HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-02
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FIN A L
MAY 2, 2007
9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1 . Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Recognitions:
a. Juandiego Wade - 2007 John L. Snook Advocate Award Recipient.
b. Emergency Medical Services Week Proclamation.
5. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
7. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
8. 10:00 a.m. - Transportation Matters:
a. VDOT Monthly Report.
b. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
9. 10:30 a.m. - Presentation: Com cast, Paul Comes, Director of Government & Community Affairs.
Recess -10:50 a.m.
10. 11 :00 a.m. - Presentation: Development Review Task Force Report.
11. 11 :30 a.m. - Presentation: Proffers Report from the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee.
12. 12:00 p.m. - Closed Session.
13. Certify Closed Session.
14. Appointments.
2:00 p.m. - Public Hearinas:
15. FY 2007 Budget Amendment.
16. PROJECT: SP-2004-050. Flow Automotive Companies Sales and Displav (Sian #60). PROPOSED:
Expansion of the Flow Volkswagen-Audi-Mazda dealership, including outdoor display and sale of automobiles in
the Entrance Corridor. LOCATION: 1307-09 and 1313 Richmond Road, south side of Rt 250 East, approximately
1060' east of Riverbend Drive. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 78/15E and 78/15D. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
17. PROJECT: SP 2007-009. Little Keswick School Amendment (Sians #101&102). PROPOSED: Amend SP-06-
13 to increase the size of the New Dorm from 45' X 90' to 56'8" X 100'. No additional students or staff would result.
LOCATION: 505 Little Keswick Lane; Rt 731 1/10th of a mile SE of Rt 22. TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 80 Parcels
110, 110A, 110A2, 112, 117A, 118, 119. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
18. SP-2006-043. Field School (Sians #35,36&39). PROPOSED: Middle School for boys of approximately 70
students max to be located in the existing community building at Claudius Crozet Park. LOCATION: 22 acre parcel
at Claudius Crozet Park, north side of Park St, 1500 feet east of High Street. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 56A2-01-72 and
72A. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
3:30 p.m. - Work Sessions:
19. CPA 2005-009. Southern Urban Area B Study Amendment and CPA 2005-005, Granaer Tract CPA.
20. Rural Areas Resource Protection.
21. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
22. Adjourn to May 9, 2007 at 3:00 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
7.1 Approval of Minutes: October 4,2006 and March 7, 2007.
7.2 Authorize County Executive to execute Loan Agreement with Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.
7.3 Adopt resolution authorizing Chairman to sign re':ised Darden TO'.vo Park .^.greement. (Remove from agenda)
7.4 Authorize County Executive to execute Regional Police Mutual Aid Agreement.
7.5 Resolution to accept road(s) in Oak Hill Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
7.6 Resolution to accept road(s) in Logan's Run Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
7.7 Cancel May 9,2007 Night Board Meeting.
FOR INFORMATION:
7.8 2006 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
7.9 Board to Board, Communications reporl of activities from the Albemarle County School Board, dated May 2, 2007.
7.10 FY2007 Third Quarter Financial Report.
ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of May 2, 2007
May 4,2007
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT
1. Call to Order.
. Meeting was called to order at 9:06 a.m. by the
Chairman, Mr. Boyd. All BOS members were
present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry
Davis, Ella Carey, and MeaQan Hoy.
4. Recognitions:
Juandiego Wade - 2007 John L. Snook Advocate
Award Recipient.
. Chairman recognized Juandiego Wade, County
transportation planner, for receiving the 2007
John L. Snook Child Advocate Award from
Children, Youth and Family Services.
Emergency Medical Services Week Proclamation. (Attachment 1)
. Chairman read proclamation and presented
same to Dan Eggleston, Director of Fire and
Rescue.
Agricultural and Forestal District Committee
members: Joseph H. Jones, Babs Huckle and
Bruce Hogue.
. Chairman recognized the above-referenced
members who recently retired from the A/F
District Committee. Certificates of Appreciation
will be mailed to them.
5. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters
Not Listed on the Agenda.
Sally Thomas:
. Announced a half-day workshop that will be
held on May 24,2007, at COB-5th Street, on
ensuring access to services for persons with
limited English proficiency.
. She and Mr. Dorrier recently attended one of
VACO's regional meetings at the Palmyra
Courthouse. She stated that it is always useful
to hear about the problems and approaches
that other counties are taking.
. Asked staff to provide information on the
provision in the County's Ordinance that allows
for an erosion impact area.
Dennis Rooker:
. Mentioned an April 24th letter from the League
of Women Voters supporting ASAP's proposal
to identify a sustainable optimal population size
for the community and use the figure to help
guide planning. Suggested the Board consider
including, in its budget, matching funds to help
ASAP fund the study.
. An article in a recent Virginia Municipal League
newsletter states that state revenues are trailing
forecasts. He asked that the Board get
information on how this might affect the County.
. He understands that the JLARC Compensation
Study is studyinQ local Qovernment
compensation. He suggested keeping abreast
of the study and finding out the parameters of
the study for possible input by the County.
. Board members received a copy of a letter from
the Chairman to Mayor Brown regarding the
County's commitment to transportation. He
suggested providing a copy of the letter to The
Daily Progress and other media.
. In October, 2006, an issue came before the
Board concerning building an agricultural road
off of Route 29 N near the Franklin Subdivision.
He stated that the road is being built in a way
that clearly contemplates something other than
a farm road. He asked staff to look into this to
find a way to close this loop hole.
Ken Boyd:
. Mentioned that Board members received a
copy of a letter from the North Charlottesville
Business Council regarding the process for
Places29. He also received a copy of a letter
from Mr. Carter Myers, of Colonial Auto,
regarding the same issue. He suggested
discussing Places29 after the public has had an
opportunity to speak.
. Reminded everyone that on May 31,2007, from
5:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m., at the Comfort Inn, at the
1-64/Route 250W interchange, T JPDC will be
sponsoring an information sharing session to
discuss land use and transportation issues
affecting the region's localities.
. So far he has attended two of the chairs and
mayors (of local governments) meetings, and it
is great to talk with our counterparts to discuss
issues of interest.
. He has been contacted by the Forest Lakes
Homeowners Association asking for progress
on what the County is willing to do to help
mitigate some the siltation problems they are
experiencing in Hollymead Lake and Arbor
Lake. He asked that staff provide a report to the
Board so that they can provide a response to
the neighborhood.
. He would like to look at investigating
restructuring of the Rivanna Waster and Sewer
Authority Board and the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority Board to include elected officials.
6. From the Public: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
. John Martin, a resident of Free Union, talked
about RWSA's hazardous and bulky waste
days at the Ivy Landfill. This program is free for
the citizens, but expensive for RWSA. The
program is in jeopardy because of the City's
continued refusal to pay service contribution
fees in support of RWSA's operating costs. The
City currently owes $3,098,675 to RWSA, which
includes $1.8 million in principal and $1.2
million in finance charges. He suggested that it
is time for RWSA to hire outside legal counsel
2
to pursue this matter. He, therefore, urged the
Board to issue some form of concurrence to its
representatives on the RWSA Board to the
appointment of outside legal counsel in order to
bring this matter to closure.
· L. F. Wood, speaking on behalf of the Board of
Directors of the 29 North Charlottesville
Business Council (NCBC), said the Board
should not forward Places29 to the Planning
Commission until they receive more definitive
answers on some of the more problematic
areas that have been identified. The current
plan is impractical, creates a north-south
express zone, does not do anything for local
citizens in terms of improving services in the
business area, and Commonwealth
Transportation Board members and Richmond
VDOT officials do not see any funds available
for the project.
· Chuck Lebo, representing NCBC, said they are
pleased the Places29 process is underway.
They are displeased with some key elements
that have been presented and in particular the
overpasses which will turn Route 29 into an
expressway. Route 29 needs to be kept as a
shopping corridor for the County and City.
· Timothy HOlbert, President and Chief Executive
of the Chamber of Commerce, echoed support
of the NCBC's request that the Board consider
the pace and direction of the Places29 project.
· Jack Marshall, President of ASAP, discussed
their proposal to study an optimal population,
and asked for the Board's support.
· Tom Olivier, Conservation Chair for the
Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club, said the
Sierra Club supports ASAP's proposal to
identify an optimum sustainable population size
for the area. He urged the Board's
endorsement of the development of this
measure and development of a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment. He asked that the Board
consider funding this request at its budget work
session on May 9th.
· Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environmental Council,
handed Board members a copy of Charlottes-
ville Area Buy Fresh Buy Local, a newsletter for
supporters of locally grown food. He also
mentioned the denial by the School Board of a
proposed air quality monitor site at Stony Point
Elementary School. The Chairman asked Mr.
Tucker to look into this issue.
· Neil Williamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum,
expressed concern about the County providing
funds to ASAP for their proposed study. ASAP
is an advocacy group and the Free Enterprise
Forum questions the independence of such a
study.
· Harrison Rue, of T JPDC, discussed what has
3
transpired with Places29 and offered their full
services to look into detail at the issues that
have been raised by NCBC and others.
Following Board discussion, it was decided that
the Board would schedule a discussion for June
of the process for Places29, how it is moving
forward, etc.
7.2 Authorize County Executive to execute Loan County Attorney's office: Provide Clerk with
Agreement with Stony Point Volunteer Fire copy of executed agreement.
Company, Inc. (Attachment 2)
. AUTHORIZED the County Executive to sign the
attached loan agreement on behalf of the
County.
7.3 Adopt resolution authorizing Chairman to sign Clerk: Reschedule for June 6'r agenda.
revised Darden Towe Park Agreement.
. REMOVED from aoenda.
7.4 Authorize County Executive to execute Regional County Attorney's office: Provide Clerk with
Police Mutual Aid Agreement. copy of executed agreement.
. AUTHORIZED the County Executive to execute (Attachment 3)
the agreement.
7.5 Resolution to accept road(s) in Oak Hill Subdivision Clerk: Forwarded adopted resolution and
into the State Secondary System of Highways. signed AM-4.3 Form to Greg Cooley.
. ADOPTED the attached resolution. (Attachment 4)
7.6 Resolution to accept road(s) in Logan's Run Clerk: Forwarded adopted resolution and
Subdivision into the State Secondary System of signed AM-4.3 Form to Greg Cooley.
Highways. (Attachment 5)
. ADOPTED the attached resolution.
7.7 Cancel May 9, 2007 Night Board Meeting. Clerk: Notify appropriate individuals.
. CANCELLED the May 9, 2007 regular night
Board meetina.
7.9 Board to Board, Communications reporl of activities County Executive's office: Provide information
from the Albemarle County School Board, dated to Board.
May 2, 2007.
. Ms. Thomas mentioned the School's discussion
of the process for Baldrige Performance and
she asked that staff provide an update.
8a. VDOT Monthly Report.
8b. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Darin Simpson. Assistant Residency Administrator Clerk: Forward comments to VDOT.
for the Charlottesville Residency
. Stated that Allan Sumpter is attending a
leadership conference in Virginia Beach.
. With winter over, there is increased activity by
VDOT throughout the County.
. The Rio Road/Hyrdraulic Road signal changes
have been completed.
. Explained how the mobile pothole patcher
works and said he hopes it will enable VDOT to
be more cost effective and accomplish more
work.
. Said there are some historical questions that
need answering regarding Maxfield Road and
Bishop Hill before the work is completed.
David Slutzky
. With the new installation of sidewalk on Rio
Road, he noticed after a recent heavy rain that,
one of the new wheelchair ramps, from the road
up to the sidewalk, had a fairly substantial
4
puddle in it. It was not built correctly and during
the winter there will probably be a massive
sheet of ice. He asked that VDOT take a look at
it.
· On Old Brook Road there is area that is full of
leaves, mulch and debris. He asked that it be
cleaned out. Mr. Simpson said VDOT will check
into it.
Dennis Rooker
· There are several places n Roslyn Ridge Road
where fallen trees have destroyed guardrail on
both sides of the road. It appears to him that
VDOT was replacing a guardrail that was not
damaged, and he would like for that to be
checked out. As part of this work he hopes they
are removing the trees presently in the culverts.
· Several people came to the last MPO meeting
to discuss the closing of the Advance Mills
Bridge.
· Mentioned a graph of secondary allocations
estimated vs. actual allocations - said the
graph does not match up with what he received
from VDOT. Juan Wade said VDOT is looking
into the discrepancy. Mr. Rooker said he is
trying to obtain an accurate list of what our
secondary road allocations have been for the
last ten years.
· On Roslyn Ridge Road the contractor is
breaking up the road. About one-third of the
road is broken up, and he thinks it might be
wise to have them temporarily patch the area
so that it does not do any more damage.
David Wyant
· Asked if the Advance Mills Bridge is proposed
to be permanently closed. Mr. Simpson said
VDOT found some additional cracks and will
need to make a determination on how to
proceed. He does not have a time frame on
how long it will be closed. Mr. Wyant asked if
this project has been put on an accelerated
schedule. Mr. Simpson said he will find out. An
informational meeting will be held on May 8th,
7:00 p.m., at Broadus Wood Elementary
School. Mr. Rooker asked for a preliminary
estimate of the replacement cost for the bridge.
· Thanked VDOT for doing a great job in working
with the homeowners and developers to resolve
issues regarding the Bargamin property.
Sally Thomas
· Thanked Mr. Sumpter for being responsive to
her concerns regarding Route 29 South. Ches
Goodall is going to walk the median strip and
work with VDOT on the trees concerns.
· White Mountain Road - VDOT was responsive
and agreed to take care of the work as a
maintenance spot improvement. She has asked
Mr. Sumpter to find another road that has the
same kind of treatment as that planned for
5
White Mountain to see if an example would be
helpful to the residents in making a decision.
Mr. Slutzky asked that VDOT identify some
examples of what it is doing and then forward
that information to the Board members so that
they can see just in case the issue comes up in
another area.
. Thanked VDOT for its responsiveness to
concerns regarding 820 Buckingham Circle.
Lindsay Dorrier
. Asked VDOT to look at the traffic count on
Route 713, between Routes 712 and 795, near
Keene, an unpaved section of road that is
approximately three to five miles long. This
road goes by Teddy Roosevelt's hunting lodge.
Ken Boyd
. Asked if the current paving of Gilbert Station
Road will complete the paving of the road. Mr.
Simpson said he believes there is one section
where the width does not qualify. Mr. Boyd
asked for a description of the project limits,
what will remain unpaved.
. Asked if Rocky Hollow Road is nearing
completion. Mr. Simpson said he is not sure of
its current stage. Once the pipes are installed
and the trees are cleared, the project will move
fairly rapidly.
9. Presentation: Comcast, Paul Comes, Director of
Government & Community Affairs.
. RECEIVED.
10. Presentation: Development Review Task Force Mark Graham/Community Development: Move
Report. forward as approved.
. CONSENSUS that staff move forward with the
five highest priority actions (set out below) and
make minor adjustments in the current
Community Development Work Plan:
0 two phase ZMA process;
0 improve ARB/PC/Board coordination, clarify
role of ARB;
0 detailed process documentation to create
consistent application and review;
0 establish staff authority for waivers and
modifications in development areas; and
0 develop a proffer policy to include elements
beyond cash amount
11. Presentation: Proffers Report from the Fiscal County Executive/Community Development:
Impact Advisory Committee. Proceed as directed.
. Motion that the Board adopt the proffers
methodology and the resulting proffer
values, without the ten percent revenue
credit, that are contained in the attached
memorandum and to DIRECT staff to begin
the process of developing a complete
proffer policy, failed by a vote of 3:3.
. Motion that the Board adopt the proffers
methodology and the resulting proffer
values, based on a debt service level of six
percent, that are contained in the attached
6
memorandum and directed staff to begin
the process of developing a complete
proffer policy, passed by a vote of 5:1.
12. Closed Session.
. At 12:23 p.m., the Board went into closed
session to consider appointments to Boards,
Committees, and Commissions; to consider the
acquisition of real property for a potential park
facility; to consult with legal counsel and staff
regarding matters of probable litigation relating
to a real estate assessment appeal; and to
consult with legal counsel and staff regarding
specific matters regarding specific matters
requiring legal advice relating to an inter-
iurisdictional agreement.
13. Certify Closed Session.
. At 2:20 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session and certified the closed session.
14. Boards and Commissions: Appointments. Clerk: Prepare appointment letter, update
. APPOINTED Ralph Chester to the Commission Boards and Commissions book, update
on Children and Families, with said term to webpage, and notify appropriate persons.
expire June 30, 2010.
15. FY 2007 Budget Amendment. Clerk: Forward signed appropriation forms to
. APPROVED the 2007 Budget Amendment in Finance, OMB, and copy appropriate
the amount of $1 ,305,573.96. individuals.
. APPROVED FY 2007 Appropriations
#2007065,#2007066,#2007067,#2007068,
#2007069,#2007070,#2007071,#2007072,
#2007073,#2007074, #2007075, and
#2007076.
16. PROJECT: SP-2004-050. Flow Automotive Clerk: Set out conditions of approval.
Companies Sales and Displav (Sian #60).
. APPROVED SP-2004-050, by a vote of 6:0,
subject to the six conditions recommended by
the PlanninQ Commission.
17. PROJECT: SP 2007-009. Little Keswick School Clerk: Set out conditions of approval.
Amendment (Sians #101 &102).
. APPROVED, by a vote of 6:0, subject to six
conditions.
18. SP-2006-043. Field School (Sians #35,36&39). Clerk: Set out conditions of approval.
. APPROVED, by a vote of 6:0, subject to the ten
conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission, with condition #8 amended at the
Board meeting.
19. Work Session: CPA 2005-009. Southern Urban
Area B Study Amendment and CPA 2005-005,
Granaer Tract CPA.
. HELD. The following typographical corrections
were made: page 17, the last item in the list of
transportation improvements should read
"transit" service, and on page 16, the second
improvement listed should be "west of the
bypass. "
20. Work Session: Rural Areas Resource Clerk: Forward Resolutions of Intent to
Protection. appropriate persons in Community
. Took the following actions: Development. (Attachments 7-9)
. ADOPTED, by a vote of 6:0, the following
Resolutions of Intent to amend the ZoninQ and
7
Subdivision Ordinances that would allow staff to
bring forward the ordinance amendments.
0 Resolution of Intent-Critical Slopes;
0 Resolution of Intent-Safe and Convenient
Access; and
0 Resolution of Intent-Family Subdivision and
REQUIRED the length of time a family
member must hold property after
subdivision for 15 years.
. DIRECTED staff to move forward with requiring
a 100 foot setback from all perennial and
intermittent streams in the Rural Areas.
. To REQUIRE an Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan, rather than agreements in lieu of a plan
for all new single family houses in the Rural
Areas.
21. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters
not Listed on the Agenda.
David Slutzky:
. Said the ASAP proposal that was brought
before the Board earlier in the day is a good
proposal, but he would like to narrow the scope,
and focus on determining the maximum
sustainable population from an ecological
perspective.
. Seeing that Bryan Wheeler, a School Board
member was present, asked about the status of
the location of the air monitoring system. Also
said he believes that DEQ should work with
County staff to find a proper location.
David Wyant
. The committee on emergency transport has
met twice, and it is proceeding along. This
might be a good time to bring fire and rescue to
the same physical structure.
Sally Thomas
. Suggested that Board members read the
T JPDC's Summary of Activities.
. The Rivanna River Commission has already
adopted a charter.
. Historic Preservation Committee will be coming
to the Board with a report soon.
. ACE Committee is coming to the Board with a
report on the point system to reflect changes
the Board has suggested.
. On May 10th, there will be a "light" dinner at
Sage Moon which will include information about
the AIDS services group.
Lindsay Dorrier
. The recently sponsored V ACO meeting at the
Fluvanna Courthouse was very fruitful.
Ken Boyd
. The City is proposing to put together an
emergency services task force to talk about the
$1.0 million they put aside in their budget and
how that would interact with CARS. The Mayor
has contacted him to ask if the County would
like to participate. Mr. Boyd will stay in touch
8
with the Mayor.
22. Adjourn to May 9, 2007 at 1 :30 p.m.
· The meeting was adjourned at 6:26 p.m. to May
9,2007, 1 :30 p.m. in Lane Auditorium.
/ewc
Attachment 1 - Proclamation recognizing Emergency Medical Services Week
Attachment 2 - Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., Loan Agreement
Attachment 3 - Regional Police Mutual Aid Agreement.
Attachment 4 - Resolution - roads in Oak Hill Subdivision
Attachment 5 - Resolution - roads in Logan's Run Subdivision
Attachment 6 - Conditions for Planning Commission items
Attachment 7 - Resolution of Intent-Critical Slopes
Attachment 8 - Resolution of Intent-Safe and Convenient Access
Attachment 9 - Resolution of Intent-Family Subdivision
9
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
ATTACHMENT 1
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK
emergency medical services is a vital public service; and
the members of emergency medical services teams are ready to provide lifesaving care
to those in need 24 hours a day, seven days a week; and
access to quality emergency care dramatically improves the survival and recovery rate of
those who experience sudden illness or injury; and
the emergency medical services system consists of communications officers, emergency
medical technicians, firefighters, law enforcement officers, educators, administrators,
emergency physicians and nurses, and others; and
the members of emergency medical services teams, career and volunteer, engage in
thousands of hours of specialized training and continuing education to enhance their
lifesaving skills; and
it is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of emergency medical
services providers by designating Emergency Medical Services Week;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED, that I, Kenneth C. Boyd, Chairman on behalf of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors, do hereby proclaim
MA Y 20-26, 2007
as
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK
with the theme
UT.!!!!!m
EXTRAORDINARY SERVICE itI:!aI
in Albemarle County, Virginia, and encourage the community to observe this week with
appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.
Signed and sealed this ~d day of May, 2007.
10
ATTACHMENT 2
SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of ,2007, by
and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision, (the "County"), and the
STONY POINT VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC., a Virginia Corporation, (the "Fire Company").
WHEREAS, the Fire Company agrees to continue to provide valuable fire suppression services in
Albemarle County in its delineated service area as set forth on the Response Area Maps located at the
Emergency Communications Center ("Service Area"); and
WHEREAS, the Fire Company desires the County to contribute Two Hundred Fifteen Thousand
Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($215,750.00) to provide for renovations and improvements to their building
and property located at 3827 Stony Point Road, Charlottesville, Virginia (County Tax Map 48 Parcel 18D)
that are necessary to provide fire suppression services.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above stated premises, the County and Fire
Company agree, as follows:
1. The County shall contribute to the Fire Company Two Hundred Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred
Fifty Dollars ($215,750.00) to be used to fund building improvements as identified in Attachment A of
this agreement. The funds shall be allocated from the County's Capital Improvements Fund and will
be appropriated to a County budget code dedicated to these projects. The County will work with the
Fire Company to procure and manage the projects as stated in the Volunteer Fire Rescue Building
Maintenance Funding Policy (Attachment B).
2. The Fire Company agrees that the County will withhold Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty
Dollars ($17,980.00) from the County's annual appropriation to the Fire Company's operating budget
beginning July 2006 through July 2016 and Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Dollars
($17,970.00) in July 2017. Thus at the end of twelve (12) years, which is the term of this Agreement,
a total of $215,750.00 shall be withheld. The Fire Company agrees that any amount of this
repayment that may exceed the County's annual appropriation will be remitted to the County no later
than July 31 of each repayment year.
3. The Fire Company agrees that it shall not convey any of the improved property or any interest therein
to any party other than the County without the County's prior written consent during the term of this
Service Agreement. In addition, the Fire Company agrees that any insurance proceeds received
from a claim related to any damage to the property shall be used entirely for the immediate repair and
improvement of the property unless the County expressly authorizes in writing a different use for such
funds.
4. The Fire Company agrees that at such time as it no longer provides volunteer fire suppression in
Albemarle County while operating under the jurisdiction of the County that it shall convey all of its
interest in the property to the County at no additional cost to the County upon the County's request.
5. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent additional appropriations by the County to the
Fire Company, at the discretion of the County Board of Supervisors, to support, enhance, or augment
the services to be provided by the Fire Company.
11
ATTACHMENT 3
REGIONAL MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this day of , 2007 by and between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE (the "County"), the TOWN OF GORDONSVILLE (the "Town"), the SHERIFF
OF GREENE COUNTY, and the SHERIFF OF FLUVANNA COUNTY.
WHEREAS, Va. Code 9915.2-1726 and 15.2-1730.1 authorize the governing bodies of a County
and Town and Sheriffs to enter into reciprocal agreements for mutual aid for emergency purposes, for
maintenance of peace and good order and for cooperation in the furnishing of police services;
WHEREAS, the County, Town and the Sheriffs have determined that the provision of police aid
across jurisdictional lines will increase their ability to respond to law enforcement emergencies involving
immediate threats to life or public safety in their respective jurisdictions, and will assist them in the
preservation of public safety and welfare of the entire area;
WHEREAS, it is deemed to be mutually beneficial to the parties hereto to enter into an
agreement concerning mutual aid and cooperation with regard to law enforcement; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire that the terms and conditions of the Regional Mutual Aid
Agreement (the "Agreement") be established.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived from this
Agreement, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows:
1. Each party will endeavor to provide police support to the parties to this Agreement within the
capabilities available at the time the request for such support is made and within the terms of this
Agreement.
2. Requests for assistance pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be
initiated by the requesting party's on-duty commander, bureau commander, their respective designees or
the highest-ranking officer on-duty at the time of the request.
3. To the extent feasible, the requesting party shall be responsible for designating a
communications system for use by the requested party.
4. The personnel of the requested party shall render such assistance under the direction of the
Chief of Police/Sheriff or other principal law enforcement officer of the requested party, or their designees.
5. Law enforcement support provided pursuant to this Agreement shall include, but not be
limited to, the following resources: uniformed officers, canine officers, forensic support, plainclothes
officers, special operations personnel and related equipment.
6. The decision whether to provide law enforcement support under this Agreement shall at all
times remain within the discretion of the requested agency. Nothing contained in this Agreement should
in any manner be construed to compel any of the parties hereto to respond to a request for law
enforcement support when the personnel of the party to whom the request is made are, in the opinion of
the requested party, needed or are being used within the boundaries of their jurisdiction, nor shall any
such request compel the requested party to continue to provide police support to another party when its
police personnel or equipment, in the opinion of the requested party, are needed for other duties within
the boundaries of its own jurisdiction.
7. The responsibility for investigation and subsequent actions within the requesting jurisdiction
shall remain with the law enforcement agency of the requesting party. Entering law enforcement
personnel shall promptly notify the agency of the entered jurisdiction upon discovery of a crime in the
jurisdiction where the offense occurred.
12
8. Officers acting pursuant to this Agreement shall be granted authority to enforce the laws of
the Commonwealth of Virginia and to perform the other duties of a law enforcement officer, such authority
shall be in conformance with Va. Code 99 15.2-1724, 15.2-1726, 15.2-1730 and 15.2-1730.1 as may be
applicable; however, law enforcement officers of any jurisdiction who might be casually present in any
other jurisdiction shall have power to apprehend and make arrests only in such instances where an
apparent, immediate threat to public safety precludes the option of deferring action to the local law
enforcement agency.
9. When performing police duties in a requesting jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of this
Agreement, each law enforcement officer, agent, and other employee of the parties hereto shall have the
same police powers, rights and privileges, including the authority to make arrests, as the officers, agents
or employees have in the jurisdiction where they were appointed.
10. Pursuant to Va. Code 9 15.2-1724, the services performed and expenditures made under
this Agreement shall be deemed to be for public and governmental purposes and all immunities afforded
to the requested jurisdiction when acting within its boundaries shall extend to its participation in rendering
assistance outside its boundaries to a requesting jurisdiction. For the purposes of this Agreement, the
requested party that responds to a request for assistance is rendering aid once it has entered the
jurisdictional boundaries of the requesting party pursuant to the provisions herein.
11. All immunities from liability, exemptions from laws, ordinances and regulations, pension,
relief, disability, worker's compensation, life and health insurance, and other benefits enjoyed by law
enforcement officers, agents and other employees of each party shall extend to the services they perform
under this Agreement outside their respective jurisdictions. Each party agrees that the provision of these
benefits shall remain the responsibility of the primary employing party.
12. To the extent permitted by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, each party hereto, in
activities involving the rendering of assistance to a requesting party pursuant to this Agreement, shall (i)
waive any and all claims against all other parties to this Agreement which may arise out of such parties'
activities outside their respective jurisdictions, and (ii) be responsible for the acts or omissions of its law
enforcement officers, agents and other employees causing harm to persons not a party to this
Agreement. Nothing herein shall be deemed as an expressed or implied waiver of the sovereign
immunity of the parties to this Agreement.
13. The parties to this Agreement shall not be liable to each other for reimbursement for injuries
to personnel or damage to equipment incurred when going to or returning from another jurisdiction.
Neither shall the parties hereto be liable to each other for any other costs associated with, or arising out
of, the rendering of assistance pursuant to this Agreement, unless the parties expressly agree otherwise
in advance of the provision of assistance under this Agreement.
14. This Agreement sets forth the complete agreement relating to the provision of mutual police
services among the parties hereto. However, nothing herein shall affect the enforceability of separate
mutual aid agreements entered into by the County.
15. Any of the parties hereto may withdraw from this Agreement by giving ninety (90) days
written notice to that effect to the other parties.
16. This Agreement is subject to the approval of the governing bodies of the County of Albemarle
and Town of Gordonsville and the Sheriffs of the County of Fluvanna and the County of Green.
WHEREBY, the parties hereto have executed this Regional Mutual Aid Agreement, by their
authorized representatives, whose signatures are set forth following below as of the day and year first set
forth above.
13
ATTACHMENT 4
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 2nd
day of May 2007, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Oak Hill Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form
AM-4.3 dated May 2, 2007, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County. Virqinia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Reauirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Oak Hill Subdivision, as
described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated May 2, 2007, to the secondary system of state
highways, pursuant to 933.1-229 and to 933.1-82, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision
Street Reauirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
*****
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Mavmont Drive (State Route 1291) from the intersection of Route 1113 (Oak Hill Drive)
to the intersection of Route 1292 (Maymont Court), as shown on plat recorded
03/04/2005 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book
2932, pages 70-88, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.08 miles.
2) Mavmont Court (State Route 1292) from .01 miles south of Route 1291 (Maymont
Drive) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 03/04/2005 in the office the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2932, pages 70-88, with a 40-foot right-
of-way width, for a length of 0.07 miles.
Total Mileage - 0.15
14
ATTACHMENT 5
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 2nd
day of May 2007, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Logan's Run Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions
Form AM-4.3 dated May 2,2007, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, VirQinia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Reauirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Logan's Run Subdivision, as
described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated May 2, 2007, to the secondary system of state
highways, pursuant to S33.1-229 and to S33.1-82, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision
Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
*****
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Moriah Way (State Route 1053) from the intersection of Route 616 (Black Cat Road) to
the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 09/29/2003 in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2602, pages 379-385, with a 50-foot right-of-
way width, for a length of 0.55 miles.
Total Mileage - 0.55
15
ATTACHMENT 6
Conditions of Approval for Plannina Items
16. PROJECT: SP-2004-050. Flow Automotive Companies Sales and Displav (Sian #60).
1. Vehicles shall not be elevated anywhere on site;
2. Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas indicated for display shown on the site plan entitled
"Flow Automotive," prepared by the Collins Engineering, dated April 2, 2007;
3. Display parking shall be only in designated striped parking spaces as identified on this plan;
4. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the landscape plan (submitted with the site
plan). Landscaping shown on the plan may be required to be in excess of the minimum
requirements of ARB guidelines or the Zoning Ordinance to compensate for the negative visual
impact of the proposed use, particularly regarding the retaining wall on the west side of the
property;
5. Final site plan approval is subject to the recordation of easements for ingress/egress, as well as
the installation, maintenance and use of parking spaces, planter islands, and landscaping on
adjacent parcels (Tax Map 78, Parcels 15D and 15E); and
6. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the lighting plan (which shall be submitted
with the site plan). Maximum light levels on site shall not exceed 30 foot candles. Maximum
spillover lighting requirements must also be met.
17. PROJECT: SP 2007-009. Little Keswick School Amendment (Sians #101&102).
1. Special Use Permit 2007-09 shall be limited to the use of a maximum two (2)-story residential
facility the "New Dorm" for students enrolled in the Little Keswick School and for the conversion of
the existing "Barn Dorm" to non-residential uses, such as office, recreational, storage, meeting
area, or other similar uses. The "New Dorm" shall be located and developed in general accord
with the concept plan, titled, "Little Keswick School, Concept Plan" (Attachment A-copy on file in
Clerk's office) dated February 16, 2007 (last revision date) (the "Concept Plan"). However, the
Zoning Administrator may approve revisions to the Concept Plan to allow compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance;
2. Maximum enrollment of students shall be limited to thirty-five (35). Any increase in enrollment
shall require an amendment to this special use permit and may require entrance improvements
subject to Virginia Department of Transportation requirements;
3. The existing dorm, labeled "Barn Dorm" on the concept plan (Attachment A) shall be subject to
review by the Building Official prior to conversion of the existing use to any other use;
4. Construction shall commence within five (5) years of the date of approval of SP-2007-09;
5. Along the shared property line of Tax Map 80-118 and TMP 80-114A (the adjacent neighbor),
between the soccer field and the fence, a planting material screen of approximately one hundred
twenty-four (124) feet in length and seventeen (17) feet in width shall be established and
maintained on TMP 80-118. The planting materials shall consist of a minimum of seventeen (17)
Leyland Cypress, each a minimum of eight (8) feet in height, and shall be planted approximately
six (6) feet on center; and
6. Along the shared property line of Tax Map 80-110, TMP 80-11 OA and TMP 80-114A (the adjacent
neighbor), a plant material screen of approximately three hundred forty (340) feet in length and
forty (40) feet in width between the existing gym building and TMP 80-11 OA shall be established
and maintained on TMP 80-110 and a portion of TMP 80-110A. Starting at the gym and
proceeding toward TMP 80-11 OA, the first two hundred sixty (260) feet in length shall be planted
with a minimum of forty-five (45) Juniperus Virginiana, each a minimum of eight (8) feet in height,
and shall be planted approximately six (6) feet on center. The remaining eighty (80) feet in length
shall be planted with a minimum of thirteen (13) Leyland Cypress, each a minimum of six (6) feet
in height, and shall be planted approximately six (6) feet on center.
16
18. SP-2006-043. Field School (Sians #35,36&39).
1. Maximum enrollment shall be forty-eight (48) students;
2. Hours of operation for the school shall be from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday;
3. The school is limited to existing buildings and park grounds as indicated on the concept plan
(Attachment C-copy on file in Clerk's office). Any additional building or site changes for the
school use will require an amendment to this Special Use Permit (SP-2006-043);
4. Prior to issuance of a Zoning clearance for the private school use, water line dedications to the
satisfaction of the Albemarle County Service Authority are required;
5. The playgrounds and the park grounds, with the exception of the Community Building, will remain
open and available for public use during the hours of school operation;
6. The athletic fields at the park shall not be available for the school's use after 4:00 p.m. on
weekdays and shall not be available on weekends;
7. The athletic fields shall not be available for school use when closed by the Department of Parks
and Recreation for inclement weather, overuse, fields restoration, or when any other scheduled
use is authorized by the Department of Parks and Recreation;
8. The school use may begin and continue only if the Crozet Park covenants and restrictions allow
the use;
9. Special Use Permit 2006-043 shall be valid until June 30, 2009; and
10. Shuttle bus service for students to and from school shall be provided each school day.
17
ATTACHMENT 7
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the purposes of Section 4.2, Critical Slopes, of the Zoning Ordinance are to direct
development away from critical slopes to more suitable terrain in order to protect and conserve critical
slopes, public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas, and to reduce soil erosion, sedimentation,
water pollution and septic disposal problems associated with the disturbance of critical slopes; and
WHEREAS, Section 4.2 establishes minimum requirements for the location of improvements and
delineates several exemptions, including an exemption in Section 4.2.6 for accessways (driveways and
roads) where no reasonable alternative location or alignment exists; and
WHEREAS, Section 4.2.5 allows modifications and waivers to be granted from the critical slopes
requirements under prescribed circumstances, subject to reasonable conditions designed to mitigate the
adverse impacts otherwise resulting from the disturbance of critical slopes; and
WHEREAS, in order to better achieve the purposes of Section 4.2, it is desired to allow the
disturbance of critical slopes to establish an accessway only if the landowner obtains a modification or
waiver, with reasonable conditions, rather than an exemption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to amend Section 4 and any other regulations of the Zoning Ordinance as described
herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the Board
of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
18
ATTACHMENT 8
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, although the Zoning Ordinance requires safe and convenient access for
developments subject to a site plan (Section 32) and parking lots (Section 4.12), and the Subdivision
Ordinance imposes minimum design standards for public and private streets to allow safe travel, there
are no such minimum standards for driveways to residences in the Rural Areas zoning district; and
WHEREAS, in order to better protect the public safety, it is desired to require that driveways in
the Rural Areas zoning district be designed and constructed to assure that fire and rescue vehicles can
safely access a residence.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to amend Section 4 and any other regulations of the Zoning Ordinance as described
herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the Board
of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
19
ATTACHMENT 9
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, one of the key purposes of the family subdivision regulations is to promote the
cohesiveness of the family; and
WHEREAS, the Rural Areas Plan (the "Plan") was adopted by the Board of Supervisors as part of
the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan on March 2, 2005, and it states that one way to discourage
the transfer of lots created by a family subdivision to someone who is not a member of the immediate
family is to increase the period the parcel to be subdivided must be owned by the family member before it
may be subdivided, and to increase the period each family subdivision lot must be owned by the grantee
of a lot created by a family subdivision before it may be transferred to someone who is not a member of
the immediate family; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County Code S 14-212 requires that the grantee of a lot created by a
family subdivision not transfer the lot to someone who is not a member of the immediate family for two
years from the date of recordation of the plat; and
WHEREAS, in order to better promote the purposes of the family subdivision regulations and to
discourage their abuse, it is desired to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to establish a period by which a
landowner must own a parcel before it may be subdivided by family subdivision, to extend the period
prohibiting the transfer of a lot created by family subdivision to someone who is not a member of the
immediate family beyond the current two-year period, and to adopt such other regulations to assure that
these requirements are satisfied.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good land development practices, the Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to amend Albemarle County Code S 14-212 and any other regulations of the
Subdivision Ordinance deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
subdivision text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
20
REGIONAL MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this 19th day of June, 2007 by and between the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE (the "County"), the TOWN OF GORDONSVILLE (the "Town"), the SHERIFF
OF GREENE COUNTY, and the SHERIFF OF FLUV ANNA COUNTY.
