvements (new development) within the ECOD are reviewed by the County’s
architectural review board (ARB) to ensure that they are consistent with the design guidelines promulgated by the ARB
and ratified by the Board of Supervisors. The sole issue before the ARB in its review is whether the application is
consistent with the applicable design guidelines (County Code § 18-30.6.7(g)). The ARB’s decision that new
development is consistent with the applicable design guidelines is called a “certificate of appropriateness.” The ARB’s
decision may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. On an appeal to the Board, the issue is the same as it was
before the ARB – whether the new development is consistent with the applicable design guidelines. The Board may
affirm, reverse, or modify in whole or in part, the decision of the ARB (County Code § 18-30.6.8(c)). In considering an
appeal, the Board is directed to “give due consideration to the recommendations of the [ARB] together with any other
information it deems necessary for a proper review of the appeal” (County Code § 18-30.6.8(c)).
On April 7, 2014, the ARB issued a certificate of appropriateness, with conditions, for site improvements related to the
final site plan for New Hope Church (Church) by a vote of 4-0, with one member abstaining (See Attachments E
(action letter) and F (minutes)). Because only a small portion of the Church site is within the ECOD (See Attachment
J), the certificate of appropriateness pertains only to proposed landscaping around the base of the Church’s entrance
drive at its intersection with Dickerson Lane, and along a portion of the entrance drive itself (the Church’s entrance).
The only applicable design guidelines are Design Guidelines 7, 8 and 33 (See Attachment D, pages 3 and 4). Charles
M. Boldt, an adjacent landowner, appealed the ARB’s decision (See Attachment A).
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3. Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy.
DISCUSSION:
The appellant identified seven grounds for appeal. However, the legal scope of review for a certificate of
appropriateness is limited to the specific issue of whether the site improvements are consistent with the applicable
design guidelines. The scope of review is further limited in this case because only a small portion of the Church site –
the portion where the Church entrance is located – is within the ECOD.
The three design guidelines applicable to this appeal are set forth in Attachment D. They pertain to the proposed
landscaping of the Church’s entrance. Staff analyzed (Attachment D, pages 3 and 5) and the ARB approved the
certificate of appropriateness on April 7, 2014, based on staff’s recommendations, with conditions (Attachment E).
The following table summarizes Guidelines 7, 8 and 33, the staff analysis of the application under the Guidelines and
approved by the ARB, and staff’s response to the appellant’s challenge to the ARB decision. Staff’s in-depth response
to the appellant’s challenges are on page 4 of Attachment G.
AGENDA TITLE: New Hope Church – ARB Appeal
June 11, 2014
Page 2
Design Guideline Analysis Appellant’s Ground
for Appeal
Response to Appellant’s Ground for
Appeal
7. Landscaping should promote
visual order within the Entrance
Corridor and help to integrate
buildings into the existing
environment of the corridor.
The plan shows 2 ½
inches caliper trees
that are common to
the area spaced 40
feet on center along
the entrance drive.
The plan achieves a
good mix of trees and
shrubs that fills the
slopes adjacent to the
drive without an overly
artificial appearance.
The planting
compensates for the
trees removed from
the immediate area
and it is expected to
blend into the
surrounding landscape
for an appropriate
appearance from the
Entrance Corridor.
The landscaping
does not promote
visual order nor
harmonize the
appearance of the
development and
does not blend into
the surrounding
landscape nor fill in
the slopes without
an overly artificial
appearance. The
dominant species
visible are
evergreens and the
proposed
landscaping would
use commercial,
non-evergreen
plants that provide
no visual buffer to
the site.
Staff’s analysis considered that the proposed
plants are natives and/or included on the
County’s recommended species list; the
landscaped portion lies approximately 350
feet from the Entrance Corridor street, on
which vehicle speed is fast and there are no
sidewalks; the available view is limited to
approximately 70 feet in width across
Dickerson Lane. Plant choice is a balancing
of several factors, including local conditions,
the availability of plant material and sizes,
required maintenance and standard site plan
and ARB requirements. Staff’s
recommendation for a natural appearance
was intended to increase the quantity of
plants to mitigate the engineered appearance
of the slopes and to de-emphasize the
regular spacing of trees that would be found
in a more urban setting. The goal was a more
substantial planting than the minimum
required by the Guidelines, and that goal was
met with the proposed plan approved by the
ARB, with conditions.
8. Continuity within the Entrance
Corridor should be obtained by
planting different types of plant
materials that share similar
characteristics. Such common
elements allow for more flexibility
in the design of structures
because common landscape
features will help to harmonize
the appearance of development
as seen from the street upon
which the Corridor is centered.
33. Landscaping along interior
roads: Large trees should be
planted parallel to all interior
roads, at least 2½ inches caliper,
spaced 40 feet on center.
The other grounds raised by the appellant are beyond the scope of ARB review and this appeal. Nonetheless, staff has
responded to all of the grounds raised by the appellant in Attachment G.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No changes to the Community Development Department’s appropriated budget are anticipated as a result of this
appeal.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board affirm the ARB’s decision.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Appeal of ARB Approval
B - May 8, 2013 Executive Summary, Appeal of ARB approval of Initial Site Plan
C - May 8, 2013 Excerpt from Board Minutes, Appeal of ARB Approval of Initial Site Plan
D - ARB Staff report for the New Hope Church final site plan
E – ARB April 7 2014 action letter
F – April 7, 2014 ARB meeting minutes
G – Staff Analysis of Grounds for Appeal
H – New Hope Final Site Plan – grading plan
I – New Hope Final Site Plan – landscape plan
J – Vicinity maps showing the New Hope Church site and the Entrance Corridor
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appeal of Architectural Review Board Decision on New
Hope Church
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Appeal of ARB-2013-10: New Hope Church Initial Site
Plan
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and Cilimberg,
and Ms. Maliszewski
PRESENTER (S): Margaret Maliszewski
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 8, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On March 18, 2013 the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed an initial site plan (ARB-2013-10) for the New Hope
Church at the intersection of Dickerson Road and Dickerson Lane. The proposal is to construct a church with associated
site improvements, including an entrance off of Dickerson Road. The New Hope Church parcel is located approximately
350 feet west of the Route 29 North entrance corridor. Therefore, only the easternmost 150 feet of the parcel, a strip at the
southeast corner of the site parallel to Dickerson Road and Route 29 North, is within the EC Overlay District. The entrance
drive to the church will be located within this area. The visibility of the site from the Route 29 North EC is limited. A map
showing the New Hope Church parcel in relation to the EC Overlay District is included as Attachment D. A photograph
taken from the Route 29 North EC and showing the site is included as Attachment E.
Under the County’s new site plan regulations, the ARB’s review of New Hope Church’s initial site plan was governed by
County Code § 18-32.4.2.2(b), which limited the ARB’s review at this stage of the site plan process for consistency with the
applicable design guidelines to the following: (i) the size, location and configuration of structures; (ii) the location and
configuration of parking areas and the location of landscaped areas; and (iii) identifying existing trees, wooded areas and
natural features that should be preserved.
After consideration of the matter, including the staff report that provided staff’s recommendations on the proposal
(Attachment A) and comments by the New Hope Church representatives and the appellant, the ARB voted to transmit its
recommendations on the initial site plan to the agent, as provided in County Code § 18-32.4.2.2(b)(3). The ARB will review
the New Hope plan again at the final site plan stage because a Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site
plan approval.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3. Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy.
DISCUSSION:
ARB Review of the Plan
During the March 18, 2013 review, the ARB discussed the proposed entrance location, the character of the existing
trees that are proposed to be removed, the steepness of the slope along the entrance drive relative to the amount of
trees to be removed, and the degree to which a natural appearance would be achieved with re-planting slopes of
varying degrees. The ARB considered in its discussion sensitivity to the existing natural landscape and the need to
blend into the surrounding landscape, as provided by Guideline #6, and maintaining visual order within the EC, as
provided by Guideline #7 (Attachment F). The ARB concluded that no requirements were needed to satisfy the
guidelines at the initial site plan stage of review. The ARB agreed with staff’s recommendation that planting along the
entrance drive and re-planting the graded slope with a mix of trees to re-integrate the development into the
surroundings to meet Guideline #7 would be required to be shown on the final site plan stage. The ARB did not require
that the details of that planting be provided with the initial site plan (See Attachment G for the minutes of this item at
the March 18, 2013 ARB meeting).
AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of Architectural Review Board Decision on New Hope Church
May 8, 2013
Page 2
Information regarding the grounds for appeal
In a letter of appeal, the appellant identified four grounds for appeal (Attachment H). The grounds are listed below in
italics. Staff’s response to each item follows in standard text.
1. The appellant states that no requirements were imposed to satisfy the design guidelines under County Code
§ 18-30.6.4(c)(2), Size and arrangement of structures; County Code § 18-30.6.4(c)(3), Location and
configuration of parking areas and landscaping; and County Code § 18-30.6.4(c)(5), Preservation of existing
vegetation and natural features.
a. County Code § 18-30.6.4(c)(2) does not apply in this case because the proposed structures are
located outside of the EC overlay district.
b. County Code § 18-30.6.4(c)(3) applies, and the ARB determined that trees would be required along
the entrance drive and on the slope adjacent to the drive. However, sufficient area was shown on the
plan for the required planting, and the ARB did not require that the details of the planting be provided
with the initial site plan. Consequently, no requirement was necessary with the initial site plan, but the
ARB made these requirements of the final site plan.
c. County Code § 18-30.6.4(c)(5) applies; however, the ARB did not find the trees in question to be
significant, so their preservation was not made a requirement of the initial plan.
2. The appellant states that the entrance is not in keeping with the rural character of the area. There is no EC
guideline specific to entrances and rural character. The guideline that most closely relates to this statement is
Guideline #6, which reads in part: “Site development should be sensitive to the existing natural landscape and
should contribute to the creation of an organized development plan. This may be accomplished, to the extent
practical, by preserving the trees and rolling terrain typical of the area; planting new trees along streets and
pedestrian ways and choosing species that reflect native forest elements…” The ARB did not find the trees
that were proposed to be removed for the entrance drive to be significant, nor did the ARB find it practical to
retain those trees. The ARB found that planting trees along the entrance drive and adding trees to the graded
slope would be sufficient to re-integrate the site into the surrounding environment. This planting was made a
requirement of the final site plan.
3. The appellant states that alternate entrance locations were not considered. The applicant and the appellant
both informed the ARB of alternate entrance locations that had been considered or attempted, or that might be
available. The ARB discussed these alternate locations in detail, noting that shifting the location within the
relatively small area available wouldn’t change the view considerably, but that it wasn’t really possible to review
an entrance location not drawn on the plan. The ARB also noted that the goal of the ARB’s review was to
determine whether the proposal meets the guidelines, not to determine all possible options. Because no
guidelines were identified as being deficient with the entrance location that was proposed, the ARB did not
require an alternate location.
4. The appellant states that continuity of the Entrance Corridor is not being preserved by the ARB’s action. The
EC guideline that most closely relates to this statement is Guideline #7, which reads: “Landscaping should
promote visual order within the Entrance Corridor and help to integrate buildings into the existing environment of
the corridor.” The ARB did not find that the trees to be removed for the entrance drive were significant. Instead,
the ARB found that trees along the entrance drive and trees added to the graded slope would be required to
re-integrate the site into the surrounding environment. Continuity would be maintained with the planting of
those trees, and this planting was made a requirement of the final site plan.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This item has no budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board affirm the ARB’s decision.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Staff memo to the ARB
B – ARB action letter
C – New Hope Initial Site Development Plan sheets 2 and 3
D – Vicinity maps showing the New Hope Church site and the Entrance Corridor
E – Photo of the New Hope Church site taken from the Entrance Corridor
F – Text of applicable Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines
G – March 18, 2013 ARB meeting minutes
H – Letter requesting appeal
Attachment C
Excerpt May 8, 2013 Board Minutes
Consideration of ARB Appeal
Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: ARB-2013-10. New Hope Church Initial Plan.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
On March 18, 2013 the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed an initial site plan (ARB -2013-
10) for the New Hope Church at the intersection of Dickerson Road and Dickerson Lane. The proposal is
to construct a church with associated site improvements, including an entrance off of Dickerson Road.
The New Hope Church parcel is located approximately 350 feet west of the Route 29 North entrance
corridor. Therefore, only the easternmost 150 feet of the parcel, a strip at the southeast corner of the site
parallel to Dickerson Road and Route 29 North, is within the EC Overlay District. The entrance drive to
the church will be located within this area. The visibility of the site from the Route 29 North EC is limited.
A map showing the New Hope Church parcel in relation to the EC Overlay District is included as
Attachment D. A photograph taken from the Route 29 North EC and showing the site is included as
Attachment E.
Under the County’s new site plan regulations, the ARB’s review of New Hope Church’s initial si te
plan was governed by County Code § 18-32.4.2.2(b), which limited the ARB’s review at this stage of the
site plan process for consistency with the applicable design guidelines to the following: (i) the size,
location and configuration of structures; (ii) the location and configuration of parking areas and the
location of landscaped areas; and (iii) identifying existing trees, wooded areas and natural features that
should be preserved.
After consideration of the matter, including the staff report that provided staff’s recommendations
on the proposal (Attachment A) and comments by the New Hope Church representatives and the
appellant, the ARB voted to transmit its recommendations on the initial site plan to the agent, as provided
in County Code § 18-32.4.2.2(b)(3). The ARB will review the New Hope plan again at the final site plan
stage because a Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval.
ARB Review of the Plan
During the March 18, 2013 review, the ARB discussed the proposed entrance location, the
character of the existing trees that are proposed to be removed, the steepness of the slope along the
entrance drive relative to the amount of trees to be removed, and the degree to which a natural
appearance would be achieved with re-planting slopes of varying degrees. The ARB considered in its
discussion sensitivity to the existing natural landscape and the need to blend into the surrounding
landscape, as provided by Guideline #6, and maintaining visual order within the EC, as provided by
Guideline #7 (Attachment F). The ARB concluded that no requirements were needed to satisfy the
guidelines at the initial site plan stage of review. The ARB agreed with staff’s recomm endation that
planting along the entrance drive and re-planting the graded slope with a mix of trees to re-integrate the
development into the surroundings to meet Guideline #7 would be required to be shown on the final site
plan stage. The ARB did not require that the details of that planting be provided with the initial site plan
(See Attachment G for the minutes of this item at the March 18, 2013 ARB meeting).
Information regarding the grounds for appeal
In a letter of appeal, the appellant identified four grounds for appeal (Attachment H). The grounds
are listed below in italics. Staff’s response to each item follows in standard text.
1. The appellant states that no requirements were imposed to satisfy the design guidelines
under County Code § 18-30.6.4(c)(2), Size and arrangement of structures; County Code
§ 18-30.6.4(c)(3), Location and configuration of parking areas and landscaping; and
County Code § 18-30.6.4(c)(5), Preservation of existing vegetation and natural features.
a. County Code § 18-30.6.4(c)(2) does not apply in this case because the proposed
structures are located outside of the EC overlay district.
b. County Code § 18-30.6.4(c)(3) applies, and the ARB determined that trees would
Attachment C
be required along the entrance drive and on the slope adjacent to the drive.
However, sufficient area was shown on the plan for the required planting, and the
ARB did not require that the details of the planting be provided with the initial site
plan. Consequently, no requirement was necessary with the initial site pl an, but
the ARB made these requirements of the final site plan.
c. County Code § 18-30.6.4(c)(5) applies; however, the ARB did not find the trees
in question to be significant, so their preservation was not made a requirement of
the initial plan.
2. The appellant states that the entrance is not in keeping with the rural character of the
area. There is no EC guideline specific to entrances and rural character. The guideline
that most closely relates to this statement is Guideline #6, which reads in part: “Site
development should be sensitive to the existing natural landscape and should contribute
to the creation of an organized development plan. This may be accomplished, to the
extent practical, by preserving the trees and rolling terrain typical of the area; plant ing
new trees along streets and pedestrian ways and choosing species that reflect native
forest elements…” The ARB did not find the trees that were proposed to be removed for
the entrance drive to be significant, nor did the ARB find it practical to retain those trees.
The ARB found that planting trees along the entrance drive and adding trees to the
graded slope would be sufficient to re-integrate the site into the surrounding environment.
This planting was made a requirement of the final site plan.
3. The appellant states that alternate entrance locations were not considered. The applicant
and the appellant both informed the ARB of alternate entrance locations that had been
considered or attempted, or that might be available. The ARB discussed these alternate
locations in detail, noting that shifting the location within the relatively small area available
wouldn’t change the view considerably, but that it wasn’t really possible to review an
entrance location not drawn on the plan. The ARB also noted that the goal of the ARB’s
review was to determine whether the proposal meets the guidelines, not to determine all
possible options. Because no guidelines were identified as being deficient with the
entrance location that was proposed, the ARB did not require an alternate location.
4. The appellant states that continuity of the Entrance Corridor is not being preserved by the
ARB’s action. The EC guideline that most closely relates to this statement is Guideline
#7, which reads: “Landscaping should promote visual order within the Entrance Corridor
and help to integrate buildings into the existing environment of the corridor.” The ARB did
not find that the trees to be removed for the entrance drive were significant. Instead, the
ARB found that trees along the entrance drive and trees added to the graded slope would
be required to re-integrate the site into the surrounding environment. Continuity would be
maintained with the planting of those trees, and this planting was made a requirement of
the final site plan.
