HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-8-13Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
AUGUST 13, 2014
LANE AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
4:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order.
2. Closed Meeting.
3. Certify Closed Meeting.
4. Appointments.
5:00 p.m.
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 (continuation of RA
discussion). Elaine Echols, Principal Planner.
7:00 p.m.
6. Call to Order Night Meeting.
7. Pledge of Allegiance.
8. Moment of Silence.
9. Adoption of Final Agenda.
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).
13. Public Hearing: PROJECT: SP-2014-00005. Regents School of
Charlottesville (Signs #81&82). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller. PROPOSED:
To increase the student enrollment to 115 students for the 2014 - 2015 school year. To increase the
student enrollment to 130 for the 2015 - 2016 school year. Utilize existing structure, no additional
buildings proposed. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: CO Commercial Office – offices,
supporting commercial and service; residential by special use permit (15 units/acre) SECTION:
Chapter 18 Section 23.2.2(6) of the Albemarle County Code, which allows for School of Special
Instruction COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area 1 - Rural Areas – preserve
and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density
(0.5 unit/ acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 3045 Ivy Road,
Charlottesville VA TAX MAP/PARCEL: 05900-00-00-023G1. David Benish, Chief of Planning.
14. Action: SDP-2014-00046. Christian Aid Mission. Critical Slopes Waiver – Major
Site Plan Amendment. David Benish, Chief of Planning
Action Items:
15. Establishment of Economic Development Office. Lee Catlin, Assistant to the County
Executive for Community and Business Partnerships.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2014Files/0813/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 2) [10/6/2020 3:46:48 PM]
Tentative
16. Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) Depreciations Funds.
Discussion/Action Items:
17. Discussion: Route 29 Project Delivery Advisory Panel Update.
18. Discussion/Action: Proposed Route 29 Solutions Package Resolution.
19. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
20. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
21. Adjourn to August 26, 2014, 5:00 p.m., Room 241, for Joint Meeting with School Board.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
12.1 Approval of Minutes: August 14, August 21, October 2 and October 9, 2013.
12.2 SDP-2008-00086. Willow Glen – Special Exception to Authorize Variations from the
Application Plan and Code of Development (ZMA-2006-00019).
12.3 Resolution to Amend Board of Supervisors’ Meeting Schedule.
12.4 Expansion of Photosafe Program to the Intersection of Greenbrier Drive and Seminole Trail
(to defer indefinitely).
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ONLY
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2014Files/0813/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 2) [10/6/2020 3:46:48 PM]
Memorandum
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Members, Board of Supervisors
FROM: Travis O. Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: August 7, 2014
SUBJECT: Boards and Commissions Vacancy and Reappointment List
______________________________________________________________________________
For information only please find attached an updated listing of vacancies for boards and commissions through
August 7, 2014.
Appointments that need to be made at this time are to the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee and Water Resources
Funding Advisory Committee.
Listed below are the names of individuals who wish to be appointed the respective committees:
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee: One vacancy
Brockett Muir
Johanna O’Loughlin
Charlie Armstrong
James Savage
Water Resources Funding Advisory committee: Ten vacancies
Kimberly Swanson
Jeffrey Sitler
Alyson Sappington
Rob Neil
Jerry McCormick-Ray
Charlie Armstrong
Leslie Middleton
Sandra Hodge
Kirk Bowers
Trey Steigman
Mary-Carolyn Lawson
Lonnie Murray
Roger Ray
Roberta (Robbi) Savage
Joseph Jones
Brian Campbell
2
WATER RESOURCES APPLICANTS
One member of the Board of Supervisors to serve as a liaison
One member of the Planning Commission to serve as a liaison
Karen Firehock
One representative from a Community Advisory Council
Kimberly Swanson
One representative from a homeowners association
Leslie Middleton
One large property owner
Rob Neil
Jerry McCormick-Ray
Sandra Hodge
Trey Steigman
One representative from the Farm Bureau
Joseph Jones
One representative from the Soil and Water Conservation District
Alyson Sappington
Lonnie Murray
One representative from the faith community
One representative from the Town of Scottsville
One representative from an environmental protection organization
Jerry McCormick-Ray
Leslie Middleton
Kirk Bowers
Roberta (Robbi) Savage
Two representatives from the general public
Jeffrey Sitler
Rob Neil
Jerry McCormick-Ray
Charlie Armstrong
Leslie Middleton
Sandra Hodge
Trey Steigman
Mary-Carolyn Lawson
Roger Ray
Brian Campbell
Assistant County Executive
County Attorney’s Office
County Water Resource Manager
MEMBER
TERM
EXPIRES
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
WISH TO BE
RE-APPOINTED?
DISTRICT IF
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT
ACE Appraisal Review Committee Ross Stevens 12/31/2013 12/31/2014 waiting for response
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council Steve Murray 4/17/2012 4/17/2016 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council Mark Gorlinsky 5/5/2010 4/17/2014 Resigned
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council David van Roijen 4/17/2013 4/17/2017 Ineligible
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council Robin Mellen 4/17/2013 4/17/2017 Ineligible
Architectural Review Board John Quale 11/14/2016 Resigned Advertised, 2 applications recv'd
Architectural Review Board Following application received:
Peter Welch
Joseph Chambers
Crozet Community Advisory Council Kelly Strickland 3/31/2015 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
Crozet Community Advisory Council Janice Applebach 3/31/2015 Resigned
Crozet Community Advisory Council Matthew Sposato 3/31/2016 Resigned
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee David Mitchell 7/8/2014 7/8/2016 Ineligible Advertised, 4 applications recv'd
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Following application received:
Brockett Muir
Johanna O'Loughlin
Charlie Armstrong
James Savage
Historic Preservation Committee Amy Durbin 6/4/2015 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
Long Range Solid Waste Soloutions Adv Comm VACANT 11/30/2015 Advertised, No applications recv'd
Long Range Solid Waste Soloutions Adv Comm VACANT 11/30/2015
Long Range Solid Waste Soloutions Adv Comm VACANT 11/30/2015
Long Range Solid Waste Soloutions Adv Comm VACANT 11/30/2015
Long Range Solid Waste Soloutions Adv Comm VACANT 11/30/2015
Natural Heritage Committee Diana Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Natural Heritage Committee DeMellon Forest 9/30/2012 9/30/2016 No
Natural Heritage Committee Christopher Dumler 9/30/2013 Resigned
Natural Heritage Committee Brian Morse 9/30/2013 9/30/2017 waiting for response
Natural Heritage Committee Following applications received:
RD "Peppy" Winchel
Pantops Community Advisory Council Rita Krenz 6/30/2013 6/30/2016 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Pantops Community Advisory Council Amy Preddy 6/30/2014 Resigned
Revised 08/07/2014
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP201400005 Regents School of Charlottesville
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Provide the Board of Supervisors additional information
provided after the Planning Commission’s June 3, 2014
Public Hearing of SP201400005.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Benish, Mr. Perez
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE: August 13, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On June 3, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this special use permit application and
recommended denial of the application due to traffic safety concern due to excessive delay times while exiting the
property in the morning hours.
After the Planning Commission’s public hearing, the applicant and owner of the property, Christian Aid Mission (CAM),
requested approval of a major site plan amendment to construct a new entrance from the site onto Broomley Road (Route
677). The Site Review Committee (SRC) has reviewed the site plan amendment and the proposal appears approvable
once all comments provided to the applicant are adequately addressed. The applicant also provided additional traffic
study information assuming the installation of the new entrance on Broomley Road, as well as crash data from 2008 to
2014 for Route 250.
DISCUSSION:
The traffic study indicates that the level of service (LOS) at the existing modified (right in and out only) entrance
on Rte 250 improves from a LOS F to a LOS C or better, and that the Broomley Road entrance will perform at a
LOS C or better. (Attachment A).
VDOT crash data for the site from January 1, 2008 to January 1, 2014 shows no collisions from vehicles turning
into or out of the entrance to this site but does show four (4) collisions between 2009 and 2010 from vehicles
turning left out of entrances in this general area to travel east on Rte 250 towards Charlottesville. Two of these
collisions were at the entrance to Northridge prior to the traffic signal being installed at that location (Attachment
B).
As noted above, the site plan amendment for the new entrance on to Broomley Road has been reviewed by the
Site Review Committee and appears approvable once all minor site plan items are addressed. The proposed
entrance is located in an area containing critical slopes and will require that the Board approve a special
exception to allow grading of those slopes. The critical slopes appear to be man-made, and the County Engineer
and planning staff have recommended approval of this special exception. Staff analysis of the special exception is
provided as Attachment C.
Since the public hearing staff has received considerable opposition from residents of neighboring communities in
Flordon, West Leigh and Candlewyck neighborhoods with regards to the new entrance on Broomley Road as well
as with the increase in enrollment at the site (see Attachment D for letters and emails from citizens).
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended denial of this request due to concerns with traffic
impacts from the proposed enrollment expansion. Subsequent information provided by the applicant demonstrates that
constructing a new entrance on to Broomley Road and modifying the existing entrance on Route 250 (to right in/right out
only) will address those traffic concerns. Alternate conditions of approval were provided by staff in the original staff report
and include a condition that requires the construction of the Broomley Road entrance prior to allowing any expansion of
enrollment. These conditions have been updated to address some technical corrections. Should the Board move to
approve this request, staff recommends the following revised conditions of approval:
1. The school is limited to the existing administrative building and grounds, as shown on the concept plan
(Attachment A). All parking for the facility shall be located in areas designated on the concept plan as P1,
P2, P3, P6, and P7. Any additional buildings or other site changes beyond those shown on the approved
site plan for SDP1992-052 titled “Christian Aid Mission Administration Building” prepared by William W.
Finley and date approved July 14, 1994 require an amendment to this Special Use Permit. If an entrance
to the school from Broomley Road is pursued by the applicant, the final site plan on which the Broomley
Road entrance is approved shall supersede the approved site plan for SDP 1992-052 without requiring an
amendment to this Special Use Permit.
2. If the entrance to the school is solely from Rte 250, the maximum enrollment shall not exceed 98
students.
3. If an entrance to the school is also provided from Broomley Road, the entrance from Rte 250 shall be
reconfigured to be right-in/right-out only and the maximum enrollment shall not exceed 130 students.
4. If the entrance to the school is from Broomley Road, the permittee shall design and construct a vehicle
entrance onto the site from Broomley Road according to all applicable VDOT design and construction
standards and all other VDOT requirements.
5. All students shall be over the age of two and one-half (2 ½) years old.
6. The hours of operation for the school shall be between 7:45 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., except that occasional
school-related events may occur after 4:00 p.m.
7. No food preparation is permitted onsite without an amendment to this Special Use Permit to authorize
onsite food preparation.
8. The permittee shall obtain an annual fire inspection from the County fire marshal.
9. In no case shall the total number of people (students and school personnel) utilizing the school building
exceed 150.
Staff also recommends approval of the Special Exception to permit grading on critical slopes.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Traffic Study (10 page excerpt)
B. Crash Data provided by VDOT
C. Special Exception, Critical Slope Waiver
D. Citizen correspondence against the proposal
E. Planning Commission’s Action Letter
F. Staff report with attachments
G. Planning Commission minutes
Return to agenda
Technical Memorandum
Traffic Analysis 2nd Update
Regents School
Charlottesville, Virginia
Prepared for:
Courtney Palumbo
Head of School
Regents School of Charlottesville
By:
Bill Wuensch, P.E., PTOE; Wei He
EPR, P.C.
637 Berkmar Circle
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
July, 2014
1
Traffic Analysis 2nd Update
Regents School, Charlottesville, VA
1. Introduction
The purpose of this memo is to provide an update to the prior traffic analysis
update for the proposed Regents School s enrollment expansion. This memo
provides the summary of the traffic volumes and traffic operations for existing
conditions, build condition with existing volumes, and build conditions with 130
students . The analysis is based on the existing traffic volumes along Route 250 at
Regents School s existing entrance and at Broomley Road, and assumes that in
the build condition the existing entrance will become a right in/out entrance and a
new entrance will be added on Broomley Road, though arrival and departure
patterns on Route 250 will remain as existing.
Figure 1 provides the illustration of the site location, its vicinity, and the study
intersections.
The study intersections in this memo are as follows:
1. The new intersection of Broomley Road and the new entrance.
2. The intersection of Route 250 and Broomley Road.
3. The intersection of Route 250 and the existing entrance.
The new intersection of Broomley Road and the new entrance will be an
unsignalized intersection with a STOP condition for the new entrance, the
intersection of Route 250 and Broomley Road is a signalized intersection, and the
intersection of Route 250 and the existing entrance is an unsignalized intersection
with a STOP condition for the existing entrance and will be an unsignalized right
in/out intersection with a STOP condition for the existing entrance.
Route 250 at the site location is classified as a rural minor arterial facility. The
posted speed limit is 45 mph. Broomley Road is not classified, as a rural local.
2. Methodology
The majority of school traffic occurs within a 15-minute peak period in both the AM
and PM peak hours. Thus, the modeling process considers the peak 15 minutes
and appropriate adjustments to simulate conditions for the peak 15 minutes.
2
When calculating the new trips generated by the expansion, the analysis
compares the results from two methodologies 1. Use existing driveway counts
and calculate from existing site trips per the proportion of new students to existing
students (i.e. direct proportionate increase); 2. Calculate site trips per ITE Trip
Generation with ITE Code 534. The projected site trips are taken to be the larger
number from the two calculation methodologies, and are assigned to Regent
School s new entrance based on existing site trip patterns.
The analysis examines the following issues:
(1) Turn lane needs at the new intersection of Broomley Road and the new
entrance.
(2) Traffic operations at the study intersections.
(3) Expected queues at the study intersections.
When examining turn lane needs, the analysis is based on VDOT Road Design
Manual: Appendix G, Access Management Design Standards for Entrances and
Intersections.
When simulating traffic operations, Synchro and SimTraffic models (ver 8) are
utilized, and Synchro delay, LOS , and SimTraffic queues (average of 10 runs)
results are reported.
3. Existing Conditions
Traffic Volumes
Existing traffic counts for AM and PM weekday peak hours were performed on
February 5th, 2014, Wednesday, a typical weekday while schools were in session.