WHEREAS, Va. Code SS 15.2-1726 and 15.2-1730.1 authorize the governing bodies ofa
County and Town and Sheriffs to enter into reciprocal agreements for mutual aid for emergency
purposes, for maintenance of peace and good order and for cooperation in the furnishing of police
servIces;
WHEREAS, the County, Town and the Sheriffs have determined that the provision of police
aid across jurisdictional lines will increase their ability to respond to law enforcement emergencies
involving immediate threats to life or public safety in their respective jurisdictions, and will assist
them in the preservation of public safety and welfare of the entire area;
WHEREAS, it is deemed to be mutually beneficial to the parties hereto to enter into an
agreement concerning mutual aid and cooperation with regard to law enforcement; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire that the terms and conditions of the Regional Mutual
Aid Agreement (the "Agreement") be established.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived from this
Agreement, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows:
1. Each party will endeavor to provide police support to the parties to this Agreement within
the capabilities available at the time the request for such support is made and within the terms of this
Agreement.
2. Requests for assistance pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be
initiated by the requesting party's on-duty commander, bureau commander, their respective
designees or the highest-ranking officer on-duty at the time of the request.
3. To the extent feasible, the requesting party shall be responsible for designating a
communications system for use by the requested party.
4. The personnel of the requested party shall render such assistance under the direction of
the Chief of Police/Sheriff or other principal law enforcement officer of the requested party, or their
designees.
5. Law enforcement support provided pursuant to this Agreement shall include, but not be
limited to, the following resources: uniformed officers, canine officers, forensic support, plainclothes
officers, special operations personnel and related equipment.
6. The decision whether to provide law enforcement support under this Agreement shall at
all times remain within the discretion of the requested agency. Nothing contained in this Agreement
should in any manner be construed to compel any of the parties hereto to respond to a request for law
enforcement support when the personnel of the party to whom the request is made are, in the opinion
of the requested party, needed or are being used within the boundaries of their jurisdiction, nor shall
any such request compel the requested party to continue to provide police support to another party
when its police personnel or equipment, in the opinion of the requested party, are needed for other
duties within the boundaries of its own jurisdiction.
7. The responsibility for investigation and subsequent actions within the requesting
jurisdiction shall remain with the law enforcement agency of the requesting party. Entering law
enforcement personnel shall promptly notify the agency of the entered jurisdiction upon discovery of
a crime in the jurisdiction where the offense occurred.
8. Officers acting pursuant to this Agreement shall be granted authority to enforce the laws
of the Commonwealth of Virginia and to perform the other duties of a law enforcement officer, such
authority shall be in conformance with Va. Code 99 15.2-1724,15.2-1726,15.2-1730 and 15.2-
1730.1 as may be applicable; however, law enforcement officers of any jurisdiction who might be
2
casually present in any other jurisdiction shall have power to apprehend and make arrests only in
such instances where an apparent, immediate threat to public safety precludes the option of deferring
action to the local law enforcement agency.
9. When performing police duties in a requesting jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of
this Agreement, each law enforcement officer, agent, and other employee of the parties hereto shall
have the same police powers, rights and privileges, including the authority to make arrests, as the
officers, agents or employees have in the jurisdiction where they were appointed.
10. Pursuant to Va. Code S 15.2-1724, the services performed and expenditures 111adeunder
this Agreement shall be deemed to be for public and governmental purposes and all immunities
afforded to the requested jurisdiction when acting within its boundaries shall extend to its
participation in rendering assistance outside its boundaries to a requesting jurisdiction. For the
purposes of this Agreement, the requested party that responds to a request for assistance is rendering
aid once it has entered the jurisdictional boundaries of the requesting party pursuant to the provisions
herein.
11. All immunities from liability, exemptions from laws, ordinances and regulations,
pension, relief, disability, worker's compensation, life and health insurance, and other benefits
enjoyed by law enforcement officers, agents and other employees of each party shall extend to the
services they perform under this Agreement outside their respective jurisdictions. Each party agrees
that the provision of these benefits shall remain the responsibility of the primary employing party.
12. To the extent permitted by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, each party hereto,
in activities involving the rendering of assistance to a requesting party pursuant to this Agreement,
shall (i) waive any and all claims against all other parties to this Agreement which may arise out of
such parties' activities outside their respective jurisdictions, and (ii) be responsible for the acts or
omissions of its law enforcement officers, agents and other employees causing hann to persons not a
3
party to this Agreement. Nothing herein shall be deemed as an expressed or implied waiver of the
sovereign immunity of the parties to this Agreement.
13. The parties to this Agreement shall not be liable to each other for reimbursement for
injuries to personnel or damage to equipment incurred when going to or returning from another
jurisdiction. Neither shall the parties hereto be liable to each other for any other costs associated
with, or arising out of, the rendering of assistance pursuant to this Agreement, unless the parties
expressly agree otherwise in advance of the provision of assistance under this Agreement.
14. This Agreement sets forth the complete agreement relating to the provision of mutual
police services among the parties hereto. However, nothing herein shall affect the enforceability of
separate mutual aid agreements entered into by the County.
15. Any of the parties hereto may withdraw from this Agreement by giving ninety (90) days
written notice to that effect to the other parties.
16. This Agreement is subject to the approval of the governing bodies of the County of
Albemarle and Town of Gordonsville and the Sheriffs ofthe County of Fluvanna and the County of
Green.
WHEREBY, the parties hereto have executed this Regional Mutual Aid Agreement, by
their authorized representatives, whose signatures are set forth following below as of the day and
year first set forth above.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
By:
SHERIFF OF FLUV ANNA COUNTY
TOWN OF GORDONSVILLE
SHERIFF OF GREENE COUNTY
By Its:
4
party to this Agreement. Nothing herein shall be deemed as an expressed or implied waiver of the
sovereign immunity of the parties to this Agreement.
13. The parties to this Agreement shall not be liable to each other for reimbursement for
injuries to personnel or damage to equipment incurred when going to or returning from another
jurisdiction. Neither shall the parties hereto be liable to each other for any other costs associated
with, or arising out of, the rendering of assistance pursuant to this Agreement, unless the parties
expressly agree otherwise in advance of the provision of assistance under this Agreement.
14. This Agreement sets forth the complete agreement relating to the provision of mutual
police services among the parties hereto. However, nothing herein shall affect the enforceability of
separate mutual aid agreements entered into by the County.
15. Any ofthe parties hereto may withdraw from this Agreement by giving ninety (90) days
written notice to that effect to the other parties.
16. This Agreement is subject to the approval of the governing bodies of the County of
Albemarle and Town of Gordonsville and the Sheriffs of the County of Fluvanna and the County of
Green.
WHEREBY, the parties hereto have executed this Regional Mutual Aid Agreement, by
their authorized representatives, whose signatures are set forth following below as of the day and
year first set forth above.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
SHE; OF~.COUNTY
c~/;fj~ '
By:
TOWN OF GORDONSVILLE
SHERIFF OF GREENE COUNTY
By Its:
4
party to this Agreement. Nothing herein shall be deemed as an expressed or implied waiver of the
sovereign immunity of the parties to this Agreement.
13. The parties to this Agreement shall not be liable to each other for reimbursement for
injuries to personnel or damage to equipment incurred when going to or returning from another
jurisdiction. Neither shall the parties hereto be liable to each other for any other costs associated
with, or arising out of, the rendering of assistance pursuant to this Agreement, unless the parties
expressly agree otherwise in advance of the provision of assistance under this Agreement.
14. This Agreement sets forth the complete agreement relating to the provision of mutual
police services among the parties hereto. However, nothing herein shall affect the enforceability of
separate mutual aid agreements entered into by the County.
15. Any of the parties hereto may withdraw from this Agreement by giving ninety (90) days
written notice to that effect to the other parties.
16. This Agreement is subject to the approval of the governing bodies of the County of
Albemarle and Town of Gordonsville and the Sheriffs of the County of Fluvanna and the County of
Green.
WHEREBY, the parties hereto have executed this Regional Mutual Aid Agreement, by
their authorized representatives, whose signatures are set forth following below as of the day and
year fIrst set forth above.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
SHERIFF OF FLUV ANNA COUNTY
By:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
TOWN OF GORDONSVILLE
SHERIFF OF GREENE COUNTY
.
By Its: /YJr ~r)( ~
4
party to this Agreement. Nothing herein shall be deemed as an expressed or implied waiver of the
sovereign immunity of the parties to this Agreement.
13. The Parties to this Agreement shall not be liable to each other for reimbursement for
injuries to personnel or damage to equipmeot inconed when going to or returning from annther
jurisdiction. Neither shall the parties hereto be liable to each other for any other costs associated
with, or arising out of, the rendering of assistance pursnant to this Agreement, unless the parties
expressly agree otherwise in advance of the provision of assistance under this Agreement.
14. This Agreement se~s forth the complete agreement relating to the provision of mutual
police services among the parties bereto. Hnwever, nothing herein shall affect the enforceability of
separate mutual aid agreements entered into by the County.
15. Any of the parties hereto may withdraw from this Agreement by giving ninety (90) days
written notice to that effect to the other parties.
16. This Agreement is subject to the approval of the governing bodies of the County of
Albemarle and Town of Gocdonsville and the Sheriffs of the County of Auvanna and the County of
Green.
WHEREBY, the Parties hereto have executed this Regional Mutual Aid Agreement, by
their authorized representatives, whose signatures are set forth follOwing below as of the day and
year first set forth above.
COUNTy OF ALBEMARLE
SHERIFF OF FLUV ANNA COUNTY
By:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
TOWN OF GORDONSVILLE
SHERIFF OF GREENE COUNTY
By Its:
~<<~
4
It is my great pleasure on behalf of the Board of Supervisors to recognize
Albemarle County employee Juandiego Wade, who has received the prestigious 2007
John L. Snook Child Advocate Award from Children, Youth and Family Services
(CYFS). Juandiego has been employed as a transportation planner by the County since
1991, and his volunteer contributions to the community range from intensive support of
individual children to high level public policy development and implementation
While the list of his accomplishments is very long, I would like to highlight a few
particularly outstanding achievements. In 1991, Juandiego and several fellow alumni
members of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity created Alpha Journeymen, an intensive
mentoring program for local boys. Juandiego has been the Director and lead mentor
since the Journeymen were created. He has personally mentored five young men for
more than twelve years. They are all adults now, either enrolled in school or working full
time. His tireless support of the Journeymen has made a real difference in their lives-
providing young men with strong male role models, productive and enriching activities,
and instilling a sense of hope and pride.
Juandiego also has been a Sunday School teacher and Youth Group leader at
Olivet Presbyterian Church for six years. In this capacity, he has supported the
development of dozens of children. He has lead youth mission trips to Mexico and
Ireland, with another trip to Mexico planned for the coming summer.
In addition to his many hours of service and support to individual children
through Alpha Journeymen and Olivet Church, Juandiego has worked tirelessly to
improve conditions for local children and their families on a broader level. He has served
the Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families in a number of
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK
WHEREAS, emergency medical services is a vital public service; and
WHEREAS, the members of emergeno} medical services teams are ready to provide lifesaving care to those in
need 24 hours a day, seven days a week; and
WHEREAS, access to quality emergency care dramatically improves the survival and recoven} rare of those
who experience sudden illness or injury; and
WHEREAS, the emergency medical services system consists of communications officers, emergency medical
technicians, firefighters, law enforcement officers, educators, administrators, cmergeno}
physicians and nurses, and others; and
WHEREAS, the members of emergeno} medical services teams, career and volunteer, engage irz thousands of
hours of speciali::ed training and continuing education to enhance their lifesaving skills: and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate to recogni::e the value and the accomplishments of emergency mediml services
providers by designating Emergeno} Medical Semices Week;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED, that I, Kenneth C. BOl}d, Chairman on behalf of the Albemarle
Counh} Board of Supervisors, do hereby proclaim
MA Y 20-26,2007
as
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK
with the theme
Exr!!!!m
EXTRAORDINARY SERVICE ~
in Albemarle County, Virginia, and encourage the communih} to observe this week with
appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.
Signed and sealed this 2"d day of May, 2007.
Kenneth C. Boyd, Chairman
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
I ]
Creciendo Juntos.Growing Together, The Legal Aid Justice Center Family Resource Clinic, and the International
Rescue Committee Present:
Language Barriers or Language
Access? A Half-Day Workshop On
Ensuring Access to Services for
Persons with Limited English
Proficiency (LEP)
Ireta ooul
lrimro
~i"'FiiF "J
Mng~i:
~gzQl"Qlvia
.. II
'" ""., "' ~ ''''' ",""
I
f
tJ
tfJt
t.
-1\"
'f'
1
t
Date: Thursday, May 24,2007
Time: 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Where: Albemarle County Office Building,
1600 5th 51. Extended (at Old Lynchburg Rd.)
This important workshop, which in-
cludes a presentation from national
LEP expert Paul Cushing of the U.S.
HHS, will give your organization the
information and tools it needs to meet
the needs of LEP clients and patients.
Learn ...
· What your organization needs to do
to comply with the law
· How you can tap into government
and private funding sources to pay for
LEP services at your organization
· What other local organizations have I
adopted as LEP best practice models
Please RSVP by May 18th to the IRe at
979-7772 or susan.donovan@ttleirc.org
Page 1 of2
Ella Carey
From: League of Women Voters C-A [Iwv@avenue.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 20073:39 PM
To: Board of Supervisors members
Subject: Support of Identification of Sustainable Population Range
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Dennis Rooker, Chair
Ken Boyd, Vice-chair
Lindsay Dorrier
David Slutsky
Sally Thomas
David Wyant
County Office Building
401 McIntyre Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
April 24, 2007
Dear Supervisors,
The Charlottesville-Albemarle League of Women Voters supports an initiative to identifY a sustainable
optimal population size (or range) for the Charlottesville-Albemarle community and to use this figure to
help guide planning.
We recommend that this be done in collaboration with the City and with the University. It is worth
noting that, after a series of community-wide visioning forums in the early 1990's, the Planning and
Coordination Council (P ACC) agreed to coordinate their planning process with common visions, data
profile, schedule, and format. Surely the visioning of a sustainable population size (or range) should
involve all three entities.
This request is in line with the League's March 28,2003 recommendation that the Rural Areas section
of the Comprehensive Plan include a policy on population size. The request is also in line with the 1998
Sustainability Accords which have been approved by the League and included in the Natural Resources
and Cultural Assets Chapter of Albemarle county's comprehensive Plan adopted by the Board on March
3,1999. (See pages 3 and 4 in the introduction to that chapter.) Underlying the Accords, one of the
principles stated: "In a Sustainable Community, the members understand that there are limits to
growth". One of the Accords was to "Strive for a size and distribution of human population which will
preserve the vital resources of the Region for future generations."
Now, eight years later, it is time to heed the plea of the Sustainability Council to "make sustainability a
reality". It is time for Albemarle County residents, as responsible stewards of our resources, to
determine the size and scale of the community we want. This determination should be based on sound
data which show the relationships between numerous variables and specific population densities. The
variables to be studied might include: water quality and quantity; air purity; traffic; schools; jobs; health
care; housing (including affordable housing); biodiversity and taxes.
An example of such data was a key finding in Stream Watch's 2006 report. The report states that"
5/1 0/2007
Page 2 of2
When watersheds reach about 210 people per square mile (approximately 1 dwelling per 7 acres) stream
biological impairment becomes persistent (very difficult to correct)."
The League recognizes that some data on variables already exist in the community and that some
variables will need considerable research. We also recognize that there are variables that are not
amenable to data collection, but this should not deter the overall project..
The task is certainly formidable, but the League believes that the effort to define Albemarle County's
optimal sustainable size will enrich residents' discussion about the future of the community and will
provide an invaluable framework for wise decision making.
If we in the League can be of service to you as you undertake this important and innovative step, do not
hesitate to ask.
Sincerely,
Nancy Button, President
Hard copies will follow via USPS
5/10/2007
Kenneth C. Boyd
Rivanna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VIrginia 22902-45%
(434) 2%-5843 FAX (434) 2%-5800
David L Slutzky
Rio
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
ScotlsviUe
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
David C. Wyant
White Hall
April 24, 2007
The Honorable David Brown, Mayor
City of Charlottesville
P. O. Box 911
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Mayor Brown:
In response to our recent discussions with Delegate Toscano and VDOT representatives regarding
transportation issues, on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, I would like to convey the extent
of our Board's commitment to improving transportation in the region. I appreciate this opportunity to share with
you and City Council the details of our transportation initiatives, some of which have not received a great deal of
public notice and may not have come to your attention, yet we feel demonstrate a real sense of urgency about
our support for transportation alternatives that will truly make a difference for the community as a whole.
In addition to the Board's ongoing commitment to transportation through participation in regional planning
efforts, the Board has also made significant commitment to transportation improvements through its strategic
planning and budget approvals. In July of 2006, the Board approved the County's Strategic Plan that included
an objective specifically focused on transportation improvements. That objective states that the County will
"expand regional transit opportunities, while accelerating the completion of the Meadow Creek Parkway, 2 local,
and 2 regional transportation projects." In addressing this strategic priority, the examples below demonstrate the
efforts underway by the County. These recent actions represent a local investment of approximately $2.0
mil/ion, excluding state and federal dollars and private funds acquired through the rezoning process. Beyond
these specific items, additional funds have also been budgeted over the five years of the County's Capital
Improvements Plan (CIP) to address both local and regional transportation priorities.
· The County regularly participates in VDOT's revenue sharing program by providing an annual local match of
up to $1,000,000 to help expedite projects in the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan. This year the County
increased its match to $1,500,000.
· The Board has taken action to transfer revenue sharing funds (VDOT share and the County's match) from
other road projects to the Meadow Creek Parkway to ensure the project is funded and the 2008 construction
date is maintained.
· The regional projects targeted for this objective are the Eastern Connector and Southern Parkway. The
County has already contributed equally (approximately $245,000) to the Eastern Connector study currently
underway with the City of Charlottesville.
· The County has contributed approximately $300,000 to a joint public-private partnership with VDOT and
Luck Stone to advance improvements to the U.S. 250 EasVRoute 22 intersection improvements.
*
Printed on recycled paper
. The County has funded the construction of pedestrian safety improvements on Hillsdale Drive,
including approximately $250,000 from a state grant. This pedestrian safety and traffic
management/calming improvement is an important first stage in the ultimate improvement extending
Hillsdale Drive to Hydraulic Road in the City and critical to sustaining community support for this
extension project.
. The County has included within its Comprehensive Plan important transportation improvements
identified through joint planning studies with the City and/or University, including the Avon Street-Fifth
Street Connector Road north of 1-64 (Southern City/County Neighborhood Study) and the Sunset
Avenue-Fontaine Avenue Connector Road (Southern Urban Area B Study).
. The County is continuing to seek commitments in new development to address impacts to the
region's transportation network. The Avon Street-Fifth Street Connector will be required to be built in
its entirety as part of a commercial development currently under review on this site. The Sunset-
Fontaine Connector Road has been identified in the County Planning Commission's recommended
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as a required improvement for the development of the
"Granger" tract and expansion of the Fontaine Research Park. Several million dollars in
transportation improvement and transit development funds are being sought as part of the Biscuit
Run to address transportation needs in both the City and County, which could be available for future
projects such as improvements to Old Lynchburg Rd. in the City, the Sunset-Fontaine Connector and
the Southern Parkway, among others.
. .Proffers potentially totaling over $4,500,000 have been accepted for transportation improvements as
part of the approval of the Albemarle Place development, including improvements to Route 29 and
Hydraulic Road as well as traffic calming measures in the adjacent City neighborhoods,.
. In the past year, County Supervisors have participated with City Councilors in discussions to create a
regional transit authority to improve public transit in the region. In support of this effort, the Board has
approved an additional $250,000 in its FY08 budget to enhance CTS service.
. The County has sought to improve the area's transportation network by engaging with its citizens and
regional partners in several efforts that combine land use and transportation planning, such as the
29H250 study and current Places29 study.
. Recognizing the increasing interest in multi-modal transportation opportunities, the county continues
to invest significant energy and resources towards trail and greenway development and other options
to support bicycle and pedestrian pathways, as an example we are currently working in partnership
with the City's Parks and Recreation Department to co-locate sections of the proposed bicycle path
encircling the city on sections of county pathways where appropriate.
We hope the City Council recognizes all of these actions as a commitment to addressing the region's
transportation needs and we encourage the City to continue to work in partnership with the County to
improve transportation for County and City citizens.
Sincerely,
(L
Kenneth C. Boyd
Chairman
KCB/dbm
07.003
pc: ~onorable Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
The Honorable DavJd J. Toscano
Morteza Salehi, PH.D., VDOT
Mr. Allan D. Sumpter, VDOT
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGEND TITLE:
Stony Po'nt VFD Loan Agreement
AGENDA DATE:
May 2, 2007
SUBJEC /PROPOSALlREQUEST:
Approval for the County Executive to sign
agreeme t to loan Stony Pont VFD funds for
building i provement
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
~
I
BACKG OUND:
On April 5, 2006, the Board approved a plan to appropriate funding from the FY06/07 CIP fund balance for a $215,750 no-
interest 10 n to the Stony Point VFD for various building renovation projects needed to maintain or ensure services. The
loan was i addition to a County grant to Stony Point VFD for $239,736 to repairlreplace the fire department's roof, parking
lot, and VAC system. Staff recommended that the loan be paid back over 12 years through an annual payment of
.17,980 er year.
On June ,2006, the Board adopted a resolution appropriating the funds. Prior to transferring the loan funds, a Service
Agreeme t is necessary to define the terms and conditions of the loan.
IC PLAN:
e Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents.
DISCUSS ON:
General S rvices is in the process of implementing the projects associated with the grant funding and planning work has
been com leted on the projects associated with the no-interest loan. However, before the work can proceed on the projects
associate with the loan, a service agreement is necessary to define the terms and conditions of the loan.
Staff prep red the attached Service Agreement which was shared with Stony Point VFD's chief and administration staff.
The agree ent defines the basic terms of the loan: $215,750 no-interest loan, paid back over 12 years through an annual
payment $17,980 per year. The Agreement was reviewed and signed by Stony Point VFD's chief.
BUDGET MPACT:
No additio al budget impact.
RECOMM NDATIONS:
Staff reco mends that the Board authorize the County Executive to sign the loan agreement on behalf of the County.
of Albemarle Vir inia and Ston Point Volunteer Fire Com an Inc.
Attachment A
SERVICE AGREEMENT
.
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of ,2007, by
and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision,
(the "County"), and the STONY POINT VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC., :1
Virginia Corporation, (the "Fire Company").
WHEREAS, the Fire Company agrees to continue to provide valuable fire
suppression services in Albemarle County in its delineated service area as set forth on the
Response Area Maps located at the Emergency Communications Center ("Service
Area"); and
WHEREAS, the Fire Company desires the County to contribute Two Hundred
Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($215,750.00) to provide for renovations
and improvements to their building and property located at 3827 Stony Point Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia (County Tax Map 48 Parcel 18D) that are necessary to provide
fire suppression services.
NOW, THEREFORE, [or and in consideration of the above stated premises, the
County and Fire Company agree, as follows:
I. The County shall contribute to the Fire Company Two Hundred Fifteen Thousand
Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($215,750.00) to be used to fund building improvements
as identified in Attachment A o[this agreement. The funds shall be allocated from
the County's Capital Improvements Fund and will be appropriated to a County budget
code dedicated to these projects. The County will work with the Fire Company to
procure and manage the projects as stated in the Volunteer Fire Rescue Building
Maintenance Funding Policy (Attachment B).
2. The Fire Company agrees that the County will withhold Seventeen Thousand Nine
Hundred Eighty Dollars ($17,980.00) from the County's annual appropriation to the
Fire Company's operating budget beginning July 2007 through July 2017 and
Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Dollars ($17,970.00) in July 2018. Thus
at the end of twelve (12) years, which is the term of this Agreement, a total of
..
$215,750.00 shall be withheld. The Fire Company agrees that any amount of this
repayment that may exceed the County's annual appropriation will be remitted to the
County no later than July 3] of each repayment year.
3. The Fire Company agrees that it shall not convey any of the improved property or any
interest therein to any party other than the County without the County's prior written
consent during the term of this Service Agreement. In addition, the Fire Compar.:y
agrees that any insurance proceeds received from a claim related to any damage to the
property shall be used entirely for the immediate repair and improvement of the
property unless the County expressly authorizes in writing a different use for such
funds.
4. The Fire Company agrees that at such time as it no longer provides volunteer fire
suppression in Albemarle County while operating under the jurisdiction of the COlmty
that it shall convey all of its interest in the property to the County at no addilional:ost
to the County upon the County's request.
5. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent additional appropriations by
the County to the Fire Company, at the discretion of the County Board of Supervi5.ors,
to support, enhance, or augment the services to be provided by the Fire Company.
Witness the following signatures and seals:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
Date
By:
ROBERT W. TUCKER, JR., County Executive
STONY POINT VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY.
INC.
~d?
Date
... ""
'J / /' .
By: " ~. j~L (Y /2VS7/Jv"";- 5.t-:J/r-/J
y.
'"
Approved as to Form:
County Attorney
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE:
The foregoing Service Agreement was signed, sworn to and acknowledged before
me this _ day of ,2007 by Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
COMMONWEAL TH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE:
The foregoing Service Agreement was signed, sworn to and acknowledged before
me this ~ 3 ~ay of J111fltch , 2007 by
.:!CAv Yt!"If,Af/!6;,,v J";(. .
=~~/
My Commission Expires:
JAJ/ 3" ,)IJPS
,
.
Attachment A
Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.
Projects to be funded with Service Agreement Proceeds:
Remodel of bunk rooms
Toilet and laundry facilities
Expand/remodel kitchen
Renovate meeting/training room
Storage building
$ 75,000
$ 13,500
$ 26,250
$ 26,000
$ 75.000
Total
$ 215,750
Attachment B
Volunteer Fire Rescue
Building Maintenance Funding Policy
1. Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to assist volunteer fire and rescue stations that
do not have the financial means to fund building repairs and minor building
renovations.
2. Volunteer Station financial assessment
The intent of the policy is to provide financial assistance to volunteer stations
that do not have the financial means to fund building repairs and minor
building renovation projects. Therefore, a volunteer station requesting
assistance will need to show that the station is unable to independently fund
the project. Determining financial hardship requires that the station disclose
the Company's financial statements (balance sheet and income statement _
see example at end of document) to help demonstrate the station's financial
need.
3. Qualified proiects
Building repairs and minor building renovation projects that help maintain the
current facility shall be qualified for consideration. Projects beyond this scope
will be addressed on a case by case basis through the normal CIP process.
4. Five year building assessment to determine future expenditures
4.1. Stations requesting financial assistance must conduct a five year
assessment of their building to determine the long term maintenance
needs. The five year assessment should include a projected and
prioritized list of building repairslrenovations, a cost estimate per
repair/renovation. and a narrative outlining the justification for each
repair/renovation.
Priori ty
Hi\t1
Medium
Medium
North RiverVFD
Major Building Repairs
Project type FY06/07 FY07/08 FY08/09
Roof repair 30,000
HV AC replacement 15,000
Bunk room renoloCation
Total 30,000 15,000
FY09/10 FY10/11
5,000
5,000
4.2. County staff will work with volunteer staff to assess the projects to help
determine needs, eligibility and timing.
5. Fundina Assistance
5.1. Financial assistance shall be provided through a no-interest loan with .a
five to ten year payback period. In cases of extreme financial hardship, a
grant may be considered.
5.2. A volunteer station receiving a no-interest loan will work with County staff
to develop a financial plan to ensure that the loan will be paid in full over
time. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OM B) before financial assistance is provided.
6. Other reauirements
6.1. Volunteer stations that qualify according to this policy shall submit a
request to the Company of Fire Rescue by August 1 in preparation for the
next fiscal year budget process.
6.2. Approved projects will be procured and completed according to current
County policies and procedures
S1atlon name: North Rher VFD
Assets
Beginring Cash Balance
Available cash on l'ardlched<ing acO:>l.nt $
Real Esta13
Period ending: JlI1e 30. 2005
Liabilities
Ba lance of open accourts
5,000
I't>tes on mortgages owed
BUildirglland@marketvalLe $100,000 $
$ 5,000
n\estmerts Other indebtednessobligations
CDs. stock. bonds. savings, etc. $ 15,000
Equipment, VehideS, etc.
EqLipmert not purctased ttTough C P $ 30 ,000
Resticted Flllds
Explain in narrative $
Total Assets $ 150.000
Net Worth $ 145.000
btal assets minLS btaJ liabilities
ReceiptsJRevenue
Coll'lty contribution
Doralons, contribution, bequests, etc.
Fll1d raising
rJerest and dividends
Grants
Other inoomelrevern.e
$ 100,000
$ 5,000
$ 15,000
$ 2,000
$ 1 .000
$
$ 123.000
To1a1 rece~tsJrevenue
Explain in narrative $
Total Liabilties $ 5,000
Expenditures
Operatioral expenses
Capit31 expel'liitures
Other (in:lude ticlnsfers to asset acoounts)
I't>n-operatioral e:><penses ~ .e. - fu1d raising caslE)
$100,000
$
$
$ 5,000
Total expenditures $105,000
Cash increase/decrease (receipts minus expenditll"es) $ 18,000
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Darden Towe Park Agreement
AGENDA DATE:
May 2, 2007
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of revised agreement recommended by
the Darden Towe Park Committee.
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
STAFF CONTACTCS):
Tucker, White, Davis, Mullaney
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
In 1985, the City and County executed an option agreement to purchase property which now constitutes Darden Towe
Park. In February of 1986, both jurisdictions entered into an agreement which exercised this option and delineated City
and County responsibilities for the development, operation, and maintenance of the property as a park and recreation area.
This agreement is now over 20 years old and does not address current operational responsibilities or the function and
make-up of the Darden Towe Park Committee. In recognition of the shortcomings of the existing agreement, The Director
of the City Parks and Recreation Department and the Director of the County Parks and Recreation Department jointly
developed a revised agreement for consideration by the Darden Towe Park Committee. At the February 21,2007 meeting
of this Committee, a motion was adopted recommending that the Board of Supervisors and City Council authorize the
execution of the attached agreement.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Park facilities enhance the quality of life for Albemarle County residents and also protect the County's natural resources.
DISCUSSION:
The major revisions to the agreement are summarized as follows:
1. Much of the original agreement addressed funding responsibilities for the purchase of the property as well as the
first three phases of development of the Park. Since this work is now complete, this language is removed from the
agreement.
2. The original mechanism for allocating annual funding responsibilities for Park operations between the City and the
County was never instituted and was ultimately replaced with a formula built upon daily County/City vehicle sticker
census counts. Since the City has eliminated its vehicle decal program, this methodology is obsolete.
Accordingly, the proposed agreement divides annual funding responsibility based on the population of the two
localities.
3. The current method of charging the City softball league program for field use is unwieldy especially in light of the
fact that the City provides the programs equally for both localities. Therefore, the provision to charge this program
an additional fee is eliminated.
4. The agreement establishes a new five year term effective July 1,2007 through June 30, 2012.
5. The membership and role of the Darden Towe Park Committee are described in the agreement.
These revisions are discussed in more detail below:
Deletions/revisions from the original agreement:
SECTION I. PURPOSE - This section has been restated eliminating references to the property purchases and the Joint
City-County Park Report dated February 10, 1986.
SECTION II. PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT and SECTION III. APPROPRIATIONS - These sections have been eliminated
entirely as they pertain to the three development phases which have been completed.
SECTION IV. ALLOCATION OF COSTS - References to the first three development stages and an entry station attendant
to collect fees from non residents and to monitor park usage are eliminated since the City and County have determined that
the staffing costs associated with an entry station would exceed the expected revenue collections.
AGENDA ITEM:
Darden Towe Park Agreement
Page 2
SECTION V. PARK OWNERSHIP - References to the acquisition of contiguous properties are eliminated since all
affected properties have been acquired. The contiguous properties referenced in this section referred to the Snow and
Bosely properties which bordered the Mahanes' property. The Mahanes' property was the initial property acquired for the
Park. The Snow and Bosely properties were subsequently acquired and are now part Park property.
SECTION VI. SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE - This section has been eliminated along with the formal designation and role
of the staff supervisory committee. Staff supervision of the park has been revised as stated under SECTION V. PARK
SUPERVISION in the new agreement.
SECTION VIII. NIGHT LIGHTING AND SOFTBALL - The original agreement prohibited night lighting of competitive sport
facilities in the first three development stages. The new agreement recognizes the history of the lighting issue and requires
mutual agreement of the City and County before any lighting of sport or other recreation facilities is installed.
SECTION XIII. BREACH OF AGREEMENT and SECTION X. NAMING OF THE PARK - These sections have been
eliminated since they are no longer applicable.
Mechanism for determining allocation of costs:
The original agreement called for annual Park operating costs to be determined according to the percentage of actual park
usage by residents of the two localities, averaged over the most recent two years. Usage was to be monitored by an
attendant at an entry station who would also collect a fee from residents of jurisdictions other than the City and the County.
The City and County later agreed that it would be cost prohibitive to staff an entry station and decided instead to base park
usage on a vehicle sticker count taken once per day in the parking lots. The City/County agreement was never formally
amended to reflect this change. With the recent decision by the City to eliminate its vehicle decal program, the revised
method is no longer viable. Staff is recommending that costs be allocated based on the populations of the two localities
according to the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service Annual Population Report, with the 2006 Weldon Cooper data
being used for the allocation of costs for the period from July 1,2007 through June 30, 2012.
The FY 2006-2007 budget divides the funding responsibility for the Park at 64.2% for the County and 35.8% for the City.
This is based on the average of the past two years use and dividing equally the responsibility for non resident use.
Examining just County and City use over the past 5 years, County usage has averaged 68.5% vs. 31.5% for the City.
Based on the Weldon Cooper estimates from 2000 through 2005, the estimated City/County population for 2006 is 131,700
with 91,800 (69.7%) being County residents and 39,900 (30.3%) being City residents. It is recommended that the final
agreed upon shares for the upcoming 5 year period be determined when the final 2006 Weldon Cooper numbers become
available in 2007.
In agreeing to this higher percentage share for the County, it is recognized that Towe Park will be receiving increasing
neighborhood use by County residents due to growth in the Pantops area residential population and that Pen Park, which is
solely funded by the City, receives significant use by County residents.