This item has no budget impact.
Staff recommends that the Board affirm the ARB’s decision.
_____
Ms. Margaret Maliszewski, Principal Planner, addressed the Board, stating that on March 18 the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed an application by the New Hope Church to construct a new
church with associated site improvements, and the ARB’s action was to forward comments on the plan as
recommended by staff to the agent. Ms. Maliszewski stated that the action has been appe aled by an
adjacent owner, and the parcel in question is located approximately 350 feet west of Route 29, between
Dickerson Road and Piney Mountain Road. Because the parcel is not adjacent to the Entrance Corridor,
she said only the portion that falls within 500 feet of the right of way of the EC is included in the Entrance
Corridor Overlay District. She presented an image showing the position 500 feet from the Route 29
Entrance Corridor, and the ARB reviews only that portion of the development to the rig ht of the red line.
Ms. Maliszewski noted the location of everything on the parcel that is not subject to ARB review.
Attachment C
Ms. Maliszewski presented an image of the grading plan from the initial New Hope site plan
proposal, and mentioned that it includes part of the entrance drive to the church. Ms. Maliszewski also
presented a photo of the parcel taken from Route 29, noting that the visibility of the site is limited by the
width of Dickerson Road and the 350-foot distance from the highway. She explained that, as a result of
new regulations that went into effect in January, the ARB reviewed the proposal as an initial site plan.
She mentioned that the ordinance limits the review to three specific items: the size and arrangement of
structures, the location and configuration of parking and landscaping, and the identification and
preservation of trees and other natural features.
Ms. Maliszewski reported that, in the order of appeal, there were four particular items identified as
grounds for appeal. She said that the first item stated that the ARB “imposed no requirements to satisfy
the guidelines as per the relevant zoning ordinance sections,” and the first of those sections relates to the
size and arrangement of structures which doesn’t apply here because none of the proposed structures
are located inside the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. She said that the other sections do apply and
are related to landscaping and existing natural features, but the ARB did not find that existing trees were
significant so there was no need to require preservation of those trees. Ms. Maliszewski stated that the
ARB did determine that new trees would be required along the proposed entrance drive and along the
slope adjacent to the drive, and there was sufficient area shown on the plan for that planting and,
therefore, there was nothing additional required at the initial site plan stage.
Ms. Maliszewski said that the second grounds for appeal stated that alternate entrance locations
were not considered, but they were discussed at length at the ARB meeting. However, she said, the ARB
did not find any guidelines to be deficient relative to the entrance location that was proposed, so no
additional requirements were needed. She stated that the last two grounds for appeal rel ate to the
entrance drive and rural character, and to continuity within the Entrance Corridor. She said the same
issues apply here as in the first grounds for appeal, with the ARB finding that the trees were not
significant so no preservation was required; new trees would be required along the drive and along the
slope adjacent to the drive, and those trees would be sufficient to reintegrate the site into the surrounding
environment.
Ms. Maliszewski stated that several other issues have been discussed in recent weeks related to
the overall church proposal, and many of those issues are not relevant to the ARB review or to the action
that is the subject of the review at this meeting. She said the ARB’s action is based on ordinance
requirements for ARB review of the initial site plan and on the Entrance Corridor design guidelines, and
so the recommendation for tonight is to affirm the ARB’s decision.
Ms. Mallek asked how there was a “dramatic change in the plan” from what the Board saw in July
when it was approved and what’s now in process does not affect ARB deliberations. She said the Board
had lots of discussion in the public hearing about the pines at the corner, whic h do not belong to the
church. She said the trees actually belong to VDOT, and VDOT told the Board that they could all be cut
down tomorrow, which wipes out the viewshed protection for the corner that Ms. Maliszewski alluded to
as being the property. She expressed concern that that was significant to the Board’s decision, and
would open up the visibility and she was having trouble reconciling those.
Mr. Rooker said it seems Ms. Mallek is raising a legal issue, and asked how the County can
require VDOT to maintain trees in the right of way. Ms. Mallek responded that the trees are not in the
right of way, they’re on a separate property, outside 16 feet from the center line.
Mr. Davis clarified that there is no condition that requires the preservation of these trees, as it was
part of the approved special use permit. He said it may have been discussed, but there was no condition
to that effect.
Ms. Mallek stated that this issue was talked about it in the public hearing and it was very
important in the adoption of the vote, and the Board was told it would be taken care of at the site plan
stage, and now that this project is at that stage, the people doing the site plan say “well you didn’t write it
Attachment C
down, so we’re not going to bother.” Ms. Mallek stated that is the way the rules are operating right now,
which is why we’re here today and added that it is all related.
Mr. Rooker responded that Ms. Mallek’s comments are getting overly general about the way the
Board operates. He said that he remembers the project coming forward with the primary issue being
whether they were going to put in a soccer field, and that came off the table shortly before it came before
the Board. Mr. Rooker stated that he didn’t remember it being contentious, nor did he recall anything
about the trees in this spot other than discussion that it had to get ARB approval. He said that they are
limited by the scope of the review of their decision, and asked Mr. Davis on what areas the Board might
be able to second guess the ARB as well as the standards for doing that.
Mr. Davis replied that the review before the Board is very limited because the review by the ARB
is a very limited review at this point. He said that this is the review by the ARB of the preliminary plan,
which is limited to a general finding by them on the design guidelines that ma y be impacted by the
project. He said that is the only thing that is before the Board today and, while the Board has the
authority to affirm, reverse or modify the ARB’s decision, they are bound by the same rules and
procedures which is a very limited review. He said the Board cannot revisit the special use permit as part
of this process and cannot require them to move the features on the site plan unless they’re in conflict
with ARB guidelines.
Ms. Mallek said the ARB is also supposed to take the critical slopes into account, as they have
changed dramatically from what the Board approved.
Mr. Davis stated that it may be a site plan issue if there are critical slopes waivers required, as the
applicant will have to comply with site plan requirements to get final site plan approval – but the fact that
there are critical slopes there doesn’t put any additional requirements other than those required by the
County’s ordinances on the site plan. He said that there were no special use permit conditions attached
to critical slopes, and the County’s ordinance regulates critical slopes and relies on those regulations to
address critical slopes issues.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was a critical slopes waiver sought as part of the init ial approval. Ms.
Mallek said that there was, and noted two places that were represented during the special use permit
process as “site plan #1.”
Mr. Rooker stated that, if they come back with a final site plan that disturbs different critical
slopes, they would have to come back with a waiver for the areas of critical slopes that was not approved
in the first waiver. He added that the Board does not have that issue before it today. Mr. Davis confirmed
that it was not an issue that was before the ARB, because it wasn’t part of their review.
Ms. Meghan Yaniglos, Senior Planner, addressed the Board, stating that she reviewed the initial
site plan and indicated that the critical slopes waiver they may need might be exempt for access ways per
the ordinance so it might not come before the Board.
Mr. Rooker asked if the entrance way had moved from the proposal the Board saw. Ms. Mallek
said that the difficulty was that the identification of critical slopes was changed because they did a field
topo instead of relying on the County’s computer model. She said there’s an enormous difference in the
critical slopes. She added that the Board looked at a tiny piece of acreage during the hearing, and
recalled that Mr. Benish did talk about that extensively.
Ms. Yaniglos responded that that portion may come back, but engineering hasn’t reviewed the
request yet as it would be part of the condition of the final site plan. She said that the engineers have
provided staff with the new information, it just hasn’t been reviewed yet.
Mr. Rooker said staff would normally review that at the time of the final site plan, and the ARB
doesn’t really have anything to do with the critical slopes. He said that is what the Board is looking at
Attachment C
today, which is the ARB’s approval, and is based upon the criteria that are in their guidelines and the
ordinances.
Mr. Davis stated that it also pertains to a very limited portion of the site, which is just the site
within 500 feet of Route 29 – which only captures a very small corner. He said where the buildings are
and this other disturbance is outside of the ARB review entirely and reiterated that what is before the
Board tonight is very limited and just addresses those general guidelines for that preliminary review. He
stated that the issues the Board may have with the site plan are not before it tonight, and that will be
taken up in the site plan review process, which has not been completed.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Board could still call a site plan up. Mr. Davis responded that they could
not.
Mr. Rooker said that, even if the Board were able to call up a site plan, under the old ordinance,
there would still be a difference between administrative and a discretionary decisions. He stated that the
decision regarding the site plan is an administrative determination as to whether or not an applicant
satisfies all the objective criteria – and the same holds true with critical slope waivers, which are based
upon the criteria set out in the ordinance.
Ms. Mallek stated that she wanted to hear comment from the public as well as the applicant.
Mr. Ed Blackwell of Blackwell Engineering addressed the Board as a representative for the
church, stating that the entrance shown on the plans now is the entrance that was brought to the Planning
Commission, Board and ARB the previous year, and was also the same entrance on which the initial site
plan review was done. Mr. Blackwell stated that they have looked at numerous entrance locations and
found one that was acceptable, and he met with VDOT onsite several times and entrance #4 was the one
he got VDOT’s blessing on through the staff review process. He said that the church is more than willing
to replant trees, and his understanding is they need to go back to the ARB with their landscape plan. Mr.
Blackwell stated that some of the verbiage in their special conditions was that the replanting must be
spaced and located to achieve a natural appearance. He said he is certain that they will be held to a very
tight standard on that, and does not object to replanting heavily. Mr. Blackwell said that the trees there
now are bull pines, and they would plant whate ver level and style of trees that is acceptable to the
neighborhood and to ARB staff. He stated that they feel the entrance location is the most cost efficient for
the church, and it’s been reviewed by numerous bodies, so they’d like to move forward with it.
Mr. Rooker said he didn’t think the Board was here to make a decision about where the entrance
should be tonight. Mr. Davis responded that is the case unless it conflicts with an ARB guideline, and the
finding of the ARB and the staff was that it did not.
Ms. Miriam Pitts addressed the Board, stating that the process for the church has been lengthy,
costing time and energy, very frustrating, and confusing to say the least. Ms. Pitts said that the process
has been fraught with multiple layers of deceptive misinformation that requires minute attention to detail
and translation from “legalese and engineer speak” to lay language. She stated that the major culprits
are the lack of transparency and seemingly reluctance of the County staff and ARB to regulate the design
of development within the County’s Entrance Corridors and adjacent rural land. Ms. Pitts said that the
Entrance Corridor is quickly moving further north and closing in on Ruckersville, and neighborhood
concerns are real and directly related to current changes taking place. She stated that the County and
the ARB seem to be suffering from paralysis caused by incompetence, inability and improper application
of guidelines and rules that are in place to protect our County’s land. Ms. Pitts said that citizens feel as if
they didn’t get the in-depth expertise they needed from County employees, and she never imagined that
the County’s lack of careful scrutiny for approval of the church’s initial plans would ever make them feel
as helpless, vulnerable, and unprotected as landowners.
Ms. Joyce Walker addressed the Board, stating that recently her neighbors Chuck Boldt and Greg
Quinn filed an appeal requesting denial of the ARB’s certificate of appropriateness for New Hope Church
– and she stands firmly behind them in full support of this request. Ms. Walker stated that they do not
Attachment C
agree that the proposal meets the intent of the special use permit with regard to critical slopes and extent
of woods now being removed. She said that, when turning off of Route 29 North onto Dickerson Road,
upon rounding the bend on the right is a forest of Virginia pine trees – the foothills of Piney Mountain. Ms.
Walker stated that she has traveled the road for 35 years, and when she se es the stand of pines she gets
a sense of peace and harmony with nature and knows she’s nearing home. She said she cannot imagine
rounding that bend and not seeing those woodlands. She pointed out that Mr. Boldt has worked tirelessly
in suggesting options and seeking solutions and suggested now is the time to accept some of his
assistance. She requested the Board think carefully about reconsidering this matter and make the right
decision.
Mr. Greg Quinn addressed the Board, stating that he would like for the Board to consider
revoking the certificate of appropriateness for the New Hope Church site plan and reject it as it stands
now. Mr. Quinn said that the church should be allowed to build under the Establishment Clause, but
there should be equal protection for the neighbors under the 14th Amendment. He stated that, when the
church comes in and builds their building and parking lot, it’s a big commercial thing. He said he is not
against the church, but just downsize it because the church’s parking lot would provide clandestine
access to his property and, in turn, a safety issue for him. Mr. Quinn added that he thinks gospel’s a
good idea, but he’d like to see a good neighbor downsize this project, make it more rural, and think about
the considerations and safety. He mentioned that he attends one of the other three churches in the area
and they are small and low-profile – but this church is just like a big old commercial project on a little
piece of property.
Mr. Chuck Boldt addressed the Board, stating that he’s extremely frustrated by what he’s heard,
adding that it seems they are doubling down and waiting for the final plans before doing anything and, at
that point, the church has an investment. He stated that the ARB didn’t want to consider a separate
entrance because only one entrance was proposed, and staff refused to allow other options. He said the
Board can consider other things, it is not limited. Mr. Boldt said that it’s sad that after every turn they’re
getting rules and regulations thrown in their face that say they don’t know what they’re talking about. He
stated that he doesn’t disagree that the church should be there, but they were not given an opportunity to
speak when the Board voted on the special use permit and the conditions on that SP are no longer valid.
He said this entrance is larger than what was approved adding that the ARB admitted it wasn’t the best
entrance, but they said it was the ‘only entrance,’ and that is a false statement. He said that Ms. Mallek
has worked with neighbors to try to find something different but has been rebuffed by the staff at every
turn. Mr. Boldt stated that he’s spoken about this five times in the last three months, and the “before and
after” he sent them via email should give them pause. He encouraged the Board to vote against the
certificate of appropriateness, adding that the church does not control the land between Dickerson and
Route 29 – Tax Map 2115. Mr. Boldt said that, if the trees go away with an approved use, the entire site
will be visible from 29 and that is not the impression you get when you look at that picture that Margaret
showed you.
There being no further public comment, the Chair placed the matter before the Board.
Ms. Mallek said that there were four questions sent that relate very directly to the ARB question
about the fact there’s no obligation to replace the trees that’s written down anywhere. She asked how
they can require the site to remain buffered, and said she would like to have a record established that
deals with this.
Mr. Thomas said that he understood the applicant to state that he would replace all the trees
once they were taken out.
Mr. Rooker responded that Ms. Mallek’s concern is that the trees be of a size and type that would
restore the visual aspects of the property.
Mr. Boyd stated that that’s not the issue before them and that should have been dealt with at the
special use permit stage as a condition of approval.
Attachment C
Ms. Mallek said that they thought they had discussed it, but it never got written down and so now
it doesn’t exist. Mr. Boyd replied that he doesn’t recall that being discussed.
Mr. Rooker said there is a bifurcated ARB process now, and this is the first part of the process –
which is a very limited review to only the things specified when the Board amended the ordinance. He
stated that the idea was to have the ARB weigh in early with things like the location of the buildings
onsite, and then, at a later stage make certain that landscaping and other features under their control will
be dealt with. He said the landscaping will come back to the ARB, as he understands it so it would seem
to him, if this Board expresses a strong interest in seeing heavy landscaping in that area where trees are
being removed, that is a factor the ARB can take into consideration when this comes back for their final
approval. Mr. Rooker added that the neighbors can attend the ARB meeting and speak, and said that the
Board should make it clear in this meeting that they support the applicant’s offer to plant in any way he’s
directed to plant in order to restore the visual aspects of the property. He stated that they could even take
a vote to send a letter to the ARB about the conversation at this meeting on that issue.
Mr. Davis clarified that the guidance on landscaping th e ARB has given is outlined in the third
bullet and, if that’s not acceptable to address the Comp Plan guideline, the Board could amend that
statement but staff’s position is that the statement is adequate to compensate for t he lost wooded area at
this point in the plan. He said that this would be subject to a detailed plan coming in as part of the final
site plan that would show exactly the type of trees and where they would be located and , at that time,
staff or the ARB could evaluate that as to whether the applicant has met the guidance that was given at
this point in the process.
Mr. Snow said the third bullet seems to address all of the things we’re talking about.
Ms. Mallek said that 2” caliper trees at 40 feet apart would take a very, very long tim e to provide
any actual screening.
Mr. Rooker said that the ARB conditions for landscaping on the final site plan say “at a minimum,”
so the Board just needs to make it clear that they’d like the ARB to take a very hard look to make certain
that is not the minimum to be achieved here.
Mr. Snow agreed and stated that 2”-caliber trees would never provide the privacy that the pines
were giving, so the mixture of other trees worked in with the larger canopy makes the difference. He said
it is the smaller trees that are going to create that visual barrier. He added that he thinks it’s appropriate
to send a letter to the ARB to make sure they’re achieving what the Board is trying to do.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was any agreement to address the focus of staff to investigate further
the increases in critical slopes, because the detailed information was not presented to the Board last
year. She said, if this map had been presented, the Board would not have had a discussion about how it
was .03 of an acre, adding that quite a lot of the land is critical slopes which is going to be in jeopardy.
She said that staff’s feedback has been “this is fine the way it is,” which means they didn’t really focus in
on the changes between what the Board approved in July and what’s now being sent in.