The counts for AM were performed between 7:30AM and 8:30AM, and the counts
for PM were performed between 2:30PM and 3:30PM. The original traffic count
reports are provided in Appendix A to this memo. The peak 15-minute during AM
and PM are identified as 8:00AM-8:15AM and 3:00PM-3:15PM.
Figure 2 provides the illustration for the existing peak 15 -minute traffic volumes.
Figure 3 provides the illustration for the existing peak 1 hour traffic volumes.
Traffic Operations
Synchro analysis indicates that:
The intersection of Route 250 and Broomley Road and all movements
operate at LOS C or better in AM and PM.
3
The intersection of Route 250 and the existing entrance and all movements
operate at LOS C or better in AM and PM, with the exception that SBL/SBR
from the existing entrance operates at LOS F in AM.
SimTraffic analysis indicates that:
At the intersection of Route 250 and Broomley Road, maximum queue for
EBL is 28 feet, which can be well accommodated by the 175 feet EBL storage
lane, and maximum queue for the SBL is 109 feet, which is longer than the 75
feet SBL storage lane. However, all of the vehicles clear from the southbound
approach with each signal cycle.
At the intersection of Route 250 and the existing entrance, maximum queue
for SBL/SBR from the existing entrance is 199 feet (approximately 8 cars).
The Synchro and SimTraffic outputs are summarized in a Table 1. The existing
Synchro and SimTraffic reports are provided in Appendix B to this memo.
Table 1 Existing Traffic Operations
Existing Storage Synchro SimTraffic Synchro SimTraffic
Length LOS Delay Queue LOS Delay Queue
Broomley/New Entrance
New Entrance WBL/WBR - - - - - -
Broomley NBT/NBR - - - - - -
Broomley SBL/SBT - - - - - -
Intersection - - - - - -
Route 250/Broomley
Route 250 EBL 175' A 3.1 28 A 3.8 23
Route 250 EBT A 8.6 306 A 3.7 105
Route 250 WBT A 6.4 116 B 10.4 124
Route 250 WBR A 5.4 42 A 6.1 38
Broomley SBL 75' C 27.8 109 C 20.1 74
Broomley SBR C 21 19 B 15.4 47
Intersection A 9.2 A 8
Route 250/Existing Entrance
Route 250 EBL A 8.1 33 A 8.6 31
Route 250 EBT A 0 0 A 0 0
Route 250 WBT A 0 0 A 0 0
Route 250 WBR A 0 2 A 0 2
Existing Entrance SBL/SBR F 271.5 199 C 22.5 90
Intersection C 19.3 A 2
4
4. Build Condition with Existing Volumes
Traffic Volumes
It is assumed that in the build condition the existing entrance will become a right
in/out entrance and a new entrance will be added on Broomley Road. In the build
condition with existing volumes, site trips are reassigned to the two entrances.
Figure 4 provides the illustration for the existing peak 15-minute site trips. Figure
5 provides the illustration for the background peak 15-minute traffic volumes,
where existing site trips are taken off. Figure 6 provides the illustration for the
build condition with existing volumes peak 15-minute site trips. Figure 7 provides
the illustration for the build condition with existing volumes peak 15-minute traffic
volumes, where existing site trips are reassigned. Figure 8 provides the
illustration for the build condition with existing volumes 4 x peak 15-minute traffic
volumes.
Turn Lane Warrants
In the build conditions with existing volumes , the analysis indicates that no
southbound left-turn lane and a right-turn radius are required at the new
intersection of Broomley Road and the new entrance. See Table 2 for detail build
condition with existing traffic volumes turn lane warrants. The turn lane warrant
sheets are provided in Appendix C to this memo.
Table 2 Build Condition with Existing Volumes Turn Lane Warrants (with Volumes
Calculated as 4 x Peak 15 Minutes)
Intersection Direction AM PM
New Entrance at
Broomley Road
NB
Right Turn Right-Turn Radius Required Right-Turn Radius Required
New Entrance at
Broomley Road
SB
Left Turn No Left-Turn Lane Required No Left-Turn Lane Required
Traffic Operations
Synchro analysis indicates that:
The new intersection of Broomley Road and the new entrance, the
intersection of Route 250 and Broomley Road, the intersection of Route 250
and the existing entrance, and all movements will operate at LOS C or better
in AM and PM.
5
SimTraffic analysis indicates that:
At the new intersection of Broomley Road and the new entrance, maximum
queue for WBL/WBR will be 67 feet (approximately 3 cars).
At the intersection of Route 250 and Broomley Road, the maximum queue for
the EBL is 92 feet, which can be well accommodated by the 175 feet EBL
storage lane, and maximum queue for the SBL is 144 feet, which is longer
than the 75 feet SBL storage lane. However, all of the vehicles clear from the
southbound approach with each signal cycle. Also, in practice vehicles will
wait to enter onto Broomley until there is sufficient room in the turn lane.
At the intersection of Route 250 and the existing entrance , maximum queue
for SBR from the existing entrance is 34 feet (approximately 2 cars).
The Synchro and SimTraffic outputs are summarized in a Table 3. The Synchro
and SimTraffic reports are provided in Appendix B to this memo.
Table 3 Build Condition with Existing Volumes Traffic Operations (with Volumes
Calculated as 4 x Peak 15 Minutes)
Build with Existing Volumes Storage Synchro SimTraffic Synchro SimTraffic
Length LOS Delay Queue LOS Delay Queue
Broomley/New Entrance
New Entrance WBL/WBR A 9.9 67 A 9.4 65
Broomley NBT/NBR A 0 0 A 0 0
Broomley SBL/SBT A 0 0 A 0 0
Intersection A 3.8 A 4
Route 250/Broomley
Route 250 EBL 175' A 4.2 92 A 4.6 40
Route 250 EBT B 12.1 571 A 4.5 122
Route 250 WBT A 8.5 168 B 11.2 184
Route 250 WBR A 7.1 46 A 6.8 51
Broomley SBL 75' C 29.7 144 C 21.7 120
Broomley SBR B 19.6 77 B 15.4 48
Intersection B 13.3 A 9.7
Route 250/Existing Entrance
Route 250 EBL - - - - - -
Route 250 EBT A 0 0 A 0 0
Route 250 WBT A 0 0 A 0 0
Route 250 WBR A 0 0 A 0 0
Existing Entrance SBL/SBR B 10.1 31 B 11.7 34
Intersection B 0.1 A 0.1
6
5. Build Condition with 130 Students
Site Trip Generation and Distribution
For the purpose of this analysis, a maximum possible enrollment of 1 30 students
was modeled as a worst case traffic scenario.
In build condition with 130 students, trips generated are calculated as provided in
Table 4. The total site trips are 129 in the AM with 75 inbound and 54 outbound,
and 75 in the PM with 41 inbound and 34 outbound.
Notice that this school is K-9. All students are dropped off together in the morning,
but the kindergartners are picked up at noon, prior to the 3PM standard release
time. Hence the difference in the drop-off and pick-up vehicle count. Per field
observations, many of the vehicles carried 2 and 3 students each.
Table 4 Trip Generation under Build Condition with 130 Students
AM ITE Code Unit AM
IN OUT
83 Students - - 48 34
130 Students
By Proportion - - 75 53
By Trip Generation 534 130 66 54
PM Leaving at 12PM ITE Code Unit PM
IN OUT
73 Students 10 Students - - 27 22
112 Students 18 Students
By Proportion - - 41 34
By Trip Generation 534 112 30 34
For the distribution of the new trips, the new site trips are assigned to Regent
School s two entrances.
Figure 9 provides the illustration for site trip distribution percentage. Figure 10
provides the illustration for the build condition with 130 students peak 15-minute
site trips.
Traffic Volumes
The new site trips are added to the background traffic volumes to calculate the
build condition with 130 students traffic volumes. Figure 11 provides the
7
illustration for build condition with 130 students peak 15-minute traffic volumes.
Figure 12 provides the illustration for the build condition with 130 students 4 x
peak 15 -minute traffic volumes.
Turn Lane Warrants
In the build condition with 130 students, the analysis indicates that no southbound
left-turn lane and a right-turn radius are required at the new intersection of
Broomley Road and the new entrance. See Table 5 for detail build turn lane
warrants. The turn lane warrant sheets are provided in Appendix C to this memo.
Table 5 Build Condition with 130 Student Turn Lane Warrants (with Volumes
Calculated as 4 x Peak 15 Minutes)
Intersection Direction AM PM
New Entrance at
Broomley Road
NB
Right Turn Right-Turn Radius Required Right-Turn Radius Required
New Entrance at
Broomley Road
SB
Left Turn No Left-Turn Lane Required No Left-Turn Lane Required
Traffic Operation
Synchro analysis indicates that:
The new intersection of Broomley Road and the new entrance, the
intersection of Route 250 and Broomley Road, the intersection of Route 250
and the existing entrance, and all movements will operate at LOS C or better
in AM and PM.
SimTraffic analysis indicates that:
At the new intersection of Broomley Road and the new entrance, the
maximum queue for WBL/WBR will be 84 feet (approximately 3 cars).
At the intersection of Route 250 and Broomley Road, the maximum queue for
the EBL is 107 feet, which can be well accommodated by the 175 feet EBL
storage lane, and maximum queue for the SBL is 149 feet, which is longer
than the 75 feet SBL storage lane. However, all of the vehicles clear from the
southbound approach with each signal cycle.
At the intersection of Route 250 and the existing entrance, the maximum
queue for SBR from the existing entrance is 34 feet (approximately 2 cars).
8
Table 6 Build Condition with 130 Student Traffic Operations (with Volumes
Calculated as 4 x Peak 15 Minutes)
Build with 130 Students Storage Synchro SimTraffic Synchro SimTraffic
Length LOS Delay Queue LOS Delay Queue
Broomley/New Entrance
New Entrance WBL/WBR B 10.3 84 A 9.6 72
Broomley NBT/NBR A 0 0 A 0 0
Broomley SBL/SBT A 0 0 A 0 0
Intersection A 5 A 4.9
Route 250/Broomley
Route 250 EBL 175' A 5.3 107 A 5.9 46
Route 250 EBT B 16.6 581 A 5.6 121
Route 250 WBT B 10.3 161 B 14.3 205
Route 250 WBR A 8.5 54 A 8.2 50
Broomley SBL 75' C 27.5 149 B 18.2 126
Broomley SBR B 18.7 185 B 14.9 55
Intersection B 16.6 B 11.5
Route 250/Existing Entrance
Route 250 EBL - - - - - -
Route 250 EBT A 0 0 A 0 0
Route 250 WBT A 0 0 A 0 0
Route 250 WBR A 0 0 A 0 0
Existing Entrance SBL/SBR B 10.1 34 B 11.7 34
Intersection C 0.1 A 0.2
6. Findings and Conclusions
The analysis conducted in this memo leads to following principal findings
and conclusions:
(1) No southbound left-turn lane is warranted at the new intersection of Broomley
Road and the new entrance.
(2) A right-turn radius is warranted at the new intersection of Broomley Road and
the new entrance.
(3) In the existing conditions, the intersection of Route 250 and Broomley Road,
9
the intersection of Route 250 and the existing entrance , and all movements
operate at LOS C or better in AM and PM , with the exception that SBL/SBR
from the existing entrance operates at LOS F in AM.
(4) With the assumption that, in the build condition, site trips are reassigned to the
existing entrance, which will become a right in/out entrance , and the new
entrance, which will be added on Broomley Road, and the assumption that the
expansion has a maximum possible enrollment of 130 students, the new
intersection of Broomley Road and the new entrance, the intersection of Route
250 and Broomley Road, the intersection of Route 250 and the existing
entrance, and all movements will operate at LOS C or better in AM and PM in
all build conditions
(5) At the intersection of Route 250 and Broomley Road, the markings for the SBL
storage lane should be extended as much as possible to create a dedicated
storage area for the maximum queue of 150 feet (6 vehicles) to accommodate
the future SBL traffic queues. If there is insufficient spacing between the new
entrance and the Route 250 intersection to allow for full storage of six vehicles,
i vided in front
of the entrance.
(6) At the intersection of Route 250 and the existing entrance, in the existing
conditions, a queue issue exists at the existing entrance with the maximum
queue for SBL/SBR at 199 feet (approximately 8 cars); however, this will
become much better in build conditions the maximum queue for SBR will be
at 34 feet (approximately 2 cars).
(7) No queue issue will exist at the new intersection of Broomley Road and the
new entrance the maximum queue for WBL/WBR will be 84 feet
(approximately 3 cars).
End of Memorandum
Christian Aid Mission – Special Exception
August 13, 2014 BOS
1
ATTACHMENT C
STAFF PERSON: Christopher Perez
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: August 13, 2014
Special Exception to waive provisions of Section 4.2 of Zoning Ordinance (Critical Slopes)
LOCATION: 3045 Ivy Road, Charlottesville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 05900-00-00-023G1
BACKGROUND:
The applicant Christian Aid Mission (CAM) is requesting approval of a Major Site Plan amendment to construct a new
entrance onto Broomley Road, (Route 677) on the CAM property of TMP 05900-00-00-023G1. The proposed entrance is
located in an area containing critical slopes. The applicant is requesting a special exception for disturbance of a small
area of man-made critical slopes to facilitate the entrance.
CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER
The proposed development will require the disturbance of critical slopes. A modification to allow critical slopes disturbance
is necessary before the Major Site Plan Amendment can be approved by staff. The applicant has submitted a request and
justification for the waiver, and this request has been reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning aspects of the
critical slopes regulations. The critical slopes being disturbed are on the Western portion of the CAM property. The area of
critical slopes on the entire site is approximately 100,000 SF and represents 19% of the parcel. The proposed entrance
onto Broomley Road disturbs 573 SF (0.6%) of the critical slopes onsite. The critical slopes in the area of this request
appear to be man-made and created pursuant to the construction of Broomley Road and the closing of the original
entrance to the Christian Aid Mission property from Broomley Road (to include grading and filling) as approved by the
County on Site Plan: SDP1988-094.