Elimination of City softball fee for field use:
The City administers a softball league program with primary game sites at Mcintire Park, PVCC, and the Park. In the
original agreement, a portion of the revenue derived from this program, after deducting program expenses, were to return
to the Park as revenue based on the volume of total games played at the Park. Since league expenses vary from year to
year due to facility repairs and the maintenance needs at the other two (2) locations, the City league program has never
been a reliable source of revenue for the Park and the computation of what constitutes a fair share is unnecessarily
confusing. Both Directors agree that since the City administers the softball program equally for residents of both the City
and County, and that the City is already paying an agreed upon share for the maintenance of the Park, there should be no
additional fee paid by the City for this program. In agreeing to this, it is recognized that when administering a program as
large and complex as the City softball program, there are indirect costs to the locality which are not accounted for when
determining program fees.
Five year term of agreement:
The original agreement is over 20 years old and outdated. The recommended term for this agreement is five years from
July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2012.
Darden Towe Park Committee:
The Darden Towe Park Committee evolved from the City/County committee which negotiated the original agreement and
guided the original development of the park but was not recognized in the original agreement. The new agreement
identifies the membership and role of the Darden Towe Park Committee.
AGENDA ITEM:
Darden T owe Park Agreement
Page 3
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County share of funding for FY 06-07 is $161,939 while the City share is $90,302. Concurrently with reviewing the
agreement, City and County staff have reviewed the operating budget. Through realigning responsibilities, purchasing new
equipment, and attaining other efficiencies (including the elimination of the time consuming daily sticker count), one (1) full
time staff position was eliminated from the budget. The combination of the increased County share for funding coupled
with the reduced operating budget decreases the County's funding for FY 07-08 by approximately $10,850 or 7%. The
combination of the decreased City share and reduced operating budget will decrease the City funding for FY 07-08 by
approximately $24,600 or 27%.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution authorizing its Chairman to sign the new
agreement being recommended by the Darden Towe Park Committee.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Oriqinal Aqreement
B - Revised Agreement
C - Resolution
/0--'<..1 (/ / 'f t:- .I....' .
"', ,""''',. ""\r'
.~ r' f.. "l '\ I
.r i I I,~ ii J, \ f Attachment A
J j I. . " \ ~ I
I ," 1;.--' \ !
I .I: " i I ; I
.. , c.,,1
AGREEMENT FOR THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT AND
OPERATION OF THE CITY-COUNTY PARK
This Agr~~m~nt is between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
(hereinafter called wCountyW), acting through its Board of
Supervisors, and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE (hereinafter called
.City.), acting through its City Council:
SECTION I.
PURPOSE.
The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County have
executed a contract dated October 17, 1985 ~or an option to
purchase jointly certain real property in the County ~rom the
estate of Mary Mahanes.
The purpose of this agreement is to
authorize th~ exercise of that option and to provide a fair and
equitable allocation of responsibility between the two localities
for the development, operation and maintenance of the property as
a park and recreation area, as described in the Joint City-County
Park Report and Recommendation dated February 10, 1986 attached
to and incorporated by reference in this agreement (hereinafter
called wJoint Reportw).
In addition, the City and County through
this agreement agree in principle to purchase of the adjacent
property belonging to Snow's Garden Center, Inc.
SECTION II.
PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT.
The development of the property as a park and recreation area
shall be in three phases.
The three phases include parking lots,
'.
ponds, picnic areas and shelters, trails, child~en's playground,
so~tball ~ields,four mu~tipurpose fields, canoe deck, volleyball
courts, restroom/concession bUilding, eight tennis courts,
maintenance building, multipurpose hard surface courts and the
necessary utilities (see details of phasing in the Joint R.port).
The initial development <Phase I) vill begin by the late spring of
1986, and be completed for use by the spring of 1988. The two
later phases of development (Phase II and Phase III) vill OCcur
approximately each three years t~ereafter. Phase I of the
development shall include 3 softball fields.
SECTION III. APPROPRIATIONS.
The total budget for this project, including the cost of land
acquisition, planning, engineering and three phases of
development, is estimated at $2,885,580. Development of Phases I,
II and III viII be financed according to the .Project Phase-
schedule on page 4 of the Joint Report. Upon the execution of
this agreement, the City and the County will each appropriate its
respective share of the estimated cost. of land acquisition and
engineering and planning. All expenditures subsequent to the
current fiscal year, whether capital outlay or operating cost, are
contingent upon appropriation of funds by each governing body in
the year of expenditure, and failure to appropriate shall not be
deemed a breach of this agreement.
SECTION IV.
ALLOCATION OF COSTS.
All land ~cquisition, planning and engineering, site
improvement, equipment and contingency costs for Phase I of the
-2-
development shall be divided equally between th~ City and the
County. The operating costs during the fiscal years 19B8 and 1989
shall also be divided equally between the two localities.
Beginning in fiscal year 1990, operating costs will be allocated
according to the percentage 01 actual park usage by residents of'
the two localities, averaged over the most recent two years. The
usage will be monitored by an attendant at an entry station who
will also collect an entry fee from residents of jurisdictions
other than the County and the City.
It was the position of the County that the costs of capital
development in Phase II and Phase III should also be divided
equally between the City and the County, as in Phase I. It was
the position of the City that all future capital costs should be
divided on the basis of the relative populations of the two
localities. As a compromise, it is agreed that the capital costs
for Phase II and Phase III of development will be divided
according to the average of the above two positions. An example
of this calculation is included on page four of the ~ttached 30int
Report. The population figures to be used for determining capital
expenditures within any fiscal year shall be the same population
figures used in determining the distribution of ~unds for that
fiscal year in the Charlottesville Albemarle Revenue Sharing
Agreement.
SECTION V.
PARK OWNERSHIP.
The park shall be owned jointly by the City and the County.
Each locality shall hold an undivided interest in the property and
all improvements. Acquisitions of any contiguous properties
-3-
that are to be used ~or park purposes shall be incorporated into
the original park in undivided intereEt.
In the ~vent that the park or any part thereo~ is conveyed by
thE "tvc, localitiec to any other entity, ....hether public or private,
any'~roceeds r~cejv~d ~er sue}) cien~eyance shall'be divid~d betveeri
thE lecalities on the basis of the cumulative capital investments
oi each locality in the entirety of the park property. Neither
the City nor the County shall make such a conveyance o~ its
interest without consent of the other party.
SECTION VI.
SUPERVISORY COHNITTEE.
A SuperVisory Committee is hereby established, consisting of
the County Executive (or designee>, City Manager (or designee),
Director of Parks and Recreation from the City, and the Director
of Parks and Recreation from the County. The Committee viII
per~orm the ~ollowing functions:
(1) Review the annual operating budget request for the
park prior to submittal to the governing bodies.
(2) Meet annually to plan capital improvements to the
park.
(3) Hold special meetings when requested by either Director
to resolve issues or to rule on special problems or requests
that cannot be handled by staff.
<4> Establish operating and administrative policies for the
operation o~ the joint park.
(5) Resolve any operating difficulties or disputes.
-4-
sr~cTLQN VJ J. MAINTENANCE AND OPERtI,TJOi'lS.
The County shell ~e respons~ble for the general maintenance,
supervision and security of the park. Persons employed .for such
PUr-POEf'=. '" i 11 be CC1unty eTr,p1oyel?c.
The City will be responsible
i01" the C'f'E'lst;ic,r, and supC'rv~sion of the soit-ball programs. The
use and operation 01 any other facilities in the park shall be the
responsibility of the County. While the operations ~nd
responsibilities are to be divid~d, the costs are to be shared and
allocated as described in Section IV of this agreement. A
"Recommended Maintenance Operation Budget" is Bet forth on pages
10-12 of the attached Joint Report.
SECTION VIII.
NIGHT LIGHTING AND SOFTBALL.
Night lighting is not proposed in any of the three development
stages for any competitive sport facility. Lighting for security
and safety will be provided as deemed necessary by the Supervisory
Committee. The City agrees that McIntire Park will still be used
for the softball program, but at a reduced level as determined
appropriate by the City. Any expansion or operation of park
facilities or land beyond the three phases of development
controlled by this agreement shall be undertaken only by the
mutual consent of the governing bodies.
In signing this agreement the City expresses no intent to
participate in the future development of any other softball or
recreational facilities which may become necessary because of any
growth in the population of the County.
-5-
SECTIm.; IX.
R~VENUE GENERATIO~.
A detail~d r~vie~ 01 th~ pot~ntial r~v~nues from th~ park is
ch ovn on,. ?~gE.~ .~ ~- 24 of thE ,~oiPt,~~po;r,~.
.:.:.... .......,.. ,....:.. .
,"
~. ~:-. ',;. : .'. . . .
::- r: C;~L.LQl:L >:.
HJ.t;.J N[., Of' THE P Ar,r; '_
Upon approval 01 this agreement by the City and County, the
joint committ~e will begin consideration of methods of receiving
input for the matter of selecting a name for the park.
The joint
committee will submit to the Board Bnd Council the best
alternatives for consideration.
SECTION XI.
APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT AND EXERCISE OF OPTION.
This agreement shall be effective when it has been signed by
both jurisdictions, following the adoption of resolutions approved
by majority votes of the City Council and Board of Supervisors.
Upon such approval, the City ~anager and County Executive shall
give notice to the optionors of the property that the option is
being exercised.
SECTION XII.
AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT.
This agreement can be amended with the mutuel consent of the
City Council and the County Board of Supervisors.
SECTION XIII.
BREACH OF AGREE~ENT.
If either perty deems the other to have breached any
provision, it shall so notify the other in writing, and the party
deemed to have breached the agreement shall have 60 days to remedy
-6-
the breach.
In the event remedial action has npt been taken
thE City OT County.
SEek &pE'ci~ic .P~Tiormance oi the agreem~nt in the circuit Court of
Yithin the 60 day peri6d, 'the aggrieved p~rt~ ~h~ll be entitled tc
ie.. E::q?r, tII.l~ c:(~'(r.::.:[,\ [I)' a :rt'~:Coluti(jrj adopted February
. '.. . .'
Ii.: V'jTJ;L~:,:: ""HE.hr:OF tbE C:J."t)' Council he!:: authorized t.hE' Moyer
it by resolut~on adopted February lL, 198E-.
and the B02rd oi SuperVisors has authorized its Cha{rman to Sign
] 2
----..J
j 98("
CITY F CHARLOTTESVILLE
Attest:
~~
Clerk of Council
By'
Mayor
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Clerk of the Board
By,-,~ecL
Chairman, Board OI Supervisors
-7-
ATTACHMENT B
DARDEN TOWE PARK AGREEMENT
This Agreement is between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE (hereinafter called
"County"), acting through its Board of Supervisors, and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
(hereinafter called "City"), acting through its City Council:
SECTION I. PURPOSE.
Darden Towe Park is jointly owned by the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle
County. The purpose of this agreement is to provide a fair and equitable allocation of
responsibility between the two localities for the development, operation, and maintenance of
the park from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2012.
SECTION II. ALLOCATION OF COSTS.
Operating and capital costs for the park will be divided between the City and County
based on the relative populations of the two localities according to the Weldon Cooper
Center for Public Service Annual Population Report. The 2006 Weldon Cooper final
population estimate published in 2007 will be used for the base term of this agreement from
July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2012. All expenditures subsequent to the 2007 - 2008 fiscal
year, whether capital or operating cost, are contingent upon the appropriation of funds by the
Charlottesville City Council and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors in the year of
expenditure, and the failure to appropriate by either governing body shall not be deemed a
breach of this agreement. Nothing in this agreement would prohibit either the City or County
from making improvements to the property at its sole expense pending the approval of those
improvements by both the City and County.
SECTION III. ADMINISTRATION. MAINTENACE AND OPERATIONS
The park shall be administered as a County park under the Albemarle County Code.
The County shall provide fiscal and legal services for the operation of the park for an
administrative fee of two percent (2%) of the park's operating budget, which shall be added
to the City's funding contribution each year. The County shall be responsible for the general
administration, maintenance, supervision and security of the park. Persons employed for
such purposes will be County employees. The County will bill quarterly for the City's share of
expenses. The City will be responsible for the operation, supervision and scheduling of City
softball programs at the park. County residents will be treated as City residents in terms of
fees and access to those programs. No fees will be charged to the City for the use of the
park for those programs. The City will also be responsible for the scheduling and collection
of fees for softball tournament games at the park. The City will forward fees collected for
tournament play at the park to the County to be included as park revenues. The operation,
supervision and scheduling of all other facilities in the park shall be the responsibility of the
County.
1
SECTION IV. REVENUE GENERATION.
Park revenues shall be deducted from operating expenses prior to calculating the City
and County share for each quarterly billing period.
SECTION V. PARK SUPERVISION.
The Director of Parks and Recreation from the City and the Director of Parks and
Recreation from the County together with appropriate staff members from those Departments
will work in close consultation in the ongoing operation and maintenance of the park.
Together they will develop five year projected operating and capital budgets which will be
updated annually. City and County staff will meet when requested by either Director to
resolve issues or to rule on special problems or requests that cannot be routinely handled by
staff. In the event the City and County Parks and Recreation Directors cannot agree or
resolve an issue, the City Manager (or designee), and the County Executive (or designee)
will meet together with the Directors to resolve the issue.
SECTION VI. DARDEN TOWE PARK COMMITTEE.
The Darden Towe Park Committee consists of two members of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors and two members of the Charlottesville City Council appointed by their
respective governing bodies. The Committee will perform the following functions:
1. Approve new capital development plans for inclusion in the Park's annual
and five year budgets.
2. Resolve any differences on policy issues between the governing bodies as
they may pertain to the park;
3. Provide direction to City and County Parks and Recreation Directors as
requested;
4. Meet as directed by Board or Council to resolve issues, make
recommendations, etc.;
5. Make recommendations to the governing bodies for alterations to the
City/County agreement.
SECTION VII. PARK OWNERSHIP.
The park is owned jointly by the City and the County. Each locality shall hold an
undivided interest in the property and all improvements. In the event that the park or any part
thereof is conveyed by the two localities to any other entity, whether public or private, any
proceeds received for such conveyance shall be divided between the localities on the basis
of the cumulative capital investments of each locality in the entirety of the park property.
Neither the City nor the County shall make such a conveyance of its interest without consent
of the other party.
SECTION VIII. LIGHTING
In the original agreement entered into in 1986, the City and County agreed that night
lighting would not be included in any of the three development stages for any competitive
sport facility. In recognition of the history and intent of not having lighted facilities in the park,
no lighting of competitive sport or other recreation facilities will occur without the mutual
agreement of the City and the County.
2
SECTION IX. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT.
This agreement shall be effective when it has been signed by both jurisdictions,
following the adoption of resolutions approved by majority votes of the City Council and
Board of Supervisors.
SECTION X. AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT.
This agreement can be amended with the mutual consent of the City Council and the
County Board of Supervisors. If this agreement is not amended prior to June 30, 2012, it
shall be extended for an additional 5 years from July 1, 2012 until June 30, 2017 using
Weldon Cooper final population data for 2011 to determine funding shares for that extension
period.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the City Council has authorized the Mayor to sign this
agreement by a resolution adopted , and the
Board of Supervisors has authorized its Chairman to sign it by resolution adopted
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Attest:
Clerk of Council
By
Mayor
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Attest:
Clerk of the Board
By
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
3
Attachment C
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
TO SIGN NEW DARDEN TOWE PARK AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville jointly own Darden
Towe Park; and
WHEREAS, much of the original agreement between the County and City providing for
the fair and equitable allocation of responsibility between the two localities for the development,
operation and maintenance of the park is over 20 years old and has become outdated; and
WHEREAS, the Darden Towe Park Committee reviewed and approved a new agreement
to be recommended to the Board of Supervisors and City Council for the future development,
operation and maintenance of the park effective July 1, 2007;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby authorizes its Chairman to sign the Darden Towe Park Agreement as recommended by
the Darden Towe Park Committee.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of
to , as recorded below, at a meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Regional Police Mutual Aid Agreement
AGENDA DATE:
May 2, 2007
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Authorize County Executive to Execute Police
Mutual Aid Agreement.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACTCS):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Trank, Miller, Parrent,
Noteman
ATTACHMENTS: YES
REVIEWED BY:
------
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
BACKGROUND:
Over the years, it has become evident to law enforcement leadership that combining regional law enforcement resources is
prudent when confronting disasters and emergency situations. With this in mind, the Albemarle County Police Department
has reached out to neighboring jurisdictions in an effort to formalize agreements of mutual aid in accordance with Va. Code
15.2-1726 and 15.2-1730.1. The attached mutual aid agreement between the County of Albemarle and the Sheriffs of the
Counties of Greene and Fluvanna, and the Town of Gordonsville will serve to mutually benefit all involved and provide an
increased level of public safety. The County Attorney has reviewed the document and approved it for execution.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public service
consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION:
This agreement authorizes the participating jurisdictions to share resources and manpower in emergency situations
involving immediate threats to life or public safety. This agreement sets forth instructions for appropriate measured
responses for specific instances and provides safeguards and clear guidelines to be followed.
The Albemarle County Police Department currently has a regional agreement with the City of Charlottesville and the UV A
Police Department, and feels strongly that a regional agreement needs to be expanded to bordering counties and towns
that we interact with on a regular basis.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the attached agreement.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Regional Mutual Aid Agreement
Attachment A
REGIONAL MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this day of , 2007 by and
between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE (the "County"), the TOWN OF GORDONSVILLE
(the "Town"), the SHERIFF OF GREENE COUNTY, and the SHERIFF OF FLUV ANNA
COUNTY.
WHEREAS, Va. Code SS 15.2-1726 and 15.2-1730.1 authorize the governing bodies ofa
County and Town and Sheriffs to enter into reciprocal agreements for mutual aid for emergency
purposes, for maintenance of peace and good order and for cooperation in the furnishing of police
servIces;
WHEREAS, the County, Town and the Sheriffs have determined that the provision of police
aid across jurisdictional lines will increase their ability to respond to law enforcement emergencies
involving immediate threats to life or public safety in their respective jurisdictions, and will assist
them in the preservation of public safety and welfare of the entire area;
WHEREAS, it is deemed to be mutually beneficial to the parties hereto to enter into an
agreement concerning mutual aid and cooperation with regard to law enforcement; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire that the terms and conditions ofthe Regional Mutual
Aid Agreement (the "Agreement") be established.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration ofthe mutual benefits to be derived from this
Agreement, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows:
1. Each party will endeavor to provide police support to the parties to this Agreement within
the capabilities available at the time the request for such support is made and within the terms ofthis
Agreement.
2. Requests for assistance pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be
initiated by the requesting party's on-duty commander, bureau commander, their respective
designees or the highest-ranking officer on-duty at the time of the request.
1
Attachment A
3. To the extent feasible, the requesting party shall be responsible for designating a
communications system for use by the requested party.
4. The personnel of the requested party shall render such assistance under the direction of
the Chief of Police/Sheriff or other principal law enforcement officer of the requested party, or their
designees.
5. Law enforcement support provided pursuant to this Agreement shall include, but not be
limited to, the following resources: uniformed officers, canine officers, forensic support, plainclothes
officers, special operations personnel and related equipment.
6. The decision whether to provide law enforcement support under this Agreement shall at
all times remain within the discretion of the requested agency. Nothing contained in this Agreement
should in any manner be construed to compel any ofthe parties hereto to respond to a request for law
enforcement support when the personnel of the party to whom the request is made are, in the opinion
ofthe requested party, needed or are being used within the boundaries oftheir jurisdiction, nor shall
any such request compel the requested party to continue to provide police support to another party
when its police personnel or equipment, in the opinion of the requested party, are needed for other
duties within the boundaries of its own jurisdiction.
7. The responsibility for investigation and subsequent actions within the requesting
jurisdiction shall remain with the law enforcement agency of the requesting party. Entering law
enforcement personnel shall promptly notify the agency ofthe entered jurisdiction upon discovery of
a crime in the jurisdiction where the offense occurred.
8. Officers acting pursuant to this Agreement shall be granted authority to enforce the laws
ofthe Commonwealth of Virginia and to perform the other duties of a law enforcement officer, such
authority shall be in conformance with Va. Code SS 15.2-1724, 15.2-1726, 15.2-1730 and 15.2-
1730.1 as may be applicable; however, law enforcement officers of any jurisdiction who might be
2
Attachment A
casually present in any other jurisdiction shall have power to apprehend and make arrests only in
such instances where an apparent, immediate threat to public safety precludes the option of deferring
action to the local law enforcement agency.
9. When performing police duties in a requestingjurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of
this Agreement, each law enforcement officer, agent, and other employee of the parties hereto shall
have the same police powers, rights and privileges, including the authority to make arrests, as the
officers, agents or employees have in the jurisdiction where they were appointed.
10. Pursuant to Va. Code ~ 15.2-1724, the services performed and expenditures made under
this Agreement shall be deemed to be for public and governmental purposes and all immunities
afforded to the requested jurisdiction when acting within its boundaries shall extend to its
participation in rendering assistance outside its boundaries to a requesting jurisdiction. For the
purposes ofthis Agreement, the requested party that responds to a request for assistance is rendering
aid once it has entered the jurisdictional boundaries ofthe requesting party pursuant to the provisions
herein.
11. All immunities from liability, exemptions from laws, ordinances and regulations,
pension, relief, disability, worker's compensation, life and health insurance, and other benefits
enjoyed by law enforcement officers, agents and other employees of each party shall extend to the
services they perform under this Agreement outside their respective jurisdictions. Each party agrees
that the provision ofthese benefits shall remain the responsibility ofthe primary employing party.
12. To the extent permitted by the laws ofthe Commonwealth of Virginia, each party hereto,
in activities involving the rendering of assistance to a requesting party pursuant to this Agreement,
shall (i) waive any and all claims against all other parties to this Agreement which may arise out of
such parties' activities outside their respective jurisdictions, and (ii) be responsible for the acts or
omissions of its law enforcement officers, agents and other employees causing hann to persons not a
3
Attachment A
party to this Agreement. Nothing herein shall be deemed as an expressed or implied waiver ofthe
sovereign immunity of the parties to this Agreement.
13. The parties to this Agreement shall not be liable to each other for reimbursement for
injuries to personnel or damage to equipment incurred when going to or returning from another
jurisdiction. Neither shall the parties hereto be liable to each other for any other costs associated
with, or arising out of, the rendering of assistance pursuant to this Agreement, unless the parties
expressly agree otherwise in advance of the provision of assistance under this Agreement.
14. This Agreement sets forth the complete agreement relating to the provision of mutual
police services among the parties hereto. However, nothing herein shall affect the enforceability of
separate mutual aid agreements entered into by the County.
15. Any of the parties hereto may withdraw from this Agreement by giving ninety (90) days
written notice to that effect to the other parties.
16. This Agreement is subject to the approval of the governing bodies of the County of
Albemarle and Town ofGordonsville and the Sheriffs ofthe County of Flu vanna and the County of
Green.
WHEREBY, the parties hereto have executed this Regional Mutual Aid Agreement, by
their authorized representatives, whose signatures are set forth following below as of the day and
year first set forth above.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
SHERIFF OF FLUV ANNA COUNTY
By:
Robert W. Tucker, Jf.
County Executive
TOWN OF GORDONSVILLE
SHERIFF OF GREENE COUNTY
By Its:
4
.,
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the
2nd day of May 2007, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Oak Hill Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions
Form AM-4.3 dated May 2, 2007, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County. Virqinia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, thatthe Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Oak Hill Subdivision,
as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated May 2,2007, to the secondary system
of state highways, pursuant to S33.1-229 and to S33.1-82, Code of Virginia, and the Department's
Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Ms. Thomas.
Seconded by: Mr. Wyant.
Yeas: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Slutzky, and Mr. Wyant.
Nays: None.
Absent: None.
A Copy Teste:
In the County of Albemarle
By resolution of the governing body adopted May 02, 2007
The following VDOT Form AM-4.3 is hereby attached and incorporated as part of the governing body's resolution for changes
in the secondary system of state highways.
A Copy Testee Siglled (COUllty Official):
~1L-
Form AM-4.3 ( 11/28/2005)
Asset Management Division
Report of Changes in the Secondary System of State Highways
Project/Subdivision
Oak Hill
Type of Change: Addition
The following additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or provisions cited, are
hereby requested, the right of way for which, including additional easements for drainage as required, is guaranteed:
Reason for Change: Town Addition (~33.1-82), new subdivision street
Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: ~33.1-229, ~33.1-82
Route Number andlor Street Name
. Maymont Drive, State Route Number 1291
. Description: From: Intersection Rt. 1113 Oak Hill Drive
To: Intersection Rt. 1292 Maymont Court
A distance of: 0.08 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed on 3/4/2005 in the Albemarle County Clerks Office, with a width of 50 feet.
Recordation Reference: Deed Book 2932 page 70-88
. Maymout Court, State Route Number 1292
. Description: From: .01 miles south Rt.1291 Maymont Drive
To: Cui de sac
A distance of: 0.07 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed on 3/4/2005 in the Albemarle County Clerks Office, with a width of 40 feet.
Recordation Reference: Deed Book 2932 page 70-88
Page] of]
The Board of County SupeNisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the
2nd day of May 2007, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Logan's Run Subdivision, as described on the attached
Additions Form AM-4.3 dated May 2,2007, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on
plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virqinia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County SupeNisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Logan's Run
Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated May 2,2007, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 933.1-229 and to 933.1-82, Code of Virginia,
and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
*****
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Ms. Thomas.
Seconded by: Mr. Wyant.
Yeas: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Slutzky, and Mr. Wyant.
Nays: None.
Absent: None.
A Copy Teste:
In the County of Albemarle
By resolution of the governing body adopted May 02, 2007
T1lefollowing VDOT Form AM-43 is hereby attached and incorporated as part of the governing body's resolutionfor changes
in the secondary system of state highways. n
A Copy Testee Signed (County Official):-6! O-/M$~ . ~
Form AM-4.3 ( 11/28/2005)
Asset Management Division
Report of Changes in the Secondary System of State Highways
Project/Subdivision
Logan's Run
Type of Change: Addition
The following additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or provisions cited, are
hereby requested, the right of way for which, including additional easements for drainage as. required, is guaranteed:
Reason for Change: Town Addition (~33.1-82), new subdivision street
Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: ~33.1-229, ~33.1-82
Route Number andlor Street Name
. Moriah Way, State Route Number 1053
. Description: From: Intersection Rt. 616 Black Cat Road
To: Cui de sac
A distance of: 0.55 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed on 9/29/2003 in the Albemarle County Clerks Office, with a width of 50 feet.
Recordation Reference: Deed Book 2602 pages 379-385
Page 1 of 1
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the
2nd day of May 2007, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Oak Hill Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions
Form AM-4.3 dated May 2, 2007, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virqinia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Oak Hill Subdivision,
as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated May 2,2007, to the secondary system
of state highways, pursuant to 933.1-229 and to 933.1-82, Code of Virginia, and the Department's
Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
*****
Recorded vote:
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Yeas:
Nays:
Absent:
A Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
Board of County Supervisors
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1 ) Mavrnont Drive (State Route 1291) from the intersection of Route 1113 (Oak Hill
Drive) to the intersection of Route 1292 (Maymont Court), as shown on plat
recorded 03/04/2005 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 2932, pages 70-88, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.08
miles.
2) Mavrnont Court (State Route 1292) from .01 miles south of Route 1291 (Maymont
Drive) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 03/04/2005 in the office the
Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2932, pages 70-88, with a
40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.07 miles.
Total Mileage - 0.15
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the
2nd day of May 2007, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Logan's Run Subdivision, as described on the attached
Additions Form AM-4.3 dated May 2, 2007, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on
plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virqinia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Logan's Run
Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated May 2, 2007, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 933.1-229 and to 933.1-82, Code of Virginia,
and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
*****
Recorded vote:
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Yeas:
Nays:
Absent:
A Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
Board of County Supervisors
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1 ) Moriah Way (State Route 1053) from the intersection of Route 616 (Black Cat
Road) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 09/29/2003 in the office the
Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2602, pages 379-385, with
a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.55 miles.
Total Mileage - 0.55
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
TO:
Members, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM:
Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator
DATE:
April 16, 2007
RE:
2006 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals
Please find the attached 2006 annual report of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
State Code Section 15.2-2308 requires the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to keep a
full public record of its proceedings and to submit a report of its activities to the
governing body. The full 2006 BZA annual report is attached for your information.
The Board of Zoning Appeals hears variances from the Zoning Ordinance and appeals
from decisions of the Zoning Administrator or other administrative officer. These
appeals can include determinations of zoning violation.
The number of appeals in 2006 decreased by 11, from 13 received in 2005 to 2 in
2006. The 2 appeals received in 2006 were withdrawn. Three appeals were pending
from 2005. Of these 3, one was withdrawn and two Zoning Administrators' decisions
were affirmed by the Board.
The number of variances in 2006 increased by 5, from 9 in 2005 to 14 in 2006. Six
variances were approved, 1 was denied, 2 were withdrawn, 2 were void and 3 were
pending (as of December 31,2006). These 3 pending variances were withdrawn at the
April 1 0, 2007 public hearing. The number of variance requests related to setbacks
was the same in 2006 and 2005.
The number of special use permits for off-site signs increased by 4, from 0 in 2005 to 4
in 2006. Three were approved and one was still pending (as of December 31, 2006).
This pending special use permit was denied at the March 6, 2007 public hearing.
The following court cases are still pending as of December 31,2006:
1. Barry Schmidt v. Board of Zoninq Appeals. Appeal of zoning determination.
2. Paul Beoin. et al. v. Board of Zoninq Appeals and Planned Parenthood.
3. Scott W. and Caroline F. Watkins v. Board of Zoninq Appeals. Appeal of
determination of zoning violation.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
2006 ANNUAL REPORT
I. INTRODUCTION
The Code of Virginia states that the Board of Zoning Appeals shall submit a report of its
activities to the governing body at least once each year {Sec. 15.2-2308}. This report is
a brief outline of their activities.
II. PERSONNEL
The Board of Zoning Appeals consists of five members. They are appointed by the
Circuit Court for a term not to exceed five years. The Board members during the year
2006 were:
Member Term Expiration
Max C. Kennedy Reappointed May 23, 2003 for a five year term - to
expire May 23, 2008
David Bass, Chairman Reappointed May 23, 2002 for a five year term - to
expire May 23, 2007
George Bailey Reappointed May 23, 2005 for a five year term - to
expire May 23, 2010
Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman Reappointed May 23, 2004 for a five year term - to
expire May 23, 2009
Randy Rinehart, Secretary Reappointed May 23, 2006 for a five year term - to
expire May 23,2011
III. OPERATING PROCEDURES
Regular meetings of the Board are held the first Tuesday of each month starting at 2:00
p.m. Special meetings are called in cases of appeals or a high number of submittals,
when the regular schedule does not provide sufficient hearing time. These special
meetings may begin at 1 :00 p.m.
The Board operates with Rules of Procedure which were adopted November 15, 2002.
C:\Documents and Settings\acareyllocal Setbngs\Temporary Intemel Files\OLK24\bza annual reporl2006 flnal.doc
Board of Zoning Appeals 2006 Annual Report
Page 2
IV. EXPENSES
The Board of Zoning Appeals does not have a separate budget. Compensation and
mileage are included within the budget of the Community Development Department,
specifically within the Zoning and Current Development cost center. Funding for Board
salaries in the fiscal year 2005-2006 is consistent with prior years and expenses were a
total of $2751.61. Board members are paid $45 per meeting and are reimbursed for
mileage traveled to the meetings.
Staff to the Board includes the Director of Zoning & Current Development (Zoning
Administrator), Manager of Zoning Administration and the Chief of Zoning
Administration (Deputy Zoning Administrator). Support staff includes the Zoning
Assistant and at times will include the Zoning Technician.
V. ACTION SUMMARY
The Board of Zoning Appeals held 9 meetings in 2006. The number of submittals and
actions considered by the Board in 2006 are shown in the following tables:
Variances
Fourteen (14) variance applications were received in 2006. Six (6) variances were
approved, one (1) was denied, two (2) were withdrawn, two (2) were void and three (3)
are pending. See the following table:
Application # Project Name Type of request Approved Denied With
Conditions
V A06-0 1 Thomas or Reduction of front X
Katie Sears set back to allow
construction of a
new porch
V A-06-02 Timothy & Reduction of X X
Ginger Aylor front setback to
allow construction
of garage
V A-06-03 Central Reduction of the X X
Virginia size of a
Capital LLC proposed lot
V A-06-05 Kevin or Julie Reduction of rear X
Oh set back to allow
deck to remain
V A-06-06 Adolfo or Reduction of rear X
Guadalupe set back to allow
Garcia deck to remain
V A-06-07 Douglas Reduction of rear X
Cannato or set back to allow
Judith McPeak deck to remain
C:\Documents and Settill9slecllrey\Local SettingslTemporary Internet FiI0$\OlK24\b;za annual report 2006 final.doc
Board of Zoning Appeals 2006 Annual Report
Page 3
Application # Project Name Type of request Approved Denied With
Conditions
V A-06-08 Cville- Increase wall X X
Albemarle signs aggregate
Airport / area
Landmark
Aviation
Withdrawn an 01
Application # Project Name Withdrawn Void
V A-06-04 Thomas Wilkinson X
V A-06-09 Kara Connolly X
VA-06-10 Paul T. Shifflett X
VA-06-14 Region Ten Community Services X
Pending
Application # Project Name Pending
VA-06-11 Glenwood Station Sign Deferred to April 1 0, 2007
VA-06-12 Glenwood Station Sign Deferred to April 10, 2007
VA-06-13 Glenwood Station Sign Deferred to April 10, 2007
Pending from previous years
Application # Project Name Pending
V A-05-04 Montessori school Additional information from the applicant
V A-05-09 Mechum's Trestle LLC Additional information from the applicant
Appeals
Two (2) appeals were taken in 2006. These appeals were withdrawn. Three (3)
appeals were pending from 2005. One appeal (1) was withdrawn and two (2) were
affirmed by the Board.
Withdrawn and Void
Application # Project Name Withdrawn / Void
Dismissed / Moot
AP-06-01 Ellen Hawkins Withdrawn
AP-06-02 Pet Supply Plus Withdrawn
C:\Documents and Setbngs\ecarey\Local SeWngslTempor!lry Internet Filos\OLK24\b:;za annual report 2006 flnaldoc
dV'd
Board of Zoning Appeals 2006 Annual Report
Page 4
Action taken in A
Application #
eals that were
Project Name
Type
AP-05-06
Marcia Joseph
ZAlWithdrawn
Withdrawn
Letter of Determination -
use
Determination of Violation
AP-05-13
Scott or Caroline
Watkins
Constance Hallquist &
Brian Cowan
Affirmed ZA
AP-05-14
Affirmed ZA
Letter of Determination -
nonconforming lot
red ivision
Special Use Permits
Four (4) special use permits for off-site signs were received in 2006. Three (3) were
approved and one (1) is still pending.
Application # Project Name Approved Denied
SP-06-27 PJP Building Six, LLC X
SP-06-28 Worrell Land & X
Development Co LC
SP-06-29 Hilton Garden Inn X
With Conditions
Pending
Application # Project Name
Pending
SP-06-30
Morningside Assisted
Living
This item will be heard on March 6, 2007
VI. COURT ACTIONS
The following are court actions taken on the Board of Zoning Appeals in 2006:
1. Crafton Corporation v. Board of Zonina Appeals: Petition to writ of certiorari filed
in Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the decision of the Board of Zoning
Appeals that the property is a junkyard in violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
Crafton requested that this appeal be nonsuited (voluntarily dismissed).
C:\Documents and Selting$\ecarey\Local SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOlK24\bza III1nual report 2006 final.doc
Board of Zoning Appeals 2006 Annual Report
Page 5
2. Van der Linde Housinq, Inc. v. Board of Zoninq Appeals: This appeal has been
remanded from Circuit Court to allow the Board of Zoning Appeals to reconsider
their modification of the Zoning Administrator's determination of violation
regarding the use contractor's equipment and storage yard.
3. Barry Schmidt v. Board of Zoninq Appeals: Petition to writ of certiorari filed in
Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the decision of the Board of Zoning
Appeals that the mobile home on the property lost its nonconforming status. The
Circuit Court affirmed the decision of the Board. Schmidt has filed a notice of
appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court.