Mr. Rooker said, if a final site plan comes back and shows that there is disturbance of critical
slopes and materially different than what was approved by the waiver, they would need to come back for
a waiver with respect to the new disturbance.
Mr. Davis clarified that any critical slopes beyond what are necessary for the entrance would be
subject to a critical slopes waiver, which would have to be approved as a special exception by the Board
under the current ordinance. He pointed out that any critical slopes that have not already been approved
by a waiver is not an issue that [the ARB] can address.
Mr. Rooker agreed that it’s not an ARB matter, adding that there were a few areas of critical
slopes that were approved for a waiver and, if there’s a material difference, they would have to come
back for another waiver.
Attachment C
Ms. Yaniglos explained that there were some small critical slopes waivers that were approved
with the special use permit, but staff hasn’t done a comparison to see what has changed and to what
extent.
Mr. Davis stated that if it’s changed, any critical slopes waiver that wasn’t previously approved will
be subject to a critical slopes waiver process which would likely come before the Board. He said that,
under the existing ordinance, it would come before the Board with the entrance being exempt. Mr. Davis
stated that it’s in the planning staff’s work plan to address the critical slopes requirements but, at this
point, a special exception from the Board would be needed.
Mr. Rooker stated that whenever they capsulate an ordinance and it no longer comes before
them, they lose a little flexibility in how they shape plans.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was interest among fellow Board members in showing any kind of
concern that something more needs to be done in this circumstance. Mr. Rooker responded that he did
join in Ms. Mallek’s concern, which is why there was discussion about beefing up the landscaping
component of the project. He said Mr. Paul Wright of the ARB had talked about orienting the building
toward the entrance corridor which was an important factor from the ARB’s perspective and that would
also, in this case, take a lot of the pressure off the neighboring properties as opposed to having all the
parking facing Piney Mountain Road instead of Rt. 29.
Ms Mallek said she would like to figure out some way to deal with conditions that apply to other
people’s property in the future so that the County does not fall into this trap again. She said the Board
was relying on the pine trees to visually protect the entrance corridor from the very wide cut that is being
made. She visited the property and was able to see how m uch is being proposed to be removed and felt
that there was very little room to replant any kind of visual barrier on the property and that is the kind of
dilemma the County has found itself in.
Mr. Rooker agreed and stated he would like to beef up the landscaping requirements. He added
that the County has ordinances in place, and the Board has to follow the ordinances and those are meant
to be objectively applied.
Ms. Mallek said that there have been some statements about this being the only entrance that
would be allowed, which is not true because Joel DeNunzio of VDOT stood on the site and indicated he
would approve the entrance wherever the County wanted it to be. She stated that she’d ask for the
entrance to be 50 feet further from the stop sign to improve the traffic flow and also to remove the cut into
the property from the view of the opening on Dickerson Road.
Mr. Boyd asked Ms. Maliszewski if staff had looked at other entrances. Ms. Maliszewski
responded that staff did not look at other entrance locations, but other entrance locations were discussed
at the meeting. She said that the applicant went through a process to get to the fourth choice for an
entrance, and there were no other entrances illustrated for review.
Ms. Mallek said they controlled the information that was given.
Mr. Boyd asked at which meeting the entrances were discussed.
Ms. Maliszewski said that alternatives were discussed at the ARB meeting.
Mr. Davis stated that there’s no requirement for the applicant to provide alternate entrances, as
long as they provide an entrance that meets all the County requirements and the site plan ordinanc e, and
is acceptable to VDOT. He said the County does not require people to do any more than that adding that
it is a ministerial process and, if the applicant meets the ordinance requirements and the special use
permit requirements – which staff has determined that they’ve met – then they are not obligated to
change the location of their entrance.
Attachment C
Mr. Rooker said that is a legal matter, not a discretionary decision.
Ms. Mallek stated that that’s because the County has essentially designed it that way.
Ms. Mallek moved to uphold the appeal as presented and overturn the decision.
Mr. Rooker said that he can’t support that because there’s no legal basis to do it.
Mr. Snow reiterated that there is no legal basis for it.
Ms. Mallek commented that it’s the history of what’s gone on.
Mr. Boyd then moved to affirm the ARB’s decision. Mr. Snow seconded the decision.
Mr. Rooker noted that the ARB only reviews certain very limited things at this point in a plan, and
they have done that here, and he sees no legal basis for second guessing the limited review that the ARB
performed at this stage of the process. He said that there’s not a legal requirement in the ordinance or in
state law to allow the Board to come in and say “we think you should move your entrance,” nor does it
allow the ARB to do that.
Mr. Boyd agreed, and said that is why he made the motion.
Mr. Rooker said there were a number of these issues that could have been addressed at the
special use permit consideration stage but, once that’s granted, the Board is locked in by it and, after that,
there’s a process for approval of a plan, which is mostly ministerial. He said that , if the critical slopes
issue differs from what was approved by waiver, it would have to come back, and the Board has
expressed an interest in making sure it did. Mr. Rooker added that they also expressed interest in
making certain that the planting is such that it provides adequate and good screening to the extent
feasible.
Ms. Mallek asked if the site plan would have to be done before any clearing or grading permit is
given because, if that’s not required, then all this effort is for nothing.
Mr. Graham explained that, under the new process, typically one can get a grading permit after
an initial site plan and, in this particular case, condition #4 with the ARB requires a tree conservation plan
that would have to be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of a grading permit. He said that in
addition, if there are differences in the critical slopes from what are approved, staff would have to have
that verified and, if a critical slopes waiver was required, that would have to be approved before issuing
the grading permit. He pointed out that, once the initial site plan is approved, the only two things between
a grading permit [are] the tree conservation plan and the verif ication on the critical slopes.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that it doesn’t include the landscaping plan that ultimately gets imposed.
Mr. Graham agreed, noting that it would be a requirement with a certificate of appropriateness
and would be done as part of the final site plan.
Mr. Rooker added that, whether we like it or not, there’s nothing under state law that prevents
anybody from cutting trees down on their property; it’s only when they come forward with a plan that we
actually can assert some control.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that the legislation just changed last year that forestry rules do not apply
once an application has been made to do something else, so they are under development rules now,
therefore, he cannot just go and clear cut the property and pretend it is forestry regulations.
Mr. Graham said that there are the special use permit conditions that apply.
Attachment C
Mr. Rooker agreed, but said it’s only the filing of a plan that puts them in a position where they do
have control over what’s cut on the property.
Mr. Boldt addressed the Board, stating that regarding the special use permit approval, he and his
neighbors were not allowed to come to that meeting. He said they asked staff when it would be held, and
they were never told. Mr. Boldt said staff stood up here and represented their interest without our
approval. He said the Board does have a little more leeway, and it would be a shame to let the decisions
regarding this application left up to staff. Mr. Boldt said that it is way more, and it’s been misrepresented
and, if it cannot be stopped tonight, please give he and his neighbors something that gives them some
hope that they will be heard.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: Ms. Mallek.
Mr. Rooker clarified that, if there is a material difference in the critical slopes that were approved
by waiver before and what ultimately turns out to be disturbed pursuant to the final site plan, it would still
come back to the Board.
Mr. Davis confirmed that there would have to be a critical slopes waiver granted for any additional
disturbance that wasn’t already approved.
Ms. Mallek asked what the definition of “significant” and “minor” and how they deviate from the
plan the Board voted on last July.
Mr. Davis responded that he didn’t have the conditions in front of him, but he recalled that it had
to be “in general accord,” which means that the major features of the plan have to be consistent. He
added that the zoning administrator would make the determination as to whether they are, and the
determination has been that the preliminary site plan is in general accord with the special use permit
approved by the Board. He said he thought that is a decision that’s already been made.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was a determination made yet with respect to critical slope disturbance.
Mr. Davis responded that there had not been, adding that it would be shown on the final site plan.
He confirmed that the plan that was found to be “in general accord” would not preclude critical slopes
waivers still being applied.
Attachment D
June 11, 2014
1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
Project #/Name ARB-2014-24: New Hope Church Final Site Plan
Review Type Final Site Plan
Parcel Identification 021000000012C1
Location On the northwest side of the intersection of Dickerson Road (Route 606) and Dickerson Lane (Route 763), east of
Piney Mountain Road, approximately 350’ west of the Route 29 Entrance Corridor
Zoned Rural Areas (RA), Entrance Corridor (EC)
Owner/Applicant New Hope Community Church/Michael Henderson, Pastor
Magisterial District White Hall
Proposal To construct a church with associated site improvements.
Context The area around the subject parcel includes residences, wooded lots, and other churches. On the south side of
Dickerson Lane is a substation of the Rappahannock Electric Company. To the east of the subject parcel is a partly
wooded parcel with a billboard. An overhead utility line and its cut through the trees cross the southern end of the
subject parcel.
Visibility Only the easternmost 150’ of the subject parcel, a strip at the southeast corner of the site parallel to Dickerson Road
and Route 29, is included within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Proposed in this strip is a portion of the
entrance drive and the grading and tree removal required to construct the drive. None of the proposed buildings or
parking areas is located within this strip. This area with the EC Overlay District has limited visibility from the Route
29 Entrance Corridor due to its distance from Route 29, and due to off-site trees that narrow the view to an
approximate 70’ width across Dickerson Lane.
ARB Meeting Date April 7, 2014
Staff Contact Margaret Maliszewski
Attachment D
June 11, 2014
2
PROJECT HISTORY
DATE APPLICATION/REVIEW TYPE RESULT
March 18, 2013 ARB-2013-10: Initial Site Plan The ARB reviewed and provided comments on the initial site plan. See
Attachment A for the action letter.
May 8, 2013 Appeal of the ARB’s March 18, 2013
decision to the Board of Supervisors
The Board of Supervisors affirmed the ARB’s decision on the initial site
plan.
ANALYSIS
REF GUIDELINE ISSUE RECOMMENDATION
1-5,
9-16
Structure design The proposed church building does not
fall within the Entrance Corridor, so the
building is not subject to ARB review.
None.
17-21 Accessory structures and equipment There are no accessory structures or
equipment to be located in the area of the
site that is subject to ARB review.
None.
22-31 Lighting There is no lighting proposed within the
area of the site that is subject to ARB
review.
None.
Landscaping
32 Landscaping along the frontage of Entrance Corridor
streets should include the following:
a. Large shade trees should be planted parallel to the
Entrance Corridor Street. Such trees should be at least
3½ inches caliper (measured 6 inches above the
ground) and should be of a plant species common to
the area. Such trees should be located at least every 35
feet on center.
b. Flowering ornamental trees of a species common to
the area should be interspersed among the trees required
by the preceding paragraph. The ornamental trees need
not alternate one for one with the large shade trees. They
may be planted among the large shade trees in a less
The subject parcel has no EC frontage. None.
Attachment D
June 11, 2014
3
regular spacing pattern.
c. In situations where appropriate, a three or four board
fence or low stone wall, typical of the area, should
align the frontage of the Entrance Corridor street.
d. An area of sufficient width to accommodate the
foregoing plantings and fencing should be reserved
parallel to the Entrance Corridor street, and exclusive
of road right-of-way and utility easements.
7 The requirements of the Guidelines regarding
landscaping are intended to reflect the landscaping
characteristic of many of the area’s significant historic
sites which is characterized by large shade trees and
lawns. Landscaping should promote visual order
within the Entrance Corridor and help to integrate
buildings into the existing environment of the corridor.
The plan shows 2½” caliper shade trees
that are common to the area (Red Maple,
River Birch, Sweetgum and Willow Oak)
spaced 40’ on center along the entrance
drive. Smaller trees (Serviceberry,
Redbud, Sweetbay Magnolia) are
interspersed among the large trees and
groups of evergreen and deciduous shrubs
are proposed along both sides of the drive.
The plan achieves a good mix of trees and
shrubs that fills the slopes adjacent to the
drive without an overly artificial
appearance. The planting compensates for
the trees removed from the immediate
area and it is expected to blend into the
surrounding landscape for an appropriate
appearance from the EC.
Four of the proposed trees are located in
the VDOT right-of-way at the base of the
entrance drive, and several shrubs are to
be located over a gas line. Documentation
from VDOT is needed to confirm that the
planting in the right-of-way is acceptable.
Confirmation that planting can be
accomplished on top of the gas line is also
needed (i.e., is the line deep enough for
Provide documentation
that VDOT has approved
the planting in the right-
of-way.
Confirm that the plants
proposed on top of the
gas line can be planted in
that location. If they
can’t shift the plants to
maintain plant quantities
and to maintain an
appropriate appearance
from the EC.
Revise the quantity of
Little Bluestem in the
plant list from 43 to 53.
8 Continuity within the Entrance Corridor should be
obtained by planting different types of plant materials
that share similar characteristics. Such common
elements allow for more flexibility in the design of
structures because common landscape features will
help to harmonize the appearance of development as
seen from the street upon which the Corridor is
centered.
33 Landscaping along interior roads:
a. Large trees should be planted parallel to all interior
roads. Such trees should be at least 2½ inches caliper
(measured six inches above the ground) and should be
of a plant species common to the area. Such trees
should be located at least every 40 feet on center.
Attachment D
June 11, 2014
4
planting above?).
53Little Bluestem are drawn on the plan
but 43 are identified in the plant list.
34 Landscaping along interior pedestrian ways:
a. Medium trees should be planted parallel to all
interior pedestrian ways. Such trees should be at least
2½ inches caliper (measured six inches above the
ground) and should be of a species common to the
area. Such trees should be located at least every 25 feet
on center.
There are no interior pedestrian ways
within the area of the site that is subject to
ARB review.
None.
35 Landscaping of parking areas:
a. Large trees should align the perimeter of parking
areas, located 40 feet on center. Trees should be
planted in the interior of parking areas at the rate of
one tree for every 10 parking spaces provided and
should be evenly distributed throughout the interior of
the parking area.
b. Trees required by the preceding paragraph should
measure 2½ inches caliper (measured six inches above
the ground); should be evenly spaced; and should be of
a species common to the area. Such trees should be
planted in planters or medians sufficiently large to
maintain the health of the tree and shall be protected
by curbing.
c. Shrubs should be provided as necessary to minimize
the parking area’s impact on Entrance Corridor streets.
Shrubs should measure 24 inches in height.
There are no parking areas within the area
of the site that is subject to ARB review.
None.
36 Landscaping of buildings and other structures:
a. Trees or other vegetation should be planted along
the front of long buildings as necessary to soften the
appearance of exterior walls. The spacing, size, and
type of such trees or vegetation should be determined
by the length, height, and blankness of such walls.
b. Shrubs should be used to integrate the site,
buildings, and other structures; dumpsters, accessory
There are no buildings within the area of
the site that is subject to ARB review.
None.
Attachment D
June 11, 2014
5
buildings and structures; “drive thru” windows; service
areas; and signs. Shrubs should measure at least 24
inches in height.
37 Plant species:
a. Plant species required should be as approved by the
Staff based upon but not limited to the Generic
Landscape Plan Recommended Species List and Native
Plants for Virginia Landscapes (Appendix D).
The proposed plant species are acceptable
for a central Virginia landscape.
None.
38 Plant health:
The following note should be added to the landscape
plan: “All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be
allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height;
the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall
be pruned minimally and only to support the overall
health of the plant.”
This note has been provided on Sheet
L1.1.
None.
Development pattern
6 Site development should be sensitive to the existing
natural landscape and should contribute to the creation
of an organized development plan. This may be
accomplished, to the extent practical, by preserving the
trees and rolling terrain typical of the area; planting
new trees along streets and pedestrian ways and
choosing species that reflect native forest elements;
insuring that any grading will blend into the
surrounding topography thereby creating a continuous
landscape; preserving, to the extent practical, existing
significant river and stream valleys which may be
located on the site and integrating these features into
the design of surrounding development; and limiting
the building mass and height to a scale that does not
overpower the natural settings of the site, or the
Entrance Corridor.
The location of the entrance drive and the
layout of the site were established with the
initial site plan.
None.
39 The relationship of buildings and other structures to
the Entrance Corridor street and to other development
within the corridor should be as follows:
a. An organized pattern of roads, service lanes, bike
Attachment D
June 11, 2014
6
paths, and pedestrian walks should guide the layout of
the site.
b. In general, buildings fronting the Entrance Corridor
street should be parallel to the street. Building
groupings should be arranged to parallel the Entrance
Corridor street.
c. Provisions should be made for connections to
adjacent pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems.
d. Open spaces should be tied into surrounding areas to
provide continuity within the Entrance Corridor.
e. If significant natural features exist on the site
(including creek valleys, steep slopes, significant trees
or rock outcroppings), to the extent practical, then such
natural features should be reflected in the site layout. If
the provisions of Section 32.5.6.n of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance apply, then improvements
required by that section should be located so as to
maximize the use of existing features in screening such
improvements from Entrance Corridor streets.
f. The placement of structures on the site should
respect existing views and vistas on and around the
site.
Site Grading
40 Site grading should maintain the basic relationship of
the site to surrounding conditions by limiting the use
of retaining walls and by shaping the terrain through
the use of smooth, rounded land forms that blend with
the existing terrain. Steep cut or fill sections are
generally unacceptable. Proposed contours on the
grading plan shall be rounded with a ten foot
minimum radius where they meet the adjacent
condition. Final grading should achieve a natural,
rather than engineered, appearance. Retaining walls 6
feet in height and taller, when necessary, shall be
terraced and planted to blend with the landscape.