Review of the request by Engineering staff:
These slopes are from road ditch and shoulder work. The County Engineer has determined that because these are man-
made slopes associated with previous road work, the full review of cr itical slope criteria is unnecessary. Disturbance is
necessary to establish a safer entrance.
Review of the request by Planning staff:
The critical slopes in the area of this request appear to be man-made and created pursuant to the construction of
Broomley Road and the closing of the original entrance to the Christian Aid Mission property from Broomley Road (to
include grading and filling) as approved by the County on Site Plan SDP1988-094. The disturbance of these critical slopes
may be authorized by the Board of Supervisors by a Special Exception under Chapter 18 Sections 4.2.1(b) and 33.5.
Section 4.2.5 establishes the review process for granting a waiver of Section 4.2.3. The preceding comments by staff
address the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a). Staff has included the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a)(3), along with staff
comment on the various provisions. Under 33.9, Special Exceptions, the Board of Supervisors may modify or waive any
requirement of section 4.2 based on these provisions: (However, no speci fic finding is required in support of the Board’s
decision.)
“A. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve
the public health, safety or welfare;”
Granting the modification request could better serve the purpose of this chapter or the public health, safe ty or
welfare by allowing a safer entrance to be built. The critical slopes in the area of this request appear to be man-
made. Strict application of this section would not forward the purposes of this chapter.
“B. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of section 4.2 to at least
Christian Aid Mission – Special Exception
August 13, 2014 BOS
2
an equivalent degree;”
No alternatives have been proposed by the applicant. Regardless, any entrance proposed on Broomley Road
would require a critical slope waiver.
“C. Due to the property’s unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual conditions, excluding the
proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting the disturbance of critical slopes would effectively prohibit or
unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent
properties; or”
Disturbance is necessary to establish a safer entrance.
“D. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be served by strict
application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived.”
Disturbance is necessary to establish a safer entrance.
Based on Engineering and Planning’s review above, there are no concerns that would cause staff to object to the
approval of the critical slope disturbance request. Staff is recommending approval of this critical slope waiver request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
June 13, 2014
Courtney Palumbo
3397 Cesford Grange
Keswick, VA. 22947
RE: SP201400005 – Regents School of Charlottesville (RSC)
Dear Ms. Palumbo:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 3, 2014, by a vote of 7:0
recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this recommendation is based on the following conditions:
Unfavorable factors:
1. Increased persons at the facility would create unsafe access conditions due to excessive delay times
exiting the property in the morning hours. An acceptable alternative access strategy is needed to
remedy the safety concerns with ingress and egress to the site.
2. It is debatable as to whether the proposed increase in enrollment would constitute a small-scale use
as recommended in the Rural Areas Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.
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
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,
Christopher P. Perez
Senior Planner
Planning Division
cc: Regents School Of Charlottesville
3045 Ivy Road
Charlottesville, VA. 22903
Christian Aid Mission
1201 5th Street Ext
Charlottesville VA. 22902
SP20140005 – Regents School of Charlottesville (RSC)
Planning Commission: June 3, 2014
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Proposal: SP201400005 Regents School of
Charlottesville
Staff: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
June 3, 2014
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
TBD
Ow ner: Christian Aid Mission (CAM) Applicant: Regents School of Charlottesville (RSC)
Acreage: 12.5 acre parcel, SP to cover approximately
4 acres of the site.
TMP: 05900-00-00-023G1
Location: 3045 Ivy Road Charlottesville VA Zoning: CO Commercial Office – offices, supporting
commercial and service; residential by special use
permit (15 units/acre)
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Conditions: Yes EC: Yes
Proposal: Amendment to Special Use Permit
(SP2013-10) for School of Special Instruction to
increase the number persons (students and teachers)
permitted at the site from the current 96 persons
permitted onsite under the existing Special Use
Permit to 115 students for the 2014 - 2015 school
year and to 130 students for the 2015 - 2016 school
year. Utilize existing structure, no additional
buildings proposed. School of Special Instruction
(Chapter 18 Section 23.2.2(6))
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 0
DA: RA: X Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area 1 - Rural Areas
– preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/
density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
Character of Property: The property is developed
with four existing buildings and related parking.
(Attachment A)
Use of Surrounding Properties: Surrounding
properties are commercial uses, and single family
residential uses.
Factors Favorable:
1. Provides an alternative school option for
people who live and work in the area.
2. The use is located in an existing
underutilized building, with adequate
existing parking, and an existing septic
system approved for up to 161 persons. No
new structures are being built.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Increased persons at the facility would create
unsafe access conditions due to excessive delay
times exiting the property in the morning hours.
An acceptable alternative access strategy is
needed to remedy the safety concerns with
ingress and egress to the site.
2. It is debatable as to whether the proposed
increase in enrollment would constitute a small-
scale use as recommended in the Rural Areas
Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend approval of the request as proposed, and only
recommends approval of SP201400005, Regents School of Charlottesville under the following
modifications to the existing conditions from SP201300010.
SP20140005 – Regents School of Charlottesville (RSC)
Planning Commission: June 3, 2014
2
STAFF PERSON: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: June 3, 2014
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
PETITION:
PROJECT: SP201400005 Regents School of Charlottesville (RSC)
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 05900-00-00-023G1
LOCATION: 3045 Ivy Road Charlottesville VA
PROPOSED: Amendment to Special Use Permit (SP2013-10) for School of Special Instruction to increase the number
persons (students and teachers) permitted at the site from the current 96 persons permitted onsite under the existing
Special Use Permit to 115 students for the 2014 - 2015 school year and to 130 students for the 2015 - 2016 school year.
Utilize existing structure, no additional buildings proposed. School of Special Instruction (Chapter 18 Section
23.2.2(6))
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: CO Commercial Office – offices, supporting commercial and
service; residential by special use permit (15 units/acre)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area 1 - Rural Areas – preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in
development lots).
CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA:
The subject property is located at 3045 Ivy Road. The surrounding area is primarily developed with commercial
uses, and single family residential uses. North of the property are railroad tracks that run behind the property and
separate the adjacent residential development of Farmington Subdivision and Flordon Subdivision from the
subject property. To the East are two commercially zoned properties. To the South is Route 250, Ivy Road. To the
West is Broomley Rd which serves Farmington Subdivision and Flordon Subdivision. Across Broomley Road is
another commercially zoned property.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SDP1979 Christian Aid Mission Site Plan – site plan for Fellowship Hall, Annex, and Guest House.
SDP1988-094 Christian Aid Mission Major Site Plan Amendment – site plan for Guest House Relocation and
Garage addition, and deceleration lane/ entrance upgrades.
SDP1992-052 Christian Aid Mission Administration Building Major Site Plan Amendment – site plan for
the Administration Building. Building was built in 1995.
SP201200012 Regents School of Charlottesville – Special Use Permit for a school of special instruction in an
existing building, with limits of 60 students and 9 staff.
SP201300010 Regents School of Charlottesville – Special Use Permit to allow a school of Special Instruction to
increase the number of persons (students and teachers) permitted at the site from the current 69 allowed under
SP201200012, to increase by 27 persons for a total of 96 persons permitted onsite.
DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL:
The property is zoned CO - Commercial Office. The Christian Aid Mission (CAM) complex is comprised of four
buildings and associated parking on 12.5 acres. Three (3) of the buildings in the complex are utilized by CAM.
The fourth building, the old Christian Aid Mission’s Administration Building, is the only building used by the
Regents School of Charlottesville (RSC). The building is two stories with a basement. The 1st floor has 3,900
square feet (6 classrooms + 1 large multipurpose room and 5 restrooms), the 2nd floor has 3,900 square feet (7
classrooms and 3 restrooms), and the basement has 3,500 square feet (3 classrooms + 1 large multipurpose room
and 2 restrooms).
The CAM complex currently has 54 parking spaces available; of those RSC currently utilizes areas P1, P2, P3 as
depicted on the approved concept plan, for a total of 15 spaces. To accommodate an increase of persons at the site for a
total of 150 persons (students and teachers), an additional 15 parking spaces are proposed for use by RSC, increasing
the total parking needs of the school to 30 parking spaces total (1 car per 10 students, 1 space per
teacher/administrator). The additional spaces for the increase in enrollment already existing onsite in areas P6 and P7
(Attachment A) and are to be utilized by the facility. Also, the applicant has proposed a vehicle drop off and pickup
route onsite (Attachment A).
SP20140005 – Regents School of Charlottesville (RSC)
Planning Commission: June 3, 2014
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 use will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent lots.
The outdoor activities of the school do not impact residential properties given the distance of the school from
neighboring residences and the separation provided by the heavily wooded buffers which surround the property.
Planning staff has visited the site numerous times and is comfortable with the natural barriers which exist between the
school and the train tracks and feel that they adequately prohibit access and aid in keeping the students onsite.
The school shall continue to utilize an existing building, existing parking, and an existing septic system for up to
161 persons; however, the increase in enrollment shall require access improvements to accommodate the increase
in enrollment (see below for the “Harmony” section of the report for a complete explanation). An increase in
enrollment appears to necessitate an entrance on Broomley Road and the closing of the existing entrance on Rte
250. Thus the site’s existing and proposed traffic will be consolidated on Broomley Road. The design of the
proposed entrance and it’s affect on Broomley Road have not been studied at this time (Attachment B, Access
Strategy #5).
Character of district unchanged. The character of the district will not be changed by the proposed special use.
The school has operated in the current location for 2 school years and no new construction is proposed as the use
will occupy interior space within the existing building. An entrance on Broomley Road to accommodate increased
traffic would not affect the character of the district.
Harmony. The proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter with the
uses permitted by right in the district with the regulations provided in section 5 as applicable, and with the
public health, safety and general welfare.
The only staff concern to accommodate the increase in student enrollment is with the existing entrance and
whether or not is can safely accommodate the proposed increase. Upon review of the request to increase
enrollment at the school, a Threshold Analysis/traffic study was requested by VDOT and the County Engineer to
assess traffic impacts at the site. The Threshold Analysis, performed by the applicants’ Traffic Engineer, Bill
Wuensch, assessed the existing traffic conditions onsite and modeled the requested increase in enrollment to
determine potential traffic impacts at the site. The study documented that the majority of users of the facility make
a left turn out of the site towards Charlottesville during the morning (for student drop off).
Based on findings in the study, Mr. Wuensch suggests a limit of 115 students maximum be permitted onsite,
based on an outbound delay from the entrance of 489.2 second delay (8 minutes and 9 second) on average per
vehicle in the morning. The study made note that this finding was “subjective.” The County Engineer, Glenn
Brooks, disagrees with the assumptions made in the study; rather, Mr. Brooks noted that the acceptable industry
standard specified by the Highway Capacity Manual is already surpassed by the existing student enrollment at the
site (83 students and 13 teachers). The study suggests that currently each vehicle is experiencing a 252.2 second
delay (4 min and 12 second) on average leaving the site in the morning. The Highway Capacity Manual
categorizes a level of service (LOS1) F, for an unsignalized intersection, as anything over 50 second delay. As the
Threshold Analysis states and the County Engineer acknowledges “Excessive side street delays often result in
vehicles taking chances when entering onto the mainline.” The County Engineer recommends that an entrance to
Broomley Road be considered in order to increase the enrollment at the site.
VDOT, upon review of the study, had no objections to the increase in enrollment because the study concluded the
increase in enrollment will not impact the intersection of Broomley Road and Rte 250, or the flow of traffic on
Rte 250. VDOT acknowledges the delay times provided in the study, but finds that these delays are internal to the
site and will not impact traffic on Rte 250, thus they have no objection; rather, are leaving it up to the County and
the applicant to determine an acceptable delay for traffic leaving the site.
The Threshold Analysis also analyzed alternative numbers of persons onsite and calculated their estimated delay
times to exit the site in the morning. For 105 persons an estimated 404 second delay (6 minutes and 44 second) on
1 Highway Capacity Manual defines Level of Service (LOS) as a quality measurement of traffic flow in terms of speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, comfort
and convenience. There are six LOS designations, represented by the letters A through F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst.
SP20140005 – Regents School of Charlottesville (RSC)
Planning Commission: June 3, 2014
4
average per vehicle, for 90 persons an estimated 307.1 second delay (5 minutes and 7 second) on average per
vehicle.
Upon request of the applicant, Mr. Wuensch provided an addendum to the report, dated April 23, 2014, based on
additional field observations. The addendum discusses current conditions exiting at the site, in which left turning
traffic utilizes the hatched median between the eastbound and westbound lanes of Rte 250 to make a two stage
entry onto Rte 250 (Attachment D). The original modeling effort did not consider this since the hatched pavement
is not truly marked as a two way left turn lane. When the analysis was recalculated to utilize a two way left turn
lane the delay for the southbound (school egress) left dropped to 30.1 seconds of delay per vehicle. While the
traffic study addendum indicates better existing delays exiting at the site and revises projected delays, the
addendum is predicated on using the existing hatched pavement for left turns onto Rt. 250 towards
Charlottesville. The County Engineer accepted this if VDOT would approve this painted area as a vehicle refuge,
similar to a large median on a divided road, for up to a 25% increase in enrollment, for a total of 104 students2.
2 The 25% increase in enrollment was recommended by the addendum to the traffic study. Current enrollment is 83 students; a 25% increase is 21 additional students,
for a total of 104 students.
Per onsite review of the proposal, VDOT was unable to support the use of the median, as the median is not large
enough to act as a middle lane for left turns onto Rte 250. In order to accommodate the middle lane, Rte 250
would need to be widened and restriped. The applicant feels that widening Rte 250 for a condition of 104 students
is not in the best interest of the school due to the cost of the improvement, and would rather pursue the Broomley
Road entrance for a larger enrollment cap.
Based on findings in the traffic analysis, staff feels that increased enrollment at the facility would cause
further unsafe turning movements due to excessive delay times exiting the property in the morning hours.
Therefore, staff does not support an increase in enrollment until an acceptable alternative access strategy is
provided to remedy the safety concerns with ingress and egress to the site. With the applicants’ request
they have proposed a number of alternative access strategies and staff has addressed each (Attachment B),
and finds that the only potentially viable solution to accommodate the increased enrollment is the Broomley
Road entrance. The access strategy would direct all site generated traffic to a signalized intersection on
Broomley Road. Further study would be needed by the applicant and their traffic engineer to determine if
a new entrance on Broomley Road could accommodate the proposed increase in enrollment, address delay
times onsite, and not cause additional traffic problems. Staff provides additional information about the
proposed strategy and what all should be considered with the proposal in Attachment B, Access Strategy
#5.