4. Paul Beqin, et al. v. Board of Zoninq Appeals and Planned Parenthood: Petition
to writ of certiorari filed in Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the
decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals that Planned Parenthood's use of the
property is a professional office use. Two years later, the court has not yet
issued a writ of certiorari directing the Board of Zoning Appeals to file the record
of its proceedings, so the case has not proceeded and a trial date has not been
set.
5. Scott W. and Caroline F. Watkins v. Board of ZoninQ Appeals: Petition to writ of
certiorari filed in Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the decision of the
Board of Zoning Appeals that the use of the property by Watkins & Co
Landscape Contracting constitutes a contractor's storage yard which is not a
permitted use in the Rural Area District. This case will be set for trial soon.
6. Constance Hallquist v. Board of Zoninq Appeals: Petition to writ of certiorari filed
in Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the decision of the Board of Zoning
Appeals that the determination of Authorization for Adjustment of Boundary Lines
to allow 37 existing lots to be combined into 10 lots. Hallquist requested that this
appeal be nonsuited (voluntarily dismissed).
C:\Documents and Settingslecearey\Local SettingslTemporery Internet FilesIOU<24\bza annual reporl2006 final.doc
~ounty Board-to-Board
Public Schools May 2, 2007
Listening. Leluning. /.('ading.
A monthly communications report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors
Resource Utilization Study: During the June 2006 School Board Retreat, the Board reviewed the basic tenets of
the Baldrige Performance criteria and discussed the relationship of these criteria to the continuous improvement
of the school division. These criteria include: Leadership, Strategic Planning, Customer and Market Focus,
Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management, Human Resource Focus, Process Management, and
Business Results.
Through discussion of these criteria, Board members clarified their commitment to examine the allocation and
alignment of resources to determine whether improvements in financial effectiveness and efficiency could be
realized. The Commonwealth Educational Policy Institute (CEPI) associated with Virginia Commonwealth
University contracts specific services with School Boards across Virginia. School Boards may determine specific
areas within the Division's and schools' operations that can become a focus for a resource utilization study. The
outcome of such a study would be to gain efficiencies and improve the effectiveness of how resources are
allocated, aligned and used to support strategic work towards achievement of Board-adopted goals.
At the April 12 Board meeting, Dr. William Bosher, executive director ofCEPI, provided an overview of the
scope of services provided for school resource management reviews by CEPI. He also described how the data
generated through such a resource utilization study can contribute to the continuous improvement of the Division
through alignment of resources to the Goals of the Board.
Based on the discussion with Dr. Bosher, the School Board asked that Dr. Moran work on developing a proposal
for services with CEPI. If the Board were to accept the proposal, it is anticipated that the study would be
completed and presented to the Board prior to the next budget cycle.
Dr. Bosher's credentials include executive director of the Commonwealth Educational Policy Institute and
Distinguished Professor of Education and Public Policy at VCU. Past positions also include superintendent of
Chesterfield County Public Schools, superintendent of public instruction for the Virginia State Department of
Education and Henrico County Public Schools superintendent.
2007 -2008 School Division Budget: On April 19, 2007, the School Board adopted a budget for 2007-08 school
fund budget of$147,950,352 and a self-sustaining budget of$15,254,196 for a total budget of$163,204,548.
Student Behavior Management Work Session: In the spring of2006, the superintendent charged a committee
to review current disciplinary and student behavior management strategies and procedures. In the first phase of its
work, the committee identified best practices and procedures that result in students who value and demonstrate
safe and respectful behaviors. When students form a community in which safe and respectful behaviors are
routine, the school climate supports learning for all, inappropriate behavior decreases, and students understand the
positive and negative consequences of their choices and the impact of those choices on others. As a result of its
broad research and analysis of Division student disciplinary and academic data, the committee evaluated student
behavior management strategies that would form an improved continuum ofK-12 prevention and intervention
services and provide a more systemic response to the needs of students within their learning community. The
committee considered the following essential questions throughout the first phase of their work and will continue
to address ongoing considerations in future work related to student behavior management:
1) What assumptions and beliefs about young people and learning should drive our recommendations for
changes in our current K-12 practices and procedures associated with "behavior management and
discipline?"
2) What are the key strengths of our current management and disciplinary systems? Challenges? What
actions should we take to ensure that strengths and current best practices are diffused across the system?
What actions or changes should occur to address challenges?
3) How do we differentiate prevention and intervention services to address the continuum of inappropriate
behaviors that may occur in school? How do we ensure that all staff understands expectations for using
both prevention and intervention practices that are respectful and developmentally appropriate?
4) What best practice and procedural concepts should we introduce into the continuum to ensure that all
students are given opportunities to learn and use normative school community behaviors? How do we use
intervention to teach replacement behaviors to students who need mentoring, coaching, and opportunities
to make restitution for their behaviors? What steps should we take to keep students connected with
schooling and in school that are not being used or available now?
5) What are your recommendations for a pilot Board Disciplinary Committee? What functional procedures
would be put in place in this pilot to hear student disciplinary cases?
6) What needs to change to make Board hearings more effective? Increase consistency of procedures and
processes used by school administrators across schools? How do we ensure that all administrators are
knowledgeable of and responsive to meeting expectations of the Board regarding disciplinary background
materials and communication with the Board during hearings?
Over the course of the past year, the committee has added parent and community representation and has sought
feedback from students. The committee engaged Board members during its work session on April 26 to discuss
and review draft of information and recommendations.
School Board Meetings: The next regularly scheduled School Board meetings are May 10 and May 24. In
addition, a third monthly meeting is tentatively scheduled for May 21 to handle student conduct/discipline issues.
Graduation Dates:
May 31, 2007
CATEC Graduation, 7 p.m., Martin Luther King, Jr. Performing Arts Center
June 4,2007
Post High Graduation
June 7, 2007
Murray High School Graduation, 6 p.m., Burley Middle School Auditorium
June 8, 2007
Western Albemarle High School Graduation, 8 p.m., Warrior Stadium
June 9, 2007
Monticello High School Graduation, 9:30 a.m., Monticello Football Field
June 9, 2007
Albemarle High School Graduation, 1 p.m., John Paul Jones Arena
SERVICE AGREEMENT
TIllS AGREEMENT, made this 1-6:. day of ~, 2007, by
and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a pohtical subdivision,
(the "County"), and the STONY POINT VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC., a
Virginia Corporation, (the "Fire Company").
WHEREAS, the Fire Company agrees to continue to provide valuable fire
suppression services in Albemarle County in its delineated service area as set forth on the
Response Area Maps located at the Emergency Communications Center ("Service
Area"); and
WHEREAS, the Fire Company desires the County to contribute Two Hundred
Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($215,750.00) to provide for renovations
and improvements to their building and property located at 3827 Stony Point Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia (County Tax Map 48 Parcel 18D) that are necessary to provide
fire suppression services.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above stated premises, the
County and Fire Company agree, as follows:
1. The County shall contribute to the Fire Company Two Hundred Fifteen Thousand
Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($215,750.00) to be used to fund building improvements
as identified in Attachment A of this agreement. The funds shall be allocated from
the County's Capital Improvements Fund and will be appropriated to a County budget
code dedicated to these projects. The County will work with the Fire Company to
procure and manage the projects as stated in the Volunteer Fire Rescue Building
Maintenance Funding Policy (Attachment B).
2. The Fire Company agrees that the County will withhold Seventeen Thousand Nine
Hundred Eighty Dollars ($17,980.00) from the County's annual appropriation to the
Fire Company's operating budget beginning July 2007 through July 2017 and
Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Dollars ($17,970.00) in July 2018. Thus
at the end of twelve (12) years, which is the term of this Agreement, a total of
$215,750.00 shall be withheld. The Fire Company agrees that any amount of this
repayment that may exceed the County's annual appropriation will be remitted to the
County no later than July 31 of each' repayment year.
3. The Fire Company agrees that it shall not convey any of the improved property or any
interest therein to any party other than the County without the County's prior written
consent during the term of this Service Agreement. In addition, the Fire Company
agrees that any insurance proceeds received from a claim related to any damage to the
property shall be used entirely for the immediate repair and improvement of the
property unless the County expressly authorizes in writing a different use for such
funds.
4. The Fire Company agrees that at such time as it no longer provides volunteer fire
suppression in Albemarle County while operating under the jurisdiction of the County
that it shall convey all of its interest in the property to the County at no additional cost
to the County upon the County's request.
5. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent additional appropriations by
the County to the Fire Company, at the discretion of the County Board of Supervisors,
to support, enhance, or augment the services to be provided by the Fire Company.
Witness the following signatures and seals:
&7/Vtl07
Date
STONY P
INC.
VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY,
/~
/ .
&~rk
/
Date
J/.J~ 5/?t/r/J
Approved as to Form:
~A/L
~tY. omey
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE:
The foregoing Service Agreement was signed, sworn to and acknowledged before
me this ~ day of Mav , 2007 by Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
A/aMP) A. 17/tnl1~M~
~ Public ""=
My Commission Expires: June 30, 2009
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE:
The foregoing Service A~ement was signed, sworn to and acknowledged before
me this :J. 8 day of 1'1111<C;' ,2007 by
.:10/111" ~ //!JiJ,V ,rt{ .
~R1~
Notary Public '
My Commission Expires:
-
JAJ/ 3" :lopS
,
Attachment A
Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.
Projects to be funded with Service Agreement Proceeds:
Remodel of bunk. rooms
Toilet and laundry facilities
Expand/remodel kitchen
Renovate meeting/training room
Storage building
Total
$ 75,000
$ 13 ,500
$ 26,250
$ 26,000
$ 75.000
$ 215,750
Attachment B
Volunteer Fire Rescue
Building Maintenance Funding Policy
1. Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to assist volunteer fire and rescue stations that
do not have the financial means to fund building repairs and minor building
renovations.
2. Volunteer Station financial assessment
The intent of the policy is to provide financial assistance to volunteer stations
that do not have the financial means to fund building repairs and minor
building renovation projects. Therefore, a volunteer station requesting
assistance will need to show that the station is unable to independently fund
the project. Determining financial hardship requires that the station disclose
the Company's financial statements (balance sheet and income statement -
see example at end of document) to help demonstrate the station's financial
need.
3. Qualified proiects
Building repairs and minor building renovation projects that help maintain the
current facility shall be qualified for consideration. Projects beyond this scope
will be addressed on a case by case basis through the normal CIP process.
4. Five year buildina assessment to determine future expenditures
4.1. Stations requesting financial assistance must conduct a five year
assessment of their building to determine the long term maintenance
needs. The five year assessment should include a projected and
prioritized list of building repairs/renovations, a cost estimate per
repair/renovation, and a narrative outlining the justification for each
repair/renovation.
Priority
... Hi~
Medium
Medium
Project type
Roof repair
HV AC replacement
Bunk room reno"lStion
Total
North River VFD
Major Building Repairs
FY06/07 FY07/08
30,000
FY08/09 FY09/10 FY10/11
15.000
30,000
15.000
5,000
5.000
4.2. County staff will work with volunteer staff to assess the projects to help
.. determine needs, eligibility and timing.
5. Fundina Assistance
5.1. Financial assistance shall be provided through a no-interest loan with a
five to ten year payback period. In cases of extreme financial hardship, a
grant may be considered.
5.2. A volunteer station receiving a no-interest loan will work with County staff
to develop a financial plan to ensure that the loan will be paid in full over
time. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) before financial assistance is provided.
6. Other reauirements
6.1. Volunteer stations that qualify according to this policy shall submit a
request to the Company of Fire Rescue by August 1 in preparation for the
next fiscal year budget process.
6.2. Approved projects will be procured and completed according to current
County policies and procedures
Station name: North Rher VFD
'., ;;J:,,~1s,._,._,
Beginring Cash Balanoa
Available ca,sh on terdlchecking ac:colllt $
Real Estae
5,000
Blildirg/land @marketvalte $100,000 $
Explain in narrative $
Period ending: JlJ1e 30, 2005
Liabilities,
Ba lance of open acCOlrts
$ 5,000
fotltes on mortgages o.ved
rn.estmerts 0Iher indebtedness/obligations
CDs, stock, bonds, savings, etc. $ 15,000
Equipment, Vehides, etc.
Eqlipmert not purcresed ttToughCP $ 30,000
Resticied FU'lds
Explain in narrative $
Tolal Asses $ 150,000
NetWorth $145,000
btal asse1s mimli btalliabilities
ReceipsJRewnue
COl.ntyContribution _
Doraions, contribution, bequests, etc.
FUld raising
hErest and dividends
Grants
0Iher incomelrevenl.e
$100,000
$ 5,000
$ 15,000
$ 2,000
$ 1 ,000
$
$123,000
Toml receiptslrevenue
Total Lia billies $ 5,000
Expendlures
Operatioral expenses
Capital experditures
0Iher (irclude tJansfers to asset accounts)
fotln-operatioral expenses Q.e. -flnd raising cos1s)
$100,000
$
$
$ 5,000
Total expenditures $105,000
Cash increase/decrease (receipts minus expenditu"es) $ 18,000
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Stony Point VFD Loan Agreement
AGENDA DATE:
May 2, 2007
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval for the County Executive to sign
agreement to loan Stony Pont VFD funds for
building improvement
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Trank, Eggleston and
Shad man
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
~
,
BACKGROUND:
On April 5, 2006, the Board approved a plan to appropriate funding from the FY06/07 CIP fund balance for a $215,750 no-
interest loan to the Stony Point VFD for various building renovation projects needed to maintain or ensure services. The
loan was in addition to a County grant to Stony Point VFD for $239,736 to repair/replace the fire department's roof, parking
lot, and HVAC system. Staff recommended that the loan be paid back over 12 years through an annual payment of
$17,980 per year.
On June 7, 2006, the Board adopted a resolution appropriating the funds. Prior to transferring the loan funds, a Service
Agreement is necessary to define the terms and conditions of the loan.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents.
DISCUSSION:
General Services is in the process of implementing the projects associated with the grant funding and planning work has
been completed on the projects associated with the no-interest loan. However, before the work can proceed on the projects
associated with the loan, a service agreement is necessary to define the terms and conditions of the loan.
Staff prepared the attached Service Agreement which was shared with Stony Point VFD's chief and administration staff.
The agreement defines the basic terms of the loan: $215,750 no-interest loan, paid back over 12 years through an annual
payment of $17,980 per year. The Agreement was reviewed and signed by Stony Point VFD's chief.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No additional budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to sign the loan agreement on behalf of the County.
ATTACHMENTS
A - AQreement between County of Albemarle, Virqinia and Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.
Attachment A
SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of ,2007, by
and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision,
(the "County"), and the STONY POINT VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC., a
Virginia Corporation, (the "Fire Company").
WHEREAS, the Fire Company agrees to continue to provide valuable fire
suppression services in Albemarle County in its delineated service area as set forth on the
Response Area Maps located at the Emergency Communications Center ("Service
Area"); and
WHEREAS, the Fire Company desires the County to contribute Two Hundred
Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($215,750.00) to provide for renovations
and improvements to their building and property located at 3827 Stony Point Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia (County Tax Map 48 Parcel 18D) that are necessary to provide
fire suppression services.
NOW, THEREFORE, [or and in consideration of the above stated premises, the
County and Fire Company agree, as follows:
1. The County shall contribute to the Fire Company Two Hundred Fifteen Thousand
Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($215,750.00) to be used to fund building improvements
as identified in Attachment A of this agreement. The funds shall be allocated from
the County's Capital Improvements Fund and will be appropriated to a County budget
code dedicated to these projects. The County will work with the Fire Company to
procure and manage the projects as stated in the Volunteer Fire Rescue Building
Maintenance Funding Policy (Attachment B).
2. The Fire Company agrees that the County will withhold Seventeen Thousand Nine
Hundred Eighty Dollars ($17,980.00) from the County's annual appropriation to the
Fire Company's operating budget beginning July 2007 through July 2017 and
Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Dollars ($17,970.00) in July 2018. Thus
at the end of twelve (12) years, which is the term of this Agreement, a total of
$2]5,750.00 shall be withheld. The Fire Company agrees that any amount of this
repayment that may exceed the County's annual appropriation will be remitted to the
County no later than July 31 of each repayment year.
3. The Fire Company agrees that it shall not convey any of the improved property or any
interest therein to any party other than the County without the County's prior writtl~n
consent during the term of this Service Agreement. In addition, the Fire Compar..y
agrees that any insurance proceeds received from a claim related to any damage to the
property shall be used entirely for the immediate repair and improvement of the
property unless the County expressly authorizes in writing a different use for such
funds.
4. The Fire Company agrees that at such time as it no longer provides volunteer fire
suppression in Albemarle County while operating under the jurisdiction of the COlffity
that it shall convey all of its interest in the property to the County at no additional ;;ost
to the County upon the County's request.
5. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent additional appropriations by
the County to the Fire Company, at the discretion of the County Board ofSupervi5.ors,
to support, enhance, or augment the services to be provided by the Fire Company.
Witness the following signatures and seals:
cm JNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
Date
By:
ROBERT W. TUCKER, JR., County Executive
~~
Date
STONY POINT VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY.
INe.
By: ,- 2,/L~ gw"y-"V- 5/c'/r~
y
"
Approved as to Form:
County Attorney
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE:
The foregoing Service Agreement was signed, sworn to and acknowledged bejore
me this _ day of ,2007 by Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE:
The foregoing Service Agreement was signed, sworn to and acknowledged before
me this ;}. 8 d,ayof I'1Allc/1 ,2007 by
.:JC/,,y YEitttI/6iJ"" .7',< .
~~~
Notary Public '
My Commission Expires:
:!;,J/ 31. ~()P8
,
Attachment A
Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.
Projects to be funded with Service Agreement Proceeds:
Remodel of bunk rooms
Toilet and laundry facilities
Expand/remodel kitchen
Renovate meeting/training room
Storage building
$ 75,000
$ 13,500
$ 26,250
$ 26,000
$ 75.000
Total
$ 215.750
Attachment B
Volunteer Fire Rescue
Building Maintenance Funding Policy
1. Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to assist volunteer fire and rescue stations that
do not have the financial means to fund building repairs and minor building
renovations.
2. Volunteer Station financial assessment
The intent of the policy is to provide financial assistance to volunteer stations
that do not have the financial means to fund building repairs and minor
building renovation projects. Therefore, a volunteer station requesting
assistance will need to show that the station is unable to independently fund
the project. Determining financial hardship requires that the station disclose
the Company's financial statements (balance sheet and income statement _
see example at end of document) to help demonstrate the station's financial
need.
3. Qualified proiects
Building repairs and minor building renovation projects that help maintain the
current facility shall be qualified for consideration. Projects beyond this scope
will be addressed on a case by case basis through the normal CIP process.
4. Five year buildina assessment to determine future exoenditures
4.1. Stations requesting financial assistance must conduct a five year
assessment of their building to determine the long term maintenance
needs. The five year assessment should include a projected and
prioritized list of building repairs/renovations, a cost estimate per
repair/renovation, and a narrative outlining the justification for each
repair/renovation.
Priority
HigJ
Medium
Medium
Project type
Roof repair
HV AC replacement
Bunk room reno\Stion
Total
North River VFD
Major Building Repairs
FY06/07 FY07/08
30,000
FY08/09 FY09/10 FY10/11
15.000
30,000
15,000
5,000
5,000
4.2. County staff will work with volunteer staff to assess the projects to help
determine needs, eligibility and timing.
5. Fundina Assistance
5.1. Financial assistance shall be provided through a no-interest loan with a
five to ten year payback period. In cases of extreme financial hardship, a
grant may be considered.
5.2. A volunteer station receiving a no-interest loan will work with County staff
to develop a financial plan to ensure that the loan will be paid in full over
time. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) before financial assistance is provided.
6. Other reauirements
6.1. Volunteer stations that qualify according to this policy shall submit a
request to the Company of Fire Rescue by August 1 in preparation for the
next fiscal year budget process.
6.2. Approved projects will be procured and completed according to current
County policies and procedures
.
S1atlon name: North RiI.erVFD Period ending: JlIle 30.2005
Assets Liabilities
Beginring Cash Balance Sa lance of open accourts
Available cash on l"ardlched<ing acooUlt $ 5,000 $ 5,000
RealEstaE r-btes on mortgages owed
BuildirgJland@marketvalle $100,000 $ -
h\.estmerts Other indebtedness/obligations
CDs, stock. bonds, savings. etc. $ 15,000 ExpIa in in narrative $ -
Equipment, Vehides, etc.
EqLipmert not pun::resed ltToughCP $ 30 .000
Rest-ided FlJ'lds
Explai n in narra bYe $ -
Tolal Assets $150,000 Total Liabilties $ 5.000
Net Worth $145,000
t>ta1 assets mi nLS t>ta1 M cD ti ti es
ReceiptsJRevenue Expenditures
Collltycontribution $ 100,000 Operatioral expenses $100,000
Dora.OIlS, contribution, bequests, etc. $ 5,000 Capit:ll experditures $ -
FlJ'ld raising $ 15,000 Other (irclude trarsfers to asset acoounts) $ -
herest and dividends $ 2,000 r-b~operatioral el<perses Q .e. - fu1d raising COS1S) $ 5,000
Grants $ 1.000
other inoomelrevenle $ -
TOIaI receiptsll9Yenue $123,000 Totalexpendrtures $105.000
Cash increase/decrease (receipts minus expendttu"es) $18,000
Albemarle County
AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE RETIRING MEMBERS
Mr. Joseph H. Jones
As a representative of the farming community, Mr. Jones has served without compensation on
the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee continuously since February of 1983.
As a member and past chairman of the advisory committee Mr. Jones has advised the planning
commission and the board of supervisors on matters impacting Albemarle County's Agricultural
and Forestal Districts and has rendered expert advice as to the nature of farming, forestry, and
agricultural/forestal resources within the districts. Mr. Jones has provided guidance as to how
continuing agricultural and forestal activities and preserving agricultural and forestal resources
impact the landscape of the County and the community as a whole. In addition, Mr. Jones has
provided expert advise and recommendations to the planning commission and the board of
supervisors on matters pertaining to the rural areas of the county which may affect agriculture,
forestry, or open space. Please join us in thanking Mr. Jones for over 24 years of continuing
commitment and lasting contributions to rural Albemarle County.
Mrs. Babs Huckle
As a representative of landowners in the County, Mrs. Huckle has served without compensation
on the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee continuously since January of
1983. As a member of the committee Mrs. Huckle has advised the planning commission and the
board of supervisors on matters impacting Albemarle County's Agricultural and Forestal
Districts and has rendered expert advice from the perspective of a landowner within a district
regarding how the continuing presence of agricultural and forestal resources within the landscape
impacts County land owners and the community as a whole. Mrs. Huckle has provided expert
advise and recommendations to the planning commission and the board of supervisors on matters
pertaining to the rural areas of the county which may affect agriculture, forestry, and open space.
Please join us in thanking Mrs. Huckle for over 24 years of continuing commitment and lasting
contributions to rural Albemarle County.
Mr. Bruce Hogue
As a representative of the farming community, Mr. Hogue has served without compensation on
the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee continuously since January of 1983.
As a member of the committee Mr. Hogue has advised the planning commission and the board of
supervisors on matters impacting Albemarle County's Agricultural and Forestal Districts and has
rendered expert advice as to the nature of farming, forestry, and agricultural/forestal resources
within the districts. Mr. Hogue has provided guidance as to how continuing agricultural and
forestal activities and preserving agricultural and forestal resources impact the landscape of the
County and the community as a whole. Mr. Hogue has provided expert advise and
recommendations to the planning commission and the board of supervisors on matters pertaining
to the rural areas of the county which may affect agriculture, forestry, or open space. Please join
us in thanking Mrs. Hogue for over 24 years of continuing commitment and lasting contributions
to rural Albemarle County.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 07 Third Quarter Financial Report
AGENDA DATE:
May 2, 2007
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Quarterly Financial Report for the Nine Months
Ended March 31 , 2007
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION: X
REVIEWED BY:
STAFF CONTACTCS):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Wiggans, Walters
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
BACKGROUND:
The attached Quarterly Financial Report provides information on the County's General Fund operations and Fund Balance
as of March 31, 2007. The Financial Report includes a bar chart that compares current fiscal year revenue and
expenditure data with data from the previous Fiscal Year.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Fund the County's Future Needs
DISCUSSION:
($ in Millions)
A. Attachment A: Financial Report:
1. Revenues:
General Fund revenues are estimated to be $2.221 million, 1.1 %, less than appropriations, a $4.403
million decrease from the last Financial Report. Transfers from other funds will exceed appropriations by
$0.027 million. Total revenue, use of other funds, and use of fund balance is estimated to be $2.195
million, 1.1 %, less than appropriations.
a) Real Estate Tax revenues are estimated to be $3.958 million, 3.9%, less than appropriations, a
$4.656 million decrease from the last Financial Report. The decrease is primarily due to the
$0.06 reduction in the 2007 tax rate from the budgeted $0.74 per $100 to the adopted $0.68 per
$100 tax rate.
b) Personal Property Tax revenues are estimated to exceed appropriations by $0.393 million, 2.4%,
a $0.350 million decrease from the last Financial Report. The decrease is due to less than
anticipated second half tax bills.
c) Sales Tax revenues are estimated to exceed appropriations by $0.100 million, 0.7%, a $0.150
million increase from the last Financial Report. The increase reflects the continued strong local
economy.
d) Business License Tax revenues are estimated to exceed appropriations by $0.244 million, 2.7%,
no change from the last Financial Report.
e) Utility Taxes are estimated to be $0.270 million, 3.5%, less than appropriations, a $0.029 million
decrease from the last Financial Report. The decrease is due to the continued mild weather
conditions. Weather conditions are volatile and can change unexpectedly, significantly affecting
revenues.
f) Food and Beverage Tax revenues are estimated to exceed appropriations by $0.225 million,
4.4%, a $0.025 million increase over the last Financial Report. The increase is attributed to the
continued growth in convenience food preparation.
g) Other Local taxes are expected to exceed appropriations by $0.328 million, 3.5%, a $0.019
million decrease from the last Financial Report. The decrease is due to the reduced real estate
tax rate levied on mobile homes and public service property.
h) Other Local revenues are expected to exceed appropriations by $0.635 million, 12.8%, a $0.095
million increase from the last Financial Report. The increase is primarily due to unanticipated
interest earnings resulting from greater than anticipated yields and larger cash balances. This
source of revenue will decrease as real estate revenues are reduced due to the lowered tax rate.
i) State revenues are expected to exceed appropriations by $0.128 million, 0.5%, a $0.275 million
increase over the last Financial Report. The increase is due to anticipated additional
reimbursements for Social Service expenditures.
j) Categories which vary less than $0.100 million are not analyzed in this report.
2. Expenditures:
Total Expenditures, including transfers, are within appropriate levels at 73.0 % for the first nine months.
a) Departmental expenditures are at 67.6% of appropriations.
b) Revised departmental expenditures are estimated to generate savings of $0.500 million.
c) Jail operations are projected to exceed appropriations by $0.600 million. This over-expenditure
will be absorbed by the available $1.098 million Board reserve for contingencies. This will leave a
balance of $0.498 million available in the Board reserve for contingencies category as well as
$0.102 million in other revenues.
3. Revised Revenues less Revised Expenditure Appropriations:
a) Revised revenues are projected to be $1.695 million less than expenditures based on the March
revenue update adjusted for the adoption of the $0.68 per $100 tax rate as well as an estimated
$0.500 million in departmental savings.
b) Fund Balance available May 02,2007 is $2.317 million. This is net the proposed transfer of an
estimated $7.225 CIP transfer based on the FY06 surplus and a $0.465 FY06 CSA over-
expenditure transfer that was not made last year. The original proposed CIP transfer of $9.225
million was reduced by $2.000 million during the FY08 Budget process.
c) Projected End-of-Year Available Funds are projected to be $0.621 million.
B. Attachment B: Budaet Comparison Report:
The bar-chart report tracks changes in revenue and expenditure changes over time.
1. Only two revenue categories, Utility Taxes and Other Local Taxes, project decreases from FY06 actual.
2. Expenditures in all categories except Non-School Transfers are expected to increase over FY06 actual.
C. Attachment C: Fund Balance Report:
The report indicates that the County:
1. Has an Audited FY06 Fund Balance of $25.079 million as of June 30, 2006,
2. Appropriated $2.072 million for FY07 projects,
3. Has a remaining FY06 Fund Balance of $23.007 million at March 31,2007,
4. Reserved $13.000 million for cash flow purposes,
5. Has proposed commitments of $7.690 million, and
6. Has Unobligated Funds Available of $2.317 million at May 2,2007.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This report is based on audited financial data for FY 06 and nine months of operations for FY 07. The next report, to
be presented to the Board in October, 2007, will contain preliminary year-end information for FY 07.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This report has been prepared for your information. No action is required.
ATTACHMENTS
A - General Fund Quarterly Financial Report
B - General Fund BudQet Comparison Report
C - General Fund Balance Report
<(
c
"
E
.r;;;
o
(1J
'"
<(
....
o
o
N
....
t::M
O.c:::
Q.~
ell lIS
D:::i
~'C
~g~
... lIS I:
E.S: W
eIlu.l/lfj)
.c >. oS c:
<( j 5 ~
-t::"",E
o lIS ... .S
.a-~~~
I: a.-
~'Cz
o I: ell
O~.c:::
u.-
...
-e.e
ell ell
1:-
ell lIS
e>'il
o
"'i'
...
lIS
ell
>
'" I
Ql ... ..
u 0
.~;;-e <
.."'....
....0
> -
....
o
'CQl<ll
Ql ::l Ql
~ ~ ~
'[ ~ 'i
a.. II:: >
M
ig:~
.! ; .;
~ ~ E
1I::1I::'5j
W
....
o
CD I
~ ~o e
'- ~ * <(
ftI C f/),...
~>:ca~
e 0
~
::l
()
~...o :;;1
- Ql
:i~~
c"'''5
~"u..
...
o
in
o
>
u..
..
..
~
:s
.;:
a..
~.~~.~~~.~~::R:::R~I~
000 000 0 000 0 0
O>.qOI"'---f".,lOVI.OOOLO'I"'"" 'I"'""
MNI.OON(")...tMNDci~
" , 'I"'"" .
00 (") o. a "lit a It) co LO co vI ;:-
LOQ)l.{)O...,.r---NNMC\lON
Q)MO......NNC\!('I')W......ON
c0oaoac:iciaaooN
~ -- -- -
T"" a Ll) 0 co l.() 1.0 """'" "'Ilt ('I') col.....
OQ('I')OCO"lt"f"..C\ICO<q'(f')_
OOmm('l')"d"M("-..l.Ocoac
r---:,....:aMo)~L4.ia)LriMLriU;
0)...... N en
V> .....
.......0 .......0 ......0 .......0 ~ .......0 .......0 ~ ~ ~ ~I ~
0.....0......0......0.....00.....0.....00000
O)O)OOCO......OCX)C\ICOCX)......_
...t~cri,....:N......:r--.:cicoco......:N
VLOCOl.O<DCOf'.,Lt)OOI.OCDII)
....iij
o.a
- u
M<
MC
01-
>
It) <0 Q) LO v co l.() N ...q- a col 0
mNl.O.q-<DOONCDNr---_
N<D<Do>(O,.....ar---NOJOC:O
Lriccior---:Lri...t...t...t...tMMN
v ...... ~
.... ';~
el!
..... ..
....
S e
<
0) ,..... v a C"') LO a CJ) CJ) LO NI....
LOOCOON......LOO>'l!:t......("')C"')
mcomco......f'-.,.......('I')O)Lt)ON
OcOOMo>r---:u-)m..q:C""iLri"":
a...... ...... N en
..... .....
V>
I
~~
- ..
e 'C
.... 0
o ..
<
Q) ,..... ....,. a ('I') 1.0 a 0> ""'" LO NI.....
LOOCOON'I"'""l.t)CJ)OCOM(D
m<Dmco.......t--......('I')O)"'lt'O_
occioMo>""':Lrio>...tMLri"':
0....... ,.... N C7)
..... .....
V>
~:::R::R:::R:::R::R:::R:::R:::R':1?:::RI~
000000000000
I"---M(()'I"'""("')f"-..V(")('o...LO......
~~~~&i~~~~~ffi~
...iij
o.a
- u
M<
MC
o~
LO <D <0 N 0 <0 '''It '''It 00 00 <01....
O)N'"""f'..OOOOOO,"""LOOO"tt
~Oll)cx)NI'-I'-~O)Ncx)"'I""
("jcx)or---:Lri.q:("jLri("j("jNcn
..- ..... '"
V>
:;;1
~iij
=.a
::l u
u..<
'''It 0) 0 '""" N 00 0 co 0) M 0)1....
"'lt~O)T"""f'..OLOf'..T"""I'-r--.......
~('I')CO('l')('I')LOOV('I')"'ltT""""'I""
r---:Lrio("jo)r---:LriOLri("j.q:N
00 'I"""" T""" T""" N c:o
V> .....
c
~
::>
"EU(/) (/)
~~~ ~
81;\1- I- Ql
_I-~ III Ql ~
~~(]) ~ ~~~ Q)tI)
~~g. c: ~~~Q)E 4)
~eC:(/)~(/)Q)~ 2~~
Uj.$a..-Ql..:::iQla:l1'j1'jQlQlQl
c>>.e-a3~(/)~Uoo5ia:: a;
~ ~ 8 g.t; ~ ~ ~ -: -: Q;: e D::
~ (ij ~ .s Q).OO ~"8 OJ Q) .s ~ s
~~~~~cil5~55SJ.f~
~ ~1""";I~I.
o 0 0.....,
00) T""""
. . .Ii
00 oor:-!:
g~l~
00.....
00 N
~~I!I
oftoftl~
a lO ....
Lri.q:~
I"-
~~Ij
~~Ii
~~I;
~~I~
~~I;
~~Ii
~ III
C'C
'" C
-;;; ::l
ala:
'CQ)
C:.<:;
::>-
,,-0
00
3l3l~
:::l :::l I-
'" I
Ql'" ..
u 0
O~ ~ c(
.."'....
....0
> -
....
o
CIl
~~~
U'CC:
Ql c: '"
'e- & ';ij
a..~>
'"
Ql
'C ..
Ql.a
,~~ ~
Ql Ql
II:: Q.
><
W
....
e
:g I
it.a'O'-
.. : oft:
..c"'....
~~..~
e 0
l!!
..
::l
()
iij "I
::l ... ..
_ 0 Ql
.:i~::
c"'''5
~"u..
...
o
in
o
>
u..
..
..
~
:s
-;:
a..
OOOOOOO~O
000000000
OO<OOOOOLO"'I""
000000000
V>
Mll)CO'l""""l.ONO~"'"
OT"""f'..LO'I"""""'l:tf'..O.....
NCO('l')f'..o)f'..COI.OG)
aMcO.q:cOLrir---:a~
'l""""fflNER-'I""""ER-ER- .....
V> V> V>
::1?::1? ~::1?::1?::1?::1? <(I ~
0000000_0
""":~~<!:!U1:<":!"It:ZU!
ON"'"""OCOLOO .....
1'-f'..I"'--COl.Ol"'--r--.. U)
....iij
o.a
- u
M<
MC
o~
co 0) co 0) 0 "'""" r--.. 01'"
1.00('l')r--..LON('I')OC:O
","""COLOOOLO('I')LOOIt)
r---:Ncx)No).q:LriaO
V> ..... &/)
.... .;g
~J
- ..
....
a e
<
('I')ll) CO"'"""i.O NO 01"'"
O'l""""I'-LO'I""""v/"'---O.....
NCOf'../"'---o)f'..CCOC:O
OMLri.q:cOLrir---:O~
T""" N 'I"""" .....
V>
I
~~
- ..
~ Oi:
.... 0
0..
<
o 0) v 0) ('I') 0 ('I') 01'"
<DNNOLOCOCOO_
T"""LOf'..O)COf'..VO'"
OM..oMcO..or---:OM
"'""" N 'I"""" .....
V>
::1?::1?::1?::1?::1?::1?::1?<I~
~~~~~~~z~
T"""i.ONM"'"""VLO G)
1'-f'..l'-l'-cocor--.. U)
...iij
o.a
- u
M<
MC
o~
M co M co LO co LO Ol&/)
/"'---OMMcov"d'ON
"'ltVT"""Nl.O('I')OON
~N~NCX)("j..oO;
:;;;
~iii
_ ::l
=u
u..<
M 'I"""" LO LO <D 0 v 01"-
...,.r--N<D i.OCO"d' 0 co
O'l""""('I')OmT"""tOOM
o)MN("jMLOc.riOM
ER- N 'I"""" U)
III
Cl
C
.:;:
'"
CJ)
~
.a
~ ~ en
QlE2ic:
ffj.3g-~:8
E"3"Q)r-- l!