The width of the graded area at the
entrance drive appears to be reduced from
that shown in the initial plan by
approximately 20’. This reduces the
visibility from, and impact on, the
Entrance Corridor.
None.
41 No grading, trenching, or tunneling should occur Tree protection is shown on the plan and None.
Attachment D
June 11, 2014
7
within the drip line of any trees or other existing
features designated for preservation in the final
Certificate of Appropriateness. Adequate tree
protection fencing should be shown on, and
coordinated throughout, the grading, landscaping and
erosion and sediment control plans.
has been installed at the site.
42 Areas designated for preservation in the final
Certificate of Appropriateness should be clearly
delineated and protected on the site prior to any
grading activity on the site. This protection should
remain in place until completion of the development of
the site.
43 Preservation areas should be protected from storage or
movement of heavy equipment within this area.
44 Natural drainage patterns (or to the extent required,
new drainage patterns) should be incorporated into the
finished site to the extent possible.
An underground detention facility is
proposed under the entrance drive. A rip
rap ditch, a paved ditch, and a drop inlet
are located nearby. Given the size of these
features, the distance from the EC, and the
proposed landscaping, these features are
not expected to have an impact on the
appearance of the site from the EC.
None.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion:
1. Proposed planting along the Entrance Drive: mix of plant types and species, quantity of plants, anticipated appearance from the EC
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. Provide documentation that VDOT has approved the planting in the right-of-way.
2. Confirm that the plants proposed on top of the gas line can be planted in that location. If they can’t shift the plants to maintain plant
quantities and to maintain an appropriate appearance from the EC.
3. Revise the quantity of Little Bluestem in the plant list from 43 to 53.
Attachment D
June 11, 2014
8
TABLE A
This report is based on the following submittal items:
Sheet # Drawing Name Drawing/Revision Date
C1 Title Sheet 8-28-13
C2 Site Layout and Utility Plan 8-28-13
C3 Grading, ECS and Water Quality Plan 8-28-13
C4 Additional Notes and Details 8-28-13
C5 Additional Details and Profiles 8-28-13
L1 Landscape Plan
L2 Landscape Details 2-21-14
A2.1 Elevations 6-24-13
Site Photos: EC looking north, EC looking west at Dickerson Lane, EC looking south, aerial
view looking north
-
Attachment D
June 11, 2014
9
ATTACHMENT A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
March 19, 2013
New Hope Church
C/O Michael Henderson, Trustee and Pastor
3445 Seminole Trail, Suite 300
Charlottesville, Va 22911
RE: ARB-2013-010: New Hope Church
021000000012C1
Dear Mr. Henderson:
At its meeting on Monday, March 18, 2013, the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board , by a vote of 3:0, voted to forward the following
recommendations on the above-noted Initial Site Development Plan to the agent for the Site Review Committee:
Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per 30.6.4(2), (3) and (5):
None.
Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines:
None.
Regarding recommended conditions of initial site plan approval:
ARB approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval. The final site plan shall sho w 2½” caliper trees at 40’
on center (or the equivalent thereof), at a minimum, along the entrance drive; and a mix of additional trees, located and spaced to achieve a
natural appearance, on the slope adjacent to the entrance drive to compensate for lost wooded area.
Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit:
Provide a tree conservation plan. Show tree protection fencing along all tree lines to remain, in particular along the entrance drive. Add the
installation of tree protection fencing to the sequence of grading and erosion control work.
Attachment D
June 11, 2014
10
You may submit your application for contin ued ARB review at your earliest convenience. Application forms, checklists and schedules are available on -
line at www.albemarle.org/ARB. Please be certain that your ARB submittal addresses the above-noted issues.
If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
cc: Edmond H. Blackwell, P.E., Blackwell Engineering, PLC
566 East Market Street
Harrisonburg, Va 22801
File
Attachment E
June 11, 2014
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 11, 2014
Michael Henderson, Pastor
3445 Seminole Trail, Ste. 300
Charlottesville, VA. 22911
RE: ARB201400024 – New Hope Church - Final
TAX MAP PARCEL: 021000000012C1
Dear Mr. Henderson:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on
Monday, April 7, 2014. The Board voted to grant approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness, pending
staff administrative approval of the following conditions:
1. Revise the plan to remove the Willow Oak in the VDOT right of way.
2. Revise the quantity of Little Bluestem in the plant list from 43 to 53.
Please provide:
1. Two full sets of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB
revision dates on each drawing.
2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If
changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also.
Highlighting the changes in the drawing with “c louding” or by other means will facilitate review and
approval.
3. The attached “Revised Application Submittal” form. This form must be returned with your revisions
to ensure proper tracking and distribution.
When staff's review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate
of Appropriateness may be issued.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
Attachment E
June 11, 2014
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
REVISED APPLICATION SUBMITTAL
This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. County
staff has indicated below what they think will be required as a resubmission of revisions. If you need to
submit additional information please explain on this form for the benefit of the intake staff. All plans
must be collated and folded to fit into legal size files, in order to be accepted for submittal.
TO: _Margaret Maliszewski_________________________________ DATE: ___________________
PROJECT NAME: ____ARB-2014-24 New Hope Church ________
Submittal Type Requiring Revisions ( ) indicates Submittal Code County Project Number # Copies
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (E&S)
Mitigation Plan (MP)
Waiver Request (WR)
Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
Road Plan (RP)
Private Road Request, with private/public comparison
(PRR)
Private Road Request – Development Area (PRR-DA)
Preliminary Site Plan (PSP)
Final Site Plan (or amendment) (FSP)
Final Plat (FP)
Preliminary Plat (PP)
Easement Plat (EP)
Boundary Adjustment Plat (BAP)
Rezoning Plan (REZ)
Special Use Permit Concept Plan (SP-CP)
Reduced Concept Plan (R-CP)
Proffers (P)
Bond Estimate Request (BER)
Draft Groundwater Management Plan (D-GWMP)
Final Groundwater Management Plan (F-GWMP)
Aquifer Testing Work Plan (ATWP)
Groundwater Assessment Report (GWAR)
Architectural Review Board (ARB) ARB-2014-24 2
Other: Please explain:
(For staff use only)
Submittal Code # Copies Distribute To: Submittal Code # Copies Distribute To:
ARB 2 M. Maliszewski
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 1
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
April 7, 2014
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board met on Monday, April 7, 2014, 1:00 p.m., Room 241,
Second Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Charles T.
Lebo, Vice Chair; John Quale, Marcia Joseph, Fred Missel, and Bruce Wardell, Chair. Mr. Missel arrived
at 1:34 p.m. Mr. Lebo left at 3:28 p.m. Staff members present was Margaret Maliszewski and Sharon
Taylor.
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Wardell called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. and established a quorum.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Wardell invited public comment. There being none, the meeting proceeded.
REGULAR REVIEW ITEMS
Mr. Wardell noted the ARB would skip to ARB-2014-24 New Hope Church Final Site Plan since the
applicant was not present for ARB-2014-21 Chick-fil-A Final Site Plan.
ARB-2014-24: New Hope Church Final Site Plan - Final Site Plan (TM/Parcel 021-12C1)
Proposal: To construct a church with associated site improvements.
Location: On the northwest side of the intersection of Dickerson Road (Route 606) and Dickerson Lane
(Route 763), east of Piney Mountain Road, approximately 350’ west of the Route 29 Entrance Corridor
Staff Presentation:
Margaret Maliszewski provided a brief overview of the proposed work and noted the location of the
subject parcel, indicating that it is approximately 350’ from the Rt. 29 Entrance Corridor.
She stated that the ARB previously reviewed the initial site plan in March, 2013 and the ARB’s action
was appealed. On May 8, 2013 the Board of Supervisors affirmed the ARB’s decision on the initial site
plan.
Staff clarified that only the easternmost portion of the parcel, a 150’ strip of land at the southeast corner
of the site parallel to Dickerson Road and Route 29, is included within the Entrance Corridor Overlay
District. Proposed in that strip is a portion of the entrance drive and the grading and tree removal required
to construct the drive. None of the proposed buildings or parking areas is located within this strip.
The area within the EC Overlay District has limited visibility from the Route 29 Entrance Corridor due to
its distance from Route 29, and due to off-site trees that narrow the view across Dickerson Lane.
Consequently, ARB review at this time is limited primarily to landscaping along that entrance drive. At
the initial review the ARB indicated that they wanted to see a mix of trees along the entrance drive, and
the trees should be located and spaced to achieve a natural appearance on the slope to compensate for lost
wooded area.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 2
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
Staff stated that a mix of trees and shrubs has been proposed, and identified three issues with the
landscape proposal. One minor issue was to correct the plant count. The applicant has agreed to that. A
second issue was to confirm that plants can be planted on top of the gas line. The applicant has confirmed
that the planting can take place due to the depth of the gas line. The third issue was to obtain confirmation
from VDOT that VDOT is OK with the trees to be planted in the right-of-way. An adjustment needs to be
made there. After the staff report was completed the applicant did get word from VDOT that either the
Willow Oak or the Redbuds could be planted. The applicant can tell us more about that.
With that change, we anticipate that the appearance from the EC will still be appropriate. Staff is
recommending approval with the minor conditions listed in the staff report. You’ll want to amend the
conditions to address the recent corrections.
Mr. Wardell invited questions.
Ms. Joseph asked staff what the basis of the appeal to the Board of Supervisors was.
Ms. Maliszewski asked if there were other questions while she looked for the letter of appeal.
Mr. Wardell noted at a previous hearing there was a member of the public that voiced some objections to
the development. His recollection was the objections weren’t covered by the scope of the ARB’s review
of the project. They were general objections to the project. Our review was in the Entrance Corridor and
we only had jurisdiction over the entry because you can’t see the building.
Ms. Joseph pointed out there was a line for ARB review drawn at 500’.
Mr. Wardell agreed that the ARB’s jurisdiction was in front of that line.
In response to Ms. Joseph’s question on the basis of appeal, Ms. Maliszewski read from the appellant’s
letter stating, no requirements were imposed to satisfy the design guideline under County Code of 18-
30.6.4.c(2) size and arrangement of structures, location and configuration of parking areas and
landscaping, and preservation of existing vegetation and natural features. Also, the appellant states the
entrance is not in keeping with the rural character of the area. Also, the appellant states that alternate
entrance locations were not considered and that continuity of the entrance corridor is not being preserved
by the ARB’s action.
Ms. Joseph noted the appellant appealed what the ARB had determined the last time. It went to the Board
of Supervisors and the Board upheld what the ARB had discussed. It did not go any further.
Ms. Maliszewski agreed.
Mr. Wardell asked if there were other comments for staff.
Mr. Quale recalled a previous informal discussion about access in that this may not be the only location
where access could happen. He recalled the ARB was able to determine that there were really no other
legitimate access points. He asked if that was correct.
Ms. Maliszewski replied that there was discussion about that. However, the point with the ARB review
was that it was not the ARB’s responsibility to find other access points, but to review what was presented.
Applicant Presentation:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 3
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
Mike Henderson, Pastor of New Hope Church, and Joan Albiston, landscape architect, represented the
request. Mr. Henderson pointed out Joan Albiston did the landscape design plan and their engineer was
on the way.
Joan Albiston, landscape architect, said she worked on the planting plan for New Hope Church and was
present to answer questions.
Ms. Maliszewski asked Ms. Albiston to go over the VDOT tree issue.
Ms. Albiston addressed staff’s comments. She stated that there was a typo on the plant list, and the plant
counts on the plan rule. There are three (3) Redbuds and one (1) Willow Oak proposed to be planted
within the VDOT right-of-way. That is to help balance out the plantings left and right at the entrance.
That property appears to be part of the New Hope Church site, but it is actually VDOT right-of-way.
Troy Austin, VDOT engineer, said he would allow the one (1) Willow Oak or the three (3) Redbuds, but
not both. His concern is the proximity of the trees to the inlet and his fear of having it clogged. They can
either remove the Willow Oak and put in the three (3) Redbuds or remove the three (3) Redbuds and put
the Willow Oak where the Redbuds would be going.
Mr. Wardell asked which option she would prefer.
Ms. Albiston replied she would probably put in the Redbuds because that area has some woodland and
the Redbuds are going to make a bigger impact immediately and over the future as they seed.
Mr. Wardell invited public comment.
Ann Mallek, White Hall District Board of Supervisors representative, said she had questions because the
plants are different than were approved by the Board of Supervisors. That was part of the concern when it
came to the ARB in the fall. She hoped the ARB had a chance to get the pictures sent to Ms.
Maliszewski, which actually show today how much more of the existing woodland has been removed
than was on any of the original plans and the much more dramatic exposure of the property to the public.
She reviewed the photos with the ARB. In the view from 29, on the northern side of the driveway, it
shows the matting on the bank. Everything directly behind that she understands is where the building is
going to be. There was an “S” curve in the original drawing that was going to keep some of the woodland
as a screen and that is all gone. The next photograph shows how few trees are left. Basically everything
above the bulldozer has been removed that was going to be the screen between the highway and the
building. Secondly, between the bulldozer and where the gas line is from the north (offscreen), is all
completely denuded. There is a very wide swath from Dickerson Road where everything has been taken
down. She knows the ARB is in a tangle with the process. However, this process has been in a tangle on
this project from the very beginning because the Board of Supervisors was presented with one plan that
showed a miniscule amount of critical slope and when it came back it was huge. She was not able to get
the majority of the Board to be interested in a second bite of this because of that huge discrepancy from
her perspective. They are trying to be watchful and make sure that as this goes forward an overabundance
of screening, as Mr. Henderson had promised, would actually happen. She did not see any of that
information on these plans, especially to the north.
Mr. Wardell asked if she was saying the actual construction has not been done according to these
drawings.
Ms. Mallek replied that these drawings are different than what was approved by the Board of Supervisors
two years ago, which is the discrepancy that she sees. When the critical slope information finally came
forward, the original location of the building was in the critical slope and had to be changed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 4
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
Mr. Quale asked if the building was previously located further to the east.
Ms. Mallek replied that she could not remember. However, there has been a dramatic increase in the
amount of wood cutting at that site. She hopes the ARB will be able to help make sure the plantings that
are needed to replace what has been taken down that was unanticipated will be put in writing somewhere.
Mr. Lebo asked how much of this (referring to the photo) falls under the ARB’s purview from the bottom
line down.
Ms. Mallek replied nothing within the ARB’s very limited view, which is basically the upper photograph,
is the only thing the ARB has jurisdiction about. Perhaps they are just up the creek. The buck is passed
to the ARB by the site plan process. She understands the earlier review was the first bubble diagram and
these details were not going to be required last fall. However, now they are here at the end. So they are
really trying to make sure that somebody actually gets these things written down appropriately whether it
be the ARB or the site plan staff. As she said it may be outside what the ARB can do. However, it will
be in the ARB’s record as they move forward.
Mr. Wardell noted that he made the assumption that what he was looking at was the same version the
ARB had seen last fall.
Ms. Mallek replied that is probably accurate as far as the location of the building. However, the change
happened between the ARB’s review and the Board of Supervisors approval.
Mr. Wardell asked if she was saying what the ARB actually looked at last fall was different than what the
Board of Supervisors had approved.
Ms. Mallek replied yes, because of the moving of the buildings and the recognition of the increased
critical slope that was not in the original plan. She understands there is a very sketchy first drawing that
is done. This was of great concern to begin with because of the hilly situation there. However, it is the
process and so they have to live with it.
Mr. Quale recalled the meeting, noting they actually did have a conversation about the critical slope and
the location of the building.
Mr. Wardell pointed out the plan the ARB discussed was different from the plan approved by the Board
of Supervisors.
Ms. Mallek noted that has been raised multiple times during the last couple of years. She knows this is
last ditch, but did hope the ARB would bring whatever attention they can to make sure they get a
replacement of the screening that was to be left. It may just be a recognition passed back to the site plan.
Mr. Wardell invited public comment.
Charles Boldt, resident at 5260 Piney Mountain Road, stated that he was the person who appealed the
ARB’s last decision. He noted that the drawing being reviewed today has a 2:1 slope. When they talked
last March the ARB was looking at a drawing without any critical slopes. The ARB thought they had the
ability to pick any area which did not have critical slopes. Three weeks later a drawing was submitted
with critical slopes. The ARB talked about 3:1 slope and was what they said should be approved, which
is what the Board of Supervisors acted on. What they see now has a 2:1 slope and is not what the ARB
approved. It is not consistent with what the special use permit has. He requested the ARB reject it so
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 5
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
they can go back and do what they said originally. The landscape is not evergreen and being low to the
ground is inappropriate. He also thinks this will be seen from 29. The applicant is relying on the
neighbor not doing anything on his property, which he cannot guarantee. There is lots of documentation
and they could be here for hours. However, the gist of it is that what they are looking at is not what was
approved.
Mr. Lebo asked staff if the excavation began prior to this being approved.
Ms. Maliszewski replied the grading can occur after the initial plan is approved. She added that it really
was not the ARB’s job to determine whether this plan meets the special use permit plan or not. The ARB
review is limited. If they want to compare this plan to the plan the ARB looked at last fall they can do
that.