With the applicants request they have also requested to separate the number of students and staff from
their maximum permitted persons onsite. The applicant requests 115 students and 20 staff members for the
upcoming school year (2014-2015) and 130 students and 20 staff members for the 2015-2016 school year based
on the arrival and departure time differences for teachers and students, reasoning that the impacts will not be as
severe as the traffic study indicates. Staff findings: The traffic study relies on 83 students enrolled at the school
for current conditions, and 13 teachers/administrative staff could be present on any day under the current
conditions of approval which limit the site to 96 people. Staff finds that based on the County Engineer’s position
that the site is already over its acceptable limit, it is not appropriate to split students and teacher up at this
juncture, unless the Broomley Road strategy is pursued, at which time staff could support students and teachers
being split.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
This site, while in the Rural Area, is located along a section of Route 250 which consists of old commercial
development and commercial and industrial zoned property which dates back to the 1960’s prior to
Comprehensive Planning in the County. The Land Use Plan designates this area as Rural Area (Rural Area 1).
The land uses supported by the Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan include agriculture, forestry, and
conservation. This chapter also outlines the vision and goals for the Rural Areas, and recommends that land uses
be small-scale and consistent with traditional rural scales. As stated in the chapter, “Ensure that the scale and
scope of any new use is consistent with the existing infrastructure and character of a Crossroads
Community…without any requirement for upgrade or expansion of infrastructure”. It is debatable as to whether
the proposed increase in enrollment for the school of special instruction would constitute a small-scale use with
the issues discussed in this staff report. The school would continue to utilize an existing building, existing
SP20140005 – Regents School of Charlottesville (RSC)
Planning Commission: June 3, 2014
5
parking, and an existing septic system; however, the increase in enrollment may require upgrades to the entrance,
unless acceptable alternative access strategies are provided to accommodate the increase in enrollment without an
entrance off Broomley Road.
SUMMARY:
Staff finds the following factors favorable to this request:
1. Provides an alternative school option for people who live and work in the area.
2. The use is located in an existing underutilized building, with adequate existing parking, and an existing septic
system approved for up to 161 persons. No new structures are being built.
Staff finds the following factor(s) unfavorable to this request:
1. Increased persons at the facility would create unsafe access conditions due to excessive delay times exiting the property
in the morning hours. An acceptable alternative access strategy is needed to remedy the safety concerns with ingress
and egress to the site.
2. It is debatable as to whether the proposed increase in enrollment would constitute a small-scale use as recommended in
the Rural Areas Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff does not recommend approval of the request as proposed, and only recommends approval of SP201400005,
Regents School of Charlottesville under the following modifications to the existing conditions from
SP201300010:
1. The school is limited to the existing administrative building and grounds, as shown on the concept plan
(Attachment A). All parking for the facility shall be loc ated in areas designated on the concept plan as P1, P2,
P3, P6, and P7. Any additional buildings or other site changes beyond those shown on the approved site plan for
SDP1992-052 titled “Christian Aid Mission Administration Building” prepared by William W . Finley and date
approved July 14, 1994 require an amendment to this Special Use Permit. If an entrance to the school from
Broomley Road is pursued by the applicant, the final site plan on which the Broomley Road entrance is approved
shall supersede the approved site plan for SDP 1992-052 without requiring an amendment to this Special Use
Permit.
2. If the entrance to the school is from Rte 250, the maximum number of students and school personnel shall not
exceed ninety-six (96).
3. If the entrance to the school is from Broomley Road, maximum enrollment shall be one hundred thirty (130)
students.
4. If the entrance to the school is from Broomley Road, the permittee shall design and construct a vehicle entrance
onto the site from Broomley Road according to all applicable VDOT design and construction standards and all
other VDOT requirements.
5. All students shall be over the age of two and one-half (2 ½) years old.
6. The hours of operation for the school shall be between 7:45 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., except that occasional school-
related events may occur after 4:00 p.m.
7. No food preparation is permitted onsite without an amendment to this Special Use Permit to authorize onsite food
preparation.
8. The permittee shall obtain an annual fire inspection from the County fire marshal.
MOTION:
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this special use permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP201400005, Regents School of Charlottesville, with conditions as stated
in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP2014000005, Regents School of Charlottesville. Should a
commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending
denial.
SP20140005 – Regents School of Charlottesville (RSC)
Planning Commission: June 3, 2014
6
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Survey 1/ Concept Plan
Attachment B – Alternative Access Strategies
Attachment C – Critical Slopes on the property
Attachment D - Rte 250 and Site Entrance
Return to exec summary
Attachment B – Alternative Access Strategies
1) Alternative Access Strategy: Traffic Police to direct traffic everyday from 8am –
8:15am.
Staff finding: VDOT, Zoning, and Police should sign off on this strategy before it is
implemented. The Police were contacted by staff to provide their opinion on this
strategy; however, no response has been received. Zoning and VDOT provided no
objections to the strategy, but did not directly endorse the strategy. The County
Engineer stated that this option cannot be modeled in the traffic impact analysis
because it relies on the judgment of a person standing in the middle of traffic to
control the flow of traffic. Staff does not believe this is an appropriate option.
2) Alternative Access Strategy: Right in, right out turn required with signage between
the hours of 8am – 8:30am.
Staff finding: The proposal would require the installation of a sign on-site at the
entrance. The sign would not be maintained or enforced by VDOT, nor would the
County Police enforce it. Thus sign maintenance and enforcement would be through
the Zoning Department as a condition of the Special Use Permit.
The strategy would require traffic wanting to turn left out of the site to take a right out
of the site and then make a u-turn at some location along Rte 250. VDOT has stated
that the u-turn would not be permitted at the traffic light at the intersection of
Broomley and Rte 250. There is not a reasonably convenient and safe location to
make the u-turn along Rte 250. The applicant suggested a formal arrangement with an
off-site business (antique store); however, from a Zoning perspective this is
unenforceable and may impact traffic on Rte 250. The traffic study did not analyze
this strategy, thus staff cannot make a finding as to the appropriateness or
effectiveness of it.
3) Alternative Access Strategy: Alter start time of the school from 8:15am to 8am
Staff finding: The traffic study did not analyze this strategy, thus staff cannot make a
finding as to the appropriateness or effectiveness of it.
4) Alternative Access Strategy: Entrance modification to require right out. Potentially
a “pork chop” design at the existing entrance to the site.
Staff finding: VDOT initially suggested the applicant explore the pork chop entrance
modification; however, upon further analysis VDOT will not allow a u-turn at the
Broomley/Rte 250 traffic light as noted in the strategy #2 above. This option requires
u-turns somewhere along Rte 250 corridor. This is not an acceptable approach to
manage turning movements from the site. Notably, the traffic study did not analyze
this strategy, thus staff cannot make a finding as to the effectiveness of it. If the
strategy is pursued it would require a site plan amendment for the site.
5) Alternative Access Strategy: Develop a new entrance on Broomely Road and close
the existing entrance on Rte 250
Staff finding: The Broomley Road access strategy may be feasible. It would direct all
site generated traffic to a signalized intersection on Broomley Road and Rte 250;
however, further study would be needed by the applicant and their traffic engineer to
determine if a new entrance on Broomley Road could accommodate the proposed
increase in enrollment, address delay times onsite, and not cause additional traffic
problems. It should be noted that the Broomley Road strategy has not been studied by
the applicant, staff, VDOT, nor considered in the traffic study. Staff provides the
following information for the Board of Supervisors and the Applicant to take
into consideration for this access strategy:
This access strategy requires a Major Site Plan Amendment for the site and an
Erosion Sediment Control Plan. The owners of the property would need to be a
part of these applications. At this time Regents School of Charlottesville is leasing
the building, and does not own the property.
This access strategy requires the disturbance of a large band of critical slopes
onsite, and would require a critical slopes waiver be granted by the Board of
Supervisors for the disturbance of these slopes to accommodate the new entrance
road. At this time, there has been no analysis provided to aid staff in determining
if these slopes are manmade or natural features (Attachment C).
If this access strategy is pursued the applicant shall take into consideration
proposed VDOT road construction on Broomley Road. Currently VDOT is slated
to undergo a construction project to raise the elevation of Broomley Road and the
bridge in the coming years to go over the railroad tracks. This construction should
be considered during the study of the entrance strategy.
VDOT spacing requirements for entrances to a signalized intersection shall be
considered. Per preliminary discussions with VDOT, a waiver of the spacing
requirement would be needed to pursue an entrance off Broomley Road,
depending on where it was proposed onsite.
Additional traffic will be consolidated on Broomley Road. The function of the
proposed entrance and it’s affect on Broomley Road should be studied by the
applicant and their traffic engineer prior to pursuing this strategy.
If the applicant would like to consider or pursue the Broomley Road strategy it’s
advisable that the applicant work with their consultant to further develop the ideas
prior to preliminary discussions with any of the review agencies.
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Overlays
Steep Slopes Overlay
Critical Slopes
Steep Slopes - Managed
Steep Slopes - Preserved
Parcel Info
Parcels
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources May 27, 2014
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
138 ft
Attachment D - Rte 250 and Site Entrance
To Crozet (West on Rte 250)
To Charlottesville (East on Rte 250)
_________________________________________________________________
To Charlottesville (East on Rte 250)
To Crozet (West on Rte 250)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JUNE 3, 2014
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Regents School of Charlottesville SP-2014-00005
Submit to BOS 07-31-14
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 3, 2014
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 3,
2014, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Cal Morris, Chair; Karen Firehock, Richard Randolph, Mac
Lafferty, Vice Chair; Thomas Loach, Bruce Dotson, and Tim Keller. Julia Monteith,
AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Staff present was Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Christopher Perez, Senior Planner; David
Benish, Chief of Zoning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Glenn Brooks, County
Engineer; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission and Greg Kamptner, Deputy
County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a
quorum.
7e. SP201400005 Regents School of Charlottesville
PROPOSED: To increase the student enrollment to 115 students for the 2014 - 2015
school year. To increase the student enrollment to 130 for the 2015 - 2016 school year.
Utilize existing structure, no additional buildings proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: CO Commercial Office – offices, supporting
commercial and service; residential by special use permit (15 units/acre)
SECTION: Chapter 18 Section 23.2.2(6) of the Albemarle County Code, which allows
for School of Special Instruction
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area 1 - Rural Areas –
preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 3045 Ivy Road Charlottesville VA
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 05900-00-00-023G1
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
(Christopher Perez)
Mr. Perez presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
Proposal: Amend Special Use Permit (SP-2013-10) for School of Special Instruction.
• Increase the number of persons (students and teachers) p ermitted at the site
from the current 96 persons permitted onsite under the existing Special Use
Permit to 115 students for the 2014 - 2015 school year and to 130 students for
the 2015 - 2016 school year.
• Also, request to separate the number of students and staff from their maximum
permitted persons onsite.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JUNE 3, 2014
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Regents School of Charlottesville SP-2014-00005
Submit to BOS 07-31-14
2
The 96 persons which is currently in effect was limited based on the septic systems.
That is why that condition is there. The site has been through three previous special
use permits for this project.
Proposed amendment to the approved concept plan.
Provides the required 30 spaces for the increase in (Areas P1, P2, P3, P6 & P7)
Also, provides a traffic flow diagram to guide the flow of the traffic entering/exiting
the site.
Site Conditions Favorable
• The use is being located in an existing underutilized building.
• Adequate parking is available onsite for the amount of students and staff
proposed for the use (Areas P1, P2, P3, P6 & P7 on concept plan).
• The Health Department - reviewed the capacity analysis of the existing septic
system and has approved the increase in persons at the facility to 161 persons
(teachers and students).
Site conditions Unfavorable
• Increased persons at the facility would create unsafe access conditions due to
excessive delay times exiting the property in the morning hours.
In the staff report is a traffic analysis provided by the applicant’s engineer, which went
into exact delay times. If the Planning Commission would like to discuss the traffic
analysis they can come back to it.
Discussion:
Current delay for 83 students 252.2 second delay
(4 min and 12 second)
Projected delay for 115 students 489.2 second delay
(8 minutes and 9 second)
LOS F, for an unsignalized intersection, as anything over 50 second delay.
This study as well as the county engineer felt that this was going to cause unsafe
conditions as parents were exiting and leaving the property. This was based on
delay times on site.
Notes:
* Increased persons at the facility would create unsafe access conditions due to
excessive delay times exiting the property in the morning hours.
In exiting the majority of parents are leaving the site going towards Charlottesville. They
would come out and cross one lane of Route 250. Based on the traffic study the cars
are lining up in this median. However, upon further analysis by VDOT that is not
inadequate traffic movement based on width of Route 250 as well as the striping. The
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JUNE 3, 2014
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Regents School of Charlottesville SP-2014-00005
Submit to BOS 07-31-14
3
cars would be coming across the lane of traffic and jumping into the other lane in the
morning hours.
As part of that request they were talking about separating the number of students out
from the persons permitted on site. Based on the county engineer’s position that the
site is already over its acceptable limit staff does not feel it is appropriate to split these
numbers up at this time unless the alternate access strategy, which is mentioned in the
staff report, is decided to go forward with.
Speaking of the access strategy in the staff report there was a lot of different strategi es
that were discussed. The fifth one was at the Broomley Road exit. It was suggested by
the county engineer that the applicant look into an alternative entrance in order to
increase the number of students. Staff pushed them towards the Broomley Road exit,
but there are a lot of things they would need to overcome in order to actually do this.
Alternative Access Strategy: Develop a new entrance on Broomley Road
The Broomley Road strategy has not been studied or vetted by the applicant, staff, or
VDOT, nor considered in the traffic study. Issues which will need to be addressed or
considered:
• Potential Critical slope disturbance (Critical Slope Waiver – (Board Of
Supervisors)
• VDOT spacing requirements for entrances (VDOT waiver required)
• VDOT road construction on Broomley Road.