"'I c: ~() 5i ~ [
l!!2 ~~g!o/lC"-o
:E ~ ~ <5 ~ ~ f~ S
'C1Il_CJ)~c:II::::>",c
c .E .~ u u - E CL -
4) .- (.) .- .- m (/) .o.c
)(-5~:g:g~~8E~
w<....,a..a..J:a..o<
~I
O!O
00 a
O<DlO
00 e-
<D~1X)
<DNlO
~ N M
~ ~ r---:
'" ~ l"-
V> .....
~~I~
ON ~
..or---: N
1"-00 I"-
..- "'I N
1"-0 I"-
MM N
cO c:i 0)
<D.....N
<D .....100
<DNlO
.....00 00
or-= or-= r---:
"'..... I"-
<D .....1 M
<D N 0
~ 00 ..-
or-= or-= r.D
"'..... I"-
~~I~
om ~
lri 0) .q:
I"- '" I"-
<D 001 '"
M 00 ..-
I"- I"- ....
00) .q:
<D .....
..... <DI.....
00 '" <D
'" I"- .....
00) .q:
00 lO
fj)
'C
c:
.a
~
iJj
Q)
~
Ql
III
c: ~
:~ ~
>.<:;
D(/)
o~
o c:
'<:;Ql
" >
CJ) ~
o~_
::o..~
Ql Ql 0
~~ g
~ocn
I-Z
~l
_01
<'
N
C?
01 ';
a c:>
a."
o CO
!
ill
~I~
~I~
~Ii
~I~
~I~
;I~
~I~
~
.~
Ql
CJ)
15
Ql
C
"0
c:
'"
"0
C
::>
u..
19
'0.
'"
o
oS
~
.g?
~]j
~ 0
1-1-
::::
lO
'"
"'!
E
-
....
M
N
...
-
.....
N
...
cO
...
<II
C
o
i
'~
o
~
<
l!!
.a
'6
c
~
><
w
'"
III
.$
'"
Ql
::l
C
Ql
~
II::
'C
Ql
'"
'S:
Ql
~
....
o
o
N
N'
o
i;'
:E
Ql
:g
!!
iij
~
Ql
U
C
..
iii
lD
'C
C
::l
u..
...
o
~
'"
'C
C
::l
u..
Ql
:g
!!
0;
~
..
..
~
'C
C
W
'C
.!l
lo~
e
c.!!:.
2
~
"
J'l
~
0:>
<0
o
.,
.Q
1:>
*
:J
'6'
(1J
....
o
o
'"
.0
o
.r;;; ....
~ 0
~ (1J 0
" :; '"
- ~o M
en ~ e
e g co
8 ~ :;
)- .;; '0
LL '" '"
~ -g~~
._ ~:) c
'0 ~ ffi ~
';It. ~ iD .C
~~~~K
HU(9$~
e ~ $ .~ II
~~.[~~
o 8 e " 2
~i?52:~~
~o<l[~
;:: ~ 8 ~ ~
<<; N Q) U
<D - 0 Q)
>- ;- c CI)
>.mS:
~ ~ ~ ~
;:-NM~
-----
III
C
OJ
E
..c:
o
l\l
~
t--
o
o
N
-
~M
OJ:
Q.U
C\) a..
l:t: C'G
C:E
0"C
tn C\)
C\) 'i: "C
:; C'G C
E Q.W
C\)EtnCi)
,ao;c::
- 0 C oQ
<(_0
_C\):EE
o C) c::
~ "C C\) .-
....- ~ C ER-
C a::l .- .......
~ Z
o "C C\)
OCJ:
~-
LL a..
- 0
f!LL
C\) C\)
C-
C\) C'G
C)q
o
-
I
a..
C'G
C\)
>
Gl'2'
-9.
.c"
-9,.,,,
-9.
.c"
<,.
"
-9.
OL
en
Q)
~
C
CI)
>
CI)
a::
00000
a 0 ci c:i 0
~ co <.0 ~ N
SUO!II!W U! $
L~
~
c
l1l
lij
co
'C
c
::>
U.
L.
"
-90
""
,,~
,,~
,,~
Q;
.r;;;:
o fIJ
<111::l
~ c
J!1 ::>
flJu.
c:
~
I-
L.
"
Os
Os
O.
-9
"..
T!i ~
~ ~
~ 5)
0:::
Q)
::>
c:
Q)
>
Q)
0:::
Q)
19
en
"s
"..
"..
~ Q)
o ::>
...J c:
:u ~
.r;;;: Q)
oil::
.c.
-9
.<.
"
~
o fIJ
...J Q)
Qj ~
.r;;;:1-
o
.<.
"
.<
-9
"S
"S
Os
X
l1l
I-
'"
lij
Q)
:2
.<.
<'
<,.
<'
<,.
<'
-9.
<'
X
l1l
I-
~
:5
fIJ fIJ
<II Q)
Q) <II
.~ ffi
::J .Q
CO...J
x
l1l
I-
fIJ
Ql
lij
en
x
_ l1l
l1l1-
5~
~ ~
c.. e
c..
X
l1l
I-
.l!l
.l!l
fIJ
LJ.J
lij
Q)
0:::
OJ
iii
E
:;::>
en
W
'C
OJ
en
'S;
OJ
c:::
t--
o
-.
co
o
.
en
c
o
:;::>
l\l
'':
Q.
o
"-
a.
Q.
<(
"t:l
OJ
en
'S;
OJ
c:::
t--
o
-.
co
o
.
"t:l
OJ
iii
'':
Q.
e
Q.
0.
<(
>-
"S
-,
o
ro
:J
t5
<(
co
o
i:O
o
.
N
0>
~
a;
a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a
N 0 ~ w ~ N 0 00 w ~
m m co co 00 co 00 ~ ~ ~
SUO!II!LU U! $
en
Q)
~
~
:t:::
"C
C
Q)
Q,
><
W
6',p2'
<~C'
000 a 0 0
o ~ 0 ~ 0 ~
M N N ~
SUO!II!W U! $
c
o
'in
'S;
is
(5
o
.r;;;:
o
.en
.s
J!1
fIJ
c
l1l
t=
g ~
.r;;;: Q)
~~
c: ~
~I-
lij
c
, Ql
c: E
Ot
Z l1l
a.
Q)
1::l
en
c
.2
iii
'':
Q.
e
Q.
Q.
<(
"U
Q)
en
os;
Q)
c:::
t--
o
-.
CO
o
.
'C
Q)
iii
'':
0.
o
"-
Q.
Q.
<(
Z-c
.- Q)
c: E
::l a.
E 0
EO:;
o >
o Ql
Cl
o/l
~ ~
1l::.3
en '"5
~()
l1l
c..
c
Q)
ffi 8-
E 0
~~
Q)
Cl
.-
~
:J
-,
o
ro
:J
t5
<(
CO
o
-.
LO
o
.
fIJ
-'"
5
5:
.~
:c
::>
a..
z-
J!1
l1l
en
.~
:c
::>
c..
lij
'0
'i5
::>
....,
c:
o
~
fIJ
'c
E
1::l
<
()
.......
c
Q)
E
.c:::
<..>
~
I co ~ ~ Q) U') 0 ~I~ ..... ~I I 0 Q) CO !I ~I a
C"") 0 co C"") U') U') 0 Q C"") co
U') co N N C"") 0 Q ~ ~ t--
0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 co 0
N ~
~
.....
0
0
N
1:: or-
0 C")
Q."c
CI) U
ex:: ...
CI) C'G lil
u:::lE
c lJ)
"C Q) >
~ CI) <..>
CI) e 0::::
C'G "C >- <(
"i: to c Q. 0:::: Z
C'G .......
W Q) lJ) <(
E "C C> Q) lJ) z :2
CI) c U) en -c ,~ ....... ::J
,g ~ "c c ::J ~ () ell :2 UJ
IL. - .Q .0 lJ) Q) ~ ..... ::J 0::::
<( C ..... .~ Q
>- 0 .- c Q) .5: ell Q UJ 0-
-c c.. ~ III N 0::::
- -:::lEE -c ..... ~ ell
o ~ c Q) 0 -c 0 0- 0-
Q) lJ) 0:: ....
> III Q) Q) C> -c l;: .....
1:: (1)'- e c ....... M
~ C ~ t5 lJ) Q) .5: Q) .c::: ~ 0- () Q
ro ..... i5.. Q) .c::: Q
C C'G .- Q. Q) S -c I/) 0 0
~~z Q. 'e' .c::: E c <..> ca u: () () ....... N
~ e ...
~ lJ) ::J () ca lJ) N
oOCl) Q. ::J -c 0 Ll.. 0 C>
() c.. C) .c ::2 .......
O"C"c III -c c.. c c lJ) Q) I: I/) lJ) c >.
Q) Q) ::J ca 0 Q) 'S; ca
c- > C> '+- ::J ~ () :c C> ::2
:+:; ....... c c ell (J - ::J ro
~ ... Q) ..... co c
ro '5 Q) ro - ~ - c lJ)
0 i5.. 0 c lIS ... I: -c ell
IL. :+:; c > ::J ..... C (j ! Q) ~
IL. Q) '2 E ro 0 >- t ::J I: Q) ell > c :a
....... 0 ....... ~ Ll.. 0 III 0 () ~ Q) ::J ::J .!!
l! CI) ro ....... lJ) .5: c ca C" ..... ~ -
0 <..> ....... ..... ro c.. I- or
- c C ::J ro c.. >. ro CD ell lJ) -c lJ) 'n;
CI) C'G ...J 0 Q) ::J 0 () c 0 c I/) :a ro :a III lJ) c Q) ~
c C E 0 c .c Q) Q) .....
<C ....... co co CO :e ro .!! m .!! () c.. ::J
CI) I ~ C 0 0 0 ....... c.. 0 ~ x x ~
C) 0 ..... -c c E :;:: 'n; ~ 'n; tJ) -c I/)
>- > >- Q) Q) Q)
- u. Q) Ll.. -c ca > 0 ~ c 'tJ
I > Ll.. Ll.. ro E 0 .;: u: 'C - - Q) I:
... 0 '+- '+- '+- '+- Q. () <C ell 0 0 c.. I/) ~
C'G ell C> 0 0 0 0 0 Q. ell .c::: > iJj ..... ..... x - LL
Q) 0 ell I:
CI) () ro c c lJ) c Qi ..... ... () lJ) CJ 0 ....... ~ ~ Q) ell
> I: 0 .Q Q) 0 c.. I: ro c ... I: lJ) lJ) ..... 'tJ
> Ll.. Q. Q) E
lIS () ~ lJ) :+:; Q) Q. .!! () ca Q) c c > ell
ftj 0 ro ::J ....... Q. E ro ro ;!:: -
ro 0 c <C ftj 0 lIS
....J .;:: .;:: -c .;:: lIS -c <C ~ ~ ~ E ,~
m c.. c.. c.. .S:2 0 ..... m Q) m <(
-c Q) ..... III E -c -c E
'tJ Q) e e (jj e E 0- 0 'tJ 'tJ I: Q) Q) (j) :a
CD >.>- ::J E () 0
I: c.. c.. Q) c.. 0 I: 0- C 0 lJ) lJ) 0
~ C> c.. c.. ::J c.. C Q) U. ~ Q) ~ :;:: 0 0 0 co (.) C
LL -c ro ro 0- ro 0 c 'tJ LL 0:::: LL lIS () c.. c.. 0 'tJ :)
::J Q) Q) Q) Q) <..> 0 ell ';: 0 0 >-
CD ....... CD E CD -c ..... ..... ell CD
Q <( m 0:::: a:: a:: 0:::: UJ (j) > Q Q Q. Q) 0- 0- Ll.. III Q
Q e Q ::J Q 0 lJ) 0 Q
N E ... 0 Q.
t-- Q. N N c.. N
0 e
0 >- Q. 0 .5: 0 Q. 0 0
<C <C .....
M Ll.. M :2 CO? 0- D. M
ell lJ) ftj ell lJ) CD ftj lJ) lIS ell
I: III - I: lJ) I: - lJ) - I:
~ Q) 0 ~ Q) ~ 0 Q) 0 ~
""') ....J I- ""') ....J ""') I- ....J I- ""')
w
C
o
~
ns
(J
o
-
-
<C
ns
:J
...
(J
<C
f/)
>
"C
Q)
...
ns
E
~
f/)
w
a..
>
en
en
~
...
C
:J
o
o
Q)
'i:
ns
E
Q)
.c
-
<C
c
0
~ "0
C Q.)
0 u iii
~ .Q ro E
u <c :J ~'2
.Q "0 Uc
<c Q.) $..2 !:!:!-.2
-
ro 11l roCO ...-
.~ 11l 11l
:J Q.) U Q.) u
1:5 iij c.Q c.Q
<( w :.:J<c :.:J<c
I T I I
. I
I
(()
tf)-
(()
tf)-
It)
tf)-
It)
tf)-
(SUO!ll!1I\I UI)
suo!Je:>oll't
oo:t
tf)-
oo:t
tf)-
<0&
Va
~
&
V~
Va
~
"Q
VA
Va
~
A
V~
Oa
~
Cl
Oe ...
Oa lIS
~ ell
>
~o. -;
L ()
Oa III
~ u:
I-
.t' 0
Oa c
Va >
~
00.
6l
~e
L
6l
~&
<5'e
L
<ge,
<6l
~.t'
<e&
15'e
L
(")
tf)-
Page 2 of2
improvements where they can.
David Slutzky asked that VDoT identify some examples of what you are doing and then send an email to other
board members so they can see, just in case the issue comes up in another place.
Lindsay Dorrier - Asked that VDoT look at Route 713 located between 712 and 795, an unpaved section of road
3 - 5 miles long. There is a lot of pressure on that road. 795 is increasing in traffic. A school bus driver thought
something should be done about the dust. Mr. Dorrier also would like to have a traffic count because it is being
used more and more.
Ken Boyd - Gilbert's Station Road is paved and unpaved, VDoT is working on RRR, will that complete the paving
of that road? Darrin Simpson thinks there is one section that does not qualify. Ken Boyd asked for an e-mail of
what the limits are that VDoT will pave. Darrin believes developers or homeowners pitched in as well.
Ken is curious as to what is still left unpaved.
Sally thanked VDoT for 820 Buckingham Circle, The neighbors are delighted with what VDoT did.
Darin explained the mobile pothole patcher, and hopes it will enable VDoT to be cost effective, and accomplish
more work.
Ken Boyd asked if Rocky Hollow Road is near completion. Darin is not sure which stage they are in.
David Wyant thanked VDoT for the great job on working with homeowners to resolve issue with the Bargamin
property.
Dennis Rooker noticed a graph of secondary allocations, est. vs. actual. It was in handouts today, and it had
been e-mailed.
Juan Wade said he had given it to Dennis, not VDoT. He does not think the graph matches up.
Juan contacted Joel and Allan of VDoT, and will be meeting with them next week. Not exactly the same. They are
looking at the discrepancy.
Dennis is trying to get an accurate list of what our secondary roads allocations have been over the last ten
years.
Dennis also said that on Roslyn Ridge Road where the church is being built, the road is breaking off. He feels it
might be wise to call and have them at least patch area the area temporarily. Darin advised that VDoT will check
into that, and thinks they can have them do that through their permitting process.
Meagan R. Hoy
Senior Deputy Clerk
County of Albemarle
434-296-5843
mhoy@albemarle,org
5/29/2007
Page 1 of2
Ella Carey
From: Meagan Hoy
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 2:41 PM
To: Ella Carey
Subject: FW: Actions- May 2007
Hey Ella,
VDoT needed the actions from the May 2 BOS meeting, so between your notes and listening to the recording, this
is what I came up with!
See you Tuesday,
Meagan
From: Meagan Hoy
Sent: Friday, May 25,200711:17 AM
To: 'Kennedy, Sue M.'
Cc: Sumpter, Allan D; Lettie Neher
Subject: Actions- May 2007
Hi Allan, I will send the action letter in full once Ella has time to review it, but this is the VDoT portion that you will
need.
Best,
Meagan
Darin Simpson - Assistant Residency Administrator for the Charlottesville Residency - Allan is attending a
leadership conference in VA Beach,
With the Winter behind us, VDoT is starting more projects in the area.
David Slutzky - new sidewalks on Rio are nice, but after heavy rain, one of the wheelchair ramps had a significant
water puddle, it was not built correctly, and he is worried about ice in the winter time,
Daren Simpson - if the contractor has not been released, there is still a possibility it could be corrected. VDoT
will check into it.
David Slutzky - Along Old Brook Road, the area is always full of mulch and debris. He would like for it to be
cleaned out.
Darin - It is in the State system, and VDoT will check into it. Rio/hydraulic changes to signal are completed, Mr,
Slutzky is grateful.
Dennis Rooker - On Roslyn Ridge Road, trees had gone down and destroyed guardrails on two sides. It
appeared VDoT was repairing one that had not been damaged, and he would like for that to be checked on. He
also noticed they were removing trees presently in the culverts.
Advance Mills Bridge- a good number of people came to the MPO meeting to discuss before the recent closing,
David Wyant - Advance Mills Bridge- is it permanently closed? VDoT found additional cracks and it will take a
while for VDoT to determine. Mr. Wyant asked if it was on an accelerated schedule with the district, because he
feels it should be. VDoT will find out. The informational meeting will be May 8th at 7 p.m. at Broadus Wood
Elementary.
The Board would like preliminary estimate of the cost of the bridge.
Sally Thomas - Appreciated Allan Sumpter, who listened to her concerns about 29 South. They had a meeting
and Ches Goodall is going to walk the median strip and work with VDoT on dead trees, etc. The other item
people from White Mountain Road - People were not happy with the condition of road, and VDoT took care of it
as a maintenance spot improvement. She has asked Allan to find another road that has same kind of treatment
VDoT was planning on giving White Mountain Road, because it would be a rough surface, and seeing an example
will be of some help to the people who were fearful of this. VDoT will find model that people can look at, then
there will be a community meeting to discuss it. David Wyant has spent a lot of time on that road, and the road is
pretty narrow and rough for school bus.
Sally said that unsafe for some people is rural rustic for others. Darrin said VDoT will continue to do spot
5/29/2007
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Development Review Task Force Report
AGENDA DATE:
May 2,2007
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Discussion on Reviewing the Recommendations of
the Development Review Task Force
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
STAFF CONTACnS):
Messrs, Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Ms. Catlin
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors appointed the Development Process Review Task Force in March, 2006, with the following
charge: Using the existing staff work on process improvements as a starting point, the task force will review and
assess the current legislative review process for improvements in efficiency, effectiveness, quality and adequate
public participation.
The Task Force was appointed with the following membership:
Bruce Dotson
Ann Mallek
David Bowerman
Michael Hancox
Valerie Long
Michael Barnes
Marcia Joseph
Eric Strucko
Kenneth C. Boyd
David C, Wyant
Robert W. Tucker
Robert Spekman, PhD
The Board established the following Scope of Review to guide the Task Force's activities: To focus on improving the
legislative review process, but not to alter policy regarding the scope of legislative reviews, with consideration of
the following issues:
. Public input process
· Timeliness of review
· Quality of review
· Quality of approved plans
· Complexity of review
· Thoroughness of review
· Ease of the review process
· Efficiency of the review process
· Review processes in Rural Areas vs, Development Areas
· Resources necessary to implement any proposed changes
· Consideration of changes to current development fees
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4 - Effectively Manage the County's Growth and Development.
AGENDA TITLE:
Development Review Task Force Report
May 2,2007
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
The Task Force began meeting in late April, 2006 and accomplished the following major tasks:
· Reviewed and evaluated staffs initial set of recommendations
· Identified new possibilities for process and public participation improvements
· Evaluated current process for plan review
· Solicited community input via a survey of citizens, development community and staff
· Drafted list of potential recommendations
· Prioritized recommendations based on those that would have the most positive impact and those that could be
implemented most quickly
· Developed preliminary action plans for priority recommendations
Task Force Recommendations:
Committee recommendations are presented in the following three categories:
1. New actions that were identified as higher priority
The complete list of higher priority new actions is contained in a matrix as part of the full task force report titled Attachment
A. The following are the five potential actions that the committee felt would have the most significant impact on improving
the process.
· Modified 2 Phase ZMA Process - 2 phase ZMA process will avoid need for detailed submissions until "big
picture" issues have been answered, reducing cost to applicants and lessening review time required while
producing higher quality projects with appropriate public participation.
· Improve ARB/PC/Board coordination, clarify role of ARB - Clarify the sequential review process to alleviate
confusion for staff, applicants, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors and clarify the extent of review
from the PC and ARB expected by the Board, prior to BOS review.
· Detailed process documentation focused on creating consistent review - Documentation on review process
for ZMAs, SPs, SDPs, and SUBs will be used by staff for performing reviews and made available to applicants and
the public to understand process,
· Establish staff authority for waivers and modifications - Expand those decisional areas where staff can
exercise authority without Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors review for projects located in the
development areas.
· Develop a Proffer Policy to include elements beyond a cash amount - Establish clear and consistent
expectations with regard to what proffer levels are acceptable and strive to avoid creating undefined mandates as
new regulations are adopted.
2. Actions already planned or underway
Some of the items discussed by the task force were already planned for or underway in some form as the group was
meeting, or have gotten underway since that time. The task force wanted to reaffirm the County's commitment to these
actions and in some cases they provided specific direction regarding individual action items. The complete list of actions
already planned or underway is contained in a matrix as part of the full task force report titled Attachment A.
3. Other priorities
In addition to the higher priority items, the task force identified a number of other actions that they felt would be significant
improvements to the development review process, While these actions did not receive the highest endorsement by the
task force, it was recommended that these items should be kept on record and addressed by staff as they are able. The
complete list of other ideas are contained in a matrix as part of the full task force report titled Attachment A.
The Task Force recommends that the Board of Supervisors gives approval to staff to move forward with implementing
those high priority recommendations that do not require significant additional staff time or resources, specifically those five
actions outlined above, The Task Force also recommends that staff implement any additional recommendations that can
be addressed as part of future initiatives already planned or underway as they are able, for example the upgrade of the
website, the Countyview web application and expansion of the AMail enews service, among others.
AGENDA TITLE:
Development Review Task Force Report
May 2,2007
Page 3
BUDGET IMPACT:
The primary budget impact of these recommendations would be felt in additional resources that would be required to move
the recommendations along more quickly than could be accommodated within the existing Community Development work
plan. Addressing the priority items above can be accommodated without a budget impact by making minor adjustments in
the current work plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff supports the recommendations of the Task Force and recommends moving forward with the higher priority items with
minor adjustments in the current Community Development Work Plan, The work plan and those adjustments are
scheduled for discussion at the June 6th Board of Supervisors meeting. Staff notes that the work plan will need to be
adjusted to allow bullet #5, Development of a Proffer Policy, to be accomplished within a reasonably quick timeframe. Also,
staff support would be required to draft ordinance changes required to accomplish bullet #4 regarding expanded staff
authority.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Development Review Task Force Report
Attachment A
Task Force Charge: Using the existing staff work on process improvements as a starting point, the task
force will review and assess the current legislative review process for improvements in efficiency,
effectiveness, quality and adequate public participation.
Task Force Membership:
A. Bruce Dotson
Ann Mallek
David Bowerman
Michael Hancox
Valerie Long
Michael Barnes
Marcia Joseph
Eric Strucko
Kenneth C. Boyd
David C. Wyant
Robert W. Tucker
Robert Spekman, PhD
Scope of Review: To focus on improving the legislative review process, but not to alter policy regarding the
scope of legislative reviews, with consideration of the following issues:
· Public input process
· Timeliness of review
· Quality of review
· Quality of approved plans
· Complexity of review
· Thoroughness of review
· Ease of the review process
· Efficiency of the review process
· Review processes in Rural Areas vs. Development Areas
· Resources necessary to implement any proposed changes
· Consideration of changes to current development fees
Major Tasks:
· Review and evaluate staff's initial set of recommendations
· Identify new possibilities for process and public participation improvements
· Solicit community input via a survey of citizens, development community and staff
· Evaluate current process for plan review
· Draft list of potential recommendations
· Prioritize recommendations based on those that would have the most positive impact and those that
could be implemented most quickly
· Develop preliminary action plans for priority recommendations
Recommendations:
Committee recommendations are presented in the following three categories:
1. New actions that were identified as higher priority
2. Actions already planned or underway
3. Other ideas
(1) New actions that were identified as higher priority
Priority
2 Phase ZMA Process
2 phase ZMA process will avoid need
for detailed submissions until "big
picture" issues have been answered,
reducing cost to applicants and review
time required and improving the
ultimate quality of the project while
maintaining appropriate public input
Improve ARB/PC/Board
coordination, clarify role of ARB
Clarify the sequential review process to
alleviate confusion for staff, applicants,
planning commission and board of
supervisors and clarify the extent of
review from the PC and ARB expected
by the Board, prior to BOS review.
Action Stepsrrimeline/Staff Resources Required
The first phase of the two step process would start by
defining the issues related to the proposal. These issues
would include, but not be limited to, the developers concept
for the parcel, the citizen input/concerns, the county staff
assessment of: the Comprehensive Plan's goal for the
parcel, how the project does or does not fit into the context
of the surrounding neighborhood, the infrastructure
deficiencies (either existing or caused by the proposal), etc.
Next, the process would focus on developing and ranking
design parameters that, if implemented correctly,
would address the goals and mitigate the concerns. The
first phase would conclude with the establishment of
"findings" by the Planning Commission that, if the project
implemented the design parameters, it would be generally
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the
surrounding neighborhood. A record of comments would
be available to the applicant and would serve as a basis for
the site design in Phase 2.
The PC's "findings" would not insure the ultimate approval
of the application and the project would not go to the Board
at this stage, but a copy of the findings would be sent to the
Board for their review and information."
Phase 2 - the second phase consists of a detailed review
to meet all requirements and policies of the County
A related staff recommendation is to conduct a
comprehensive evaluation of the 1 DO-plus item list to see if
some/all requirements should be included in an ordinance.
Community Development staff anticipates this effort can be
completed in 2007 and any ordinance changes would follow
this. In the short-term, development and implementation of this
process requires additional staff work, but this process is
intended to Quickly recover that investment.
· Review current applicable ARB ordinances with the
Board to clarify code guidance on the role of the ARB
· Explain the current practice as to ARB involvement in
Planning Commission processes
· Determine whether the Board wants to amend the
ordinance to reflect current practice or to use existing
ordinance guidelines for ARB involvement - the
committee recommends that the existing guidelines be
used to refine the ARB role to its original purpose
· Communicate guidance to the Planning Commission
and ARB members regarding the BOS guidance, and
provide training to clarify appropriate roles and functions
· Prepare staff to assist ARB members to stay within the
designated review and decision-making roles
· Provide the following sequence in flow chart form as a gu
for staff and applicant:
2
Comp Plan amendments review step 1- PC, Step 2 - BaS,
ZT As - review step -1 PC, step 2 - BOS
ZMAs - Assuming 2 part zoning review (part 1 focused on lar
use, part 2 focused
on design elements) review part 1 - PC, review part 2 if in an
entrance corridor- ARB, PC, BaS
SPs- PC, ARB, BaS
. Establish policy for extent of review - visibility and extent (
information required for ARB review, extent of informatior
required for PC and BaS review.
. Establish staff led training sessions for ARB, PC and BO~
clarify legal roles and help to establish policy.
Community Development staff, with assistance from the County
Attorney, can facilitate the review with the Board over the next
six months. Scheduling the remaining tasks will depend on the
outcome of that review.
Detailed process documentation
focused on creating consistent . Process flow diagrams and review process are in place
review for subdivisions (SUBs) and site plans (SOPs). These
can be placed on the web as part of the one-stop web
Documentation on review process for page update.
ZMAs, SPs, SOPs, and SUBs will be . Process maps and documentation for ZMAs and SPs
used by staff for performing reviews will be finalized after completion of the 2 phase process.
and available to applicants and the Anticipate 2nd half of 2007.
public to understand process. Also, . All process maps and other documentation will be
need to include the complete list of reviewed on a regular basis and changed when
(104) issues considered with processes are revised
applications and the process for proffer . This effort will result in standards, methods and
review. checklists that will insure consistency in expectations on
the part of applicants, citizens and staff.
This reflects an ongoing effort for Community Development
staff.
Establish staff authority for waivers . Adopt standards that allow staff to have clearly defined
and modifications in the discretion and authority on the following items that
development areas would have a significant impact on streamlining the
approval process:
. Private roads
. Critical slopes
. Buffers
This task would require ordinance changes which would require
some staff support as an upfront part of the process. The level
of staff effort would depend on what review process was
decided upon by the Board re: the ordinance chanqes.
Develop a Proffer Policy to include . Identify appropriate staff to develop the policy
elements beyond a cash amount . Review successful proffer policy models from other
jurisdictions
. Strive to avoid creating undefined mandates as new
regulations are adopted
. Determine proper process for adopting the policy if it is
determined to be a Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
move as quickly through that process as possible with
support of the PlanninQ Commission
3
Community Development staff anticipates that incorporating a
proffer policy into the Comprehensive Plan will take a year for
development and implementation.
One-stop webpage devoted to . Determine what elements are important to include on
staying informed about county new webpage and develop prioritized content list - use
development task force survey results and input from COD staff (staff
identified electronic staff reports and electronic copies
Creation of a new webpage on the of plans and other project material as priorities)
county web site that brings all . Assess existing website content to determine what
elements of the online county desired material already exists in some form or location
development information together in . Assess CountyView as to its usefulness in serving
one place desired functions
. Identify gaps in material
. Create links or new content to address gaps in highest
priority areas of interest to citizens
. Create an interactive page for neighborhood contact
information including up-to-date email addresses to
allow neighborhood representatives to post current
information
. Design one-stop web page with input from citizens
. Test new webpage with selected focus groups
. Publicize availability of new page
. Continue process with next level of priority areas
Due to evolving nature of internet technology, staff anticipates
that this will be an ongoing task, but estimates that the first level
of priority improvements could be made to the website within 6
months. This work will be incorporated into existing ongoing
improvement efforts.
This will involve staff from the Community Relations Office,
primarily the web content manager and the Community
Relations Manager, and various Community Development staff
in organizing existing information. Implementation can be
accomplished as a part of regular work tasks over the next 6
months.
Create a comprehensive guide to the . Review task force survey results and determine priority
development process for citizen use items that should be included in a comprehensive guide
. Review existing materials, printed and on the website, to
"How to Understand and Get Involved see what the county already has developed regarding
with County Development Processes" those items
. Work concurrently with the website effort to coordinate
preparation of any additional materials
. Create printed (and DVD versions on demand) of the
guide that is appropriate for mass dissemination and
that links up with the website
. Get feedback on the material from citizens prior to
releasing, and make any necessary improvements
. Publicize availability of new materials
Many of these actions are similar to the web site enhancement
priority and should occur on a parallel track. Staff would
estimate that an initial DVD could be released within 6 months,
and then would need to be updated on a reqular basis.
4
Expand the contact area around
projects to include more than
adjoining owners, include more
comprehensive info in the letter
Newly defined contact radius for
notification letters and a more
descriptive letter to be sent as the initial
notification- directives for exceeding
minimum legally required standards to
be outlined in the form of an
administrative policy
Create easily accessible space at
COB for project information
Public information/ visual displays on
critical projects
Examples of proffer and code of
development language for
applicants on Web
Model Code of Development and
Proffers available to applicants, which
reduce the need for changes and
resubmissions of documents. Also,
need to provide examples of good CDs
and proffers and standard conditions
used with certain SPs (e.g. Churches,
Home Occupations)
This will involve staff from the Community Relations Office,
primarily the web content manager and the Community
Relations Manager, and can be accomplished as a part of
regular work tasks within the six month period. It is anticipated
this DVD will need to be updated as new ordinance
requirements are added.
· Establish appropriate contact radius
· Review existing contact letter
· Determine appropriate new letter content including
contact info and county resources -include citizen input
· Revise letter, implement new contact radius
· Solicit feedback from notified residents after certain time
period to assess effectiveness
Staff estimates that this priority could be implemented within 6
weeks. Longer term, Community Development staff anticipates
this will increase the staff resources needed to be spent with
citizens in answering questions and facilitating input.
· Use terminal in new COD lobby to share project info
with the public
· For those projects that have significant public interest,
prepare visual display for citizens to view - determine
what project info will be displayed
· Identify best possible space for new display area
· Publicize availability of new display area
Staff estimates that this priority could be implemented within 6
weeks in the new Community Development space on the first
floor of the COB.
Implementation will involve staff from the Community Relations
Office to assist with publicizing the new display area; this can
be accomplished as a part of regular work tasks within the six
week period. Longer term, it is anticipated this will increase
Community Development's workload as information will need to
be regularly updated and staff will need to be available to
address questions and concerns raised bV the information. .
· Drafts of both documents have been prepared by staff
and are being internally reviewed.
· After internal review, will circulate to interested parties.
· Anticipate documents could be finalized and put on web
site by mid-2007.
· Staff will review uses to establish conditions and
eliminate special use permit categories where possible,
Le. mobile homes
Community Development staff notes that standardized
language is hard to develop due to evolving nature of proffers
and desire of applicants to negotiate certain items - examples
of these items can be made available as "models", but an
acknowledgment should be made that these are ever-evolving
documents based on the most recent approvals. As such, it is
anticipated that staff will need to dedicate onaoing time to this
5
task.
Approval letters explaining . Staff has already started and can easily expand current
remaining process through letters to provide more detailed descriptions of
occupancy remaining processes,
. Will implement into process upon approval by Board.
Approval letters will outline steps
necessary before buildings can be Community Development staff has already started this effort
occupied or uses are allowed. and it can be expanded without siqnificant workload increases
Outlines of staff reports with . Staff is working on possible steps to address this issue
outstanding issues (provide and bring major areas of concern to the attention of the
advance notice and interaction) applicant in a timely way that allows them to be
responded to, recognizing the obvious need to stop the
There should be no surprises for interaction with the applicant at some point and prepare
applicants in a staff report. Any issue a final report
should have been raised in advance of . Staff reports are finalized and made available to the
the staff report, with the opportunity to public and the applicant one week before the item is
resolve misunderstandings or before the Planning Commission, so there should not
mistakes. be any complete surprises
Community Development staff notes this will be difficult to
resolve without building additional time into the process
schedule. The current schedule has no downtime between the
resubmission deadline for materials and the deadline for
completion of a staff report. Thus, if new issues are raised as a
result of plan changes, there is no time in the schedule for staff
and the applicant to discuss these issues.
(2) Actions already planned or underway
Some of the items discussed by the task force were already planned for or underway in some form as the
group was meeting. The task force wanted to reaffirm the County's commitment to these actions and in
some cases they provided specific direction regarding individual action items as outlined on the following
chart.
6
Action Item Status Committee
Comment/Direction
Alternative Engineering Review Pilot program underway The committee has
recommended six month
updates over the two
year pilot period, with
the first update
scheduled for April,
2007
Counter Planner/ Person to Position created, staffed Committee supported
answer simple questions the staffing of this
position
Organize the Planning Has been implemented in Committee was
Department around the concept Crozet, additional area supportive of this
of "area planners" planners will be proposed initiative
for funding as the master
plan schedule proqresses
CountyView Web to serve as Public application of Ensure that the program
"project diary", electronic CountyView Web to be is user-friendly and
access to project maps, plans, launched soon, currently accessible to the
etc. being tested by selected average citizen
users
Support hiring of a Community Position approved by BOS, Incorporate appropriate
Engagement Specialist hiring planned for late April, communication
2007 responsibilities into the
job description
Create easily accessible display Display area has been Provide public
space at COB for project designated in new information/ visual
information Community Development displays on critical
office space projects
(3) Other Priorities
In addition to the higher priority items, the task force identified a number of other actions that they felt would
be significant improvements to the development review process, While these actions did not receive the
highest endorsement by the task force, it was recommended that these items should be kept on record and
addressed by staff as they are able.
There was agreement among task force members that the item related to increasing awareness of Amail
was a particularly important action and they strongly supported efforts by staff to continue focusing on using
Amail as a communication tool.
Actions
Change submission dates for rezonings and special permits
A schedule of submission dates is annually generated and can be easily modified
starting in 2008, Before next year's schedule is developed, staff will seek input from the
Planning Commission and community on factors they consider important for these
dates,
Engineer Exchange
While staff is ready and willing to implement a program which trains outside engineers
, as reviewers, those engineerin~ firms would need to be willin~ to fund the positions. It
7
is noted there is no assurance that a trained engineer would continue working for the
firm that subsidized the participation or that the engineer would continue to work in this
area.