Mr. Wardell asked if it was the same plan the ARB looked at last fall in terms of grading.
Ms. Maliszewski replied no, there is a difference.
Mr. Boldt stated that the most significant difference is the slope 3:1 vs. 2:1. There was a lot of discussion
about the appropriateness of the 3:1.
Mike Henderson, Pastor, pointed out if they go out to the site today there is a pin in the middle of the road
which has been there for a couple of years. So that has not changed. He pointed out the 2:1 slope. We
were trying to not take down as many trees. There are not a lot of trees in the small area and they would
like to get permission to put more trees to fill it in. He explained they want to put in more trees to screen
the entrance, but the county has to allow it. They would need to be told which trees to put in. They want
to increase the trees because they want an attractive entrance to the property. They think it would be
better if they have a little more of a buffer.
Mr. Wardell noted that the new drawing shows less trees being taken out than the previous plan. The 3:1
has a gentler slope but takes out more trees.
Ed Blackwood, site engineer with Blackwood Engineering, said they have a letter dated May, 2013 from
the county with all the review comments, including the following comment: Reduce the slope grading and
tree disturbance by using a maximum slope steepness of 2:1. That was to limit the tree cutting.
Therefore, they incorporated that into the plan, which was part of the initial site approval about a year
ago. They steepened the slope on the entrance drive to 2:1 and in some other places to keep the tree
cutting to a bare minimum. That should have been reflected in the plan that came to the ARB last fall.
The initial site plan approval had some comments and they addressed those.
Ms. Maliszewski noted that was after the ARB review.
Mr. Blackwood noted he was not sure of the time frame. The request was from the county to steepen
those slopes in order to have less tree removal. Therefore, they incorporated that into the final site plan.
Mr. Wardell said that is what the drawing shows, but he was having a hard time pinpointing what they are
being asked to review in response to comments from a member of the Board of Supervisors saying that
what was presented here does not conform to what they approved. The ARB does not have any
information on the exact configuration of what the Board of Supervisors approved. He asked if that was
correct.
Ms. Maliszewski replied that she did not have the approved concept plan to look at.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 6
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
Mr. Wardell said that would have been a special use permit plan.
Ms. Maliszewski agreed. She reiterated that it was not really the ARB’s responsibility to do that
comparison. If someone is to do that comparison again and find that the plan is not what it used to be and
was something in the ARB’s area of review was to change, then staff would bring it back to the ARB.
But, that has not happened. What the ARB has to review is what they have before them today.
Mr. Wardell pointed out what they have before them today is a change from a 3:1 to 2:1 slope at least
from what was said publicly. Not having actually seen a copy of the letter he asked staff to submit a
copy. He asked if the review was in response to a request from a county planner.
Megan Yaniglos, the site planner for the project, said staff requested that during the initial site plan
review because the special use permit condition listed wooded areas to remain as much as possible. That
was one of the areas. Engineering had recommended that they could go to a 2:1 slope in order to have
more wooded areas in consult with the zoning reviewer.
Mr. Wardell asked if she was the author of that letter, and Ms. Yaniglos replied yes.
Mr. Wardell asked if her comment was in response to her interpretation of the Board of Supervisors’
requirements.
Ms. Yaniglos replied that it was a zoning interpretation.
Mr. Wardell noted it was a zoning interpretation from the Board of Supervisors’ approval of the
conceptual site plan.
Ms. Yaniglos replied that was correct for the special use permit.
Mr. Wardell pointed out going to a 2:1 slope is consistent with reducing the amount of disturbance of
trees since a 3:1 slope would take more trees out. So the ARB is looking at a plan that has a 2:1 slope in
the area that the ARB has jurisdiction.
The ARB reviewed the photos and discussed the area within the ARB’s jurisdiction.
Ms. Joseph pointed out they don’t know exactly what the quality is interior to the wooded area and some
of the trees may come down themselves when others are taken down.
Mr. Quale agreed because the roots are impacted.
Mr. Wardell said the ARB’s jurisdiction for review was the planting plan and the grading plan for the
entrance and that is it.
Mr. Lebo agreed that was correct.
Ms. Joseph asked Ms. Yaniglos how the process works and if they got preliminary site plan approval and
therefore they can get a grading permit with an erosion and sediment control plan.
Ms. Yaniglos replied that was correct. They had to submit an early grading plan to engineering and they
were able to clear and do some grading. Then they would submit the final Water Protection Ordinance
(WPO) and Erosion and Sedimentation (E&S) plan during the final.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 7
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
Ms. Joseph asked if they can do some grading before they have an E&S plan.
Ms. Yaniglos replied no, they would have to do an E&S plan with the early grading plan. However, the
final calculations and everything would be done during the final site plan.
Ms. Joseph asked what kinds of things need to be done before the final site plan approval.
Ms. Yaniglos replied they need ARB approval, planning approval and engineering final approval. In
addition, they need VDOT and Health Department approval. They have Health Department approval.
Mr. Wardell asked staff to characterize in what way the entrance design that was submitted differs from
what the Board of Supervisors approved.
Ms. Yaniglos replied that staff looked at that extensively with zoning. They actually did an overlay and
zoning has found it matches the concept plan that was approved by the Board.
Mr. Lebo pointed out he was ready to recommend approval on this.
Mr. Wardell said he was trying to figure out if there was anything that was in the ARB’s jurisdiction that
has changed since it would impact the validity of their vote.
Mr. Quale added that if it is found in further review that there was something that needs to be brought
back that it would be brought back. However, that would happen anyway.
Mr. Joseph said if people think it is important to look at the rest of the site, then the ordinance needs to be
changed so that the ARB can look at the rest of the site and not just at the 500 foot line.
Mr. Missel arrived at 1:34 PM.
Mr. Wardell invited applicant input.
Mike Henderson said that he knows it is beyond the line and he pointed out the orange tree protection
fence in the photo. He noted the thin area of trees there and that is what they would like to fill in to
increase the buffer. However, they have to get approval from the county and that is down the road. From
the outset their goal has been to retain as many trees as possible, which is why they see the 2:1 slope and
the minimal cutting that has been done.
Mr. Wardell closed the public discussion period to bring the matter before the ARB for discussion.
Board Discussion
Mr. Lebo said he was satisfied with what they are doing.
Mr. Wardell asked for a motion.
Mr. Lebo made a motion to approve the CofA for ARB-2014-24: New Hope Church Final Site Plan with
staff’s recommendations and adding one condition that there will be three (3) Redbuds planted in addition
to what staff has recommended.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 8
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
Ms. Maliszewski suggested the ARB revise condition #1 to say revise the plan to remove the Willow
Oak. In addition condition #2 could be deleted because they resolved the issue about the planting over
the gas line. Condition #3 would stay the same.
Mr. Lebo revised his motion to state that on staff’s recommendations, item #1 has been revised to state
“Revise the plan to remove the Willow Oak in the VDOT right of way” and to delete item #2, as follows:
Motion: Mr. Lebo moved for approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for ARB-2014-24: New
Hope Church Final Site Plan with the conditions listed in the staff report, amended as follows:
1. Revise the plan to remove the Willow Oak in the VDOT right of way.
2. Revise the quantity of Little Bluestem in the plant list from 43 to 53.
Mr. Quale seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:0:1. (Missel abstain)
Mr. Wardell asked that a copy of the site review letter be placed in the file.
ARB-2014-21: Chick-fil-A Final Site Plan - Final Site Development Plan (TM/Parcel 078-55A2)
Proposal: To construct a restaurant with drive-thru lanes and associated site improvements.
Location: 1626 Richmond Road, on the north side of Route 250, across from State Farm Blvd., at the site
of the former Aunt Sarah’s Pancake House
Staff Presentation:
Margaret Maliszewski summarized the staff report, noting the following items as primary points for
discussion:
1. Green screens: design, planting
2. Retaining walls: height, planting
3. Landscaping: at retaining wall, along entrance drive, general character
4. Building design: color/treatment of mechanical room and meter doors, frosted glass windows,
detailing at the top of the walls
The ARB reviewed this proposal in August of last year. At that time the ARB did a preliminary review of
the site and architectural design and provided advisory comments on the special use permit request for the
drive-thru. The special use permit for the drive-thru was approved by the Board of Supervisors in March,
2014. The Board also approved a waiver of the by-pass lane requirement. An initial site plan has been
submitted to the county for review.
Regarding the Initial Site Plan
Staff recommends that the ARB forward the recommendations to the Agent for the Site Review
Committee as listed in the staff report.
Regarding the final review of the site and architectural design
Staff recommends approval with the conditions listed in the staff report.
Applicant Presentation:
Representing the request were Gregory Dodd, Civil Engineer with Horton & Dodd, PC, and Corvin
Flynn, property owner.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 9
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
Mr. Dodd explained the changes to the plan regarding the following issues:
· Lighting issue has been resolved
· Treatment at the closed end of North Pantops Drive (off-site)
· The green screens
There being no public comment, the matter was before the ARB for discussion and action.
BOARD DISCUSSION
The ARB discussed the proposal with staff and the applicant regarding the following issues/concerns:
· Design and location of green screens
· Frosted windows
· Electric panel color
· Landscaping plan
· Treatment of North Pantops Drive
Regarding the Initial Site Plan
Motion: Mr. Lebo made a motion to forward the following recommendations to the Agent for the Site
Review Committee regarding ARB-2014-21, Chick-Fil-A Pantops.
· Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per § 18-30.6.4(2), (3) and (5): None.
· Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines: None.
· Regarding recommended conditions of initial plan approval: A Certificate of Appropriateness is
required prior to final site plan approval.
· Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit:
o Coordinate proposed grading and tree protection fencing to ensure the health of the three
maple trees to remain in the right-of-way along the EC.
o Provide evidence of grading and planting easements.
Mr. Quale seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 5:0.
Regarding the final review of the site and architectural design
Motion: Mr. Lebo moved for approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for ARB-2014-21: Chick-fil-
A Final Site Plan with the conditions listed in the staff report, as follows:
1. Provide VLT and VLR values for the window glass showing that visible light transmittance
(VLT) shall not drop below 40% and visible light reflectance (VLR) shall not exceed 30%.
2. Revise the elevations to correctly identify north, south, east and west. Assume Rt. 250 runs
east-west.
3. Indicate the type of glass proposed for the service yard door.
4. Provide the dumpster details on the site plan.
5. Indicate the height of the transformer located northeast of the building. Ensure that visibility
of the transformer from the EC will be eliminated.
6. Add the mechanical equipment note to the site plan: “Visibility of all mechanical equipment
from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.”
7. Revise the photometric plan using a maintenance factor of 1.0 for all fixtures.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 10
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
8. Revise the photometric plan so that spillover does not exceed .5 fc at the north, east and south
property lines.
9. Revise the fixture schedule to specify “down light only” for the OL fixture.
10. Revise the photometric plan to reduce light levels under the canopy to 20 fc maximum.
11. Reduce light pole height to 20’ maximum, including bases.
12. Add the standard lighting note to the plan. “Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp
that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged
or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent
roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential
or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one half footcandle.”
13. Coordinate the quantity of AXGK shown on the plan with the number listed in the schedule.
14. Revise the plan to show the proposed treatment for the area of N. Pantops Drive that is to be
demolished.
15. Coordinate green screen locations and plants among all drawings.
16. Provide a detail for the wall-mounted green screens.
17. Clarify/coordinate the proposed planting with the gas line along the EC side of the property
and the storm pipe northwest of the building.
18. Increase the size of the shrubs on the south and west sides of the building to 24” high at
planting, minimum.
19. Provide evidence of grading and planting easements.
20. Increase the size of the Zelkovas at the interior of the parking lot to 2½” caliper minimum at
planting.
21. Provide for review a sample of the block proposed for the retaining wall.
22. Add details to the plan to clearly show that the proposed planting can be accomplished with
the proposed retaining wall block system.
23. Coordinate proposed grading and tree protection fencing to ensure the health of the three
maple trees to remain in the right-of-way along the EC.
Mr. Missel seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0.
Regarding condition #14, the ARB also clarified that the renderings show the accurate locations of the
green screens.
ARB-2014-25: Bojangles - Advisory Review of a Special Use Permit, Preliminary Site Development
Plan (TM/Parcel 078-73A2)
Proposal: To construct a restaurant with drive-thru and associated site improvements.
Location: 2013 Abbey Road, on the south side of Rt. 250 between the Applebee’s and the bank in the
Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center
Staff Presentation:
Margaret Maliszewski summarized the staff report, summarizing the proposal, noting the location and
anticipated visibility, and noting the following items as primary points for discussion:
1. The drive-thru window and lane location, design, appropriateness for the EC
2. The glass block windows
3. The awning color
4. The star signs
5. The overall building design
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 11
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
6. Shrubs along the side elevations
Regarding the request for the Special Use Permit:
Staff recommends that the ARB forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission:
The ARB has no objection to the request for the SP based on the design of the drive-thru
window and lane as illustrated in the February 17 and February 20, 2014 architectural
elevations and the February 20, 2014 conceptual site layout.
Regarding the preliminary design:
Staff offers the comments on the preliminary design listed in the staff report.
Applicant Presentation:
Neil McCordant, representative for the area franchise, noted a previous meeting with Ms. Maliszewski
and discussed the following primary issues:
· Glass blocks – working on proportions relative to the store front windows
· Brick added at the bottom of stucco
· Star signs part of design
Kelly Strickland, with Shimp Engineering, noted in the review of the special use permit for the drive-thru
the county engineer has recommended they increase the drive-thru lane from 10 1/2’ width to a 12’ width.
He pointed out to do that they will need to increase the one-way travel way from 26 ½’ to 28’. The only
way they can do that is by taking away part of that landscaping between the bank and the proposed drive-
thru. Therefore, they are asking for a waiver of that 12’ requirement.
There being no public comment, the matter was before the ARB for discussion and action.
BOARD DISCUSSION
The ARB discussed the proposal with staff and the applicant regarding the following issues/concerns:
· Supports waiver for 12’ travelway width requirement
· Relative blankness and attention to scale
· Brick detail and articulation
· Architecture – height of pilasters, break down to more human scale for integrated architectural
appearance
· Integrate the glass block windows
· Future work session on architecture
· Entrance design
· Maintain medallions
Regarding the Request for the Special Use Permit:
Motion: Mr. Lebo made a motion to forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission
regarding ARB-2014-25, Bojangles.
The ARB has no objection to the request for the Special Use Permit (SP) based on the design
of the drive-thru window and lane as illustrated in the February 17 and February 20, 2014
architectural elevations and the February 20, 2014 conceptual site layout. The ARB also
expresses support for the waiver request for the travelway width, maintaining a 10.5’ width.
Mr. Quale seconded the motion.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 12
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
The motion carried by a vote of 5:0.
Regarding the preliminary design:
The ARB offers the following comments on the preliminary design:
1. Consider revising the proportions of the glass block windows to coordinate with the architectural
proportions and detail and/or material of the overall building.
2. Provide glass specs on the architectural drawings indicating that visible light transmittance (VLT)
shall not drop below 40% and visible light reflectance (VLR) shall not exceed 30%.
3. Provide a dumpster screen detail on the plan. Screening materials should be coordinated with building
materials.
4. Revise the plan to show the locations of all drive-thru related items. Provide screening to ensure an
appropriate appearance from the EC.
5. Add the standard mechanical equipment note to both the site and architectural plans: “Visibility of all
mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.”
6. Provide complete information on lighting for review.
7. Provide a sufficient quantity of EC frontage trees to meet the 35’ on center requirement.
8. Be sure the plans clearly show existing plants to remain and to be removed.
9. Provide a plant schedule for review.
10. Consider continuing the shrub planting along the two back bays of both side elevations.
11. Provide the standard planting note on the plan: “All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed
to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees
shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant.”
12. Provide a complete landscape plan for review.
13. Sign permits will be required for all wall signs. Note that red acrylic #2283, and its equivalents, is not
approvable shades of red.
14. Eliminate the stars from the piers and pilasters. Maintain the medallions.
15. Consider revising the facades to provide a more human scale and integrated architectural appearance
that breaks down the scale of the canopies, pilasters, façade and cornice. This could be done by
providing additional detail or articulation in the stucco facades, and providing more detail in the
brick.
16. Reinforce the design of the entrance to the building. This could be done by breaking up the
composition of the canopy.
The ARB recessed at 2:47 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 2:55 p.m.
Work Sessions
ARB-2014-06: Out of Bounds - Initial Site Development Plan (TM/Parcel 60/65)
Mr. Lebo left meeting at 3:28 p.m.
The ARB held a work session on ARB-2014-06: Out of Bounds to discuss the planned sequence of
construction and the extent of review that will be required by the ARB for the various blocks of the
residential development.
Vito Cetta presented a PowerPoint presentation to explain the proposed development. Mark Keller,
architect, was also present.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 13
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
The ARB directed the applicant to provide a site section or sections to clarify the visibility of the various
parts of the development from the Entrance Corridor and encouraged the applicant to provide 3D
illustrations, if possible. It was the consensus of the ARB that the buildings along Road D would not
likely require ARB review due to the anticipated low level of visibility from the EC, but elevations would
be needed for the buildings in Block 3.