• Additional traffic will be consolidated on Broomley Road.
• ARB review of the proposed entrance (potential retaining walls, tree cutting...etc)
One of the biggest concerns of staff is critical slopes onsite. At this point they don’t
really know where they are going to be entering onto Broomley Road. Staff has not
seen a proposal. However, the entire swath of that section is critical slopes. Therefore,
a critical slopes waiver would be required depending on if they actually broke into it or
not. If they were permitted by VDOT to go closer to the Route 250 light then they might
be able to avoid those. At this time staff does not have any proposal.
Another concern is the VDOT spacing requirements for the entrance. VDOT has a
specific spacing requirement for a signalized intersection and the applicant might need
to get a waiver. VDOT has been working with the applicant on that.
There is proposed to be road construction on Broomley Road within the next year ,
which the applicant should consider. As of last week VDOT is working with the
applicant to try to avoid any conflict with the Broomley road construction by moving their
entrance away from that construction. At this point staff does not know where the
entrance is.
Some other things the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors should
consider are additional traffic impacts to Broomley Road. Staff has not done an analysis
of this. As part of the application if the applicant does chose to move forward with the
Broomley Road access, this is an Entrance Corridor so the ARB would need to do a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JUNE 3, 2014
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Regents School of Charlottesville SP-2014-00005
Submit to BOS 07-31-14
4
review of that entrance. Potentially there might be retaining walls for this road and trees
will be cut. Therefore, the ARB would need to review the proposal since it would go
through as a major site plan amendment. The applicant has about 55’ in between their
existing parking lot and the road.
Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend approval of the request as proposed. However, if the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors chose to move forward with this
request staff only recommends approval of SP-2014-00005, Regents School of
Charlottesville with the modifications to the existing conditions from SP-2013-00010
listed in the staff report which can help address some of the issues.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Lafferty asked if staff felt the property was over utilized right now.
Mr. Perez replied the existing building is adequate to carry the requested number of
students; the septic system is adequate; and the parking is adequate. However, based
on delay times in the traffic study the entrance currently is in an unsafe condition exiting
the site. To add further amounts of students would just increase the unsafe condition of
the entrance. When VDOT reviewed the entrance for their specific concern regarding
the flow of traffic on 250, they did not have any concern with the increase in students.
However, the county engineer reviewing the traffic impact study does have issues.
Mr. Lafferty asked if staff had said the septic system was upgraded. Mr. Perez replied
the septic system has not been upgraded; however, a further study done by the
applicant and the health department has verified the site can safely hold up to 161
persons.
Mr. Lafferty asked if they have an alternate site to put in a septic system if it fails, and
Mr. Perez replied that he could not speak to that.
Mr. Benish pointed out typically an alternate septic site is a review requirement in the
rural areas if there is a reserve field. Staff would have to look at the study to verify that.
However, he assumed that was part of their assessment.
Mr. Lafferty said basically this comes down to a traffic safety problem, and Mr. Perez
agreed.
Mr. Dotson noted staff had listed a number of alternatives that were considered. He
asked if one was staggering the start time and therefore the exit time for different
grades.
Mr. Perez replied that was discussed during the preliminary discussions with the
applicant. However, it was determined that because most of these students are related
to each other, such as a related younger and older student, the parents are not going to
make two trips. In that situation the parents would drop both students off at one time.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JUNE 3, 2014
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Regents School of Charlottesville SP-2014-00005
Submit to BOS 07-31-14
5
However, that condition would be really hard to follow through with the way their school
is set up.
Mr. Dotson noted on the concept plan he was trying to figure out how the traffic flow
works onsite for the drop off area. He asked some one would enter the site, go all the
way around and then come back up to the point to drop off a student.
Mr. Perez replied yes, once the kids are dropped off the parents would then move on
out towards the exit of the site to prevent cueing into Route 250. Someone from their
parking team, which consists of parent volunteers, would be out there for drop off.
Mr. Dotson asked if the kids would then cross the lane of traffic coming in to get to that
nearest building.
Mr. Perez replied yes, that is what they currently do now. They do have the parents
who volunteer to be a parking kind of guide.
Mr. Randolph asked the VDOT representative, Troy Austin, if VDOT has done any study
to look at the traffic flow on this road between the hours proposed for the opening of
7:30 to 9:00 a.m. and between 3:30 and 5:00 p.m.
Troy Austin, VDOT representative, replied the study was privately done and not VDOT.
They look at the peak hours for the trips, which is typically between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. So they included that time frame, which was t aken into
account with their study.
Mr. Randolph confirmed that whatever has been asserted empirically he experienced
the same thing in how difficult it was to access the site at night or late afternoon when
pick up would normally occur and then also to exit. He visited the site and intentionally
overshot the site came back past Broomley Road heading thereby east on 250 and tried
to make a left hand turn at about 4:30 p.m. If he had not accelerated his car he would
not have been able to enter the site after about 4 or 5 minutes of sitting in the lane.
When he came out, again, if he did not have the acceleration ability to get across the
traffic, he would have been there for an extended period of time.
Mr. Loach asked if there was any accident data.
Mr. Austin replied he was sure they do, but they did not pull that for this project.
Ms. Firehock noted she had a question for staff. They just had a presentation about
Tandem School in which Mr. Clark noted they separated the students and staff because
that is the way it is usually done. However, he said they are not inclined to do that. She
did not understand the difference.
Mr. Perez replied that currently 96 people are permitted on site, which was a limitation
set by the septic system approval, and they only have 83 students currently enrolled. So
if they split this up at this point the only recommendation he could say is they would
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JUNE 3, 2014
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Regents School of Charlottesville SP-2014-00005
Submit to BOS 07-31-14
6
have to drop it down to 83 just to keep what they already have for students. If they were
to say 96 persons and turned it into 96 students it would increase the amount of use at
the site. So that is why at this point based on the county engineer saying it is already
over the safety limit for the exit staff suggested not to mess with it now until they do the
Broomley Road proposal if it goes that way.
Ms. Firehock said after the traffic safety issue is addressed they would then go back to
the more standard approach, and Mr. Perez replied yes, because that was all dictated
by the septic system before.
Mr. Benish pointed out the proposed language is based on the maximum enrollment.
What they did not do is go back and adjust the current limit. However, they could have
pulled it back to 83 students because the original number was based on the health
department limitation.
Ms. Firehock thanked staff for clarifying that. She suggested this may be a better
question for the applicant. She was sure the parents and children love this school and
that is why they make the extra effort to attend it. However, she was wondering if there
is some other out of the box solution such as car pools, vans pools and other ways even
through voluntary efforts that they could actually reduce the number of vehicle trips
potentially. She did not know the degree to which that is currently being done, but it
seems like it is not a huge increase in the number of people.
Mr. Benish pointed out car pooling and van pooling are good approaches to reduce
traffic and impacts. However, it becomes difficult for staff to enforce that condition to
limit it. They really have to rely on self enforcement because it is difficult to go out and
monitor that on a regular basis. However, from a practical standard it is something the
applicant can do to reduce an impact. It just gets difficult for staff to con dition and
monitor it.
Ms. Firehock noted the different options being proposed look fairly expensive, especially
the Broomley Road alternative because of the slope and the huge cut and fill to make it
work. Therefore, she was thinking it would be cheaper to buy a couple of 15 passenger
vans. She was not sure that some of these alternatives actually were affordable
because the school would have to be paying for them.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for applicant and
public comment. He invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Jared Christophel, school board member and father of two students, noted Regents
School is the only classical school in Charlottesville. The desire for that type of
education is proven by the school starting with 7 students in 2010 and increasing to 83
students in 2013. He explained why they were back before the Commission for the third
year in a row.
In 2012, in the beginning of the school’s third year, they moved into an essentiall y
unused building on the old campus of Christian Aid Mission where they currently
reside. At that point during the process for the special use permit there were
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JUNE 3, 2014
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Regents School of Charlottesville SP-2014-00005
Submit to BOS 07-31-14
7
essentially no limitations when it came from all the different reviewing entities. The
given numbers at that time was 250 from the health department and the building
inspector and 180 likely from VDOT. In the comments in the end they had no
problem with the number they are applying for. At the direction of planning staff they
applied for just over the number of students they had with the idea being that they
would have to come back for another special use permit. So they applied for 60 and
were granted it in 2012.
Our numbers increased significantly the following year and so this past year they
reapplied hoping to get that ceiling to be 130 or greater to avoid coming back again.
However, they ran into the septic system capacity. The health department at that
point said the septic system capacity is going to be limited. They hired an engineer
and they used capacities of that septic system for theoretical limitations of 96. That
is why they were limited to that last year. Traffic was not a problem in last year’s
application. Moving into this year they hired the same engineer and put a water
meter on the intake to measure how much water they were actually using at the site
hence the elevation and the number of people allowed to use the septic system . He
hoped that answered his previous question. It has now become a traffic issue.
He had two quick comments before he hands this over to the Head of School,
Courtney Palumbo, who has been spear heading this year’s application. First, our
real traffic usage is in the morning when they coincide with other peak 250 traffic
users. From about 7:30 a.m. up until 8:30 a.m., keep in mind that most of the traffic
at that point is coming in eastward on the eastbound lane. There is not a use of the
school between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. when it is almost impossible to
turn left as Mr. Randolph experienced because traffic is westbound. The reason it is
slightly different, assuming a similar number of cars, is the stop light at Broomley
Road that intermittently stops all of the eastbound traffic assists people to exit going
back towards Charlottesville in the morning. So that makes the situation slightly
different.
The second point was in the initial concept plan analysis they saw the exit times
were in excess of 4 minutes. An error was essentially made and our traffic engineer
looked at that and measured the time the cars entered the property. Currently in the
morning they just drop off on their way in, drive all the way around the rest of the
property and then come back. During the drop off time driving around some moms
stop and talk to each other and then come out. They had them redo that and asked
to recalculate from the time you cue or from the time you come to that exit and try to
leave in the morning. That new average was 30 seconds in terms of waiting and a
maximum of 5 in the cue that ever occurred. So those are slightly different numbers.
He asked the Commission to consider that in increasing the number of students to
the number they are asking for is a total of 10 extra cars each transition. Given the
importance of trying to elevate this number and not being recommended for approval
based on the current concept plan, they had a parent meeting two weeks ago, raised
the money and have quotes for the Broomley Road entrance. He did not want to get
into things that Courtney Palumbo has been working day and night on. In terms of
the waiver on the slopes, the distance from the Broomley stop light is 80’. They
probably should give those specifics. He would be happy to answer any other
questions.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JUNE 3, 2014
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Regents School of Charlottesville SP-2014-00005
Submit to BOS 07-31-14
8
Courtney Palumbo, Head of Regents School, clarified in 2012 the issue was not the
septic system. Bill Craun, who was head of the health department at the time, said 250
was fine for that septic system since there are two huge tanks. The issue they found
out the second year unbeknownst to the school was that some other study had been
done during the year they did not have anything to do with. She did not know if there
was another person on the property who had an issue with the drain fields. So that is
why they had to go back and hire an engineer to prove that it was sufficient drain fields
for the number of students they had in the school. She hoped that clears up the
discrepancy. In all our discussions they have come up with several different ways to try
to alleviate these problems.
One idea with Troy Austin was to right in and right out. So they batted that back and
forth and offered to build a port chop and put up the little PVC pipes in the road.
They were going to contract with an antique store down the road so you could ri ght
in and right out and go down the road, turn around and come back. But, staff said
that was not a good idea because they did not have a good enough place to turn
around. She assumed it was unenforceable even though the school and parents
were willing to do it.
The next idea, and Troy Austin is here to talk to this, was VDOT has told us they are
not terribly worried about turning left. However, she did not think it is exactly
accurate on the people holding in the center lane. She thinks that has something to
do with the model that the traffic study guy had to use when they were saying people
were holding in the center lane. That might happens every once in a while with one
car. However, it is inaccurate to paint a picture that there are four cars holding in the
center lane in the morning. It also depends on what is happening on I-64 or Route
250 and whether it is a good or bad day. There are no days that they are standing
there watching cars for four minutes waiting to go out the driveway. Just to be clear
the main time, which was one of Mr. Randolph’s questions, that they are concerned
about is 8:00 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. She did not think 7:45 a.m. is as much of a problem.
After 8:15 a.m. is a problem. However, they start school at 8:15 a.m. So the main
time they are talking about is 15 minutes in the morning. They have offered to hire a
policeman to direct traffic. They have sent them a contract. However, she did not
think staff likes that option. That would certainly help the delay problem.
They have offered to now build an entrance on Broomley Road. As Dr. Christophel
stated they did raise the money for that. It is very expensive and tricky for the school
because they may only be there two more years since Christian Aid Mission would
like to sell the property. So it is a very expensive endeavor for the school to be
willing to do that. But, that is how important growth and enrollment is to a school like
this. It would really kill the school not to be able to add more students. That is really
important. So they have contracted with a road designer and that is due June 9th.
So she does not have anything to show yet because this is happening so fast. She
has met with Mr. Austin regarding where that road can go and what waivers VDOT is
considering making. She was sure Mr. Austin can speak to that better. They have
contracted with an excavator to build the road if the Commission and Board of
Supervisors approve it before school starts August 25th. It would be nice just barring
monsoon rains in August or something if there could be some minor two week grace
period should something stumble. However, she did not know how these things work
so maybe that is not possible. She asked the Commission to support the request.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JUNE 3, 2014
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Regents School of Charlottesville SP-2014-00005
Submit to BOS 07-31-14
9
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Ms. Monteith said she had a couple of comments. One is when Jared Christophel said
the time was reduced to 30 seconds. In the staff report it covers that, but it also says
that is because the median island is being used and that’s really not a safe c ondition. It
is not just a matter of the cars stacking in the median island; it is the widths in the road.
She just wanted to clarify that. The only other thing she wanted to mention is if you are
looking at the Broomley option it might be appropriate to talk with some of the neighbors
that are also using Broomley Road.
Mr. Randolph asked if the school has a strategic plan.
Ms. Palumbo replied yes, that since they were a much younger school they are into
year 5. So she could say that eventually they will be a school of 250 to 300, but
probably not on this site. They probably only have 2 more years on this site.