Guides to correct terminology - "plug-ins"
Staff has already compiled and published a glossary of terms and a "Planning 101" on
the departmental web site. This will be revised and expanded as customers identify
addftionalsubjectmafte~
Early letter to applicants with timetables, etc.
Staff has started this effort and will expand the content as applicants indicate an interest
in additional materials.
Sample reports and examples of good applications on Web site
Staff is currently developing these materials and plans to publish this later this year.
Outsourcing I Private Contractors
This will be discussed with the Board as part of a broader fee study now under way.
Use of contractors will significantly increase the cost of reviews and the Board will need
to agree to either pass this cost through to applicants or increase Community
Development's funding.
Campaign to increase awareness of and use of AMail
The committee felt that Amail was a useful public information tool and recommended a
continued aggressive marketing campaign to get people to sign up for the service.
Better coordination with neighborhood associ homeowner groups
The committee believes that neighborhood based information is often very effective and
recommended that every effort be made to share appropriate information with
neiahborhood aroups.
Provide Citizen Planning Academies on a regular basis
Citizen Planning Academies that have been held in conjunction with master plan
activities have been helpful in communicating general growth management and land
use information to the public. The committee recommends that more academies be
conducted for the general public to share that information as much as possible.
8
~
""C
o
.,
t"""t"
t"""t"
o
t"""t"
:3:::T
OJ CD
-< OJ
I'J 0
____ OJ
I'J .,
00.
o 0
'-J~
(f)
C
""C
CD
:2
-.
Ul
o
.,
Ul
-10
OJ m
(f) <
^m
-no
0-0
Ci 3
m m
:J
r-t-
fi?
<
(5-
:E
.
-0 ro -- n rT -- C
c ~ 3 ~ ~ -5 ~.
c-ro-o'^,:J
==naro~OlC
nd:<:Jo<rT
-o<rorT,ro::J""
~~3ro@3CD
g: m CD lQ. ~ ~ ~
-- CJ) ~ ~ -- rT --
-0 --- CJ) OJ = CJ) CJ)
OJ ..c rT .... d:
-. -. . OJ
d:c:J<roCJ):J
OOJ ro< lC
:J == ~ , (5- OJ CJ)
· ~g;~ ~ ~6T
OJ -- --OJ OJ---t'\
:Jroro:J'~
o..~~o..g:~
OJ-<-oOJlCQ
--- ,
0.. O~-o^
ro nrooo
..c ro CJ) -- :J
C CJ) CJ) :J
OJ CJ) ___rT -0
rT rT,
ro Q'::J""rTo
, ro ::J"" n
ro ro
CJ)
CJ)
--I
OJ
CJ')
^
11
o
.,
n
CD
n
:::r
OJ
.,
lC
CD
. . . . . . .
"'0-0
m m ..,
n < 0-
~~~
3.g N'
ro '"0 ro
::J .., (ti
c..m n
OJ==o
d: 3 3
o --
::J ::J 3
(f) OJ m
~ ::J
OJ c..
n ~
r-t"' --
-- 0
o ::J
::J (f)
'"0
-
OJ
::J
(f)
~
..,
'"0
..,
--
o
..,
--
~
om
..., <
OJ OJ
,....IJc
==OJ
(f) r-t"'
r-t"' m
o n
---t\ c
'"0 ~
o m
r-t"' ::J
m r-t"'
~'"O
-- ..,
OJ 0
-n
(ti m
8 (f)
3 ~
3 ..,
m~
::J OJ
c..::J
OJ ..,
d: m
o <
::J --
(f) m
~
(J)I--I;:C
o c.. m
== m <
n ::J --
-- r-t"' m
~~~
::J m
CD <
~ ~
C
'"0 OJ
o r-t"'
(f) m
~_ (f)
c-r-t"'
-- OJ
~ I~
ffi - (f) ~
(f) ..,
m
~n
.., 0
3" ~
'"0 m
.., ::J
o c..
< OJ
m r-t"'
~ 0'
::J ::J
r-t"' (f)
(f)
::J
'"0
C
r-t"'
<
--
OJ
OJ
(f)
C
..,
<
m
-<
3:
OJ
l ..
o
...,
-I
OJ
CJ')
A
CJ')
.
... · \::)B1:3~1\J
a.;;u)>o"tJo~g)~~-c ::I:
ro ro a. ro ., ro ~,....,.. N f'\.. =r
< < 0 r-t" ro ---t'\ ;::::: - f'\.. :::::: ~ - ·
ro -. '"C ro OJ -. "J ~ -.1 :s: OJ lO
0- ro r-t" ., '"C::J ~ ::j rt) C) (J)
"tJ :E OJ ~. "'On= ~ ~. c:t ~ ~ is: (1) ::T
g~~ro~~~Cti~~N CD
:J :E :J ro O'!:!" ~ ~ ('[) 3: (f)
r-t" '"C ro X ::J:::n Of rn m)> r-T
n ., n OJ n ~ VJ t""\
o 0 ro n CJ') "'........... ..,...,
3 n CJ') r-t" r-t"" :::r- .......... ...,.., v
"" CJ') OJ ro ~ f'\ ~ ~'l ""
3 \101 OJ OJ lC..c ~- ~ ,,'" ~
c g- ~ :g ro E .;:1 ~ ~ g o.
~. (ti 0 ~ ~ (ti ~ ~ (1) m
~ <: a. @ rt 3 ()) 6J' tf) ::t
<:: _. d: ::r ro ~ "" -- (J) r-T
rt ::J 0 OJ ::J '"'-oJ ~ So:
::J'"~:J"tJvr c:t~al -<
J2 n '"C ~ 0 ~- ~ f\. ~ )>
OJ ro a 0 ---t'\ .;;::s ~ ~ I ~
::J n n '"C""C 15 Vi ~ 1:3 n
::J ::r ro ::t::r :s ~ ~;s-. r-T
::J OJ ~ OJ OJ C) m .;;::s ~ - ·
lO ~ OJ nr ~ ~. (tl ~. ~ 0
9 m ~ S' ~ ~ ...c:t ~. ..... ::J
3 '"COJ ~~ (f)
3 CD' ~ Ul ..(:) rn ~ ~
_, ro OJ ~ ~ ::Js::
~ CJ') ~~ ~~
-. q- ~'"'- ~ :::3 ~
o c ::::: - ~ I""t\.
::J n '"'-oJ :::::.: ><
OJ r-t" QJ~ -~
::J ~ ::j ~U)
a. ro t:t ~- Vi
. .
OJOJnOJ;o
"'C:Jo om
~ c.. 3 ~ =so
0)>3 c..m
"'C ;0 C ,.......:E
::!. OJ:J 0 n
OJ -. n C
Cbm3 @ Q)~
,....... , m
a3m =h:J
roC"OJ'<""""
Ul m 0 ,....... OJ
OJ Ul' r ^ ::J'" "'C
\,,/J m "'C
:J OJ lC , =:
c..:JC on
~ c.. -. - OJ
C c..mC"
:J "'C OJ 0 ro
~ a ~ ~)>
o. =so m :f;o
:Jc..""""mOJ
Ulmo )>
,.......,....... 0
, ::J'" ;0 ,
~. m OJ 9:
~.""O ~
:J Q) :J
lC:J n
,....... :J m
o -. Ul
:J
o..lC
~n
-. 0
~3
3
-.
Ul
Ul
-.
o
:J
:E
-.
,.......
::J'"
,.......
::J'"
m
.
S~~Q.3
lbmgro"O
~ :::s m 00 .,
~~~-t\
~~~)>cB
.... ~ Ci ;0 )>
1::J~~OJ;o
:;;:j · ?i5 · ?if I OJ
C) ~ s: ----.......
" ~ QJ' D \J
a-~~~n
~ ~ rt) ~ ..........
a ~ 8 ~. g'
V)S:::SSOJ
ftl lb ~ lb a..
~. :tJ ~. ~ n
rt) l) :::s ~ 0
~~~~O
t::l ;:j ~ a..
"" t:l ~ _.
...c.. r') QJ · ::J
~~"OJ
~ :j ftl C!:
~~s:o
~ ~.::J
~ S rt) ---
~Cb~ 0..
at OJ
t:t ::::!.
t:t- ~
~
I
--
lC
:::T
m
(.f)
,......
\J
.,
--
o
.,
--
,......
-<
)>
n
,......
--
o
::J
(.f)
.
· · · ~ ~ ~ &8 0
a.;:;o c-""C ~ ""C g ~. ~ n ::J ~
om m' mO rn~Yl~Ul OJ
n < 0 r-T" (J) Yi "'- t"".;;::s _. _.
c -. ::::n n Ul I"'T Vi ~ ~ m Ul -
3 m ::J m -. m Cb ~::s rT ro
CD:E ~ ~ fir~. 8' '<::: 6t (1) c..
::J OJ N 3 I"'T ;:s ~ ::J ~
I"'T::J m -. ~ ~ O' rT '-'
OJ a. a. OJ ::J ::.G ~::s OJ '
!:!: OJ -0 lC 15 "'- 0
o C -n(J) a. ~Cb 0-0 n
::JRfirOJ 0 @~:::)-oro
~ OJ ' a e ::::s ~ fti =: Ul
=fir n 3 Grc:t~ n Ul
o a. ""'- ?b' OJ c..
Sl~ 30m ~~-~ rT
\LI --0 n ::J ~,,~ -.0
'-0 mC or ~~1::l 0 n
~ a !:! 3 !:! slit (j ::J c
~. @ g ~ g (b ~ @ OJ 3
CD ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~~ c..::J ro
a. ....,.. -. ::J ~ 1 ... J ::J
o 3 g-g (J'l ~~ ~., r-t"
::J ~ m --n 0 C) ~ ""i ro ~
OJ (J) NO ""C 8'~~<-.
, (J) :::"l ~ -. 0
, OJ -0 N OJ ~ ~ ::t;: ro ::J
~ a ::T:s: ::J~ ::j~. ~ ::
C OJ)> a. " rT
-0 ~ (J) Vl ~ ~ I 0
~g-"OQJ C ~fti~ n
c- m ,::J OJ Qj ~" ,
OJ' 0 a. (J) :::) ?b' ~ ro
~. @ Vl 0 ~ ~ \j OJ
(J) (J) ""C::J V) :-G rT
(J) (J) ~ "v) ro
~ :::)
~
I
-.
lC
::J
ro
fJ)
,..-t-
\J
,
-.
o
,
-.
,..-t-
-<
)>
n
,..-t-
-.
o
::J
fJ)
.
... o;::;:n- 3D;1
OJ n iJ::J CD CD)> 0 rt
~ ~ <::!. ~ 3 0) ~ 9: ~
CD _ . """I (J') """I l LI """'t\-
..... @ ~ CD r"'t' "< ::J n" ==
Vl _ CD O)::J'" a. OJ Ul
!Q.. ..... 3 0) g- 0 rt::r
o 0 _ r"'t' -n"""l 0" Ul
"'0 OJ S" <: -. a. rt
CD a. <:::J -. ~ OJ
Vl Vl S' 0 CD::J Ul
lC C a. ~ -" I:
r"'t' a: 0) n ~ OJ
~ ::J'" ~ m c.. ~
0) ~ ::J'" r"'t' (D ::r
"tJCDQO <0
"tJ -. (D..,
..., 0) ~ ~ 0 -.
~ ~. 0 5" "C ~
~~::J:E 3 C3'
"tJ - · r"'t' (J') (D ..,
..., ~~@" ~ -<
00) -nrt<
n::J~-nOJOJ
m r"'t' = g .., -.
(J') -. 0 (D <
.. 3 :E ::J'" OJ ~
"'C -. OJ en en
", ~ <
(!:)lCCD OJ
t"""'t' ::J
c..
:c
lC.
::r
m
Vl
r-t-
-c
.,
-.
o
.,
~
1!;
r-t-
o.
:J
Vl
.
.
OOon"T'1
ro r-t" ro 0 ~
r-t" ::r < UI
~~ro3@
3 - 3 -.
en 0 -. <
-. e -0 ~ ro
~nOJro'
no..roro
OJ ro,..... n
enl...l.'O
-0 en -. ro
-0 -1'\ ct 1O 3
a ~g OJ 3
-0 3 OJ ' ro
, _ 0..
-. 0 -. ::J
OJ 0.. ro ::J 0..
nfrorolOOJ
OJ ur3 g-g:
0.. -. ro - ~
o m::J OJ-'
-0- r-t",r-'
ct n oen OJO 3
g ::r -1'\ 3
~ ffi-o O-n
~ r-t"' e -.
o ~~~~
n :::!') ro en ~
ffi ro, ........
en 0.. -0 3
Q. -0
-. OJ
n n
"< r-t"
e
en
-.
::J
1O
.
· m..o
ro ro
3 <
rom..
::J 0
...-t' 'U
(J) OJ
CT
ro-c
~a
::J I~
e.ro
...,
OJ-c
n 0
OJ=:
(J) n
::T-<
OJ...-t'
3 ~.
o ::J
c n
-
::J C
...-t'e.
ro
I
-.
lO
:::r-
ID
(f)
rT
\J
..,
-.
o
..,
-.
~
)>
n
rT
-.
o
:J
(f)
.
.
.
. rom . c..n. ro c
,..... ~ ro< 0 ~ ro""C
~ ~ ~ ~ 3 --."- 3 lC
Ct) \ 1.1 OJ ;::il ro ~ ,
-~ ' =:J ttf -""C ttf ro OJ
~ ___en "...,., 0 ,
::::: _ l...I.. ~ ""C ro ~ =:J c..
n) 5. n ~ 3 :J'" ~ ,...,. ro
(jj n o::::r- ro::::f o~ c..
~ :::::: - ro =:J :::::: - <
cu m-J ~ =:Jen ~ '<
~QJfiT~';:<t~ ~~
N: ~ ~ Yi- ~ ro ~- -. en
5- \1.1 ~ 0 ~ lC -.
'"' - · OJ ::::::: - n::::::: - ~,.....
"'-oJ =:J , ~ n rt ~ -J ro
~ ~ ro ~ ro r:::r ~ c:r_.
~ OOJ ~ ~ro ~ Q=:J
.. ... 5. ~ ~ =:J ~ ::::r 0..
~ O:;t :;toe
~ -, ~- lC ~- 0 c..
~ ro""C 1:3 e 1:3 c.. -.
m ~,~ -. ~ =:J
C) ro O::j c..::j n lC
S .. ro · '..:::.. ro '..:::.. 0 :::; ·
d n ,..... =:J-J
rn""" 0 fiT nr
(jj =:J ,..... n,
~ 0 ::::r,..... OJ
~,..... ro en n
r~ -. ,.....
~ ~ -.
n. ~
rn OJ \1.1
~ C!:
~ 0
=:J
o
,...-t-
::r
m
..,
I
--
1C
::r
\J
..,
--
o
..,
--
~
)>
n
,...-t-
--
o
::J
CJ')
.
.
.
)> c..m
en. 0 · ~ · (1) x
· (f) C 0""C "':::"\ < OJ
~ C !:!.~n~ ~ (1) 3
_l ro -. Gt ro 0 ~ _
Jg (f) ffi ~ (f) < ~,.g"2-
~, (f) ~ ~ ~ m 3 rn
m o:s' :::r - t\J (1) 0
t\J """'h !ll a ~ ~ :J """'h
Sl Ul ~ ,..-to -....; . ,..-to
g: ,..-to ~. c ro ~ -""C
r;: OJ ~ lC ~ Q OJo ...,
C)' I: I~ :::r VI ~ :J -n
~ 'l (1)......... lC -n
......... (ti ~ 0 x ~ C (1)
~ c:sn~QjOJ"
~' ""C ~ n ~ ~ lC OJ
lb Q..... ~ ~. ~ (1) :J
::::' r-t" ~ ...., :J ~ c..
~ Ul ~ OJ -. C:) 0
~ < -.;::. :J :J ~ :J n
~, 5. Q lC @ r-t" 8-
~ g. (ti ~ ~(1)
-g 0 3 <0
C) C OJ <:....,...
@ ,..-to -. ro
~ ~ ~. c:r
~ OJ ::J~.
::J lC,..-to
c.. ro
-.
:J
lC
o
r-T
::r
CD
..,
I
--
lC
::r
-c
..,
--
o
..,
--
~
)>
n
r-T
--
o
::J
CJ)
.
I"""T""'C
.., ro
OJ ..,
R-cr
-0'"
.., 3
o OJ
lC::J
.., n
ro ro
(f)
(f) 3
ro
OJ
(f)
C
..,
ro
(f)
(f)
::r
o
c
-
c..
0-
ro
c..
ro
<
ro
-
o
-0
ro
0..
I"""T
o
.
ro .., -. --I
xro3::r
en. n -0 ro
I"""TO-
S. 3 ro --I
lC330J
:Ero~~
O::J1"""T1l
.., c.. OJ 0
7'OJ::J'"
..,.-.c tt -< n
~ 0 ro
OJ ::J OJ OJ
::J(f)c..-
(f) I"""T c.. (f)
::rrtO
OJ -.
l"""To(ti
n::Jn
OJ ~ 0
::J ::r 3
0- lB. 3
ro ::r ro
OJ -0 ::J
c....,c..
c.. -. (f)
..,OI"""T
ro :::! · ::r
~~~
ro (f)
c.. I"""T
OJ
~. =R
I"""T
::r
-.
::J
.
-. (f) --I
3c::r
-o-oro
ro~--1
3 :5. ~
ro(f)-r-
::J 0 ,""
I"""T"'"""'I""I
-. (f) I I
::J 0
lC c.. ..,
-. n
l"""T"'ro
::rro
ro n ..,
I"""Tro
~(f)n
-. 0
<(f)3
rol"""T
OJ
~=R3
lC I"""T ro
::rO::J
ro3c..
(f) (f)
I"""TOI"""T
-o<::r
:::!.ro OJ
o I"""T
O~ I"""T
:::!. ::r
I"""T ..,
-<~ro
OJ OJ OJ
n"'o
ttc..OJ
o ~ ..,
::J _. c..
(f)l"""To
::r~
;c
CD
n
o
3
3
CD
:J
c..
OJ
r-t-
-.
o
:J
(.f)
. . .
.
CJln-cOJO
C'C',
-0 ro c- 01O
-0 OJ ==COJ
O ,.....,. n ~ ~
, ro 0.. --
,.....,. ~ OJ N
'-J -0 ,.....,. ro
n 0' -0 ::r,.....,.
o ~- == ro ::r
3ronnro
3f:l.~0-c
c 0..0 ~Qj"
~ Vi- ~ ro ~
-- -0 -0 ~
~ _ 0 ,.....,. __
OJ --t'\ 0 ~
m -< n --t'\ 1O
~ OJ 0 ::::0
OJ (rl 5 OJ (1)
1O OJ '-0
(1) OJ~mOJ
3 ,.....,. - - -0 ;:+
ro nro-3
~ O~ OJro
,.....,. ~ ~
-0 OJ ~ ~ ,.....,.
o ro ~
Ul c- Ul
rt ::::
--
o
~
..c
C
ro
Ul
,.....,.
--
o
~
Ul
. .
n:t>
o ;=t:
C ro
~ '
,.....,. ~
ro OJ
, ,.....,.
--
-c <
-ro
OJ
~ m
~ ~
rolO
~ ::r
-c ro
ro ~
, --
Ul ~
01O
~ ;:0
,.....,. ro
o <
OJ --
~ ro
Ul ~
~
ro
,
Ul
--
3
-0
-
ro
)>
n
,......
-.
o
:J
en
C
:J
0-
m
1
~
OJ
-<
. ..
O~(f)m
C (1) OJ OJ
,...,. c- 3 ::l.
en en""C -<
o ;=t:--
C (1) (1) (1)
(i ~ ~
-. (1) (1)
::s ""C ~
lO 0,...,.
:cJ ;:+0
::!. en OJ
< OJ""C
OJ ::s""C
,...,. -
(1) c.. n.
n OJ OJ
o ""C::S
::s ""C"""
,...,. =-=en
~ n
OJ OJ
n ,...,.
,...,. - .
o 0
~ ::s
en en
o
::s
,...,.
::r
(1)
.. .
G)rn~n
c::s(1)::r
-. lO N
c.. _. 0 OJ
(1) ::s ::s ::s
(J) (1) 5'~
,...,.(1)lO
o ~ en en
n m -.....--.... C
oxenc-
~n""C3
~ ::r ~ _.
(1) OJ _. en
Q. ::s OJ ~.
lllO -0
nr (1) C ::s
~ en c..
3 (1) OJ
- · ""C,...,.
::s (1) (1)
o ~ en
0- 3 o~
lO -.
-< vr~
o
,....,..
::r
m
.,
.......
0-
m
OJ
(.f)
. .
.
c- -c lC OJ 0
OJ ., n
en 0 ., ro ,..-t-
0 OJ
-. < ~ ::J
en - c 3
.
c.. ""C ro ro
""C
ro en ., ..,
OJ
n
n -.
0 lC 1--1
-.
t"'""t" 0 ::J c..
-.
N ., ro
c.. t"'""t"
ro -. 0 OJ
::J ::J
OJ -. (.f)
1: ::J
t"'""t" n
-.
0 .,
OJ ro
c.. ::J OJ
ro ~ en
3 ro
-.
t"'""t"
-. ::r c
ro
en ::J en
ro
0 ro
0
::J -.
lC ~
OJ ::r )>
c-
., 3
ro 0
lC ., OJ
::r -.
c 0 -
-
OJ 0
., c..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Proffers Report from the Fiscal Impact Advisory
Committee
AGENDA DATE:
May 2,2007
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approve Proffers Methodology and Dollar Amounts
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACTCS):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, S, Allshouse
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors has expressed a desire to establish a proffer policy that would allow developers to address the
impacts associated with new development and that would provide clear guidance to the development community about the
monetary value of proffers, per dwelling unit, by type of dwelling unit, that the County would consider reasonable. The
County's Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee was charged with deriving a methodology for estimating the gross proffer dollar
amounts that the County could expect per Single Family Detached (SFD) residence, Single Family
Attached/Townhouse/Condominium (SFAlTH) unit, Multifamily/Apartment (MF) dwelling, and Mobile Home (MH).
As part of its preliminary work, the Committee surveyed proffer models from several Virginia counties, including
Chesterfield, Greene, Hanover, Loudoun, Prince William, Spotsylvania, and Stafford, The Committee determined that
these localities expect proffers to cover development-related capital costs only, as opposed to development-related capital
and operating costs. The Committee learned, also, that the capital categories typically covered in the counties' proffer
models included transportation, schools, and parks/recreation/open space, and public safety. The Albemarle County
Attorney, and outside experts who met with the Committee, noted that a viable proffers model for Albemarle should include
estimates pertaining only to capital costs. The distinction between capital and operating expenditures is important since
the County's current Cost Revenue Impact Model (CRIM) includes estimates of operating costs along with estimates of
debt service on capital costs in calculating the net fiscal impact of development. This situation suggests that CRIM, in its
present form, would not be suitable as a proffers calculation model for Albemarle,
With this background information in mind, the Committee labored to establish a methodology that would estimate the
capital costs that the various types of dwelling units typically would generate in Albemarle County. Note that, of all the
proffers calculation models that the Committee reviewed, the Chesterfield County model appeared especially attractive as
a framework for the Committee's efforts, since the methodology behind Chesterfield's model appeared reasonable and this
jurisdiction's proffers regime has survived at least one legal challenge.
At the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee's February 22, 2007 meeting the Committee adopted a methodology to estimate
the proffer dollar amount per dwelling unit, by type of dwelling unit. This adopted methodology followed substantially from
the Chesterfield proffer calculation model.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal Five - Fund the County's Future Needs
DISCUSSION:
The attached memorandum outlines the methodology that the Committee adopted, and discusses in detail the proffer
amounts, per dwelling unit, by type of dwelling unit, that this methodology currently would render. The basic
methodological approach that the Committee adopted involves five steps: (1) the calculation of the County's total budgeted
AGENDA ITEM:
Proffers Report from the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee
May 2, 2007
Page 2
transportation capital costs; (2) the translation of these total transportation costs into costs per dwelling unit, by type of
dwelling unit; (3) the calculation of the County's total budgeted non-transportation capital costs; (4) the translation of these
total non-transportation costs into costs per dwelling unit, by type of dwelling unit; and (5) the estimation of the revenues,
per dwelling unit, by type of dwelling unit, that would help offset the capital costs that were estimated in (2) and (4), The
resulting net cost figures for each category of dwelling unit represent the cash, or dollar value of the in-kind contribution,
that the County would expect the developer to proffer per unit to address the impacts of the proposed development. These
dollar amounts are derived, in part, by assuming a debt service level of 10%. The dollar figures per dwelling unit are as
follows:
SFD -- $14,241;
SFA/TH -- $9,441;
MF -- $11,435; and
MH -- $17,717,
Please note that these numbers could be included in a proffer policy but, by themselves, these numbers do not represent a
proffer policy, A cash proffer policy establishes the guidelines for determining the maximum reasonable per-unit cash
proffer that would address the impacts resulting from a particular rezoning. The policy must be grounded in, and consistent
with, the Comprehensive Plan; is typically adopted as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and must be compliant
with the state enabling authority, The policy sets forth the assumptions and methodology for computing the cash proffer
contributions, and declares the types of rezonings that would be subject to the policy, Proffers typically are applicable only
to residential uses, but could be applied to commercial and industrial uses as well. The policy delineates the impacts that
would be addressed by the cash proffer (e.g., capital improvements such as roads, schools, libraries, parks and fire
stations, but not operational costs, since the theory is that taxes and fees will pay for such costs), The policy, additionally,
provides guidelines about (1) circumstances that would reduce or exempt the per-unit cash proffer (e,g., affordable housing
units, development of exceptional design, or units allowed by-right under the pre-existing zoning); (2) off-setting
contributions by the owner (e.g., the dedication of land or constructing in-kind improvements); (3) how the value of the off-
sets are determined; and (4) unique circumstances that mitigate the project's impact on public facilities (e.g" age-restricted
housing projects that would have little or no impact on schools).
Other issues that should be addressed by the policy include the procedure for evaluating proffers (e,g., the role of staff and
the Planning Commission), how often the policy is updated with a new fiscal analysis, and how the policy or future
amendments will be applied to pending applications. In addition, the policy will need to address cash proffers for affordable
housing that occur when a developer volunteers to proffer cash in lieu of providing affordable units that are consistent with
the affordable housing policy in the Comprehensive Plan, Addressing additional impacts with cash proffers may become
legally more defensible if the County adopts new proffer authority available to it effective July 1 st.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The adoption of the attached proffers methodology and numbers, along with the adoption of a formal proffer policy, would
generate substantial amounts of new revenue that would help the County mitigate the fiscal impacts of new development.
The total amount of revenue that the County could expect, in any given year, from the proffers numbers listed above would
depend upon several factors, including the volume of new construction in the County in that year, and the way in which the
County's formal proffer policy would apply the per-unit dollar figures to specific residential developments.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proffers methodology and the resulting proffer values that are
contained in the attached memorandum and direct staff to begin the process of developing a complete proffer policy,
ATTACHMENTS
A - Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Proffer Memorandum
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee
FROM:
Steven A. Allshouse, Fiscal Impact Analyst
DATE:
April 12,2007
RE:
PROFFERS CALCULATIONS FOR VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF
DWELLING UNITS IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY.
Background
At its February 22, 2007 meeting the County's Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee approved a
methodology for estimating the dollar value of proffers that the County could expect for new Single
Family Detached residences (SFD's), Single Family Attached/Townhouse/Condominium (SF NTH)
dwelling units, Multifamily/Apartment (MF) units, and Mobile Homes (MH' s). This memorandum
outlines the methodology that the Committee approved, and lists the dollar values, per dwelling unit,
that this approved methodology currently would render, based on Albemarle's FY 2006/07 adopted
budget. Please note that the dollar figures contained in this memorandum are subject to annual
revision, and that these items represent numbers that the Board of Supervisors could include in a
proffer policy but, by themselves, these dollar figures do not constitute a proffer policy.
As part of its preliminary work, the Committee surveyed proffer models from several Virginia
counties, including Chesterfield, Greene, Hanover, Loudoun, Prince William, Spotsylvania, and
Stafford. The Committee determined that these localities expect proffers to cover development-
related capital costs only, as opposed to development-related capital and operating costs. The
Committee learned, also, that the capital categories typically covered in the counties' proffer models
included transportation, schools, and parks/recreation/open space, and public safety. The Albemarle
County Attorney, and outside experts who met with the Committee, noted that a viable proffers
model for Albemarle should include estimates pertaining only to capital costs. The distinction
between capital and operating expenditures is important since the County's current Cost Revenue
Impact Model (CRIM) includes estimates of operating costs along with estimates of debt service on
capital costs in calculating the net fiscal impact of development. This situation suggests that CRIM,
in its present form, would not be suitable as a proffers calculation model for Albemarle.
Proffers Calculations
April 12, 2007
Page Two
With this background information in mind, the Committee labored to establish a methodology that
would estimate the capital costs that various types of dwelling units typically would generate in
Albemarle County. Note that, of all the proffers calculation models that the Committee reviewed,
the Chesterfield County model appeared especially attractive as a framework for the Committee's
efforts, since the methodology behind Chesterfield's model appeared reasonable and, apparently, this
jurisdiction's proffers regime has survived at least one legal challenge. The following section,
therefore, outlines a methodology that the Committee derived in substantial part from the
Chesterfield proffers calculation model.
Methodology
The essential task facing the Committee involved the estimation of capital costs and offsetting
revenues. The Committee divided the County's capital costs into the categories of transportation
expenditures and non-transportation expenditures. This bifurcation of costs reflected a commonly-
held sentiment among Committee members that, in the years to come, development-generated
transportation infrastructure expenditures would represent, relative to all other categories of
infrastructure costs, a particularly large portion of the County's capital outlays, especially if the
Commonwealth of Virginia does not provide adequate funding for transportation projects in
Albemarle. The Committee was advised, however, that, for the purposes of proffers calculations, the
County's transportation cost estimates, along with the cost estimates for all other capital categories,
should reflect only items for which Albemarle actually has budgeted dollar amounts. This advice, in
practice, meant that the proffers calculations contained in this memorandum take into account only
items found in the County's currently-adopted Capital Improvements Program/Capital Needs
Assessment (CIP/CNA), Strategic Plan, and Master Plan policy. After determining capital costs, the
Committee then estimated the revenues that help offset these capital costs. The difference between
the County's capital costs and offsetting revenues rendered net cost figures. These net cost figures
equal the dollar value that Albemarle should expect in proffers per dwelling unit.
Transportation Capital Costs
In order to calculate the County's development-related transportation capital costs, the Committee
needed to determine the total dollar value of currently-budgeted projects and then translate these
total transportation expenditures into dollar amounts per dwelling unit, by type of dwelling unit.
This section recounts the steps that the Committee took to derive unit costs from total costs.
Table I, on the following page, reveals the budgeted expenditures for Albemarle's various
transportation projects through FY 2015/16. Note that many of the items included in the County's
Master Plan policy and CIP/CNA are slated for construction several years into the future and,
consequently, the construction costs that are found in Albemarle's Master Plan policy and CIP/CNA
typically are stated in inflated dollars.l The total inflated cost of the County's budgeted
transportation projects comes to roughly $95,844,000. In FY 2006/07 dollars, however, Albemarle's
budgeted transportation costs come to approximately $82,408,000.2 The Committee made the
Table I
Estimated Net County Cost of Albemarle Transportation Projects that are
Included in the County's CIP/CNA, Strategic Plan, and
Master Plan Policy, through FY 2015/16
Estimated Estimated
Net County Cost Net County Cost
Proiect Name (in Inflated $) (in Deflated $)
Eastern Connector (1st Phase) 9,000,000 9,000,000
Georgetown Road 2,750,000 2,750,000
Hillsdale Road Connector 79,000 65,833
Jarmans Gap Road 696,968 696,968
Meadow Creek Parkway (1 st Phase) 3,290,429 3,133,742
Revenue Sharing Road Program 10,000,000 10,000,000
Southern Parkway (1st Phase) 6,200,000 6,200,000
Crozet Master Plan 8,990,000 7,991,190
Neighborhood 6 & 7 Master Plan 10,286,100 7,590,000
Pantops Master Plan 11,295,900 9,108,000
Places 29 Master Plan 13,840,200 10,824,000
Rivanna Master Plan 9,221,850 7,260,000
So. Urban Area Master Plan 10,193,700 7,788,000
Total Costs $95,844,147 $82,407,733
Note: The numbers presented here are subject to annual revision. Inflated dollars are calcu-
lated assuming a non-compounded rate of growth of 5% per annum, Deflated dollars rep-
resent costs in 2006 dollars, Some projects, e,g., Southern Parkway have cost estimates
in 2006 dollars but have no firm start/finish dates, so the "inflated" and "deflated" costs, for
the purposes of this table, are the same.
Source: Appendix Table A-1
assumption that this $82,408,000 in capital improvements would accommodate ten years' worth of
new development, both residential and non-residential, in a way that would maintain current levels of
transportation service. In order to calculate unit costs, therefore, the Committee needed to estimate
the total number of new dwelling units and non-residential square footage that the County could
expect to gain over a ten year period, and then had to assign costs to each of these units.
A survey of Albemarle's annual Development Activity Report for each of the years 1984 through
2003 inclusive reveals that, on average, the County experienced the construction of508 SFD's, 115
SFA/TH's, 197 MF's, and 33 MH's annually between 1984 and 2003. During the course often
years, therefore, Albemarle reasonably could expect to gain 5,080 SFD's, 1,150 SFA/TH's, 1,970
MF's, and 330 MH's.3 A study of the volume of non-residential site plan square footage that the
County approved between 1984 and 2003 suggests that, in a ten year period, Albemarle could expect
to gain 2,150,000 square feet of retail space, 1,060,000 square feet of taxable office space, 672,000
Proffers Calculations
April 12,2007
Page Four
square feet of industrial space, and 1,590,000 square feet of institutional space.4 These ten year
dwelling unit and non-residential square footage figures appear in the second column of Table II on
the next page. Along with estimated dwelling unit and square footage data, this table contains the
remaining set of information that the Committee needed in order to estimate unit transportation
costs.
Note that transportation projects do not serve dwelling units and non-residential space per se but,
rather, serve the vehicle trips generated by these categories of development. The third column of
Table II reveals the average number of daily vehicle trips associated with each of the four types of
dwelling units mentioned previously and shows, also, the average number of daily vehicle trips
associated with a thousand square feet of each of the four types of non-residential space that are
contained in the County's Cost Revenue Impact Mode1.5 The average SFD, for example, generates
9.57 daily vehicle trips, while a thousand square feet of retail space produces, on average, 47.56
vehicle trips.
The fourth column ofthe Table II shows the estimated total number of daily vehicle trips that ten
years' growth would render for each category of residential and non-residential development. In the
case of SFD's, for example, the County could expect 5,080 new units in a ten year period, and this
type of dwelling unit generates, on average, 9.57 daily vehicle trips. Ten years' worth of growth in
single family detached residences, therefore, renders an expected total of 5,080 x 9.57 = 48,616 daily
vehicle trips. Albemarle, likewise, could expect a total of 2,150,000 square feet of new retail space
during the course of a decade, and a thousand square feet of this type of non-residential space
typically produces 47.56 daily vehicle trips. The equivalent of a decade's worth of retail
development, therefore, produces an expected 2,150 x 47.56 = 102,271 daily vehicle trips.
The sum of the numbers in the fourth column of Table II equals the total number of daily vehicle
trips that would result from a decade's worth of growth in Albemarle. This figure equals 213,149
and is found on the "Total Number of New Daily Vehicle Trips" line of Table II. Recall from Table
I that the County has budgeted a total of$82,407,733 in transportation projects throughFY 2015/16.
Recall, also, that the Committee assumed that the transportation projects for which the County has
budgeted through FY 2015/16 would accommodate ten years' worth of growth in a way that would
maintain present levels of transportation service. The cost of Albemarle's budgeted transportation
projects, per daily vehicle trip, therefore, equals $82,407,733/213,149 = $387. This amount is found
on the "Total $ Cost of Projects Per Daily Veh. Trip" line of Table II.