OTHER BUSINESS
Green Screens at MedExpress building at Pantops:
Ms. Joseph asked staff to check with the inspectors about the green screens on the MedExpress building
at Pantops because it looks like the plants for the screens have not been planted.
Approval of Minutes:
Motion: Mr. Missel moved to approve the 3/17/2014, 2/22/11, 3/7/11, 4/4/11, 7/18/11, 9/6/11, 9/19/11,
10/17/11, 12/5/11 and 12/19/11 minutes.
Ms. Joseph seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 4:0. (Lebo absent)
Next ARB Meeting: Monday, April 21, 2014
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m. to the next ARB meeting on Monday, April 21, 2014 in Room
241, Second Floor, County Office Building at 1:00 p.m.
Bruce Wardell, Chair
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
Attachment G
June 11, 2014
Summary of Appeal Grounds and Staff Response
Appellant’s Grounds for Appeal Staff Response Notes
Drawings submitted do not
reflect the initial plan approval
Entrance slope submitted was 2:1.
Initial approval was for a slope of
3:1. BOS did not revise approval.
Stormwater management has
changed.
Changes made to the plan
between the initial review and the
final review addressed the ARB’s
comments. The change in slope
and conformity with the concept
plan and Initial Site Plan are
beyond the scope of ARB review.
Not Applicable to this Appeal
BOS approval to disturb critical
slopes at entrance does not
exist
The Special Use Permit identified
the critical slopes that could be
disturbed. BOS has never acted to
allow disturbance of critical slopes
beyond the small amount in the
Special use Permit approval of
July 11, 2012. Approval is normally
a separate action. Plans submitted
to ARB for the April 7, 2014
meeting show extensive critical
slopes which were not approved to
be disturbed in the granting of the
Initial Plan Approval because they
were not shown on that submittal.
Only the BOS can approve
disturbance of critical slopes and
by specific and documented
action.
Zoning and Planning staff had
already determined that the Initial
Site Plan was consistent with the
approved concept plan. The
determination of the consistency of
site plans with approved concept
plans is beyond the scope of ARB
review.
Not Applicable to this Appeal
Staff Report was not made
available before the meeting,
was incomplete and did not
adequately present the project
The Staff report was not available
before the meeting making
comments difficult.
ARB staff reports are always
available on request. The
Appellant did not request a copy of
the staff report.
Not Applicable to this Appeal
When timing and workload allow,
staff reports are linked to the on-
line agendas. Staff reports for the
April 7, 2014 ARB meeting were
not linked to the on-line agenda.
Staff report did not identify that the
Initial Site Plan approved by ARB
on March 18, 2013
The ARB generally does not
approve Initial Site Plans and did
not approve one on March 18,
2013. The March 18 action was to
forward recommendations to the
Agent for the Site Review
Committee.
Not Applicable to this Appeal
and the BOS on May 8, 2013 was
not what was being submitted for
review.
The Final Site Plan was the
subject of the review, not the Initial
Site Plan. Generally, in the ARB
review process, it is anticipated
that changes will be made to the
Initial Site Plan for the Final Site
Plan submittal. The ARB
discussed the changes that were
made to the slope during the
meeting.
Not Applicable to this Appeal
Attachment G
June 11, 2014
Appellant’s Grounds for Appeal Staff Response Notes
Plan submitted was for a 2:1 slope
entrance rather than an approved
3:1 slope. Staff did not have
documentation of what was
approved at the meeting for
comparison.
During the April 7, 2014 meeting,
the ARB asked to see the plan
from the initial ARB review. Staff
pulled the plan from the file, the
ARB looked at it and compared it
to the plan currently under review.
The concept plan approved with
the Special Use Permit was not
presented at the ARB meeting.
Consistency between the Final
Site Plan and the concept plan
was not a subject of ARB review.
Not Applicable to this Appeal
Staff report did not indicate that
Initial Approval was based on no
critical slopes being disturbed.
The Agent’s approval of the Initial
Site Plan was based on many
things. Basis of Initial Site Plan
approval is not a required
component of an ARB staff report.
The content of the staff report was
limited to the items that were
subject to ARB review and the
specific ARB comments made
during the initial review.
Not Applicable to this Appeal
Plans submitted have a significant
increase in critical slopes whose
disturbance has not been
approved. The May 8, 2013 BOS
approval does not address critical
slopes nor did the April 7, 2014
ARB vote.
The determination of the
consistency of site plans with
approved concept plans is beyond
the scope of ARB review.
ARB actions are not required to
specifically address critical slopes,
but the ARB discussed the slope
issue during the review.
Not Applicable to this Appeal
Staff report indicated that the area
in the EC Overlay District had
limited visibility from the Route 29
Corridor.
The portion of the site included
within the EC Overlay District does
have limited visibility from the Rt.
29 Corridor. (See photo, below.)
Visibility is described as limited
because: 1) the site is located
approximately 350’ from the EC, 2)
the view is currently limited to an
approximate 70’ width across
Dickerson Lane, and 3) the typical
mode of travel along this portion of
the corridor does not support
extended views of the project area.
Generally, staff discourages
determinations of visibility based
only on the view of the driver of a
vehicle speeding down the
highway without passengers;
however, the lack of sidewalks and
the typical speed of travel along
this portion of the corridor are
factors for consideration.
This statement is in error because
the adjacent landowner is under no
obligation to maintain the tree
buffer the ARB relied on to
determine the site was not visible.
Since the church does not own the
adjacent parcel, the ARB must
review considering the fact that the
entire property has the potential to
be significantly, along its entire
length, visible from Route 29.
(Visibility)
Standard ARB policy is to review
only that portion of the site that
falls within the EC Overlay District.
For parcels that were not adjacent
to the EC street at the time the
overlay was adopted, including the
subject parcel, only that portion of
the parcel that falls within 500’ of
the EC right-of-way is included in
the Overlay District. If the trees on
the adjacent parcel were to be
removed, the site would be visible
for a greater distance along Rt. 29.
The ARB does sometimes
disregard off-site screening when
considering the appearance of a
development. Typically, the ARB
does not want to rely on off-site
screening (including trees in the
VDOT right-of-way) to mitigate on-
site development. If a development
needs screening, it should be
accommodated on its own site, or
an off-site easement should be
provided. Using off-site screening
to mitigate development is not the
Attachment G
June 11, 2014
Appellant’s Grounds for Appeal Staff Response Notes
The adjacent parcel has a frontage
of approximately 350’.
Nevertheless, visibility would still
be described as limited because of
the distance from the corridor and
the narrow area of work that falls
within the overlay district (less than
150’ at its widest and 200’ at its
longest).
issue at New Hope Church. At
New Hope, the off-site trees were
identified as contributing to limited
visibility. Removing the trees from
the adjacent parcel would make
the already limited area of work
visible for a longer distance along
Rt. 29; it would not make an
objection-able feature suddenly
visible. The lack of trees on the
adjacent lot would not have
changed staff’s recommendations,
and would probably not have
changed the ARB’s decision.
Natural drainage patterns have
been significantly altered. (Ref 44)
The proposed rip rap ditch, paved
ditch and drop inlet call attention to
engineered structures that will be
visible from the entrance corridor.
The stormwater features are not
expected to have a visual impact
on the EC due to their size and the
distance from the EC.
Not Applicable to this Appeal
The guidelines do allow for the
consideration of natural drainage
patterns: “Natural drainage
patterns (or to the extent required,
new drainage patterns) should be
incorporated into the finished site
to the extent possible.” However,
the drainage proposal for the
overall site was not reviewed
because the overall site is not
subject to ARB review. The
drainage features that fall within
the EC overlay are not expected to
be noticed from the EC.
The underground detention facility
was not part of storm water plan
proposed in the initial site plan.
In the ARB review process, it is
generally anticipated that there will
be changes between the Initial Site
Plan and the Final Site Plan.
Not Applicable to this Appeal
Staff is not correct that by reducing
the width of the drive that the
visibility from, and the impact on
the entrance corridor is reduced.
Rather, it has resulted in steep
cuts which project an engineered
appearance which call attention to
what has been done because of
those steep and unnatural slopes.
A natural appearance is not being
provided. (Ref 40)
The ARB discussed the change in
slope and tree removal at the
entrance drive. The Board agreed
that the steeper slope allowed for
reduced tree removal, which
meant an increase in natural
appearance.
The intent of the ARB’s comments
on the Initial Site Plan was to use
landscaping to mitigate the
engineered appearance.
Glenn Brooks letter of May 14,
2013 lacks BOS approval to
change what is required
Staff report did not include County
Engineer letter of May 14, 2013
issued after the BOS meeting on
May 8, 2013 which affirmed the
March 13, 2013 ARB vote.
There is no requirement that a
County Engineer letter be included
in an ARB staff report.
Not Applicable to this Appeal
The May 14, 2013 memo from
Glenn Brooks to Megan Yaniglos
stated, “1) Reduce the slope
grading and tree disturbance by
using a maximum slope steepness
of 2:1 (2 ft horizontal for 1 ft
vertical), or an equivalent amount
using retaining walls, while
maintaining appropriate entrance
sight lines.”
Attachment G
June 11, 2014
Appellant’s Grounds for Appeal Staff Response Notes
The letter of May 14, 2013
changes what was required by the
BOS. The County Engineer does
not have the authority to change
what the BOS approved and the
motivation for the letter is unclear
since six days earlier the BOS
provided specific direction. Further,
only the BOS can approve the
disturbance of critical slopes
which, in affirming the ARB
decision, the BOS did not do.
Retaining walls called for in the
letter are also not provided.
Questions regarding the authority
of the County Engineer are beyond
the scope of ARB review.
The Initial Site Plan was found in
general accord with the Special
Use Permit; any minor modification
beyond that only requires
compliance with the ministerial
requirements of the ordinance.
Not Applicable to this Appeal.
The location of the entrance drive
in the Special Use Permit was
based on a site plan and staff
assurance that no critical slopes
were being disturbed.
The determination of the
consistency of site plans with
approved concept plans is beyond
the scope of ARB review.
Not Applicable to this Appeal
The original ARB action
specifically stated that the review
was based on a plan with no
critical slopes at the entrance.
The March 2013 ARB action did
not specifically reference critical
slopes. (The action is copied below
for reference.)
Not Applicable to this Appeal
When a revised plan was
submitted on April 9, 2013 that
showed extensive critical slope
being disturbed, staff was remiss
in not requiring that the church
needed the BOS to approve the
disturbance before proceeding.
The BOS had determined what the
entrance should look like and did
not approve the disturbance of
critical slopes. Proceeding without
resolving the critical slope issue
and scope of entrance with the
BOS was in error.
The determination of the
consistency of site plans with
approved concept plans is beyond
the scope of ARB review.
The Initial Site Plan was found in
general accord with the Special
Use Permit.
Not Applicable to this Appeal
Documentation of VDOT
approval was not provided
Documentation of VDOT approval
should have been provided before
action was taken. An updated plan
reflecting VDOT approval was not
provided.
It is standard practice to require
documentation from other
agencies as a condition of ARB
approval, rather than prior to
action. It is standard practice for
staff to recommend changes to the
plan as a condition of ARB
approval.
Not Applicable to this Appeal
No documentation was submitted
to substantiate the VDOT position.
The applicant’s representative
reported on information obtained
verbally from VDOT. The change
to the plan that will meet VDOT’s
requirement will have to be shown
on the plan submitted for final
approval.
Not Applicable to this Appeal
Subsequent to the meeting,
information was received from
VDOT confirming what the
applicant said in the meeting – the
Willow Oak was too close to the
culvert.
Special Use Permit conditions
are not complied with
Determinations regarding
compliance with Special Use
Permit conditions are beyond the
scope of ARB review.
Not Applicable to this Appeal
Attachment G
June 11, 2014
Appellant’s Grounds for Appeal Staff Response Notes
The landscaping proposed does
not promote visual order within the
entrance corridor nor does it
harmonize the appearance of the
development as seen from the
street (Ref 7 and Ref 8). The
proposed plan does not blend into
the surrounding landscape nor
does it fill the slopes without an
overly artificial appearance from
the EC as staff claims. The
dominate species visible are
evergreens such as Virginia pine
and cedar. The proposed
landscaping calls attention to the
entrance by virtue of the stark
contrast between the proposed
entrance plants and the evergreen
wooded area that is adjacent to it.
The entrance uses commercial,
non-evergreen plants that provide
no visual buffer to the site.
Staff determined that the proposed
mix of trees and shrubs would fill
the slopes adjacent to the
entrance drive, eliminating the
engineered appearance of the
slopes, that the planting would
compensate for the trees removed
from the immediate area, and that
the planting would blend into the
surrounding landscape sufficiently
to establish an appropriate
appearance from the Rt. 29 EC.
This determination was made
considering that the proposed
plants are natives and/or included
on the County’s recommended
species list, that the area in
question lies approximately 350’
from the EC street, that the
available view is narrow, with an
approximately 70’ width across
Dickerson Lane, that the general
speed of travel on Rt. 29 is
relatively fast, and that there are
no sidewalks along this segment of
the Rt. 29 corridor.
W ax myrtle, one of the shrubs
proposed along the entrance drive,
is typically considered an ever-
green shrub. Plant choice is a
balance of several factors,
including local conditions, like deer
resistance and durability on
slopes, the availability of plant
material and sizes, required
maintenance, and standard site
plan and ARB requirements (which
tend toward immediate impact).
The grasses can be deer resistant
and are some of the plants that
would grow back naturally after
clearing the area. Pine and cedar
would also grow back naturally, but
the ARB did not require that the
planting be limited to those
species. Staff’s recommendation
for a natural appearance was
intended to increase the quantity of
plants to mitigate the engineered
appearance of the slopes and to
de-emphasize the regular spacing
of trees that would typically be
found in more urban settings and
that typically results from the most
basic application of the design
guidelines. (The goal was a more
substantial planting than the
minimum requirement of 2 ½”
caliper trees, 40’ on center, along
interior roads.) Those goals were
met with the proposed plan.
Further, the Special Use Permit
required that extensive wooded
areas would remain to visually
buffer the site to which new
landscaping would be added and
compliment. The woods to remain
have been removed and are not
replaced which means the plan
does not conform to the Special
Use Permit. Taken together the
site calls attention to itself when
the intent of the Special Use
Permit was the exact opposite.
Determinations regarding
compliance with Special Use
Permit conditions are beyond the
scope of ARB review.
The Initial Site Plan was found in
general accord with the Special
Use Permit.
Not Applicable to this Appeal
Staff also did not point out to the
ARB that the trees and other
features designated for
preservation in the Special Use
Permit have in fact been removed
and/or are impacted. (Ref 40, 42
and 43)
Determinations regarding
compliance with Special Use
Permit conditions are beyond the
scope of ARB review.
At the time of the meeting, staff
was not aware of any issues with
preservation areas on site. At the
meeting, the applicant stated
In response to a complaint,
Inspections staff found that a small
area of trees was removed during
the clearing process that should
not have been. The removal
appeared to be incidental and the
area was strawed and seeded.
Attachment G
June 11, 2014
Appellant’s Grounds for Appeal Staff Response Notes
willingness to add landscaping in
the wooded area that now appears
“thin” after clearing.
Notice of meeting not given to
adjacent property owners
Written notices to adjacent
property owners of the April 7,
2013 were not sent. Since the plan
presented is significantly different,
this oversight prevented all
potential aggrieved parties from
attending the meeting.
There is no requirement for
notifying adjacent property owners
of ARB meetings.
Not Applicable to this Appeal
In reviewing the ARB decision the
BOS can under 30.6.8(c) consider
other factors such as:
1.How the full development of this
site both inside and outside the EC
impacts the site and rural
character of the area.
The section of the ordinance cited
does not provide additional
information regarding the extent of
the development to be considered
and it does not reference impacts
“inside and outside the EC”.
Not Applicable to this Appeal
In granting the Special Use Permit
adequate vegetative buffers were
an important consideration in the
approval.
The determination of the consist-
ency of site plans with approved
concept plans is beyond the scope
of ARB review. The Initial Site
Plan was found in general accord
with the Special Use Permit.
Not Applicable to this Appeal
In reviewing and approving the
Initial Site Plan, the BOS affirmed
the importance of the buffers and
requested that the final site plan be
brought back to the BOS for review
before staff and the church
proceeded to a Final Site Plan
Approval. That request should be
honored. Undocumented Partial
Approvals should no longer be
made.
Scheduling site plans for BOS
review is beyond the scope of the
ARB.
A request to bring the Final Site
Plan before the Board was not part
of the motion in affirming the
ARB’s decision on the Initial Site
Plan.
During the meeting, staff noted
and the ARB confirmed, that the
site plan would return for additional
ARB review if there was a need to
modify the previously approved
critical slopes waiver or if decisions
regarding the consistency of plans
were modified. That is not before
the Board.
The buffer to the adjacent
properties currently shown is not
consistent with what was
previously shown and is
inadequate. The vegetative buffer,
“wooded area to remain”, has
decrease to the point of being
nonexistent. What the church has
proposed is a “none of the above”
solution based on its desires not
what was required.
The determination of the
consistency of site plans with
approved concept plans and SP
conditions is beyond the scope of
ARB review.
Not Applicable to this Appeal
2. Actions and representation that
were used by the church at various
stages in this project to get
approval need to be looked at.