Mr. Randolph agreed unless they increase the septic capabilities the number will tap out
at 161. However, their growth has been phenomenal since they have seen 35 percent
growth in two years and over four years their school has grown 216 percent. He
suggested their board would be well served to deal with the question is this a site where
they can realistically continue to grow understanding the constraints. From a safety and
cost standpoint to try to provide effective and safe ingress and egress from the site they
are going to be capped out very shortly. It is just something to think about.
Ms. Palumbo said that was a great question. Th ey have already begun a bunch of
community meetings to figure out where their next site will be. So those things are all in
progress. They have to begin fundraising. There is a lot to do to sustain the school the
way they think it will go in the future. Right now one class a year and two classes per
grade level are about what they need to do. So they are talking a bout a long term
before they get to the size they are talking about. Next year will be our first year of
adding a second first grade class. So that takes a long time. Our upper grades, 7th to
8th graders, are still very thin. She thinks they have twelve 7th and 8th graders total.
Mr. Randolph noted it has not taken long for the school to grow from 96 to 130 students.
So within two years they could well be hitting the threshold of 160. However, it is just
food for thought.
Ms. Palumbo agreed noting they were also limited by the building.
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, said as th is board knows they do not
have a position on this or any specific proposal that comes before them. However, they
felt the need to comment with regard to some of the commentary from planning
commissioners over the last few applications. The strategic plan of any organization
has nothing to do with the permit that is being reviewed and certainly is beyond what
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JUNE 3, 2014
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Regents School of Charlottesville SP-2014-00005
Submit to BOS 07-31-14
10
needs to be done. In addition, the demands of the septic systems are managed by the
health department and impact the total occupancy of the special use permit, which
make perfect sense. The existence or the non -existence of a reserve field is clearly in
the purview of the health department. It might prove to be most helpful to focus on
those things that are truly under the Planning Commission’s purview on this and any
other application. .
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the
matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Morris invited discussion.
Mr. Loach said this is a tough one because he drives that road every morning at 7:30
a.m. to 10:35 a.m. and traffic is backed up past Broomley Road down the opposite hill
and the site distances are not good. When you come up to the top he sees people
turning left into that lane to get in. In addition, adding to that the traffic going west has
gotten increased over the last couple of years. He tends to agree with staff’s position
regarding inadequately of the egress out especially going left into Charlottesville. The
other side of that coin is they are talking about a two year period essentially and how
much will they develop from this date up to through those two years. If it was going to
be two years he could probably support it knowing that limitation.
Mr. Dotson noted in one of the slides staff shows at the bottom it was addressing the
current 4 minute delay and then a projected 8 minute delay. Then they have heard
from the applicant that was their data based on an erroneous assumption. He asked
staff to comment on what the accurate numbers should be that they should be thinking
about.
Mr. Perez replied initially there was a traffic impact or traffic delay study that was done
by the traffic engineer. That predicated these numbers of the 83 was existing for 4
minutes and 12 seconds and they are projecting it at 115 for 8 minutes and 9 seconds.
They provided a lot of other numbers playing with the amount of people on site dropping
it down to 90 and jumping it up to 130. That information is all in the staff report. It start s
talking about the requested addendum on page 4. The applicant had requested going
back out to the site and checking it again because they disagreed with the findings from
that traffic study. At that point the traffic analysis was not totally thrown out . Rather
they did an addendum to go re-observe conditions on site. During that time they came
back with an addendum that specified 30.1 seconds exiting the site per vehicle.
However, that was predicated on using that middle lane, which was in the addendum
that the county engineer and staff reviewed. That was where that number came from.
The original numbers never went away rather the addendum focused on using that
middle lane as a two tier entrance into 250. The county engineer was on board with
that moving forward provided that VDOT would check off and say yes let’s go ahead
and make it permanent and use that as a true two -stage entrance. After further review
VDOT went out there and noticed Route 250 is not wide enough to accommodate the
true turn movement. While people come from 250 going east and they get into that turn
lane it is an easier motion, whereas when coming from the site and going into the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JUNE 3, 2014
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Regents School of Charlottesville SP-2014-00005
Submit to BOS 07-31-14
11
middle lane your vehicle needs more room to actually do a true turnaround. So VDOT
determined that in order to use that middle lane as a true two-stage entrance they would
need to widen that median and make it a true lane for them to come into. In order to do
that they would need to add 2’ to Route 250 and then restripe it. The applicant could do
that, which gives these numbers that they are showing of 30 seconds. However, that
was cost prohibited since it was around the same price as doing the Broomley exit.
Mr. Dotson commented that was a very clear explanation. At one point it seemed that
VDOT was comfortable with a situation and the county engineer was not. He requested
Glen Brooks, County Engineer, to provide an explanation.
Mr. Glen Brooks, County Engineer, explained when they started out with the initial
application VDOT basically said they d id not care if they delay vehicles onsite. It was
not that VDOT agreed with their results, but it was a matter of jurisdiction. They were
saying if the applicant was backing up vehicles on the site they were okay with it. If they
were doing something on 250 then they care. He got together with Troy Austin after
that and said wait they can’t draw such a line because if they are delaying vehicles too
much on the site they are going to have to take chances cutting through traffic to get out
onto 250, which is dangerous. So he thinks Mr. Austin reconsidered, which he could
express further.
Troy Austin, VDOT representative, commented that Mr. Brooks is correct in that when
they were looking at the study they were looking at the impacts on Route 250. They
recognize the fact that the delays onsite could pose potential safety issues. Typically
they can get involved with modifications of entrances for a few reasons. One is if the
use of the entrance changes they take a look at it. If the entrance becomes a
maintenance problem they take a look at it if safety impacts start to change, if there
would be an increase in accidents and it was prudent that people were taking
unnecessary risks. They would come back and say obviously there is a problem with
this entrance since they are taking unnecessary risks and they need to look at modifying
it by making it right in and right out or doing something different. So that is when they
would get involved. They were not disagreeing that it would happen. However, drivers
could just as easily decide to turn right out of the site and go down on their own and
make a u-turn and come back. It is our best guess at this point. Until it is proved to be a
safety problem for this instance they likely would not get involved with i t, which was
what was going on with that.
Ms. Firehock commented she was confused on whether traffic accident data was
sought for this site. She asked if there is no accident data for this intersection or it was
not requested.
Mr. Austin replied it was not looked at since the study did not provide the data and they
did not request any. However, they can certainly take a look at it and see what is
happening in the area.
Ms. Firehock noted the site has been warranted to be unsafe from his perspective and
she was just trying to understand what the data shows. She just wanted to know if
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JUNE 3, 2014
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Regents School of Charlottesville SP-2014-00005
Submit to BOS 07-31-14
12
there are accidents there.
Mr. Austin pointed out it was not strictly from VDOT’s perspective it was warranted
unsafe. The traffic study indicated that it worked, but the re would be delays and it could
become a problem. That is part of what the whole process with the entrance at
Broomley Road. The unsafe maneuver would be the left turn out of the site going
towards Charlottesville. What the thought is if you provide this other access it gives an
opportunity to make a left towards Charlottesville at a stop light, which would be a safer
maneuver for them. That is what the thought process of was of that.
Mr. Morris thanked Mr. Austin for his explanation.
Mr. Randolph said one of the issues they have not talked about is consistency with the
comp plan in this location. This is a rural area. In the chapter it does say ensure that
the scale and the scope of any new use is consistent with the existing infrastructure and
character of a crossroads community with any requirement for upgrade or expansion of
infrastructure enrollment on site. What they have seen here gradually on the site is an
expansion of enrollment. The school should deserve rightly recognition for its growth.
That is a positive. The negative is that each year to the additional growth there is
additional traffic. The traffic problem is only becoming worse. So a bad situation is
being made worse in time. His concern is that if they permit that they would fi nd in two
years a school requesting to expand the septic field and septic tanks and looking at 180
students on the site. He thinks they are really being asked to make a decision for the
community and thereby also for the school about the future growth direction on the site.
Mr. Randolph commented it is important from a planning perspective to understand
what the school’s plans are for the intermediate two years and out to help evaluate what
is going to be the best thing for our community and comprehensive plan. So he has
problems with the fact that gradually they are changing the rural character here in this
Entrance Corridor if they permit the school to continue to expand. He has problems
with Broomley Road being an access point simply because of the slope that is involved
and because of the shortness to the traffic light at Broomley Road and 250 . There is a
blind curve coming off of 250 heading west onto Broomley Road that could easily have
a situation where a slow moving vehicle and a fast moving ca r would be meeting each
other. Therefore, he really has some issues about this being a viable site for the kind of
growth the school wants to see in the intermediate term on site.
Mr. Loach noted he would like to follow up on Mr. Randolph’s question. If they approve
the proposal do they set the precedent for the capacity on that property for the next
person who rents the area since the school said they are potentially leaving the site in
two years?
Mr. Benish replied that the approval runs with the land. So once approved it will be
approved for a school at whatever enrollment they approve it at. So the existing use
could continue with the 96 and whatever they approve will carry forward.
Ms. Firehock asked if they could approve it temporarily for two years or three years.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JUNE 3, 2014
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Regents School of Charlottesville SP-2014-00005
Submit to BOS 07-31-14
13
Mr. Benish replied he always looks to the county attorney on time limits since staff does
not like to do that. There could be some complications for the applicant, too, with the
school because it takes time to find a site and get a si te approved.
Ms. Firehock noted that was why she said two or three years.
Mr. Benish replied they have put time limits on some uses before. However, he would
have a little bit of a concern about that timing issue and bumping up against it being
there for a longer period of time.
Mr. Kamptner noted the Board has imposed durational limits on special use permits
before. One thing that is a little bit different in this case is the school is already there
and they are simply amending their permits. So if there was a durational limit to be
recommended the Commission might consider that it apply to excess enrollment above
what they are currently allowed to have.
Mr. Benish pointed out that is what the special use permit is about.
Ms. Monteith asked to go back to the slides with the timeframes on it. She was very
sympathetic to the school. However, she notes the LOS for an unsignalized intersection
is anything of a 50 second delay. If they look at the existing delays that they have and
then they talk about adding more students in, she thinks they are creating a safety
issue. However, she thinks they already have a safety issue.
Mr. Dotson said he has a process question for staff. The applicant clearly wants to get
something approved in order to be able to increase enrollment in the fall. If the
Commission felt like they could not approve this tonight, one option would be to deny it
or recommend denial. Another option might be to continue it and bring it back after the
designer has had a chance to look at Broomley Road. From the applicant’s standpoint
what is the path that might actually get them to the fall with some kind of acceptable
entrance and exit.
Mr. Benish replied that one of the issues for them is to be assured of what their
enrollment is for this upcoming school year. At the earliest it could go to the Board of
Supervisors in July under a review of tonight. The Commission’s recommendation goes
to the Board and the Board could have a different opinion. Delaying it starts to bump up
against the possibility of getting it scheduled for the Board of Supervisors prior to their
beginning enrollment. So he thinks that is really up to the applicant whether they are
willing to wait and sort of forestall their expansion into the next year or semester if that is
possible. Practically a delay to get something back to review to cue it into other reviews
that the county engineer and the staff might have could take some time. He was not
sure if staff could turn it around very quickly in time to get it to the Board of Supervisors
by an August decision.
Mr. Dotson commented that it sounds like from that perspective an up or down vote
tonight would be in a process sense in the applicant’s interest.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JUNE 3, 2014
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Regents School of Charlottesville SP-2014-00005
Submit to BOS 07-31-14
14
Mr. Benish agreed noting the applicant can speak best for that. But, he thinks part of
their approach and desire is to try to get some determination as soon as possible from
the Board of where they stand on this proposal. However, the applicant would have to
speak to that.
Ms. Firehock commented that one of the big challenges is that Broomley Road has not
been studied, but applicant has said they have raised some funds potentially to do that.
Therefore, even if they conditioned it on that she cannot sit here tonight and say that is
a viable alternative that does not bring up its own host of problems.
Mr. Benish agreed noting that was what staff wanted to caution the Commission about.
It is potentially doable. However, they do not have enough information to really say it is.
There are issues with critical slopes and the waivers that are required from VDOT.
Mr. Morris noted they have lots of questions that do not have answers. However, the
question that was posed to the applicant is do they want an up or down vote this
evening. However, it can go forward to the board either way.
Mr. Christophel replied yes, they do want an up or down vote this evening. He asked
for a minute to discuss the questions posed.
Mr. Morris invited the applicant to a five minute rebuttal time.
Mr. Christophel said they went through a strategic planning retreat. They met with all of
the parents and now have a plan for action. Christian Aid Mission for the school is a
stop gap measure. They are there at a significant under cost about one - tenth of what it
would cost them to be elsewhere. So the majority of the tuition is very low and all goes
directly towards teacher’s salaries. Their next big mission is finding another location.
They could not foresee being more than 160 students ever in that building. It just would
not fit even though the building people say it could be up to 250. They do need the
increased numbers just in order to maintain proper class sizes. Their mission is K
through 8. One day if they ever reach the 180 mark they will start to potentially open up
a high school. That would be when they reach the 250 to 300 mark. That is their hope
for the school’s ultimate size. Again, the Christian Aid Mission site is a stop gap
measure. He knows that the focus has been on those moving topics. The focus has
been on those numbers that were put up. He realized that in the planning report the
addendum to that was 30.1 seconds and he was mistaken that was predicated upon
exiting into the pork chop. Empirically speaking he has never waited more than one
minute and generally much less than that. Although it is not a traffic study and only one
person, again those numbers were from the time of entering the site, dropping off the
child, and driving around and coming back. So they really don’t have good empiric al
data this evening for the Commission to consider. He thinks that would be numbers that
the Commission would need to really help them say they are in that zone F that is
greater than 50 seconds.
Mr. Morris suggested if they go before the Board of Supervisors it is important they have
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JUNE 3, 2014
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Regents School of Charlottesville SP-2014-00005
Submit to BOS 07-31-14
15
that figure. Right now it is confusing to see what is before the Commission.
Mr. Keller reiterated the fact the special use permit approval run s with the land. They
know they are increasing congestion in that area. They hear there may be plans for
some alleviation of those in the future. He thinks they are all sympathetic to these
educational institutions that are developing in our area that are really adding to the
quality of life overall. However, the Commission does have a responsibility here.