This $387 figure provides the basis for calculating transportation costs per dwelling unit since the
third column of Table II shows, for each of the four categories of residential development, the
average number of daily vehicle trips per dwelling unit. As mentioned previously the typical SFD
generates 9.57 daily vehicle trips, so the County's transportation cost per SFD would be $387 x 9.57
= $3,700. This figure is found in the fifth column of Table II, as are figures for all the other
categories of development.6 As a clarification, this $3,700 number represents the typical SFD's
share of the $82,497,733 in capital costs that the County has budgeted for transportation
improvements. The corresponding transportation cost for an SF NTH, MF, and MH equals $2,266,
$2,598, and
Table II
Albemarle County Estimated Number of New Dwelling Units, Non-Residential
Square Footage, Daily Vehicle Trips, and Total Dollar Cost (Per Dwelling
Unit or Thousand Square Feet of Non-Residential Space) of
County Transportation Projects, by FY 2014/15
Daily Veh. Est. Total No, Total $ Cost
Land Use Est. No. of Trips Per Unit of New Daily Per D.U. or
CateQorv New Units or 1 K SF Veh. Trips 1.000 SF
SFD 5,080 9.57 48,616 $3,700
SFAlTH 1,150 5.86 6,739 $2,266
MF 1,970 6.72 13,238 $2,598
MH 330 4.99 1,647 $1,929
Retail SF 2,150,356 47.56 102,271 $18,388
Tax. Office SF 1,059,698 8.42 8,923 $3,255
Industrial SF 672,473 3.43 2,307 $1,326
Institutional SF 1,587,094 18.53 29,409 $7,164
Total Number of New Daily Vehicle Trips 213,149
Total Est. Cost of Transportation Projs, $82,407,733
Total $ Cost of Projects Per Daily Veh. Trip $387
Note: The total dollar cost per residential dwelling unit or thousand square feet
of non-residential dwelling space is calculated by multiplying the total dollar
cost of projects per daily vehicle trip by the number of daily verhicle trips gener-
ated by the relevant land use type, Dollar figures are in 2006 dollars,
Sources: The estimated number of new residential dwelling units and non-
residential square footage is derived from historical data contained in the County's
various Development Activity Reports. The total estimated dollar cost of transpor-
tation projects is taken from Table I. The number of daily vehicle trips, by land use
type, is taken directly from, or derived from data contained in, Trip Generation,
7th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Proffers Calculations
April 12, 2007
Page Six
$1,929 respectively. Please note that these numbers, along with all of the other cost and revenue
estimates in this memorandum, will undergo revision as Albemarle's adopted budget changes from
year to year.
Non-Transportation Capital Costs
In order to calculate the County's development-related non-transportation capital costs, the
Committee needed to determine the total dollar value of currently-budgeted projects and then
translate these total non-transportation expenditures into dollar amounts per dwelling unit, by type
of dwelling unit. This section recounts the steps that the Committee took to derive unit costs from
total costs.
Table III, on the next two pages, reveals Albemarle's budgeted non-transportation capital costs,
through FY 2014/15, for which the County will pay using borrowed funds. As was the case with
transportation costs, the amounts listed in Table III have been deflated to year 2006 dollars.? Note
that the third column of Table III lists an "assumed demand base" for each project. In the County's
current Cost Revenue Impact Model, the dollar amount spent for each capital item in Albemarle's
budget is assumed to vary with changes in some underlying demand base. In the case of
transportation projects, as already noted, costs are assumed to vary with the number of daily vehicle
trips generated by new residential and non-residential development. In the case of non-transportation
capital projects, however, a particular line item's cost is assumed to vary with changes in a relevant
demand base such as population, population plus jobs, elementary school enrollments, middle school
enrollments, high school enrollments, and total school enrollments.
The "$ Grand Total" line in the yellow highlighted area of Table III shows the ten year grand total of
the County's non-transportation capital projects costs. The rest of the lines in this column of the
table show the dollar portion of this grand total that is associated with each of the demand bases
mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The ten year grand total comes to $160,734,339, while the
portion ofthat grand total that is generated by a decade's worth of growth in population, for example,
equals $51,212,626. The fourth column of the yellow highlighted area of Table III reveals the
expected total number of demand units that will result from a decade's worth of new development in
Albemarle.s This data furnishes enough information to derive non-transportation capital costs per
demand unit. In the case of the population demand base, for example, the total dollar value of a
decade's worth of capital costs comes to $51,212,626 and the County can expect to add 21,172
people over the course often years. The dollar cost per demand unit of this particular demand base,
then, comes to $51,212,626121,172 = $2,419. The dollar cost per demand unit of elementary school
enrollment (ES), likewise, equals $30,597,549/1,300 = $23,528. A similar exercise renders dollar
values for all of the other line items in the fifth column of the highlighted area, except that the
$18,843 figure that appears on the "$ Grand Total" line of the table reflects the total non-
transportation capital costs per new dwelling unit in Albemarle.
This $18,843 figure represents a straight average and, consequently, does not distinguish the non-
transportation capital costs generated by dwelling units in the four different categories of residential
Table III
Albemarle County Local Government & Schools Division Borrowed
Funds for CIP/CNA Projects, FY 05/06 through FY 14/15
(in 2006 Dollars)
10 Year Assumed
Item $ Amt. Oem. Base
Courts Expansion 6,441,331 Population
Northern Fire Station 1,636,364 Population & Jobs
Pantops Fire Station 3,981,729 Population & Jobs
Ivy Fire Station 5,717,706 Population & Jobs
Fire Apparatus 11 ,431 ,484 Population & Jobs
Crozet Ladder Truck 1,303,200 Population & Jobs
Fire/Police Range 1,469,234 Population & Jobs
COB-Mcintire Renovations 3,537,143 Population
Recreational Facilities 1,933,333 Population
Southern Area Park 1,600,997 Population
Crozet Community Park 2,356,765 Population
Northern Park 2,308,800 Population
Northside Library 6,197,391 Population
29 North Library 9,323,153 Population
Crozet Library 5,169,974 Population
Southern Library 5,550,833 Population
Central Library 4,356,888 Population
Scottsville Library 2,436,018 Population
Elementary Site Land Acq. 1,620,833 Elem. School Enroll.
Henley Addition/Renovation 1,000,000 Middle School Enroll.
Murray High School Renovations 149,000 High School Enroll.
Cale Addition 2,726,667 Elem. School Enroll.
Elementary #17 12,010,712 Elem. School Enroll.
ADA Structural Changes 133,192 Total School Enroll.
Monticello High School Audit. 5,305,714 High School Enroll.
Monticello HS Aux. Gym. 1,999,000 High School Enroll.
WAHS Audit. Moveable Wall 371,429 High School Enroll.
Bldg, Svcs, Office/Warehouse 3,495,968 Total School Enroll,
Additional High School Capacity 7,255,157 High School Enroll.
WAHS Window Replacement 381,818 High School Enroll.
Wide Area Network Upgrade 1,020,000 Total School Enroll.
Schools Maint./Repl. -- Financed 19,193,031 Total School Enroll.
Veh, Maint. Fac. -- Emerg. Gen, 165,000 Total School Enroll.
Jouett-Greer Site Reconfig. 652,381 Elem. + Middle School Enroll.
Red Hill Elem. -- Add.lRenov. 3,063,659 Elem. School Enroll.
Table III (Cont.)
10 Year Assumed
Item $ Amt. Dem. Base
ScoUsville Add.lRenovation 2,221,341 Elem, School Enroll.
Gym, HVAC/Light Replacement 2,608,074 Total School Enroll.
Greer Elem. School Renov. 4,446,400 Elem. School Enroll.
Henley Aux. PE/Meeting Space 702,667 Middle School Enroll.
Elementary #18 1,071,429 Elem. School Enroll.
Albemarle HS Add.lRenovation 8,952,016 High School Enroll.
Additional Elem. Capacity 3,436,508 Elem, School Enroll.
No. of Dw. $ Per Dwell.
Units or Unit or
Oem. Units Oem. Unit
$ Grand Total 160,734,339 Est. 10 Year No. of Dwell. Uts. 8,530 $18,843
$ Total Based on Population 51,212,626 Est. 10 Year Population 21,172 $2,419
$ Total Based on Pop. & Jobs 25,539,717 Est. 10 Year Pop. + Jobs 34,531 $740
$ Total Based on ES Enroll. 30,597,549 Est. 10 Year ES Enroll. 1,300 $23,528
$ Total Based on ES + MS Enr. 652,381 Est. 10 Year ES + MS Enroll. 2,048 $319
$ Total Based on MS Enroll. 1,702,667 Est. 10 Year MS Enroll. 748 $2,277
$ Total Based on HS Enroll. 24,414,134 Est. 10 Year HS Enroll. 822 $29,719
$ Total Based on Total S Enroll. 26,615,265 Est. 10 Year Total Enroll. 2,870 $9,274
Sources: Dollar amounts for CIP projects are taken from Table A-4. The number of new dwelling or demand
units is derived from Table II and from the population, job, and pupil enrollment generation factors contained
in the County's Cost Revenue Impact Model.
Proffers Calculations
April 12, 2007
Page Nine
development. This dollar amount, in other words, is not specific enough for the purposes of proffers
calculations and is presented for informational purposes only. The next step in the calculation of
proffers amounts, therefore, involves translating the dollar amounts per demand unit that are found in
Table III into dollar amounts per dwelling unit, by type of dwelling unit.
Table IV, on the next four pages, accomplishes this task. Note that Table IV consists of four
sections. Each page of the table pertains to one of the four categories of residential development in
Albemarle. In order to understand the information contained in Table IV, think of a dwelling unit as
being a "basket" of demand units. In the case of an SFD, for example, as shown in the "Dem. Units
Per DU" column of the table, this "basket" contains 2.19 population demand units, 2.19 population
plus jobs demand units, 0.1637 elementary school enrollment demand units, 0.1100 middle school
enrollment demand units, 0.2737 elementary plus middle school enrollment demands units, 0.1300
high school enrollment demand units, and 0.4037 total school enrollment demand units. Each of
these demand units, when multiplied by the corresponding dollars per demand unit ("$ Per Dem
Unit") from Table III, produces the relevant dollar amount per dwelling unit that is generated by the
demand base under examination. This amount is found in the "$ per DU" column of the table.
Consider the case of the population demand base in an SFD. Each SFD is assumed to contain 2.19
people and, from Table III, we know that each SFD resident generates, on average, $2,419 in non-
transportation capital costs. (This $2,419 amount appears again in the "$ Per Dem. Unit" column of
Table IV). This situation means that the population demand units in the typical SFD generate a total
of 2.19 x $2,419 = $5,297 in non-transportation capital expenditures. Similarly, the population
portion of the population plus jobs demand base in an SFD renders $1,620 in non-transportation
capital costs, while the corresponding elementary school enrollment demand base figure comes to
$3,852. Note that the sum ofthe dollar amounts associated with the demand bases in an SFD comes
to $18,714. This amount is found in the "Gross Total for Debt-Financed Infrastructure" line of the
SFD section of Table IV and represents the total non-transportation infrastructure costs produced by
a new SFD. Corresponding amounts for the other three categories of residential development are
found on the same line ofthe SFA/TH, MF, and MH pages of the table.
Now, in order to calculate the total capital costs generated by a dwelling unit in a particular category
of residential development, we simply add the dollar value of the unit's non-transportation capital
costs to the dollar value of the unit's transportation capital costs. Recall that Table II shows this
latter figure in the "Total $ Cost Per D.U. or 1,000 SF" column. This transportation dollar amount is
listed again, in Table IV, on the "Gross Total for Transportation Infrastructure" line on each of the
dwelling unit category pages of Table IV. In the case of an SFD the dwelling unit's non-
transportation capital costs total $18,714, while the dwelling unit's transportation capital costs come
to $3,700. The total capital expenditures associated with an SFD, therefore, equal $18,714 + $3,700
= $22,414. Table IV lists this last amount on the "Gross Total Cost Per SFD" line of the SFD page.
The dollar amounts of $15,506, $13,746, and $20,584 appear on the corresponding lines on the
SFA/TH, MF, and MH pages of the table.
T able IV
Albemarle County Debt-Financed & Transportation CIP/CNAlStrategic
Plan Infrastructure Net Costs, by Dwelling Unit Type
Dwelling 10% of Tx.
Unit Dem, Units $ Per Rev, ($)
(DU) Type Demand Base Per DU Dem. Unit $ Per DU Year Per DU
SFD Population 2.19 2,419 5,297 1 427
Pop. Port. of Pop.+Jobs 2.1900 740 1,620 2 446
ES Enrollment 0.1637 23,528 3,852 3 466
ES+MS Enrollment 0.2737 319 87 4 487
MS Enrollment 0.1100 2,277 250 5 509
HS Enrollment 0.1300 29,719 3,863 6 531
Total Enrollment 0.4037 9,274 3,744 7 555
8 580
Gross Total for Debt-Financed Infrastructure $18,714 9 606
10 633
Gross Total for Transportation Infrastructure $3,700 11 661
12 691
Gross Total Cost Per SFD $22,414 13 721
14 754
15 787
16 823
17 859
18 898
19 938
20 980
Total $13,350
NPV $8,173
~Net Total $ Per SFD (@ 10%) = Proffer AmI. $14,241 l
Table IV (Cont.)
Dwelling 10% of Tx.
Unit Dem. Units $ Per Rev. ($)
(DU) Type Demand Base Per DU Dem. Unit $ Per DU Year Per DU
5 FAIT H Population 1.89 2,419 4,572 1 317
Pop. Port. of Pop.+Jobs 1.8900 740 1,398 2 332
ES Enrollment 0.1238 23,528 2,913 3 347
ES+MS Enrollment 0.1938 319 62 4 362
MS Enrollment 0.0700 2,277 159 5 379
HS Enrollment 0.0600 29,719 1,783 6 396
Total Enrollment 0.2538 9,274 2,354 7 414
8 433
Gross Total for Debt-Financed Infrastructure $13,240 9 453
10 474
Gross Total for Transportation Infrastructure $2,266 11 495
12 518
Gross Total Cost Per SFAlTH $15,506 13 541
14 566
15 592
16 619
17 647
18 677
19 708
20 740
Total $10,011
NPV $6,066
INet Total $ Per SFAlTH (@10%) = Proffer Amt. $9,441 I
Table IV (Cant.)
Dwelling 10% ofTx.
Unit Dem. Units $ Per Rev. ($)
(DU) Tvpe Demand Base Per DU Dem, Unit $ Per DU Year Per DU
MF Population 1.63 2,419 3,943 1 242
Pop. Port. of Pop.+Jobs 1.6300 740 1,206 2 252
ES Enrollment 0.1315 23,528 3,094 3 264
ES+MS Enrollment 0.1715 319 55 4 276
MS Enrollment 0.0400 2,277 91 5 288
HS Enrollment 0.0300 29,719 892 6 301
Total Enrollment 0.2015 9,274 1,869 7 315
8 329
Gross Total for Debt-Financed Infrastructure $11,148 9 344
10 360
Gross Total for Transportation Infrastructure $2,598 11 376
12 393
Gross Total Cost Per MF $13,746 13 411
14 429
15 449
16 469
17 490
18 512
19 535
20 560
Total $3,347
NPV $2,311
INet Total $ Per MF (@10%) = Proffer Amt $11,435 l
Table IV (Cant.)
Dwelling 10% of Tx.
Unit Dem, Units $ Per Rev. ($)
(DU) Type Demand Base Per DU Dem, Unit $ Per DU Year Per DU
MH Population 2.19 2,419 5,297 1 299
Pop. Port. of Pop.+Jobs 2.1900 740 1,620 2 312
ES Enrollment 0.2044 23,528 4,809 3 325
ES+MS Enrollment 0.2944 319 94 4 339
MS Enrollment 0.0900 2,277 205 5 353
HS Enrollment 0.1000 29,719 2,972 6 368
Total Enrollment 0.3944 9,274 3,658 7 384
8 400
Gross Total for Debt-Financed Infrastructure $18,655 9 417
10 435
Gross Total for Transportation Infrastructure $1,929 11 454
12 473
Gross Total Cost Per MH $20,584 13 493
14 514
15 536
16 559
17 583
18 607
19 633
20 660
Total $4,086
NPV $2,867
INet Total $ Per MH (@10%) = Proffer Amt. $17,717 I
Notes: (a) Albemarle County policy places a ceiling of 10% on general fund and school fund
revenues for debt service; Currently, the debt service percentage stands at roughly 6%; and
(b) tax revenues are assumed to increase annually by 4.47% for an SFD; 4.56% for an SFAlTH;
4,52% for an MF; and 4.26% for an MH.
Sources: Demand unit and tax revenue per DU are taken from the Cost Revenue Impact
Model; Dollars per Demand Unit are taken from Table III; Gross totals for transportation
infrastructure come from Table II; Assumptions about the rate of increase in tax revenue
come from Table A-5; and the 10% debt service figure comes from the policy note found
in the Albemarle County FY 06/07 Adopted Budget, p. 214.
Proffers Calculations
April 12,2007
Page Fourteen
Revenues
In order to estimate the net capital costs generated by the typical dwelling unit in each of the four
categories of residential development, the Committee determined the net present value of a portion
of the revenue that the typical dwelling unit in each category would generate over the course of
twenty years, and then subtracted this amount from the relevant total capital cost in order to obtain
the cash, or in-kind contribution, proffer amount that the County should expect per dwelling unit.
Note that the total capital cost amounts discussed in the last section reflect gross capital
expenditures. The Chesterfield proffers model recognizes that the capital expenditures associated
with a new dwelling unit are offset, to a certain degree, by the tax revenues generated by that
dwelling unit. In the case of the Chesterfield model, however, the only tax revenue that the model
takes into consideration, apparently for the sake of simplicity, is real property tax revenue. In the
Case of Albemarle, however, the Cost Revenue Impact Model has estimates for fourteen different
federal, state, and local revenue streams associated with a dwelling unit in each ofthe four residential
categories. Table A-5 in the Appendix of this memorandum reveals the details of these revenue
streams. In the case of an SFD, the typical dwelling unit generates $4,269 in annual revenue for
Albemarle, while the typical SFAlTH renders a corresponding amount of$3,171 to the County. An
MF, meanwhile, generates an average of $2,416 each year for Albemarle, while the typical MH
produces $2,989 in annual revenue to the County.
The Chesterfield model assumes that Chesterfield will engage in debt financing in order to pay for
the capital expenditures associated with a new dwelling unit and that the term of borrowing will
equal twenty years. The Chesterfield model also assumes that, in each of the twenty years in
question, Chesterfield will apply toward the service on this debt some fixed percentage of the
revenues generated by the new dwelling unit and that the remainder of the revenues generated by the
new dwelling unit will help fund operating costs associated with the unit. Note that, in this scheme,
the revenues generated by the dwelling unit are assumed to increase annually by some fixed
percentage. The Chesterfield model then totals the twenty years' worth of revenues that would be
applied toward debt service and calculates the net present value of this sum. This last amount
subsequently is subtracted from the gross dollar cost ofthe capital projects that are generated by the
dwelling unit. This difference equals the net capital expenditure associated with the dwelling unit,
and represents the cash amount, or dollar value ofthe in-kind contribution, that Chesterfield would
expect the developer to proffer for the dwelling unit in question. The Committee decided to follow
this methodology in order to calculate Albemarle's proffers amounts.
In practical terms, this methodology presents something of a dilemma, since Albemarle's current
debt service level, as a percentage of general fund and school revenues, stands at roughly 6%. The
County's debt service policy, however, would allow this debt service level to rise to as much as 10%.
In order to calculate the dollar value of the development-related revenues that would be applied to
debt service, the Committee elected to use the 10% figure. The dollar amounts that result annually
from the use of this 10% figure are shown in the last column on each page of Table IV. In the case
Proffers Calculations
April 12,2007
Page Fifteen
of an SFD, as previously mentioned, the Committee determined that this type of dwelling unit
typically renders $4,269 in revenue to the County. In Year 1, then, if we assume that the debt service
payment will equal 10% of this revenue, then this payment amount comes to $427. This number
appears on the first line ofthe "10% ofTx. Rev. ($) Per DU" column of Table IV.
In subsequent years, this dollar number rises since the volume of revenue associated with an SFD is
assumed to increase by a fixed annual percentage. The same situation applies to the three other
categories of residential development.9 At the end of twenty years, 10% of the sum of the annual
revenues generated by an SFD equals $13,350. Note that, assuming that revenues grew at a rate of
4.47% per annum for twenty years, the net present value (NPV) of $13,350 equals $8,173. This
NPV amount is found on the "NPV" line of the SFD page of Table IV. The subtraction of this
figure from $22,414 (the total present-day value of the capital costs associated with an SFD)
renders $14,241. This figure represents the estimate of the cash amount, or dollar value ofthe
in-kind contribution, that Albemarle would expect a developer to proffer per SFD. The
corresponding number for an SFA/TH equals $9,441; the figure for an MF equals $11,435; and
for an MH, the number comes to $17,717.
Conclusions
The Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee has derived, for each of the four categories of residential
development in Albemarle County, a set of dollar figures that the Board of Supervisors could include
in a proffers policy. The BOS should be aware that these dollar values pertain only to FY 2006/07
and that, once the County has adopted a new budget, the cost and revenue figures presented in this
memorandum will change. As a matter of practice, the County's proffers numbers should be updated
annually, as soon as the BOS adopts a new budget. The BOS should be aware, also, that the capital
cost estimates contained in the transportation section ofthis memorandum reflect very preliminary
numbers since the County does not yet have a clear idea of how much money several of the
transportation projects listed on Table I will end up costing the County in coming years and,
likewise, Albemarle does not yet have a clear idea of the extent to which the Commonwealth of
Virginia will continue to fund roads in the County. Another issue which the BOS should keep in
mind involves House Bill 2500, which Governor Kaine recently signed into law. This item likely
will give the County additional flexibility with respect to the County's ability to collect growth-
related monies from the development community. Presently, however, Albemarle has only a very
preliminary understanding of the implications of the new law and, in any case, according to the
County Attorney, Albemarle would have to adopt a zoning text amendment in order to take
advantage of the newly enabled authority granted by the law.
SAAlsaa
ENDNOTES
1. Albemarle currently uses a construction cost inflation rate of five percent per annum, non-
compounded, so a project that would cost $1,000,000 to build this fiscal year is assumed to cost
$1,050,000 if the item were to be built next year, $1,100,000 ifit were to be constructed two years
from now, etc.
2. The transportation costs listed in this paragraph reflect net transportation costs to Albemarle, i.e.,
the total cost of the County's transportation projects minus any outside funding that the County
presently expects to receive from other levels of government.
3. These ten year figures represent the gross increase in the number of dwelling units that the
County could expect to experience over the course of a decade. The Committee made the
assumption that there would be no loss of dwelling units during this time period, i.e., that the gross
increase in the number of dwelling units equals the net increase in the number of dwelling units. The
Committee should be aware that, as an alternative to using the "averages" approach in estimating the
number of dwelling units that the County could expect to gain during a ten year period, the
Committee could have used a "trend line" approach. This latter methodology represents a more
sophisticated level of analysis than does the "averages" approach, and likely will be incorporated into
Albemarle's proffer calculation model in the future.
4. See Appendix Table A-2 for details about the methodology behind these estimated non-residential
numbers. Note that, in the case of non-residential square footage, the Committee made the same
assumption regarding gross increases versus net increases that the Committee made with respect to
residential dwelling units. Please note that the "trend line" approach mentioned in Endnote 3 also
could be used to estimate the number of square feet of non-residential space that the County could
expect to gain during the course of a decade.
5 . Average daily vehicle trips per dwelling unit, by type of dwelling unit, were taken directly from
Trip Generation, ih Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Please see
Appendix Table A-3 for details about the derivation ofthe average daily vehicle trips per thousand
square feet of non-residential space, by type of non-residential space.
6. Table II presents the transportation costs per thousand square feet of each ofthe four categories of
non-residential space for informational purposes only. The Committee's task involved estimating
proffers amounts for dwelling units only, not for dwelling units and non-residential space.
7. See Table A-4 for the inflated dollar amounts and proposed timing of each project.
8. The total number of new demand units was calculated from the following information. Recall
that Table II shows the number of new dwelling units and non-residential square footage that the
County can expect to experience over the course ofa decade. Note that Albemarle's Cost Revenue
Impact Model contains assumptions about the number of demand units, by type, that is generated by
the typical dwelling unit in a particular category, or the typical thousand square feet of a particular
category of non-residential space. These CRIM assumptions are shown on the next page.
ENDNOTES (Cont.)
8. (Cont.)
Total Total Total No.
ES Enroll. MS Enroll. HS Enroll. Enroll. Pop. of Jobs
SF Detached (SFD) 0.1637 0.11 0.13 0.4037 2.69 N/A
SF Attached/TH (SFAlTH) 0.1238 0.07 0.06 0.2538 2.33 N/A
Multifamily (MF) 0.1315 0.04 0.03 0.2015 2.00 N/A
Mobile Homes (MH) 0.2044 0,09 0,10 0.3944 2.69 N/A
Retail (1,000 SF) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.263
Taxable Office (1,000 SF) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5.464
Institutional (1,000 SF) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.481
Industrial (1,000 SF) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.717
In order to estimate the number of new demand units in, say, the category of population, the relevant
equation is:
P = [(5,080 x 2.69) + (1,150 x 2.33) + (1,970 x 2.00) + (330 x 2.69)] = 21,172
where 5,080 equals the ten year expected number of SF D's; 1,150 is the corresponding number of
SFAlTH's; 1,970 is the corresponding figure for MF's; and 330 equals the ten year expected number
ofMH's. A similar exercise yields the figures shown on each ofthe other lines in the fourth column
in the yellow highlighted area of Table III, with the exception of the entry on the "$ Grand Total"
line, which shows simply the total number of new dwelling units, not new demand units, that the
County can expect to gain during the course of a decade.
9. The rate of the annual increase in the volume of revenue generated by a dwelling unit varies,
however, among the different dwelling unit categories. This phenomenon results from differences in
the relative size of the various revenues in each of the four dwelling unit categories. Please see
Table A-5 for additional details. Note that, in the case of an SFD, revenue growth is estimated to
equa14.47% per annum, while revenue growth for an SFAlTH is calculated to come to 4.56% per
annum. The respective figures for MF's and MH's are 4.52% and 4.26%.
APPENDIX
Table A-1 -- Albemarle County Transportation Infrastructure Costs
(Supporting Documentation for Table I)
Inflated Transportation Cost Estimates -- Master Planned Areas
Total Coot FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY 11 FY12 FY13 FY 14 FY 15 FY16
Craze! MP $8,990,000 740,000 1,340,000 1,622,500 2,587,500 2,700,000
Pantops MP 11,295,900 217,800 1,669,800 3,960,000 3,300,000 267,300 924,000 957,000
Places 29 MP 13,840,200 455,400 2,534,400 4,950,000 3,432,000 554,400 1,914,000
Rivanna MP 9,221,850 113,850 1,346,400 3,712,500 3,432,000 138,600 478500
So. Urban MP 10,193,700 237,600 1,815,000 4,290,000 3,584,000 287100
Neighborhood 6&7 MP 10,286,100 247,500 1,667,600 4,455,000 3,696,000
Total MP Coots $83,827,750
Deflated Transportation Cost Estimates -- Master Planned Areas
Total Coot FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY 11 FY12 FY 13 FY14 FY15 FY16
Craze! MP $7,991,190 740,000 1 ,276,190 1,475,000 2,250,000 2,250,000 0 0 0 0 0
Pantops MP $9,108,000 0 0 198,000 1,452,000 3.300,000 2,840,000 0 198,000 660,000 660,000
Places 29 MP $10,824,000 0 0 0 396,000 2,112,000 3,960,000 2,640,000 0 396,000 1,320,000
Rivanna MP $7,260,000 0 0 0 99,000 1,122,000 2,970,000 2,640,000 0 99,000 330,000
So. Urban MP $7,788,000 0 0 0 0 198,000 1,452,000 3,300,000 2,640,000 0 198,000
Nei9hborhood 6&7 MP $7,590,000 0 0 0 0 0 198,000 1,452,000 3,300,000 2,640,000 0
ToIlIIMPeo.ts $50,581,190
Table A-1 (Cont.)
Inflated Transportation Cost Estimates -- Other Transportation
Hillsdale Rd. Connector
East Connector (1st Phase)
Georgeto.vn Road
Rev€flueSharing Rd. Prog.
Jarmans Gap Road
Meadowcreek Parkway (1st Ph.)
Southem Parkway (1st Ph.)
T alai Other Costs
Talal Cost
$79,OOO
9,000,000
2,750,000
10,000,000
696,968
3,290,429
6,200,000
$32,016,397
Deflated Cost Estimates .. Other Transportation
HiIlsdale Rd. Connector
East Connector (1st Phase)
Georgeto.vn Road
Rev€flue Sharing Rd. Prog.
Jarmans Gap Road
Meadowcreek Parkway (1st Ph.)
Soothem Parkway (151 Ph.)
TOlaI OIher Costs
T alai Cost FY 07
$65,833
g,Ooo,Ooo
2,750,000
10,000,000
696,968
3,133,742
6,200,000
$31,848,543
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY 14
FY15
FY 16
79,000
3,290,429
FY08 FY09 FY 10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY 16
0 0 0 65,833 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3,133,742 0
0 0
Table A-1 (Cant.)
Note: Albemarle County assumes a non-compounded inflation rate of 5% per annum for CIP/CNNStrategic Plan infrastructure costs. Deflated costs are in 2006 dollars.
Sources: Dollar figures and starVstop dates for Master Planned area projects, Georgetown Road, Eastern Connector, Jarmans Gap Road, Meadowcreek Parkway, and Southern
Parkway come from the "Master Plan Cost Scenarios" spreadsheet supplied by Andy Bowman, Management Analyst, January 2007. Hillsdale Road Connector and Revenue
Sharing Road Program numbers and starVstop dates come from the Albemarle County FY 06/07 Adopted Budget, p. 205.
Table A-2
Estimated Total Square Footage of Non-Residential Space in
Albemarle County (1983-2003) & Estimated Ten
Year Supply of Non-Residential Space
Retail Tax, Office Industrial Institutional
Year SF SF SF SF Total SF
1983 1,573,000 177,000 2,240,000 2,125,000 6,115,000
1984 1,681,000 177,000 2,275,000 2,138,000 6,271,000
1985 1,808,000 270,000 2,445,000 2,153,000 6,676,000
1986 1,932,000 395,000 2,505,000 2,323,000 7,155,000
1987 2,176,000 454,000 2,660,000 2,412,000 7,702,000
1988 2,584,000 504,000 2,886,000 2,417,000 8,391,000
1989 3,521,000 605,000 3,026,000 3,167,000 10,319,000
1990 3,734,000 735,000 3,116,000 3,210,000 10,795,000
1991 4,006,000 760,000 3,116,000 3,347,000 11,229,000
1992 4,072,000 760,000 3,116,000 3,422,000 11,370,000
1993 4,087,000 950,000 3,171,000 3,521,000 11,729,000
1994 4,109,000 1,025,000 3,241,000 3,614,000 11,989,000
1995 4,178,000 1,238,000 3,241,000 3,635,000 12,292,000
1996 4,294,000 1,318,000 3,266,000 3,830,000 12,708,000
1997 4,451,000 1,479,000 3,266,000 3,914,000 13,110,000
1998 4,652,219 1,716,708 3,290,000 4,093,757 13,752,684
1999 4,851,503 1,989,368 3,312,510 4,109,717 14,263,098
2000 4,968,326 2,249,268 3,312,510 4,281,088 14,811,192
2001 5,550,755 2,296,396 3,504,050 5,000,310 16,351,511
2002 5,664,335 2,296,396 3,524,950 5,289,208 16,774,889
2003 5,873,712 2,296,396 3,584,945 5,299,188 17,054,241
20 Yr. Avg, Grth, 215,036 105,970 67,247 158,709 546,962
Est. 10 Yr. SF 2,150,356 1,059,698 672,473 1,587,094 5,469,621
Sources: Figures for 1997 are taken from the FY 97/98 version of the Albemarle County
Cost Revenue Impact Model (CRIM); Figures for previous and subsequent years were de-
rived using site plan approval data from the various editions of the Albemarle County
Development Activity Report for the years 1984 through 2003 inclusive.
Methodology: Figures for each of the years 1983 through 1996 inclusive and 1998
through 2003 inclusive were estimated by taking the total square footage of the subse-
quent or previous year, and subtracting or adding to that number the site plan square
footage that the County approved in that subsequent or previous year. The number of
square feet for 1997 is assumed to be the total for the end of calendar year 1997. The
number of square feet for 1996, then, was estimated by taking the 1997 figure and
subtracting from it the number of square feet of space that the County approved in
1997. The number of square feet for 1998, likewise, was calculated as equaling the 1997
figure plus the number of square feet that the County approved in 1998.
Table A-3
Average Daily Vehicle Trip Generation per 1,000 Square Feet of Gross Floor Area
(By ITE Land Use Code)
ITE Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday
Land Use Trip Trip Trip No. or Wt.
Code Land Use Type -- Retail Generation Generation Generation Averaae
437 Bowling Alley 33.33 N/A N/A 33.33
443 Movie Theater without Matinee 78.06 99.28 81,90 81.64
491 Racquet/Tennis Club 14,03 21,35 17.40 15.56
492 Health/Fitness Club 32,93 20.87 26.73 30.32
493 Athletic Club 43.00 38.46 36.77 41.46
630 Clinic 31.45 N/A N/A 31.45
720 Medical-Dental Office Building 36.13 8.96 1.55 27.31
812 Building Materials and Lumber Store 45,16 51.60 24,50 43.13
813 Free-Standing Discount Superstore 49,21 57.50 46,98 50.08
814 Specialty Retail Center 44,32 42.04 20.43 40.58
815 Free-Standing Discount Store 56,02 71.19 54,90 58.03
816 Hardware/Paint Store 51.29 82,52 68.65 58.23
817 Nursery/Garden Center 36.08 72.71 58.46 44.51
818 Nursery/Wholesale 39.00 29.90 26.4 7 35.91
820 Shopping Center 42,94 42,97 25.24 40.42
823 Factory Outlet Center 26.59 40.97 26.16 28.58
841 New Car Sales 33.34 21.03 10.48 28.32
843 Automobile Parts Sales 61.91 N/A N/A 61.91
848 Tire Store 24.87 N/A N/A 24.87
849 Tire Superstore 20.36 19,03 N/A 20.14
850 Supermarket 102.24 177.59 166.44 122.18
851 Convenience Market (Open 24 Hrs.) 737,99 863,10 758.45 758.79
853 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 845.60 1,448.33 1,182.08 979.77
854 Discount Supermarket 96,82 117,03 102.54 100.52
860 Wholesale Market 6.73 1.59 2,30 5.36
861 Discount Club 41.80 53.75 33.67 42.35
862 Home Improvement Superstore 29,80 45,67 N/A 32.45
863 Electronics Superstore 45.04 N/A N/A 45.04
869 Discount Home Furnishing Superstore 47.81 70.01 N/A 51.51
870 Apparel Store 66.40 N/A N/A 66.40
879 Arts and Crafts Store 56.55 N/A N/A 56.55
880 Pharm./Drug. w/o Drive-Through Window 90.06 N/A N/A 90.06
881 Pharm./Drug. w/ Drive-Through Window 88,16 N/A N/A 88.16
890 Furniture Store 5.06 4.94 4,64 4.98
911 Walk-in Bank 156.48 13.70 8,33 114.92
912 Drive-in Bank 246.49 71,21 22,15 189.40
931 Quality Restaurant 89.95 94.36 72.16 88.04
932 High- Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 127.15 158.37 131 ,84 132.28
933 Fast-Food Rest. w/o a Drive-Through Wind. 716,00 696.00 500,00 682.29
934 Fast-Food Rest. w/ a Drive-Through Wind. 496.12 722.03 542.72 535.05
Median 47.56
ITE Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday
Land Use Trip Trip Trip No. or Wt.
Code Land Use Tvpe -- Taxable Office Generation Generation Generation Averaae
710 General Office Building 11.01 2,37 0,98 8.34
714 Corporate Headquarters Building 7,98 N/A N/A 7.98
715 Single Tenant Office Building 11,57 N/A N/A 11.57
750 Office Park 11 .42 1.64 0.76 8.50
760 Research and Development Center 8.11 1.90 1,11 6.22
770 Business Park 12.76 2.56 1.29 9.66
Median 8.42
ITE Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday
Land Use Trip Trip Trip No. or Wt.