They have not been accurate or
followed through on. What they
said they would do for some they
have not and for others they have
ignored completely.
Assessing the actions and
representations of the applicant is
beyond the scope of ARB review.
Not Applicable to this Appeal
Attachment G
June 11, 2014
Photo of the New Hope Church site as viewed from the Rt. 29 Entrance Corridor.
The New Hope Church parcel
(21-12C1) is not located
adjacent to the Route 29
Entrance Corridor.
Only that portion of the parcel
that falls within 500’ of the
Route 29 right-of-way is
included in the Entrance
Corridor overlay district.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 1
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
April 7, 2014
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board met on Monday, April 7, 2014, 1:00 p.m., Room 241,
Second Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Charles T.
Lebo, Vice Chair; John Quale, Marcia Joseph, Fred Missel, and Bruce Wardell, Chair. Mr. Missel arrived
at 1:34 p.m. Mr. Lebo left at 3:28 p.m. Staff members present was Margaret Maliszewski and Sharon
Taylor.
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Wardell called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. and established a quorum.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Wardell invited public comment. There being none, the meeting proceeded.
REGULAR REVIEW ITEMS
Mr. Wardell noted the ARB would skip to ARB-2014-24 New Hope Church Final Site Plan since the
applicant was not present for ARB-2014-21 Chick-fil-A Final Site Plan.
ARB-2014-24: New Hope Church Final Site Plan - Final Site Plan (TM/Parcel 021-12C1)
Proposal: To construct a church with associated site improvements.
Location: On the northwest side of the intersection of Dickerson Road (Route 606) and Dickerson Lane
(Route 763), east of Piney Mountain Road, approximately 350’ west of the Route 29 Entrance Corridor
Staff Presentation:
Margaret Maliszewski provided a brief overview of the proposed work and noted the location of the
subject parcel, indicating that it is approximately 350’ from the Rt. 29 Entrance Corridor.
She stated that the ARB previously reviewed the initial site plan in March, 2013 and the ARB’s action
was appealed. On May 8, 2013 the Board of Supervisors affirmed the ARB’s decision on the initial site
plan.
Staff clarified that only the easternmost portion of the parcel, a 150’ strip of land at the southeast corner
of the site parallel to Dickerson Road and Route 29, is included within the Entrance Corridor Overlay
District. Proposed in that strip is a portion of the entrance drive and the grading and tree removal required
to construct the drive. None of the proposed buildings or parking areas is located within this strip.
The area within the EC Overlay District has limited visibility from the Route 29 Entrance Corridor due to
its distance from Route 29, and due to off-site trees that narrow the view across Dickerson Lane.
Consequently, ARB review at this time is limited primarily to landscaping along that entrance drive. At
the initial review the ARB indicated that they wanted to see a mix of trees along the entrance drive, and
the trees should be located and spaced to achieve a natural appearance on the slope to compensate for lost
wooded area.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 2
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
Staff stated that a mix of trees and shrubs has been proposed, and identified three issues with the
landscape proposal. One minor issue was to correct the plant count. The applicant has agreed to that. A
second issue was to confirm that plants can be planted on top of the gas line. The applicant has confirmed
that the planting can take place due to the depth of the gas line. The third issue was to obtain confirmation
from VDOT that VDOT is OK with the trees to be planted in the right-of-way. An adjustment needs to be
made there. After the staff report was completed the applicant did get word from VDOT that either the
Willow Oak or the Redbuds could be planted. The applicant can tell us more about that.
With that change, we anticipate that the appearance from the EC will still be appropriate. Staff is
recommending approval with the minor conditions listed in the staff report. You’ll want to amend the
conditions to address the recent corrections.
Mr. Wardell invited questions.
Ms. Joseph asked staff what the basis of the appeal to the Board of Supervisors was.
Ms. Maliszewski asked if there were other questions while she looked for the letter of appeal.
Mr. Wardell noted at a previous hearing there was a member of the public that voiced some objections to
the development. His recollection was the objections weren’t covered by the scope of the ARB’s review
of the project. They were general objections to the project. Our review was in the Entrance Corridor and
we only had jurisdiction over the entry because you can’t see the building.
Ms. Joseph pointed out there was a line for ARB review drawn at 500’.
Mr. Wardell agreed that the ARB’s jurisdiction was in front of that line.
In response to Ms. Joseph’s question on the basis of appeal, Ms. Maliszewski read from the appellant’s
letter stating, no requirements were imposed to satisfy the design guideline under County Code of 18-
30.6.4.c(2) size and arrangement of structures, location and configuration of parking areas and
landscaping, and preservation of existing vegetation and natural features. Also, the appellant states the
entrance is not in keeping with the rural character of the area. Also, the appellant states that alternate
entrance locations were not considered and that continuity of the entrance corridor is not being preserved
by the ARB’s action.
Ms. Joseph noted the appellant appealed what the ARB had determined the last time. It went to the Board
of Supervisors and the Board upheld what the ARB had discussed. It did not go any further.
Ms. Maliszewski agreed.
Mr. Wardell asked if there were other comments for staff.
Mr. Quale recalled a previous informal discussion about access in that this may not be the only location
where access could happen. He recalled the ARB was able to determine that there were really no other
legitimate access points. He asked if that was correct.
Ms. Maliszewski replied that there was discussion about that. However, the point with the ARB review
was that it was not the ARB’s responsibility to find other access points, but to review what was presented.
Applicant Presentation:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 3
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
Mike Henderson, Pastor of New Hope Church, and Joan Albiston, landscape architect, represented the
request. Mr. Henderson pointed out Joan Albiston did the landscape design plan and their engineer was
on the way.
Joan Albiston, landscape architect, said she worked on the planting plan for New Hope Church and was
present to answer questions.
Ms. Maliszewski asked Ms. Albiston to go over the VDOT tree issue.
Ms. Albiston addressed staff’s comments. She stated that there was a typo on the plant list, and the plant
counts on the plan rule. There are three (3) Redbuds and one (1) Willow Oak proposed to be planted
within the VDOT right-of-way. That is to help balance out the plantings left and right at the entrance.
That property appears to be part of the New Hope Church site, but it is actually VDOT right -of-way.
Troy Austin, VDOT engineer, said he would allow the one (1) Willow Oak or the three (3) Redbuds, but
not both. His concern is the proximity of the trees to the inlet and his fear of having it clogged. They can
either remove the Willow Oak and put in the three (3) Redbuds or remove the three (3) Redbuds and put
the Willow Oak where the Redbuds would be going.
Mr. Wardell asked which option she would prefer.
Ms. Albiston replied she would probably put in the Redbuds because that area has some woodland and
the Redbuds are going to make a bigger impact immediately and over the future as they seed.
Mr. Wardell invited public comment.
Ann Mallek, White Hall District Board of Supervisors representative, said she had questions because the
plants are different than were approved by the Board of Supervisors. That was part of the concern when it
came to the ARB in the fall. She hoped the ARB had a chance to get the pictures sent to Ms.
Maliszewski, which actually show today how much more of the existing woodland has been removed
than was on any of the original plans and the much more dramatic exposure of the property to the public.
She reviewed the photos with the ARB. In the view from 29, on the northern side of the driveway, it
shows the matting on the bank. Everything directly behind that she understands is where the building is
going to be. There was an “S” curve in the original drawing that was going to keep some of the woodland
as a screen and that is all gone. The next photograph shows how few trees are left. Basically everything
above the bulldozer has been removed that was going to be the sc reen between the highway and the
building. Secondly, between the bulldozer and where the gas line is from the north (offscreen), is all
completely denuded. There is a very wide swath from Dickerson Road where everything has been taken
down. She knows the ARB is in a tangle with the process. However, this process has been in a tangle on
this project from the very beginning because the Board of Supervisors was presented with one plan that
showed a miniscule amount of critical slope and when it came back it was huge. She was not able to get
the majority of the Board to be interested in a second bite of this because of that huge discrepancy from
her perspective. They are trying to be watchful and make sure that as this goes forward an overabundance
of screening, as Mr. Henderson had promised, would actually happen. She did not see any of that
information on these plans, especially to the north.
Mr. Wardell asked if she was saying the actual construction has not been done according to these
drawings.
Ms. Mallek replied that these drawings are different than what was approved by the Board of Supervisors
two years ago, which is the discrepancy that she sees. When the critical slope information finally came
forward, the original location of the building was in the critical slope and had to be changed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 4
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
Mr. Quale asked if the building was previously located further to the east.
Ms. Mallek replied that she could not remember. However, there has been a dramatic increase in the
amount of wood cutting at that site. She hopes the ARB will be able to help make sure the plantings that
are needed to replace what has been taken down that was unanticipated will be put in writing somewhere.
Mr. Lebo asked how much of this (referring to the photo) falls under the ARB’s purview from the bottom
line down.
Ms. Mallek replied nothing within the ARB’s very limited view, which is basically the upper photograph ,
is the only thing the ARB has jurisdiction about. Perhaps they are just up the creek. The buck is passed
to the ARB by the site plan process. She understands the earlier review was the first bubble diagram and
these details were not going to be required last fall. However, now they are here at the end. So they are
really trying to make sure that somebody actually gets these things written down appropriately whether it
be the ARB or the site plan staff. As she said it may be outside what the ARB can do. However, it will
be in the ARB’s record as they move forward.
Mr. Wardell noted that he made the assumption that what he was looking at was the same version the
ARB had seen last fall.
Ms. Mallek replied that is probably accurate as far as the location of the building. However, the change
happened between the ARB’s review and the Board of Supervisors approval.
Mr. Wardell asked if she was saying what the ARB actually looked at last fall was different than what the
Board of Supervisors had approved.
Ms. Mallek replied yes, because of the moving of the buildings and the recognition of the increased
critical slope that was not in the original plan. She understands there is a very sketchy first drawing that
is done. This was of great concern to begin with because of the hilly situation there. However, it is the
process and so they have to live with it.
Mr. Quale recalled the meeting, noting they actually did have a conversation about the critical slope and
the location of the building.
Mr. Wardell pointed out the plan the ARB discussed was different from the plan approved by the Board
of Supervisors.
Ms. Mallek noted that has been raised multiple times during the last couple of years. She knows this is
last ditch, but did hope the ARB would bring whatever attention they can to make sure they get a
replacement of the screening that was to be left. It may just be a recognition passed back to the site plan.
Mr. Wardell invited public comment.
Charles Boldt, resident at 5260 Piney Mountain Road, stated that he was the person who appealed the
ARB’s last decision. He noted that the drawing being reviewed today has a 2:1 slope. When they talked
last March the ARB was looking at a drawing without any critical slopes. The ARB thought they had the
ability to pick any area which did not have critical slopes. Three weeks later a drawing was submitted
with critical slopes. The ARB talked about 3:1 slope and was what they said should be approved, which
is what the Board of Supervisors acted on. What they see now has a 2:1 slope and is not what the ARB
approved. It is not consistent with what the special use permit has. He requested the ARB reject it so
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 5
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
they can go back and do what they said originally. The landscape is not evergreen and being low to the
ground is inappropriate. He also thinks this will be seen from 29. The applicant is relying on the
neighbor not doing anything on his property, which he cannot guarantee. There is lots of documentation
and they could be here for hours. However, the gist of it is that what they are looking at is not what was
approved.
Mr. Lebo asked staff if the excavation began prior to this being approved.
Ms. Maliszewski replied the grading can occur after the initial plan is approved. She added that it really
was not the ARB’s job to determine whether this plan meets the special use permit plan or not. The ARB
review is limited. If they want to compare this plan to the plan the ARB looked at last fall they can do
that.
Mr. Wardell asked if it was the same plan the ARB looked at last fall in terms of grading.
Ms. Maliszewski replied no, there is a difference.
Mr. Boldt stated that the most significant difference is the slope 3:1 vs. 2:1. There was a lot of discussion
about the appropriateness of the 3:1.
Mike Henderson, Pastor, pointed out if they go out to the site today there is a pin in the middle of the road
which has been there for a couple of years. So that has not changed. He pointed out the 2:1 slope. We
were trying to not take down as many trees. There are not a lot of trees in the small area and they would
like to get permission to put more trees to fill it in. He explained they want to put in more trees to screen
the entrance, but the county has to allow it. They would need to be told which trees to put in. They want
to increase the trees because they want an attractive entrance to the property. They think it would be
better if they have a little more of a buffer.
Mr. Wardell noted that the new drawing shows less trees being taken out than the previous plan. The 3:1
has a gentler slope but takes out more trees.
Ed Blackwood, site engineer with Blackwood Engineering, said they have a letter dated May, 2013 from
the county with all the review comments, including the following comment: Reduce the slope grading and
tree disturbance by using a maximum slope steepness of 2:1. That was to limit the tree cutting.
Therefore, they incorporated that into the plan, which was part of the initial site approval about a year
ago. They steepened the slope on the entrance drive to 2:1 and in some other places to keep the tree
cutting to a bare minimum. That should have been reflected in the plan that came to the ARB last fall.
The initial site plan approval had some comments and they addressed those.
Ms. Maliszewski noted that was after the ARB review.
Mr. Blackwood noted he was not sure of the time frame. The request was from the county to steepen
those slopes in order to have less tree removal. Therefore, they incorporated that into the final site plan.
Mr. Wardell said that is what the drawing shows, but he was having a hard time pinpointing what they are
being asked to review in response to comments from a member of the Board of Supervisors saying that
what was presented here does not conform to what they approved. The ARB does not have any
information on the exact configuration of what the Board of Supervisors approved. He asked if that was
correct.
Ms. Maliszewski replied that she did not have the approved concept plan to look at.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 6
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
Mr. Wardell said that would have been a special use permit plan.
Ms. Maliszewski agreed. She reiterated that it was not really the ARB’s responsibility to do that
comparison. If someone is to do that comparison again and find that the plan is not what it used to be and
was something in the ARB’s area of review was to change, then staff would bring it back to the ARB.
But, that has not happened. What the ARB has to review is what they have before them today.
Mr. Wardell pointed out what they have before them today is a change from a 3:1 to 2:1 slope at least
from what was said publicly. Not having actually seen a copy of the letter he asked staff to submit a
copy. He asked if the review was in response to a request from a county planner.
Megan Yaniglos, the site planner for the project, said staff requested that during the initial site plan
review because the special use permit condition listed wooded areas to remain as much as possible. That
was one of the areas. Engineering had recommended that they could go to a 2:1 slope in order to have
more wooded areas in consult with the zoning reviewer.
Mr. Wardell asked if she was the author of that letter, and Ms. Yaniglos replied yes.
Mr. Wardell asked if her comment was in response to her interpretation of the Board of Supervisor s’
requirements.
Ms. Yaniglos replied that it was a zoning interpretation.
Mr. Wardell noted it was a zoning interpretation from the Board of Supervisors’ approval of the
conceptual site plan.
Ms. Yaniglos replied that was correct for the special use permit.
Mr. Wardell pointed out going to a 2:1 slope is consistent with reducing the amount of disturbance of
trees since a 3:1 slope would take more trees out. So the ARB is looking at a plan that has a 2:1 slope in
the area that the ARB has jurisdiction.
The ARB reviewed the photos and discussed the area within the ARB’s jurisdiction.
Ms. Joseph pointed out they don’t know exactly what the quality is interior to the wooded area and some
of the trees may come down themselves when others are taken down.
Mr. Quale agreed because the roots are impacted.
Mr. Wardell said the ARB’s jurisdiction for review was the planting plan and the grading plan for the
entrance and that is it.
Mr. Lebo agreed that was correct.
Ms. Joseph asked Ms. Yaniglos how the process works and if they got preliminary site plan approval and
therefore they can get a grading permit with an erosion and sediment control plan.
Ms. Yaniglos replied that was correct. They had to submit an early grading plan to engineering and they
were able to clear and do some grading. Then they would submit the final Water Protection Ordinan ce
(WPO) and Erosion and Sedimentation (E&S) plan during the final.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 7
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
Ms. Joseph asked if they can do some grading before they have an E&S plan.
Ms. Yaniglos replied no, they would have to do an E&S plan with the early grading plan. However, the
final calculations and everything would be done during the final site plan.
Ms. Joseph asked what kinds of things need to be done before the final site plan approval.
Ms. Yaniglos replied they need ARB approval, planning approval and engineering final approval . In
addition, they need VDOT and Health Department approval. They have Health Department approval.
Mr. Wardell asked staff to characterize in what way the entrance design that was submitted differs from
what the Board of Supervisors approved.
Ms. Yaniglos replied that staff looked at that extensively with zoning. They actually did an overlay and
zoning has found it matches the concept plan that was approved by the Board.
Mr. Lebo pointed out he was ready to recommend approval on this.
Mr. Wardell said he was trying to figure out if there was anything that was in the ARB’s jurisdiction that
has changed since it would impact the validity of their vote.
Mr. Quale added that if it is found in further review that there was something that needs to be brought
back that it would be brought back. However, that would happen anyway.
Mr. Joseph said if people think it is important to look at the rest of the site, then the ordinance needs to be
changed so that the ARB can look at the rest of the site and not just at the 500 foot line.
Mr. Missel arrived at 1:34 PM.
Mr. Wardell invited applicant input.