Mr. Kamptner noted that Ms. Firehock had asked earlier if there were any other ideas
and ways to deal with this. He noted they have had a couple of private schools where
the Commission and the Board end up imposing conditions that required that a certain
number of children be bused, such as Field School. There was one of two schools that
have been approved in the ACAC Four Seasons Building. He did not know if that
school ever came to be. However, requiring the busing of students, at least a certain
percentage of them, has been considered in the past as a way to deal with impacts on
traffic.
Mr. Randolph pointed out personally he would love to see them have some more time.
However, he knows the applicant is looking for a decision this evening. He suggested
rescheduling so they could came back with a proposal to use Broomley Road so that
they have all options on the table. He was persuaded by Mr. Keller’s logic and by his
earlier statement about issues with the comp plan and the scale and safety issues
notwithstanding. He agreed with Ms. Firehock that it is difficult to make a final decision
when they know that Broomley Road may be a possibility, but is not adequately flushed
out for the Commission to weigh into the calculation whether this application should
proceed with a favorable recommendation from this body to the Board of Supervisors.
He asked if there is willingness there by the applicant to look at a deferral for a period of
time. .
Mr. Morris noted the applicant had a lready asked for a yes or no vote so the request
can go the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Benish noted there is potentially opportunity between the Commission and the
Board meeting for further consideration.
Ms. Firehock pointed out some of the things the Commission has issues with are
addressable potentially in the next 30 days.
Mr. Morris agreed that was exactly right, but they needed to be.
Motion: Mr. Dotson moved and Mr. Randolph seconded to recommend denial of SP -
2014-00005 Regents School of Charlottesville for the reasons outlined in the staff
report, principally concerning safety issues surrounding egress.
The motion was unanimously approved by a vote of 7:0.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JUNE 3, 2014
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Regents School of Charlottesville SP-2014-00005
Submit to BOS 07-31-14
16
Mr. Morris noted SP-2014-00005 Regents School of Charlottesville would go to the
Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for denial for
the reasons outlined in the staff report, principally concerning safety issues surrounding
egress.
Unfavorable factors:
1. Increased persons at the facility would create unsafe a ccess conditions due to
excessive delay times exiting the property in the morning hours. An acceptable
alternative access strategy is needed to remedy the safety concerns with ingress
and egress to the site.
2. It is debatable as to whether the proposed increase in enrollment would constitute a
small-scale use as recommended in the Rural Areas Chapter of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Benish agreed the date was to be determined, but they are striving to get it before
the Board in July so they can have a decision. Therefore, it would be in July or August.
Mr. Morris requested the school board and staff look at the issues that tied the
Commission in knots and get the answers before the Board meeting.
Ms. Firehock asked if it is worth enumerating the issues.
Mr. Morris noted that it was in the traffic.
Mr. Benish pointed out the minutes will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Loach suggested it would be good to get some crash/accident data for that area.
The Planning Commission recessed at 7:37 p.m. and reconvened at 7:45 p.m.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SDP200800086 Willow Glen – Special Exception to
Authorize Variations from the Application Plan and Code of
Development (ZMA200600019)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Special exception to authorize variations to: 1) replace
condominium building with townhomes; 2) remove shared
driveways for several single-family homes; 3) remove one
tot lot location; and, 4) modify construction phasing.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Kamptner, Cilimberg, Benish, Baldwin
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
August 13, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Willow Glen is a Planned Residential Development (PRD) containing multiple housing types located off of Town Center
Drive and Dickerson Road, near the Hollymead Town Center in the Community of Hollymead. A Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (“CPA”) and rezoning to PRD, with proffers, were approved on October 10, 2007. A site plan and minor
amendments have previously been approved for Phase 1, which is under construction. The applicant is requesting a
special exception to authorize variations from the approved Application Plan and Code of Development. This request
represents the second set of variation requests to this PRD and, as such, is referred to as “Variation #2.”
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community
DISCUSSION:
The following summarizes findings for each variation request. The attached staff report (Attachment A) provides
details for each request.
Replace condominium building with townhomes. Very limited demand for condominium units given the current
market/economic condition. This change will provide for more marketable and affordable units consistent with
today’s conditions.
Remove shared driveways for several single-family homes. Not a significant change in form from the original
zoning approval.
Remove one tot lot location. Change will be paired with an increase in the area of the remaining tot lot.
Modify construction phasing. Inconsequential change moving the phase line so that the proposed townhomes
will be in Phase 2 instead of Phase 3.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No impact will result from this special exception authorizing multiple variations.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of this special exception authorizing multiple variations.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Analysis of Special Exception
B – Applicant’s Request
C – Applicant’s Justification
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board at its August 6, 2014 meeting voted to change its regular meeting
schedule to enhance public convenience and access to regular Board meetings and to improve
the efficiencies in the conduct of the business of the Board; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate for the Board to formalize any change to the established
regular meeting dates and times by adoption of a Resolution to be posted and advertised
pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-1416.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby amends its regular meeting schedule for September 2014 through January
2015 to meet at the following dates and times:
1. On the first Wednesday of each month, a meeting shall commence at 1:00 P.M.;
2. On the Monday prior to the second Wednesday of each month, a meeting shall
commence at 5:00 P.M.; and
3. On the second Wednesday of each month, a meeting shall commence at 6:00 P.M.
Regularly scheduled meetings will be held in the County Office Building on McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board shall cause a copy of this
Resolution to be posted and advertised pursuant to the requirements of Virginia Code
§ 15.2-1416 at least seven days prior to the first Board meeting in September of 2014.
* * *
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct 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
_________________________.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
ECOUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Establishment of Economic Development Office
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Discussion about Next Steps in Establishment of
Economic Development Office
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Davis, Catlin, Stimart
PRESENTER (S): Lee Catlin
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
August 13, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The FY15 Budget includes funding for the establishment of an Economic Development Office to include a new full time
Director position and a new half time administrative support position in addition to the existing Economic D evelopment
Facilitator position. The purpose of the review with the Board is to discuss overall direction for the program, high level
priorities, and desired initial outcomes for the Office prior to beginning the hiring process for the new Director position.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3: Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
DISCUSSION:
Major Milestones:
There has been significant work regarding the establishment of an Economic Development Office over the past
several years, including:
May, 2012 – The establishment of the Office was identified as an objective in the Board’s FY13-17 Strategic
Plan.
February, 2013 – The preliminary program concept was shared with the Board. Board members supported
the general direction of the program and directed staff to hold a roundtable of community stakeholders.
March, 2013 – A draft program concept was discussed with community stakeholders at a roundtable.
September, 2013 – The Board received the final report on the three year Economic Vitality Action Plan.
November, 2013 - The Board supported the process for considering the establishment of an Office, but
deferred the final decision until the budget process.
December, 2013 – The Board directed staff to initiate an information gathering and education process .
January, 2014 – The Board held a joint work session with the Economic Development Authority to review
research results and to hear from outside expert(s) regarding the current and future state of economic
development.
February, 2014 – The Board held a work session, which included an opportunity for public comment, to
discuss the proposed Economic Development Program framework, including mission, guiding principles, and
program components (See Attachment A).
Late February/early March, 2014 – The Board reviewed detailed cost information for establishing an Office
as part of the budget process.
April, 2014 – The Board approved funding for an Office as part of FY15 Adopted Budget.
Program Framework:
As mentioned above, an Economic Development program framework was developed in consultation with key
stakeholders and was reviewed by the Board in February, at which time there was an opportunity for public comment.
The program framework acknowledges that a program that allows the County to achieve its vision of being a thriving
county as related to economic vitality requires an effective team approach that includes continuing community
development department efforts, refocusing on strategic partnerships, and establishing an office to focus on dedicated
core functions of economic development. Roles and responsibilities for these three elements are described below:
Community Development Department – Continue focus on strategic land use planning, development
review processes, and regulatory reform across various functions of the Community Development
Department.
AGENDA TITLE: Establishment of Economic Development Office
August 13, 2014
Page 2
Strategic Partnerships - Refocus the existing Office of Community and Business Partnerships to:
1) increase efforts related to communications/marketing, tourism/agritourism, and public outreach and
engagement; and 2) provide leadership in leveraging new and existing partnerships that create opportunities
to enhance community vitality and address strategic priorities and challenges .
Economic Development - Establish an Economic Development Office to focus on core functions of
economic development not currently being adequately addressed.
The program framework outlines major program components of an ongoing program that would fulfill the County’s
mission and fit within the larger guidelines of existing County polic ies, such as the Comprehensive Plan.
Economic Development Office Priority Program Components:
Based on prior Board feedback, staff is providing an opportunity to begin the discussion on prioritizing the major
program areas for specific focus of the Economic Development Office during the first two to three years. Staff
recommends the following focus areas, focus percentages and related tasks :
Existing Business Retention/Expansion 50%
Relationship building with key partners, including assessment of opportunities and challenges
Albemarle’s Business First program targeting 150 visitations annually
Specific focus on critical and/or challenged industries – i.e. defense industry/federal contractors
Supporting existing business expansion – including sites and buildings/real estate-related work
Business assistance program for Route 29 construction
New Business Start Ups 25%
Support to small businesses in negotiating approval and permitting processes
More focused partnership with UVA to leverage technology transfer/commercialization possibilities and build
the entrepreneurial ecosystem
Workforce Development 10%
Active involvement in the Piedmont Workforce Network
Engagement with education partners at the secondary and post-secondary levels
Support workforce training programs tied to target enterprises or key sectors that build employment pipelines
for a full spectrum of skill levels
Agribusiness 10%
Work with partners to expand visibility of local products and build customer base and business profitability
Leverage state and federal grant opportunities to support agricultural and forestal industry
Promote/assist business ventures that support agricultural industry
Business Attraction 5%
Respond to inquiries that come to us directly or that are forwarded to the County by the Central Virginia
Partnership for Economic Development and the Virginia Economic Development Partnership
Next Steps
If the Board determines the priority focus areas during this meeting, staff suggests that the information be shared with
key stakeholders at a roundtable in early September. The Board may determine that other public comment
opportunities should be made available during this time also. Staff would then anticipate coming back to the Board for
final comments and direction at the October 1 meeting, after which time the hiring process for the Director would be
initiated.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The FY15 Budget provides an increase of $155,000 to establish the new Economic Development Office for a total
budget amount of $262,089.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board: 1) provide feedback on the priority of the economic development program
components; and 2) direct to staff to hold a roundtable of key stakeholders in early September to solicit input and to
provide any other opportunities for public comment the Board deems appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Economic Development Program Framework
Return to agenda
1 | P a g e
County of Albemarle
Establishing An Economic Development Function for Albemarle County
Background:
Albemarle County’s economic development efforts have been guided by a three year Economic Vitality
Action Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors in August, 2010, which outlines five goals and related
strategies and actions. The Board’s recently adopted Strategic Plan recognizes the need to transition
from this Plan which will end in September, 2013, to an established economic development function
that operates as a regular and ongoing operation of County government. The Strategic Plan
incorporates the following goal and objectives:
Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
a. Complete all objectives of last two years of the Economic Vitality Action Plan.
b. Establish fully functioning economic development program for the County.
c. Assess and implement appropriate incentive options to support economic development in the
County.
Contributing Policies/Documents:
Existing county policies and documents provide an overarching structure and parameters to help define
how an economic development function should operate:
County’s Vision Statement:
A thriving County, anchored by a strong economy and excellent education system, that honors its rural
heritage, scenic beauty and natural and historic resources while fostering attractive and vibrant
communities.
Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Policy:
“The purpose of this economic development policy is, first and foremost, to provide the local citizenry an
improved standard of living and enhanced quality of life. Economic growth and vitality are required to
sustain and enhance the human economic, cultural, and natural characteristics of our community. By
creating and sustaining a high quality, diversified economic environment, citizens will enjoy improved job
opportunities, competitive wages, work force development opportunities, and the community will enjoy
a growing and diversified tax base.”
Economic Vitality Action Plan Preamble:
“The Economic Development Policy of the County’s Comprehensive Plan has a stated purpose to “provide
the local citizenry an improved standard of living and enhanced quality of life.” This Action Plan is
intended to translate the purpose and goals of the Economic Development Policy into concrete and
measureable actions, being very mindful of the need to adhere to already established growth
management objectives and natural resource protections. While this Plan is focused on accomplishing
specific action items within the next three years, the County recognizes the need for a long term
commitment to economic vitality. This Plan is intended to establish a sustainable pathway for the long
term health of our local economy.”
2 | P a g e
County of Albemarle
Target Industry Study:
The Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development directed consultant work on a Target
Industry Study for its member jurisdictions, including Albemarle County, which was completed in April,
2012. This study identifies types of industries that have the strongest potential to succeed and offer the
best prospects for "good jobs," meaning jobs that offer a higher quality of life (security, higher wages,
opportunities for advancement, training, flexibility), both in our larger region and specifically in
Albemarle County. The Board of Supervisors endorsed the targets recommended for Albemarle County in
May, 2012.
Program Definition:
Several defining elements are important in establishing the broad outlines of the County’s economic
development function:
Draft Albemarle County Economic Development Mission:
To foster and encourage responsible economic development activities that enhance the county’s
competitive position and result in quality job creation and career employment opportunities, increased
tax base and an improved quality of life for all citizens while respecting Albemarle County’s natural
resources and unique character.
Albemarle County Economic Development Guiding Principles:
Economic Diversity: Provide a diverse and vibrant economy that offers a broad range of job
opportunities across the full spectrum of skill levels while supporting the delivery of high quality
government services to our residents.
Respect for Heritage and Environment: Promote a quality of life that embraces our heritage,
preserves the environment and effectively manages and protects resources based on guidance
provided by the Comprehensive Plan.
Organizational Collaboration: Collaborate on all levels (local, region, and state) to maximize the
economic opportunities for the area in a cost-effective manner including close partnership with
the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia.
Entrepreneurship: Create an environment that encourages, values and supports
entrepreneurship and fosters collaboration and a vibrant, creative community.
Organic Growth: Build value from within by supporting those businesses or assets who have
been a contributor to our community, with special focus on valuing existing businesses that
anchor our economy including the defense industry.
Build Awareness of Local Opportunities: Build a strong level of awareness amongst students
and young adults of the availability of local career and economic opportunities that keep young
people here in our community and support efforts that build a skilled and talented workforce.
Educational Achievement and Partnership: Recognize and support the strength of our local
educational institutions and promote lifelong learning opportunities.
Leverage Intellectual Capital: Strengthen and diversify Albemarle’s economy by leveraging our
intellectual capital to promote expansion of business interests to attract investment and
enhance the livability of our community (and not detract from it).
3 | P a g e
County of Albemarle
Support Critical Infrastructure: Support social infrastructure through business offerings that
recognize family, educational and cultural needs and that help people be successful and
productive employees and encourage physical infrastructure that supports the County’s desired
economic development activity.
Results Orientation: - Focus on being proactive and results oriented, with special emphasis on
seeking productive solutions and building positive relationships with state, local and community
stakeholders.
Target Industries:
The list of target sectors is a list of optimal targets and should not be considered to exclude related
sectors. It is critical to emphasize that the Target Industry Study supports the cultivation and nurturing
of existing businesses and considers employment of current residents as its most important outcome.
The targets were selected based on available workforce, alignment with community preferences, and
growth potential as well as strong multiplier effects that create jobs across a broad spectrum of skill
sets.
The recommended target industries are:
Bioscience and Medical Devices
Business & Financial Services
Information Technology and Defense & Security
Agribusiness and Food Processing
Complementary targets are:
Health Services
Arts, Design and Sports & media
Economic Development Team Approach
An economic development program that addresses the guiding principles, provides the identified
components and allows Albemarle to achieve its vision of being a thriving county as related to economic
vitality requires an effective team approach that includes continuing community development
department efforts, a refocus on strategic partnerships, and establishing an office to focus on dedicated
core functions of economic development. Suggested roles and responsibilities for these three elements
are outlined below:
Community Development Department – Continue focus on strategic land use planning, development
review processes, and regulatory reform across various functions of the Community Development
Department.
Community Engagement and Strategic Partnerships - Refocusing the existing Office of Community and
Business Partnerships to increase efforts related to communications/marketing, tourism/agritourism,
and public outreach and engagement efforts which have grown considerably over the past several years
with the expansion of Citizen Advisory Committees throughout the County. In addition to these more
traditional functions, the office will provide leadership in leveraging new and existing partnerships that
create opportunities to enhance community vitality and address the County’s strategic priorities and
challenges.
4 | P a g e
County of Albemarle
Economic Development - Establish an Economic Development Office to focus on core functions of
economic development not currently being adequately addressed. This office would consist of a
Director, an Economic Development Facilitator (relocated from the County Executive’s Office), and a
half-time administrative staff. This office would be responsible for existing business retention and
expansion, business attraction, workforce development and other core functions.
Major Program Components:
In order to achieve the stated mission and guiding principles, the following program components would
comprise an established, ongoing economic development function for Albemarle County. Many of these
components are underway to some extent based on the goals and objectives of the Economic Vitality
Action Plan, so the current status of the efforts is described as are potential future directions that would
establish a program that is more comparable to the majority of our benchmark communities. Priority
should be given to ensuring that these components support the County’s strategic focus on target
industries:
Existing Business Retention/Expansion
Description/Rationale:
The purpose of an existing business retention, expansion and assistance program, the heart of successful
economic development, is to promote, retain and expedite the profitable growth of targeted existing
businesses. A healthy and vibrant local economy depends on the well-being of a community's existing
firms, and a comprehensive business retention, expansion and assistance program gathers information
and develops plans to help the county better support job retention, job creation, and increased
investment in the community. A proactive and aggressive contact and visitation program is integral,
along with focused activities to encourage engagement and information sharing.
Current Status:
Albemarle’s Business First program targets 100 visitations annually
Coordination with Department of Business Assistance and other local partners
Target industry sector roundtables – initial focus on biotechnology companies for the first year
Potential Future Direction:
More aggressive visitation schedule to reach out in a timely manner to our 1500 identified
business targets
Analysis and reporting of existing business trends and issues with specific follow up action plans
developed
A specific focus on critical and/or challenged industries – i.e. defense industry/federal
contractors
Additional engagement activities with existing businesses , particularly target industries, to
support their expansion and keep them anchored in our community
New Business Start ups
Description/Rationale:
The economic development program should help create an environment conducive to the start up and
growth of new business ventures, working with community partners to develop a strong and vibrant
entrepreneurial ecosystem. Efforts should focus on helping prospective entrepreneurs and investors
access resources for available business support resources and on helping new ventures grow into long-
5 | P a g e
County of Albemarle
term, viable, competitive businesses in the Albemarle County community, including leveraging
technology transfer/commercialization possibilities associated with UVA. Support services should help
potential new business ventures consider appropriate sites, navigate the county’s approval and
permitting processes and access appropriate incentive programs.
Current Status:
Single point of contact program to assist small businesses unfamiliar with our processes
Training opportunities and regular drop in hours to consult with economic development staff
Relationships with the Charlottesville Business Innovation Council, the UVA Office of Innovation
and VA Bio among others that help connect the County with the entrepreneurial community
Potential Future Direction:
More focused partnership with UVA, including entities like the School of Engineering, to
leverage technology transfer/commercialization possibilities and build the entrepreneurial
ecosystem
More proactive approach in helping businesses take advantage of grant programs and state and
federal financing opportunities available to startups
Business Attraction
Description/Rationale:
Primary leadership for business attraction/ lead generation activities lies with our regional partner, the
Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development, and at the state level with the Virginia
Economic Development Partnership. The County should be well prepared to respond to inquiries of
interest referred by state and regional partners as well as to inquiries that come directly to Albemarle
staff, and initiate recruitment possibilities that align with our target industries. The County should be
an effective single point of contact for business development information, providing data relevant to
business location decisions including economic indicators, workforce information, industrial and
commercial real estate information, development review processes and customized business
development data. This requires a close alliance with the City of Charlottesville and University of
Virginia to highlight our shared attributes for targeted industries.
Current Status:
Respond to inquiries that come to us directly or that are forwarded to the County by TJPED and
VEDP
Continued updating of our website
Potential Future Direction:
Oversee product development (sites and buildings) and prospect readiness to encourage start
ups, existing business expansions and business relocations.
Establish and manage internal and external prospect response teams.
Identify appropriate prospects, initiate and follow up on contacts, and market our area to target
industries.
Identification of potential new markets to keep pace with the transitioning Virginia economy,
i.e. international trade opportunities
Workforce Development
6 | P a g e
County of Albemarle
Description/Rationale:
Workforce development and the cultivation of a skilled and motivated labor force is a critical
component of economic development for the County. A robust knowledge-based economy is emerging
in Albemarle, building on our target industry sectors and driven by ideas, services and innovation. In
addition, the County is anxious to support employment in our many basic industries and businesses. In
order to compete in this fast paced workplace, and ensure continued profitability for our employers,
Albemarle County must continually build a skilled workforce through lifelong learning and worker
training. County economic development must work closely with education and other community
partners to ensure that the continuously evolving Albemarle County workforce is competitive on a
global scale. Quality education at all levels and specialized training and retraining prepares individuals
for better careers and personal enrichment, provides employers with on-demand availability of skilled
workers, and supplies industry with a steady pipeline of talent development.
Current Status:
Active involvement in the Piedmont Workforce Network
Engagement with education partners at the secondary and post-secondary levels
Potential Future Direction:
Support workforce training programs (in partnership with PVCC, Workforce Training Center,
UVA and the County school system) tied to target enterprises or key sectors that build
employment pipelines for a full spectrum of skill levels
Agribusiness
Description/Rationale:
Because of Albemarle’s heritage and emergence as a major local producer within the regional food
network, economic development efforts to enhance the agricultural sector by assisting both new and
existing agri-businesses are critical. Agribusiness has been identified as a target industry for Albemarle,
and the success of this industry depends on presenting the County as an attractive, viable region for
agriculture and value-added product opportunities and for the tourism value these types of businesses
create. The protection of the County’s rural areas requires that these economic development
opportunities do not harm the essential nature and important natural resources of rural Albemarle.
Current Status:
Work with partners like Food Hub, Piedmont Environmental Council, Monticello Wine Trail and
others to expand visibility of local products and agritourism venues
Cosponsor programs like the Agribusiness Marketing Conference and Monticello Artisans Trail to
help build customer base and business profitability
Potential Future Direction:
Leverage state and federal grant opportunities to support agricultural and forestal industry
Actively market local products and promote/assist start up business ventures that support
agricultural industry
Build on our community’s visibility and reputation for quality local products to develop
successful agricultural business ventures
7 | P a g e
County of Albemarle
Economic Development Authority (EDA) Liaison
Description/Rationale:
Recent changes to the EDA’s Rules and Regulations established a fee arrangement that will generate
some level of ongoing funding for economic development . The need to develop, implement and
monitor EDA funding initiatives will create a new economic development responsibility for County staff.
Current Status:
Meeting with EDA when required for project consultation
Potential Future Direction:
Working actively with the EDA to identify appropriate funding initiatives, develop and monitor
the annual EDA budget, and assist with program development and implementation
Other Areas of Consideration:
Tourism
Tourism efforts must be closely aligned with economic development goals and objectives.
Communications/Marketing
Communications and marketing efforts related to economic development must be closely aligned with
the County’s overall communications program and high level goals and objectives.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Photosafe Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Expansion of the Photosafe Program to the
intersection of Greenbrier Drive and Seminole Trail.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Blair, Sellers, and Wagner
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
August 6. 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 2007, the General Assembly enacted Virginia Code §15.2-968.1 enabling localities to establish, by ordinance, traffic
light signal photo- monitoring systems. Virginia Code permits one traffic light photo enforcement location per 10,000
residents upon completion of the required traffic safety engineering studies. The County adopted an ordinance to
authorize its Photosafe Program on August 5, 2009. Under this authority, the County Executive can approve the
installation of photo-monitoring systems at up to ten intersections in the County.
On December 12, 2010, the Albemarle County Police Department activated the Photosafe Program at the intersection of
Seminole Trail and Rio Road. Given the success of the Photosafe Program, staff has identified another suitable location
where the Photosafe Program could be used for photo enforcement.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5. Ensure the health and safety of the community
DISCUSSION:
Following a traffic safety analysis of the County’s top crash locations controlled by a traffic signal, as well as a survey of
red light violations and an engineering analysis, the Police Department identified the intersection of Greenbrier Drive and
Seminole Trail as the most suitable location. In selecting the Greenbrier Drive and Seminole Trail intersection for
inclusion in the Photosafe Program, the Police Department considered the factors set forth in Virginia Code Section 15.2-
968.1(J), including (i) the accident rate at the intersection, (ii) the rate of red light violations occurring at the intersection,
(iii) the difficulty experienced by law enforcement officers in apprehending violators, and (iv) the ability to apprehend
violators safely.
Prior to the activation of the Photosafe Program at the Greenbrier Drive and Seminole Trail intersection, the County must
do the following:
1. Complete an engineering safety analysis.
2. If recommended by the analysis, make reasonable location-specific improvements, including signs and
pavement markings.
3. Install conspicuous notification signs within 500 feet of the intersection.
4. Conduct a public awareness program advising the public that the Photosafe Program is being expanded
to the intersection.
It is anticipated that the expansion could be operational by late this year.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No County funds have been required to support this program. Redflex assumes the preliminary costs associated with
expansion of the Photosafe Program (cameras, signs, engineering safety analysis, signs, etc.). Net revenue to the
County from the Photosafe Program has been as follows:
December 2010 – June 30, 2011: $45,544.12
July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012: $91,261.70
July 1, 2012- June 30, 2013: $57,270.22
AGENDA TITLE: Photosafe Program
August 6, 2014
Page 2
This revenue is designated solely for traffic safety programs. The expansion of the Photosafe Program will continue to be
supported by revenue from civil penalties assessed for violations of the Photosafe Ordinance, and any additional net
revenue would be designated solely for traffic safety programs.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Upon meeting all of the County Code requirements, the County Executive intends to authorize the expansion of the
Photosafe Program to include a traffic light signal photo-monitoring system at the intersection of Greenbrier Drive and
Seminole Trail. This Executive Summary is being provided for informational purposes.
Return to agenda
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, on February 18, 2014, the Federal Highway Administration notified the Virginia
Department of Transportation that the purpose and need analysis for the proposed
Route 29 bypass should be reevaluated and that other alternatives be considered;
and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation convened a working group to consider
alternatives to the proposed bypass which considered several proposals to
address traffic concerns in the corridor; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has endorsed a multi-faceted package of
projects in Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville to address these
concerns; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has decided to utilize the design-build
method of procurement to implement the widening of Route 29, the development of
a grade separated interchange at Route 29 and Rio Road, and to widen and
improve Berkmar Road; and
WHEREAS, the design-build procurement process permits the Virginia Department of
Transportation to begin construction prior to the completion of final design
drawings and engineering for a project; and
WHEREAS, because of the importance of Route 29 to this community, it is important that
stakeholders along the corridor, both commercial and residential, are actively
engaged in the design and development of this project; and
WHEREAS, this corridor has been master planned by the community for high density residential
and commercial development; and
WHEREAS, Route 29 serves as a gateway to Charlottesville region and Albemarle County and
should be designed to reflect the aesthetics of this community;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby requests of the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway
Administration, the Thomas Jefferson Metropolitan Planning Organization and any
other state or federal agencies will work to ensure the following with regard to the
development of the Route 29 Solutions projects:
1. That extraordinary efforts be undertaken to share with the public, and
provide for their comment on, proposed designs for the improvements prior
to the authorization for construction.
2. The design include opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian access along
the corridor.
3. The design be context sensitive to not restrict viewsheds or cause
unsightly conditions along the corridor.
4. Efforts be undertaken to minimize the impact to existing businesses and
neighborhoods in the corridor.
5. Consideration be given to a change in the sequencing of the projects to
allow the improvements to Berkmar Road and Hillsdale Drive be
completed prior to the construction of the Rio Road/Route 29 interchange.
* * *
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct 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 ____ ____