Mike Henderson said that he knows it is beyond the line and he pointed out the orange tree protection
fence in the photo. He noted the thin area of trees there and that is what they would like to fill in to
increase the buffer. However, they have to get approval from the county and that is down the road. From
the outset their goal has been to retain as many trees as possible, which is why they see the 2:1 slope and
the minimal cutting that has been done.
Mr. Wardell closed the public discussion period to bring the matter before the ARB for discussion.
Board Discussion
Mr. Lebo said he was satisfied with what they are doing.
Mr. Wardell asked for a motion.
Mr. Lebo made a motion to approve the CofA for ARB-2014-24: New Hope Church Final Site Plan with
staff’s recommendations and adding one condition that there will be three (3) Redbuds planted in addition
to what staff has recommended.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 8
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
Ms. Maliszewski suggested the ARB revise condition #1 to say revise the plan to remove the Willow
Oak. In addition condition #2 could be deleted because they resolved the issue about the planting over
the gas line. Condition #3 would stay the same.
Mr. Lebo revised his motion to state that on staff’s recommendations, item #1 has been revised to state
“Revise the plan to remove the Willow Oak in the VDOT right of way” and to delete item #2, as follows:
Motion: Mr. Lebo moved for approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for ARB-2014-24: New
Hope Church Final Site Plan with the conditions listed in the staff report, amended as follows:
1. Revise the plan to remove the Willow Oak in the VDOT right of way.
2. Revise the quantity of Little Bluestem in the plant list from 43 to 53.
Mr. Quale seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:0:1. (Missel abstain)
Mr. Wardell asked that a copy of the site review letter be placed in the file.
ARB-2014-21: Chick-fil-A Final Site Plan - Final Site Development Plan (TM/Parcel 078-55A2)
Proposal: To construct a restaurant with drive-thru lanes and associated site improvements.
Location: 1626 Richmond Road, on the north side of Route 250, across from State Farm Blvd., at the site
of the former Aunt Sarah’s Pancake House
Staff Presentation:
Margaret Maliszewski summarized the staff report, noting the following items as primary points for
discussion:
1. Green screens: design, planting
2. Retaining walls: height, planting
3. Landscaping: at retaining wall, along entrance drive, general character
4. Building design: color/treatment of mechanical room and meter doors, frosted glass windows,
detailing at the top of the walls
The ARB reviewed this proposal in August of last year. At that time the ARB did a preliminary review of
the site and architectural design and provided advisory comments on the special use permit request for the
drive-thru. The special use permit for the drive-thru was approved by the Board of Supervisors in March,
2014. The Board also approved a waiver of the by-pass lane requirement. An initial site plan has been
submitted to the county for review.
Regarding the Initial Site Plan
Staff recommends that the ARB forward the recommendations to the Agent for the Site Review
Committee as listed in the staff report.
Regarding the final review of the site and architectural design
Staff recommends approval with the conditions listed in the staff report.
Applicant Presentation:
Representing the request were Gregory Dodd, Civil Engineer with Horton & Dodd, PC, and Corvin
Flynn, property owner.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 9
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
Mr. Dodd explained the changes to the plan regarding the following issues:
Lighting issue has been resolved
Treatment at the closed end of North Pantops Drive (off-site)
The green screens
There being no public comment, the matter was before the ARB for discussion and action.
BOARD DISCUSSION
The ARB discussed the proposal with staff and the applicant regarding the following issues/concerns:
Design and location of green screens
Frosted windows
Electric panel color
Landscaping plan
Treatment of North Pantops Drive
Regarding the Initial Site Plan
Motion: Mr. Lebo made a motion to forward the following recommendations to the Agent for the Site
Review Committee regarding ARB-2014-21, Chick-Fil-A Pantops.
Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per § 18-30.6.4(2), (3) and (5): None.
Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines: None.
Regarding recommended conditions of initial plan approval: A Certificate of Appropriateness is
required prior to final site plan approval.
Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit:
o Coordinate proposed grading and tree protection fencing to ensure the health of the three
maple trees to remain in the right-of-way along the EC.
o Provide evidence of grading and planting easements.
Mr. Quale seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 5:0.
Regarding the final review of the site and architectural design
Motion: Mr. Lebo moved for approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for ARB-2014-21: Chick-fil-
A Final Site Plan with the conditions listed in the staff report, as follows:
1. Provide VLT and VLR values for the window glass showing that visible light transmittance
(VLT) shall not drop below 40% and visible light reflectance (VLR) shall not exceed 30%.
2. Revise the elevations to correctly identify north, south, east and west. Assume Rt. 250 runs
east-west.
3. Indicate the type of glass proposed for the service yard door.
4. Provide the dumpster details on the site plan.
5. Indicate the height of the transformer located northeast of the building. Ensure that visibility
of the transformer from the EC will be eliminated.
6. Add the mechanical equipment note to the site plan: “Visibility of all mechanical equipment
from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.”
7. Revise the photometric plan using a maintenance factor of 1.0 for all fixtures.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 10
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
8. Revise the photometric plan so that spillover does not exceed .5 fc at the north, east and south
property lines.
9. Revise the fixture schedule to specify “down light only” for the OL fixture.
10. Revise the photometric plan to reduce light levels under the canopy to 20 fc maximum.
11. Reduce light pole height to 20’ maximum, including bases.
12. Add the standard lighting note to the plan. “Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp
that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged
or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent
roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential
or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one half footcandle.”
13. Coordinate the quantity of AXGK shown on the plan with the number listed in the schedule.
14. Revise the plan to show the proposed treatment for the area of N. Pantops Drive that is to be
demolished.
15. Coordinate green screen locations and plants among all drawings.
16. Provide a detail for the wall-mounted green screens.
17. Clarify/coordinate the proposed planting with the gas line along the EC side of the property
and the storm pipe northwest of the building.
18. Increase the size of the shrubs on the south and west sides of the building to 24” high at
planting, minimum.
19. Provide evidence of grading and planting easements.
20. Increase the size of the Zelkovas at the interior of the parking lot to 2½” caliper minimum at
planting.
21. Provide for review a sample of the block proposed for the retaining wall.
22. Add details to the plan to clearly show that the proposed planting can be accomplished with
the proposed retaining wall block system.
23. Coordinate proposed grading and tree protection fencing to ensure the health of the three
maple trees to remain in the right-of-way along the EC.
Mr. Missel seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0.
Regarding condition #14, the ARB also clarified that the renderings show the accurate locations of the
green screens.
ARB-2014-25: Bojangles - Advisory Review of a Special Use Permit, Preliminary Site Development
Plan (TM/Parcel 078-73A2)
Proposal: To construct a restaurant with drive-thru and associated site improvements.
Location: 2013 Abbey Road, on the south side of Rt. 250 between the Applebee’s and the bank in the
Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center
Staff Presentation:
Margaret Maliszewski summarized the staff report, summarizing the proposal, noting the location and
anticipated visibility, and noting the following items as primary points for discussion:
1. The drive-thru window and lane location, design, appropriateness for the EC
2. The glass block windows
3. The awning color
4. The star signs
5. The overall building design
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 11
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
6. Shrubs along the side elevations
Regarding the request for the Special Use Permit:
Staff recommends that the ARB forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission:
The ARB has no objection to the request for the SP based on the design of the drive -thru
window and lane as illustrated in the February 17 and February 20, 2014 architectural
elevations and the February 20, 2014 conceptual site layout.
Regarding the preliminary design:
Staff offers the comments on the preliminary design listed in the staff report.
Applicant Presentation:
Neil McCordant, representative for the area franchise, noted a previous meeting with Ms. Maliszewski
and discussed the following primary issues:
Glass blocks – working on proportions relative to the store front windows
Brick added at the bottom of stucco
Star signs part of design
Kelly Strickland, with Shimp Engineering, noted in the review of the special use permit for the drive -thru
the county engineer has recommended they increase the drive-thru lane from 10 1/2’ width to a 12’ width.
He pointed out to do that they will need to increase the one-way travel way from 26 ½’ to 28’. The only
way they can do that is by taking away part of that landscaping between the bank and the proposed drive-
thru. Therefore, they are asking for a waiver of that 12’ requirement.
There being no public comment, the matter was before the ARB for discussion and action.
BOARD DISCUSSION
The ARB discussed the proposal with staff and the applicant regarding the following issues/concerns:
Supports waiver for 12’ travelway width requirement
Relative blankness and attention to scale
Brick detail and articulation
Architecture – height of pilasters, break down to more human scale for integrated architectural
appearance
Integrate the glass block windows
Future work session on architecture
Entrance design
Maintain medallions
Regarding the Request for the Special Use Permit:
Motion: Mr. Lebo made a motion to forward the following recommendation to the Planning Commission
regarding ARB-2014-25, Bojangles.
The ARB has no objection to the request for the Special Use Permit (SP) based on the design
of the drive-thru window and lane as illustrated in the February 17 and February 20, 2014
architectural elevations and the February 20, 2014 conceptual site layout. The ARB also
expresses support for the waiver request for the travelway width, maintaining a 10.5’ width.
Mr. Quale seconded the motion.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 12
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
The motion carried by a vote of 5:0.
Regarding the preliminary design:
The ARB offers the following comments on the preliminary design:
1. Consider revising the proportions of the glass block windows to coordinate with the architectural
proportions and detail and/or material of the overall building.
2. Provide glass specs on the architectural drawings indicating that visible light transmittance (VLT)
shall not drop below 40% and visible light reflectance (VLR) shall not exceed 30%.
3. Provide a dumpster screen detail on the plan. Screening materials should be coordinated with building
materials.
4. Revise the plan to show the locations of all drive-thru related items. Provide screening to ensure an
appropriate appearance from the EC.
5. Add the standard mechanical equipment note to both the site and architectural plans: “Visibility of all
mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.”
6. Provide complete information on lighting for review.
7. Provide a sufficient quantity of EC frontage trees to meet the 35’ on center requirement.
8. Be sure the plans clearly show existing plants to remain and to be removed.
9. Provide a plant schedule for review.
10. Consider continuing the shrub planting along the two back bays of both side elevations.
11. Provide the standard planting note on the plan: “All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed
to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees
shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant.”
12. Provide a complete landscape plan for review.
13. Sign permits will be required for all wall signs. Note that red acrylic #2283, and its equivalents, is not
approvable shades of red.
14. Eliminate the stars from the piers and pilasters. Maintain the medallions.
15. Consider revising the facades to provide a more human scale and integrated architectural appearance
that breaks down the scale of the canopies, pilasters, façade and cornice. This could be done by
providing additional detail or articulation in the stucco facades, and providing more detail in t he
brick.
16. Reinforce the design of the entrance to the building. This could be done by breaking up the
composition of the canopy.
The ARB recessed at 2:47 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 2:55 p.m.
Work Sessions
ARB-2014-06: Out of Bounds - Initial Site Development Plan (TM/Parcel 60/65)
Mr. Lebo left meeting at 3:28 p.m.
The ARB held a work session on ARB-2014-06: Out of Bounds to discuss the planned sequence of
construction and the extent of review that will be required by the ARB for the various b locks of the
residential development.
Vito Cetta presented a PowerPoint presentation to explain the proposed development. Mark Keller,
architect, was also present.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 13
FINAL 04-07-2014 MINUTES
The ARB directed the applicant to provide a site section or sections to clarify the visi bility of the various
parts of the development from the Entrance Corridor and encouraged the applicant to provide 3D
illustrations, if possible. It was the consensus of the ARB that the buildings along Road D would not
likely require ARB review due to the anticipated low level of visibility from the EC, but elevations would
be needed for the buildings in Block 3.
OTHER BUSINESS
Green Screens at MedExpress building at Pantops:
Ms. Joseph asked staff to check with the inspectors about the green screens on the MedExpress building
at Pantops because it looks like the plants for the screens have not been planted.
Approval of Minutes:
Motion: Mr. Missel moved to approve the 3/17/2014, 2/22/11, 3/7/11, 4/4/11, 7/18/11, 9/6/11, 9/19/11,
10/17/11, 12/5/11 and 12/19/11 minutes.
Ms. Joseph seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 4:0. (Lebo absent)
Next ARB Meeting: Monday, April 21, 2014
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m. to the next ARB meeting on Monday, April 21, 2014 in Ro om
241, Second Floor, County Office Building at 1:00 p.m.
Bruce Wardell, Chair
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Business Assistance During Road Construction
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Discussion about possible options to assist businesses
during upcoming Route 29 improvements construction
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Catlin, Stimart
PRESENTER (S): Lee Catlin, Susan Stimart
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 11, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is developing a strategy to implement reasonable, cost-effective
solutions to address the congestion in the Route 29 corridor in the Albemarle County/Charlottesville region.
Improvements to relieve congestion in that area have been considered for many ye ars. Most recently, in February the
Federal Highway Administration expressed concerns about the construction of the Route 29 Western Bypass. Given
those concerns, VDOT is identifying reasonable alternatives to ensure the continued efficient movement of people and
goods and the viability of this vital transportation corridor.
An advisory panel representing communities along the Route 29 Corridor was created to a ssist in the development of
alternatives to improve mobility in the Albemarle County/Charlottesville region. Former VDOT Commissioner Philip
Shucet, who headed the panel, presented a solutions package at the Advisory Panel’s May 8 meeting. The
Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Metropolitan Planning Organization must approve the plan before the work
can begin. The MPO approved the recommendation on May 28, 2014. The CTB will consider the recommendation on
June 18th. The recommended solutions package includes the following specific projects as well as non-project-specific
recommendations including a continuing consideration of transit options in the Route 29 corridor and the resale of the
right-of-way purchased for the Route 29 western bypass :
Best Buy Ramp Project (Route 29 and US 250 Interchange)
Hillsdale Drive Extended Project (extended to Holiday Drive)
Route 29 Widening Project (extended to Polo Grounds Road)
Adaptive Signal Time Improvements in the Route 29 Corridor)
Berkmar Drive Extended
Route 29/Rio Road Grade Separated Interchange
Route 29/Hydraulic Road grade separated Interchange (Preliminary Engineering Study only)
Additional Train AMTRAK Regional Service (Fund 25% Additional Trainset)
Implementation of these strategies will involve disruption to businesses during construction. County staff desires to work
proactively with VDOT and the business community to minimize negative impacts as much as possible and to develop
positive solutions for maintaining successful operations during any Route 29 improvements.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3. Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
DISCUSSION:
In considering potential options available to support businesses during Route 29 improvements, staff researched
various communities in Virginia and across the country to see what types of assistance programs were use d in similar
circumstances. These programs range from large-scale financial aid packages to assist businesses with ongoing
operational expenses to smaller-scale grant programs focused on promotional and marketing support. It is important
to note that in all cases programs were tailored specifically to meet the needs of the impacted community and the
individual businesses involved, and that all programs had established criteria to determine eligibility. All programs
focused on the reality that road/transportation construction can be hard on businesses in the short term and that the
ultimate outcomes are good for businesses and communities. Staff believes that the following types of strategies
should be further explored to develop a comprehensive business assistance program for consideration by the Board.
AGENDA TITLE: Business Assistance During Road Construction
June 11, 2014
Page 2
State and local partners, including VDOT, the Chamber of Commerce and the North 29 Business Council, should be
engaged in the creation of a final program. Potential funding from VDOT for the following should also be explored.
Before and during construction:
Strong communications/outreach program to keep businesses and customers informed before and during
construction, including information on how to plan ahead and prepare as much as possible (i.e., publications
like “Road Construction Survival Guide” by the City of Madison or “How to Thrive During Road Construction”
by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Attachments A & B)).
Business assistance grant program for promotional support focused specifically on marketing, advertising,
outreach, signage, and other support strategies. This would need to be coordinated with the Albemarle
County Economic Development Authority (EDA) as the appropriate entity to administer grants.
Business counseling/technical assistance offered before and during construction to prepare for and respond
to challenges as they occur – making resource expertise easily available to businesses.
During construction:
Ensure a business-oriented approach to construction – coordinate schedule, pace and order of construction
to minimize impact; focus on maintaining access; visible signage; impact mitigation; etc.
Aggressive “real time” communications effort that provides regular construction updates including “look
aheads” and on-site opportunities for drop in visitors to get project information.
Support a “buy local” effort – identify impacted businesses in the County to channel work to during
construction (i.e., sign makers, restaurants, and coffee shops) to support those businesses.
Other possibilities to explore:
Rewards programs in the form of discounts (funding source to be determined) that incentivize customers to
patronize affected businesses during construction.
Development of apps/social media strategies that keep motorists instantly aware of changing conditions in
construction zones.
Next Steps
Close coordination with VDOT and the business community is necessary to develop a business assistance program
that will provide meaningful support during any upcoming construction. As a first step, staff would move quickly to
arrange a conversation with VDOT officials and business community representatives to establish goals and general
agreement about how such a program would be developed and implemented, with an emphasis on ongoing
communication and dialogue beginning at the earliest stage of the project.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff will determine the budget impact of the program once it is finalized and ready for the Board’s consideration.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board: 1) provide feedback regarding the potential business assistance strategies outlined
above; and 2) direct staff to begin engaging with appropriate VDOT officials and the business community upon
approval by the CTB regarding the development of a final program to be brought back to the Board for its
consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Road Construction Survival Guide
B – How to Thrive During Road Construction
Return to agenda