Code Land Use Tvpe -- Industrial Generation Generation Generation Averaae
030 Truck Terminal 9,85 1.89 1,02 7.45
110 General Light Industrial 6.97 1.32 0.68 5.26
120 General Heavy Industrial 1.50 N/A N/A 1.50
130 Industrial Park 6,96 2.49 0.73 5.43
140 Manufacturing 3,82 1.49 0,62 3.03
150 Warehousing 4.96 1.22 0.79 3.83
151 Mini-Warehouse 2.50 2.33 1,78 2.37
Median 3.43
ITE Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday
Land Use Trip Trip Trip No. or Wt.
Code Land Use Tvpe -- Institutional Generation Generation Generation Averaae
520 Elementary School 14.49 N/A N/A 14.49
522 Middle School/Junior High School 13.78 N/A N/A 13.78
530 High School 12.89 4.37 1.79 10.09
540 Junior/Community College 27.49 11.23 1.21 21.41
560 Church 9.11 10.37 36.63 13.22
561 Synagogue 10.64 5,91 22.50 11.66
565 Day Care Center 79.26 6,21 5.83 58.33
590 Library 54.00 46,55 25.49 48.86
610 Hospital 17.57 11.37 10.34 15.65
620 Nursing Home 6.10 N/A N/A 6.10
730 Government Office Building 68.93 N/A N/A 68.93
731 State Motor Vehicles Department 166.02 9.46 6.74 120.90
732 U.S. Post Office 108.19 48,69 28.81 88.35
733 Government Office Complex 27.92 N/A N/A 27.92
Median 18.53
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 7th Edition.
Table A-4 - Albemarle County Debt-Financed Non- Transportation Infrastructure Costs
(Supporting Documentation for Table III)
Inflated Cost Estimates .. Local Government CIPICNA Projects
Item T etal Cost FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY 15
Courts Expansion $7,558,000 1,450,000 625,000 3,915,000 1,568,000
Northern Fire Station 1,712,000 880,000 832,000
Pantops Fire Station 4,326,000 842,000 390,000 1,970,000 1,124,000
Ivy Fire Station 6,555,000 1,634,000 801,000 4,120,000
Fire Apparatus 13,577,000 1,291,000 2,265,000 966,000 854,000 2,402,000 2,358,000 1,296,000 1,437,000 710,000
CrazetLadder Truck 1,629,000 1,629,000
Fir6l'Pohce Range 1,634,000 584,000 1,050,000
COB-Mcintire Renovations 3,655,000 1,180,000 2,475,000
Recreational Facilities 2,030,000 2,030,000
Southern Area Park 2,154,000 191,000 1,963,000
Crazet Community Park 2,859,000 1,000,000 1,859,000
Northern Park 3,032,000 1,061,000 1,971,000
Northside Library 7,081,000 1,012,000 6,069,000
29 North Library 12,601,000 369,000 1,347,000 8,195,000 2,690,000
Crazet Library 5,473,000 424,000 3,603,000 1,446,000
Southern Library 7,921,000 686,000 2,153,000 5,082,000
Central Library 5,644,000 772,000 4,577,000 295,000
Scottsv1l1e Library 3,386,000 419,000 373,000 1,967,000 627,000
Total Loc. Gov!. Costs $92,827,000
Table A-4 (Cant.)
Deflated Cost Estimates -- Local Government CIPICNA Projects
Item T atal Cost FY06 FY07 FY06 FY09 FY 10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15
Courts Expansion $6,441 ,331 0 1,380,952 0 543,478 3,262,500 1,254,400 0 0 0 0
Northern Fire Station 1,636,364 880,000 0 756,364 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pantops Fire Station 3,981,729 642,000 371,429 1,790,909 977,391 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ivy Fire Station 5,717,706 0 1 ,556,190 728,182 0 3,433,333 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Appa'"atus 11,431,484 1,291,000 2,157,143 878,182 742,609 2,001,667 1,884,800 0 960,000 1,026,429 489,655
Crozet Ladder Truck 1,303,200 0 0 0 0 0 1,303,200 0 0 0 0
Fire/Police Range 1,469,234 0 556,190 0 913,043 0 0 0 0 0 0
COB-Mcintire Renovations 3,537,143 1,180,000 2,357,143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Recreational Facilities 1,933,333 0 1,933,333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Southern Area Park 1,600,997 0 0 0 0 0 0 146,923 1 ,454,074 0 0
Crozet Community Park 2,356,765 0 0 0 669,565 0 1,487,200 0 0 0 0
Northern Park 2,308,800 0 0 0 0 0 848,800 0 1,460,000 0 0
Northside Library 6,197,391 0 0 920,000 5,277,391 0 0 0 0 0 0
29 North Library 9,323,153 0 0 0 0 0 295,200 1,036,154 6,070,370 1,921,429 0
Crozet Library 5,169,974 424,000 3,431,429 1.314,545 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Southern Library 5,550,833 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 508,148 1,537,857 3,504,828
Central Ubrary 4,356,888 0 0 0 0 0 617,600 3,520,769 218,519 0 0
Scottsville Library 2,436,018 0 0 0 0 0 0 322,306 276,296 1,405,000 432,414
TCUl Loc, Govt. Dell. C_ $78.752.342
Table A-4 (Cant,)
Inflated Cost Estimates - Schools Division CIP/CNA Projects
Item Total Cost FYOO FY07 FYOO FY09 FY10 FYll FY 12 FY13 FY14 FY15
Elementary Site LCIld Acq $2,025,000 25,000 2,000,000
Henley Additiorv'Renovation 1,000,000 1,000,000
Murray High School Renovations 149,000 149,000
Cale Addition 2,863,000 2,863,000
Elementary #17 15,600,000 950,000 14,000,000 650,000
ADA Structural Changes 145,000 50,000 15,000 20,000 20,000 40,000
Monticello High School Audit. 5,531,000 800,000 4,731,000
Monticeio HS Aux. Gym. 1,999,000 1,999,000
W AHS Audit. Moveable Wall 390,000 390,000
Bldg. Svcs. OfflceM'arehouse 3,984,000 800,000 3,184,000
Addrtional H~h School Capacity 9,756,000 1,000,000 8,756,000
WAHS Window Replacement 420,000 420,000
Wide Area NetworK Upgrade 1,122,000 1,122,000
Schools Maint./Repl. - Financed 22,151,000 3,423,000 3,301,000 4,904,000 1,639,000 1,466,000 1,672,000 720,000 1,501,000 1,750,000 1,775,000
Veh. Maint. Fac. -- Emerg. Gen. 165,000 165,000
Jouett-Greer Site Reconfig. 675,000 200,000 475,000
Red Hill Elem. -- AddJRenov. 3,659,000 400,000 3,259,000
Scottsv;lIe Add.lRenovation 2,646,000 451,000 2,195,000
Gym. HVAC/L~ht Replacement 3,179,000 198,000 1,533,000 1,448,000
Greer Elem. School Renov. 5,533,000 600,000 4,933,000
Henley Awe PElMeebng Space 870,000 200,000 670,000
Eiementary #1 8 1,500,000 1,500,000
Albemarle HS Add.lRenovation 10,263,000 700,000 9,563,000
Additional Eiem. Capacity 4,800,000 300,000 4,500,000
Total Schools Division Costs $100,425,000
Table A-4 (Cont.)
Deflated Cost Estimates - Schools Division CIP/CNA Projects
Item Total Cost FY06 FY 07 FY08 FY09 FY 10 FY11 FY12 FY 13 FY 14 FY15
Elementary Site Lald Acq. $1,620,833 0 0 0 0 20,833 1,600,000 0 0 0 0
Henley AdditionlRenovatioo 1,000,000 1 ,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Murray High School Renovations 149,000 149,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gale Addition 2,726,667 0 2,726,687 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Elementary #17 12,010,712 0 0 0 0 0 760,000 10,769,231 481,481 0 0
ADA Structural Changes 133,192 50,000 14,286 18,182 17,391 33,333 0 0 0 0 0
Montic,",o H~h Schoo Audit 5,305,714 800,000 4,505,714 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mooticello HS AU)(. Gym. 1,999,000 1,999,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WAHS Audit. Moveable Wail 371,429 0 371,429 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cale Addition 3,495,988 0 0 727,273 2,768,696 0 0 0 0 0 0
Additional H~h School Capacity 7,255,157 0 0 0 0 0 0 769,231 6,485,926 0 0
WAHS Window Replacement 381,818 0 0 381,818 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wide Area Network Upgrade 1,020,000 0 0 1,020,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Schools MaintJRepl. -- FinCWlced 19,193,031 3,423,000 3,143,810 4,458,182 1,425,217 1,221,667 1,337,600 553,846 1,111,852 1,250,000 1,267,857
Veh. Maint. Fac. - Emerg. Gen. 165,000 165,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jouett-Greer Site Reconfig. 652,381 200,000 452,381 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Red Hiil Elem. -- AddJRenov. 3,083,859 0 0 0 347,828 2,715,833 0 0 0 0 0
Scottsviile AddJRenovatioo 2,221,341 0 0 0 392,174 1,829,167 0 0 0 0 0
Gym. HVACILight Replacement 2,608,074 0 0 0 172,174 1,277,500 1,158,400 0 0 0 0
Greer Elem. School Renov. 4,446,400 0 0 0 0 500,000 3,946,400 0 0 0 0
Henley Aux. PE/Meeting Space 702,687 0 0 0 0 186,667 536,000 0 0 0 0
Elementary #18 1,071,429 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,071,429
Aibemarle HS AddJRenovallon 8,952,016 0 0 636,364 8,315,852 0 0 0 0 0 0
Additional Elem. Capacity 3,436,508 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 222,222 3,214,286 0
TOCIII Sc:hooIs DIY. Deft. C~ 183,181.815
Grand Total 01 Deftmed Cost. $180,734.337
Table A-4 (Cant.)
Note: Albema-Ie County assumes a non-compounded inflation rate of 5% per annum for CIP/CNAlStrategic Plan infrastructure costs. Deflated costs are in 2006 dollars.
Source: Derived from the Albemarle County FY 06/07 Adopted Budget. pp. 202 & 203, and Conversations with Brenda Neitz, Budget Analyst.
Table A-5
Assumed Twenty Year Annual Increase (%) in Albemarle
County Revenue Streams, per Dwelling Unit
SFD 20 Yr.
Wt. Avg. Current $ %of Assumed
Assumed Amt. Per Tot. Curr. $ Annual
Ann. Inc. Dwell. Unit Amt. Per DU Revenue Stream Increase
2.12% $1,811.87 42.44% Residential Real Property Tax 5,00%
0.82% 530.48 12.43% Residential Personal Property Tax 6.58%
0.07% 129.75 3,04% Cons. Utility Tax -- Residential 2.22%
0.00% 4.99 0.12% Ut. Company Licenses 3.00% (a)
0.04% 52.87 1.24% Motor Vehicle Licenses 3.00% (a)
0.01% 33.27 0.78% Permits & Fees 1,78%
0.01% 8,37 0,20% Fines & Forfeitures 3,00%
0.05% 26,19 0,61% Charges for Services 8.86%
0.11% 165.19 3.87% State Aid 2.74%
0.15% 105.69 2.48% Categorical Aid -- Federal 5.96%
0.02% 9,55 0.22% Hotel/Motel/Room Tax 7,30%
0.06% 26,87 0.63% Delinquent RE/Penalties 9,04%
0.91% 1,288.79 30.19% State Aid to Schools 3.00% (a)
0.11% 75.12 1.76% Meals Tax 6.46%
$4,268.99 Total Current Rev. $ Amount per DU
- Total Weighted Assumed Ann. Rate of Growth
SFA/TH 20 Yr.
Wt. Avg. Current $ %of Assumed
Assumed Amt. Per Tot. Curr. $ Annual
Ann. Inc. Dwell. Unit Amt. Per DU Revenue Stream Increase
2.10% $1,334.74 42.09% Residential Real Property Tax 5,00%
0.95% 457.81 14.44% Residential Personal Property Tax 6.58%
0.09% 129.75 4,09% Cons. Utility Tax -- Residential 2.22%
0.00% 4.31 0.14% Ut. Company Licenses 3.00% (a)
0.04% 45.62 1.44% Motor Vehicle Licenses 3.00% (a)
0.02% 28.71 0.91% Permits & Fees 1.78%
0.01% 7.22 0.23% Fines & Forfeitures 3,00%
0.06% 22.60 0.71% Charges for Services 8,86%
0.12% 142,56 4.50% State Aid 2.74%
0.17% 91.21 2.88% Categorical Aid -- Federal 5.96%
0.02% 8.24 0.26% Hotel/Motel/Room Tax 7,30%
0.07% 23.19 0,73% Delinquent RE/Penalties 9.04%
0.77% 810.24 25,55% State Aid to Schools 3.00% (a)
Table A-5 (Cont.)
SFAlTH 20 Yr.
Wt. Avg. Current $ % of Assumed
Assumed Amt. Per Tot. Curr. $ Annual
Ann. Inc. Dwell. Unit Amt. Per DU Revenue Stream Increase
0.13% 64.83 2.04% Meals Tax 6.46%
$3,171.04 Total Current Rev. $ Amount per DU
- Total Weighted Assumed Ann. Rate of Growth
MF 20 Yr,
Wt. Avg. Current $ % of Assumed
Assumed Amt. Per Tot. Curr. $ Annual
Ann. Inc. Dwell. Unit Amt. Per DU Revenue Stream Increase
1.80% $869.70 36.00% Residential Real Property Tax 5,00%
1.08% 394.83 16.34% Residential Personal Property Tax 6.58%
0.12% 129,75 5,37% Cons. Utility Tax -- Residential 2.22%
0.00% 3,72 0,15% Ut. Company Licenses 3.00% (a)
0.05% 39.35 1.63% Motor Vehicle Licenses 3.00% (a)
0.02% 24.76 1.02% Permits & Fees 1,78%
0.01% 6.23 0.26% Fines & Forfeitures 3,00%
0.07% 19.49 0.81% Charges for Services 8.86%
0.14% 122.95 5,09% State Aid 2.74%
0.19% 78,66 3.26% Categorical Aid -- Federal 5.96%
0.02% 7.11 0.29% Hotel/Motel/Room Tax 7.30%
0.07% 20.00 0.83% Delinquent RE/Penalties 9.04%
0.80% 643,28 26,63% State Aid to Schools 3.00% (a)
0.15% 55.91 2,31% Meals Tax 6.46%
$2,415.74 Total Current Rev. $ Amount per DU
- Total Weighted Assumed Ann. Rate of Growth
MH 20 Yr,
Wt. Avg. Current $ %of Assumed
Assumed Amt. Per Tot. Curr. $ Annual
Ann. Inc. Dwell. Unit Amt. Per DU Revenue Stream Increase
0.94% $561,68 18.79% Residential Real Property Tax 5.00%
1.17% 530.48 17.75% Residential Personal Property Tax 6.58%
0.10% 129,75 4.34% Cons. Utility Tax -- Residential 2,22%
0.01% 4.99 0.17% Ut. Company Licenses 3.00% (a)
0.05% 52.87 1.77% Motor Vehicle Licenses 3.00% (a)
Table A.5 (Cont.)
MH 20 Yr.
Wt. Avg. Current $ %of Assumed
Assumed Amt. Per Tot. Curr, $ Annual
Ann. Inc. Dwell. Unit Amt. Per DU Revenue Stream Increase
0.02% 33.27 1.11% Permits & Fees 1.78%
0.01% 8,37 0.28% Fines & Forfeitures 3.00%
0.08% 26.19 0.88% Charges for Services 8.86%
0.15% 165.19 5,53% State Aid 2.74%
0.21% 105.69 3.54% Categorical Aid -- Federal 5,96%
0.02% 9,55 0,32% Hotel/Motel/Room Tax 7.30%
0.08% 26,87 0.90% Delinquent RE/Penalties 9.04%
1.26% 1,259.10 42.12% State Aid to Schools 3.00% (a)
0.16% 75.12 2,51% Meals Tax 6.46%
$2,989,12 Total Current Rev, $ Amount per DU
- Total Weighted Assumed Ann. Rate of Growth
Notes: Twenty year assumed annual rates of increase are extrapolated from available projections for
the County's current five year financial forecast.
(a) No projection exists for growth in this revenue stream in the current financial forecasting model;
the author of this table assumes that the revenue per dwelling unit will increase with his expected
annual rate of change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U),
Source: Non-footnoted items are derived from e-mail correspondance with Laura Vinzant, Senior
Budget Analyst, Febrary 16, 2007.
MAY 2, 2007
CLOSED SESSION MOTION
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO CLOSED SESSION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2-3711(A) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
. UNDER SUBSECTION (1) TO CONSIDER
APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND
COMMISSIONS;
· UNDER SUBSECTION (3) TO CONSIDER THE
ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR A POTENTIAL
PARK FACILITY;
· UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL
COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING PENDING
LITIGATION RELATING TO A REAL ESTATE
ASSESSMENTAPPEAL;AND
· UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL
COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING SPECIFIC
MATTERS REQUIRING LEGAL ADVICE RELATING TO
AN INTERJURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENT.
County of Albemarle
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
Members of the Board of Supervisors
Meagan Hoy, Senior Deputy Clerk I ~
May 2, 2007
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Vacancies on Boards and Commissions
Attached please find an updated listing of vacancies on boards and commissions
through October 2007 provided for informational purposes only.
The following Boards and Commissions have been advertised and interviews are set
as follows:
Commission on Children and Families (Two Vacancies):
12:30 p.m, Melinda Whitehurst
12:40 p,m, Ralph Chester
(Myra Anderson: Contacted several times, no response.)
The following Boards and Commissions have been advertised and applications were
received as follows:
Aaricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee:
Bradford Cogan
Michael Wheelwright
PantoDs Community Advisory Council:
Barbara Elias
Tucker Hurt
Glenna Kennett
The following reappointments require action by the Board:
Advisory Council on Aaina:
M. Waltine Eubanks
..It-
""~Z
;:D::ILI
uw:E
-t-t-
D::enZ
t--6
!a~a.
Q:E~
w ~
m Q
w
O.t-
t-ILIZ
:t:D::6
en a.
- a.
3: c(
en
3::EW
wD::g:
zwa.
t-><
w
en
:Ew
D::g:
wa.
t-><
w
"0"0'0"0
ell ell ell ell
os os os os
0-0-0-0-
ell ell ell ell
0::0::0::0::
I: I: I: e:
o 0 0 0
13131513
<(<(<(<(
o 0 0 0
zzzz
ell ell ell ell
::0:0:0:0
00 'e>> oe>> '0
wwww
0000
~"I'"-~~
0000
NNNN
-- -- -- --
~~..........
-- -- -- --
CO CO CO CO
........................
gooo
000
NNNN
-- -- -- --
................ .....
-- -- -- --
CO CO CO CO
"0
ell
los
'= ~
iO::
D::5
ciS
.2 <(
1:) 0
c(z
ell
:0
III 00
ell =
>w
OJ OJ
00
00
NN
--
.... ....
('I')M
--
It) It)
o
~
I)
:::J
"00
~~
O~
:p
~ ~
="0
Q.1Il
~5
:p
"0 tV
- ()
i:;=
eIlQ.
...~
N
-0-0
ell ell
~~
ell I)
~~
<C<C
o 0
zz
.... ......
00
00
~~
.... ....
('I') ('I')
--
It) It)
.... ....
.... ....
00
~~
...... ......
.... ....
--
~~
...... ......
00
00
~~
...... ......
.... ....
--
~~
~
ell
E
t)
()
It
I)
...
...
.g
III
5
:p
tV
I:
Oe
o
I:
"0
I:
$
s
m
>
o
<C
IQ
1
:;
1
CJ
U)
III
~
._ "0
i: e
eIl'-
1:6-
-ell
>;0::
~~
~<C
>0
~Z
Ei
E I)
8j.
l: tV
~~
'ii)
~ .5
mLL
--
"0"0
ell ell
"s os
0-0-
ell I)
0::0::
I: I:
o 0
13:g
<c<c
o 0
zz
ell I)
:0:0
OaO&
:= ==
WW
OJ OJ
00
00
~~
CO CO
r:::r::
...... ......
00
00
~~
CO CO
t:::r::
-
Q.
III ~ e
-~S! i~ III ~
_;~s ~~ ~ -2 ~
I:oen~ w~ I), = ~!~ ~
~ Q. ell ell 0::52 .2
05u.t-=~ I:m g~ w= .!/l
enlll~~ ~E ~~ ~m 3:
eIl~... :>tV 1IlQ. e: I: =
~~~~ =>:i5 iJ~ ~ ;o~ 8
",0:: ~3:, m, m enm, en
- - - - -
D::
W
m
:IE
w
:IE
Z
o
~
!i
:E
o
(.)
D::
o
Q
D::
c(
o
m
ggga
ell
:0
g
w
'0
z
OJ
o
o
~
~
co
"0
ell
I:
o~
III
ell 0
O::Z
...... CO
00
00
~~
00
('I') ('I')
--
coco
"0
I)
...
.~
ell
0::
e:
o
:g
<C
o
z
~
ell
.c
E
I)
~
c
00
,
ell
:0
;i
w
'0
z
o
....
o
~
o
('I')
co
......
o
o
~
('I')
co
"0
e
'5
I~
0::
I:
~
<C
o
Z
I)
:0
~
w
o
....
o
~
o
~
......
o
o
~
~
"0
ell
...
o~
ell
0::
e:
o
:g
<C
o
z
"0 "0
e e
.~.~
ell I)
0::0::
e: I:
o 0
:g15
<c<c
o 0
zz
"0"0
ell I)
... ...
I.i'~
0:0:
e:e:
o 0
:g:g
<C<C
o 0
zz
I) ell
:0::0
:Qi:~
ww
coco
00
00
~~
.... ....
--
co co
............
gg
~~
('1')('1')
.... ....
coco
"0"0"0
ell ell I)
... ... ...
os.o;:! '5
~ ~ ~
0:0:0:
I: I: e:
000
:g:g15
<c<c<c
000
zzz
I) I) I)
::0;::;:0
:Qi ~ :Qi
www
OJ OJ OJ
000
000
~~~
........ ....
---
OJOJOJ
..................
000
000
~~~
.... ........
---
OJOJOJ
"0"0"0
ell ell ell
... ... ...
lOil'~
0:0:0::
I: I: I:
000
:g:g:g
<C<C<C
000
zzz
ell I) I)
:0--
:Qi~~
www
........ ....
........ ....
000
~~~
000
('I')('I')M
---
OJOJOJ
..................
000
000
~~~
000
('1')('1')('1')
---
OJ OJ OJ
"0
~ ~ i I)~ e: ~
~ ~ i i ~~ Je: I:lIlell i~
<C ~ ... W eIlO ()lIS~ -"O() ..Ill
~ ' ~ "0 1:1- ,-g g-]!~ o~~
~ ~ "0 5 ~~ E~ ~~eIl 5LLS
t I 1 ~ ~I ~~ i~l ~I;
o::_o:~o::~o:_~~_3:o:~o~~_ooQ.
I
II It. I
II.. II .... J
1:1'.3111~1
......
o
o
~
o
('I')
co
............
00
00
~~
OJO
N~
co
ell
:0
:Qi
w
o
....
o
~
o
~
~ ~
>~
NN
.... ....
00
~~
00
~~
coco
......
o
o
~
~
OJ
...... ......
00
00
~~
('I') ('I')
coco
II
II US II
II 11.1111
I
...
!
'6'
ell
>
'4)
()
~
~
0
.,
rJ
=
8:
tI:I
~
'0 "'C '0 '0 "'C
CIl -C "~ ell ell ell
... ... ": ...
"~ CIl ~ "5 ~ "5
> C" C" C"
ell "m ell ell ell ell
0:: () 0:: 0:: 0:: 0::
ell
5 0:: I: I: I: C
~ 0 0 0
., M :g :g :g
()
<( ...... <( <( <( <(
0 g 0 0 0 0
Z N Z Z Z Z
0
N
ci
N
=
...
CIl Q. ell J! ell
;e <( 12 ,Q ;e
.!2> Q) :2J .!2> .!2>
~ 0
~ '0 jjj jjj jjj z
- III
..... I: 0 0 0 0
0
..... ., ..... ..... ..... ....
0 tI:I 0 0 0 0
N () ~ ~ ~ ~
(5 ~ 0 0 0
M M ('I) ('I) f:2
-- ~ -- -- --
0) CD CD CD CD
- - ui
.... ell ...... ...... ...... ......
0 00 0 0 0 0
0 c 0 0 0 0
~ lIS ~ ~ ~ ~
0 () g 0
M lIS ('I) ~ ('I)
-- > co co co
0) II)
I-- I- .....
I
0
....
'0
I:
~
0
"'C 0 ~ ~ ... ~
ell
'0 ~ '0 ell
c: 0 I: ::
.~ tI:I 0 tI:I tI:I
ell m (3 )( 3:
'0 ell
"'C "'C f! <(
ii:: <( "'C t:
tI:I Cii >- ell
.... ~ -e I: I: .c
'm tI:I 0 0 0
...J _z m 0 I- 0::
- -
== J
J Iii
I
I
I III
I
~ ....
J If I 0
I 0
N
CD
.-
i ~
0
I I I III 'i
III
....' .>1 'S:
CIl
D::
Meagan Hay
Page 1 of2
From: mwoverlook@earthlink.net
Sent: Monday, February 26, 20075:08 PM
To: Ella Carey
Cc: Meagan Hoy
Subject: Board/Commission/Committee Application
Date of this
Application:
Board/Commission/
Committee Applied
for:
Board/Commission/
Committee
Affiliation:
Magisterial District:
Application Information
02/26/2007
Commission on Children and Families
N/A
Samuel Miller
Applicant Name:
Address:
Home Telephone:
Email Address:
Melinda Whitehurst
130 Overlook Dr
Charlottesville, VA 22903
(434) 979-8111
mwoverlook@earthlink.net
Employer:
Business Address:
Work Telephone:
Occupation/Title:
Date of Employment:
The Arc of the Piedmont
509 Park
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 977-4003
Parent-Infant Educator
07/1998
Years Resident in
Albemarle County:
Previous Residence:
Spouse:
Number of Children:
09
No response to this question
Stewart Whitehurst III
03
Education:
BA Psychology, May 91
Memberships:
4/24/2007
MT Elementary Education, May 91
Educational Specialist - Special Education, Dec 99
Ivy Creek United Methodist Church
Interests:
Reason to Serve:
How did you Hear
About Vacancy:
Page 2 of2
NAEYC (National Association for the Education of Young Children)
Red Hill Elementary School PTO - Vice President
Advisory Committee Charlottesville City Schools 4 Year old Preschool
Program
I am interested in the well being of children and families in the
community. I have both the perspective of a parent and a professional
who works with parents. I am familiar with the Commission and the
Partnership for Children through my place of employment. I hope to help
represent some of the issues which face families in the area.
Daily Progress
SIGNATURE REQUIRED:
Melinda Whitehurst
DATE SIGNED:
4/24/2007
April 24, 2007
Dear Board of Supervisors:
I am writing concerning my application to serve on the Commission of Children and Families Board. I
am unable to attend your interview so I thought it would be helpful to give you a little more information
about myself.
As I noted in my application, I have a BA in Psychology, a MT in Elementary Education and an Ed. S.
degree in Special Education. I am certified to teach early childhood special education and preschool to
8th grade children who are typically developing, I have taught home-based Head Start, an early
childhood special education class and At-Risk 4 year olds. For the past nine years I have worked as a
parent-infant educator with The Arc of the Piedmont in their Infant Development Program. I also have
two children who attend Red Hill Elementary and one who goes to Molly Michie Preschool.
Through my job at The Arc of the Piedmont, I work with children birth through three years, who are risk
of being delayed, and their parents. I love the variety of children and parents I meet through my job.
One particular population I work with is parents with disabilities. I find them both challenging and
rewarding,
I am very familiar with community agencies which deal with children and families. I often team with
workers from CYFS, DSS and TJHD when working with families. I also attend the Parent Education
Workgroup of the Partnership for Children on a regular basis, Overall, I am interested in serving my
community by serving on the Commission of Children and Families Board. I feel that I have good
background knowledge and experience to assist this board in its endeavors, Thank you for your time
and consideration.
Sincerely,
Melinda Whitehurst
Meagan Hay
Page 1 of3
From: magdaone@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 20076:26 PM
To: Ella Carey
Cc: Meagan Hoy
Subject: Board/Commission/Committee Application
Date of this
Application:
Board/Commission/
Committee Applied
for:
Board/Commission/
Committee
Affiliation:
Magisterial District:
Application Information
02/27/2007
Commission on Children and Families
citizen member/Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist
Jack Jouett
Applicant Name:
Address:
Home Telephone:
Email Address:
Ralph Chester
210 Montvue Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
(434) 841-3514
magdaone@aol.com
Employer:
Business Address:
Work Telephone:
Occu pation /Title:
Date of Employment:
self
1020 East Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 841-3514
Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist/General Psychiatrist
07/1986
Years Resident in
Albemarle County:
Previous Residence:
Spouse:
Number of Children:
02
Jefferson Parish and Orleans Parish (New Orleans, LA region)
Karen Chester
02
Education:
4/24/2007
BA, Medical Science with a Minor in Sociology, Boston University - May,
1981
MD, Boston University School of Medicine - May, 1981
Residency in Psychiatry, Tulane University School of Medicine - June,
1985
Memberships:
Interests:
Reason to Serve:
How did you Hear
About Vacancy:
Page 2 of3
Fellowship in Child Psychiatry, Tulane University School of Medicine -
June, 1986
Fellowship in Psychoanalytic Medicine, Tulane University School of
Medicine - June, 1987
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Southern Medical Association
Chief Child Psychiatrist of Child and Family Center in Central Virginia
Community Services.
After being displaced by the storm events of Katrina and Rita in
September 2005, my family was fortunate to be able to move to Virginia,
where we were well received and helped very openly by more than our
relatives (who have been attracting us to the Charlottesville area for the
last 18 - 20 years.) I am very greatful for this. I had previously worked in
public and private psychiatry and Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in both
rural and urban south Louisiana, and had for years been the Child
Psychiatric Consultant to Orleans Parish Public Schools, St. Tammany
Parish Public Schools, the Juvenile Courts in Orleans, Jefferson, St.
Bernard and other parishes, and consulted as a psychiatrist and child
psychiatrist across medical specialties and arenas of health care. I also
taught through the Tulane University School of Medicine, and I was
happy and successful in my work. My wife and I, as well as our children,
made a real effort across the years to be involved in the Charlottesville
community. Very frequent were our visits, and I was exposed to the
youth mental health community and the education system in Albemarle
on an ongoing basis through my wife's sister and her husband, who have
always worked in these systems since they moved here themselves long
ago, married, completed education pieces at UVA, had their own children,
etc. Now established as a clinician and a citizen (no longer vicariously) in
the county and region, and with my family settled, I decided to offer my
help to the Charlottesville/ Albemarle Commission on Children and
Families. I am a firm believer in civic duty, love my work, value service
to others, and know that those things that can contribute to the mental
health and levels of wellness and success in the youth of a population
really support the vitality and succes of the community as a whole. I
have a unique and strong background in training, consultation, and work
experience, am energetic and interested, and wish to be able to make a
contribution to my community. Having reviewed the tasks and interestes
and thoughtful reach of the Commission on Children and Families, and as
I am in a position to know and understand and to be able to do so in the
arenas of interest to the Commission, I felt that I could be of help. It is
for these reasons that I am making this application.
Newspaper article/professional contacts/Gretchen Ellis
SIGNATURE REQUIRED:
4/24/2007
Ralph Chester
DATE SIGNED:
4/24/2007
Page 3 of3
Meagan Hay
Page 1 of2
From: liberatedchick2000@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 20078:30 PM
To: Ella Carey
Cc: Meagan Hoy
Subject: Board/Commission/Committee Application
Date of this
Application:
Board/Commission/
Committee Applied
for:
Board/Commission/
Committee
Affiliation:
Magisterial District:
Application Information
02/28/2007
Commission on Children and Families
community member
Samuel Miller
Applicant Name:
Address:
Home Telephone:
Email Address:
Myra Anderson
220 Wahoo Way
Apt 822
Charlottesville, VA 22903
(434) 409-2283
I i be rated ch ick2 0 00 (Ci)ya hoo. co m
Employer:
Business Address:
Work Telephone:
Occu pation/Title:
Date of Employment:
On Our Own of Charlottesville
123 4th St NW
Charlottesville, VA 22903
(434) 979-0067
Mental Health Peer Specialist
OS/2006
Years Resident in
Albemarle County:
Previous Residence:
Spouse:
Number of Children:
2+
146 Woodlake Drive Charlottesville
No response to this question
No response to this question
Education:
Memberships:
Interests:
4/24/2007
Completed 21/2 years at Virginia Commonwealth University--majoring in
social work
n/a
Region Ten Board of Directors
Page 2 of2
Reason to Serve:
I am very intetrested in improving services and identifying service gaps
for children and families in the Charlottesville/ Albermarle Community
How did you Hear
About Vacancy:
Newspaper
SIGNATURE REQUIRED:
Myra Anderson
DATE SIGNED:
4/24/2007
03/25/2007 08:01
4342%2139
ALLIED CONCRETE
PAGE 01/02
GUS LORBER, PRESIOENT
KEVIN S. BRILL, VICE F'FlEsIDENT
BRAD COGAN, VIce F'FtESIDENT
CORY R. REDIFER. VICE PRESIOENT
lED
CONCRETE co.
1000 HARRIS STREET. P.O. BOX 1647
CHARlOmSVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902
TELEPHONE 434-296-7181
TOLL FREE 600-877-0710
FAX NO, 434-296-2139
TO: M ~CSJMI1tt:;SMTITAL
COMPANY: 4t ~71 CV
FAX NUMBER: l-C?'f6 s-~C/o
a t2A- ~'~/l
d
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
NUMBERS OF PAGES TO FOLLQW:
COMMENTS/ INSTRUCTIONS:
ALLIED CONC.RETE CO.
1000 HARRIS STREET
P.O. BOX 1647
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
PHONE: (434) 296-7181
FAX; (434) 296-2139
1~800-877 -071 0
IF you DO NOT RECEIVE ALL P AGtLS SENT TO YOU, PLEASE CALL THE PRONK NUMBER LIsno ABOVE.
03/25/2007 08:01 4342952139
U~/~~/~OU7 IJ:30 F~~ 434 ~96 5800
ALLIED CONCRETE
ALBE COl~ EXEC OFFICE
PAGE 02/02
I4l 002
County of Albemarle
'"t:~~r;7'''
:4~~~"~:;~-..r.:..:o..":~
I';'~'('~ '" ~,' .... ".7~'.':-..
.,a;:::! _:i"lill'-:-':;;'
!~~C ;if,' 'l
~~ ""'=-~ "",...j:,
.~~~~~~~~~..
Office of BOl\J:"d of County SUPerv:L.o;o:tS
401 McIntire Road
Cba.dott~sville, VA 22902-45915
(804) 296-5843
AF'l'LICA.TION TO S~VE ON BOAED!CO:M:MXSSrON/COMMITIEE
(please type oX' print.)
Board/Commission/Committee rit. . ~ or;
rf this Boud/Commission/ec) cc has specifir. .membez:ship represen.tation, for e;s;ampk, P
community munber~ etc_, plc:a3e 1i~t yow: afB.1i.atior.:. (please list all that apply),
<.f.
App1i=t',N""" f!:5?!;;; :) ~~
Email..A.ddre:;s h ~ lt/~...:l. .- . eJ_
Full Home Addt:ess ~ (? 1!- elL- ~ 2-
LA to... 1.lrJ I '1/'" "..-'1/[ ff7
HotnePhone I(~~. ~:l-~ -71"!?'
Email Addrells
I~ t-f1
7~1 (7 Z--
Occupation/Title 1/1tA..--- 14- Jd ~J
Years Rcsiden t in Albemarlt; C(~utl.lY ]. I
P~OUI Re$idcncc ./Vk:.... ~ (,.(,." j/V: T _
Edt:lCltdon rper;rees lln d Grllduation D~tes) ----13. - 5 .
M'gi,,,,,"" DUtdct ;" ~ur h=. re$id<n= ;, lo=ted
Employer 4/llr G fl ~b- c, "
Bu;io.es~ Address fJ 0 rJ n(..
~
w~ +( o..I.J
Phone Ltj ~ ~t
7ffl
Date of Employtt:lcnt' 3 - '3 I" ?f 7
Spouse's Name ~ ~
Number of Children V
A, &0..u~Vt ~ /=t:(;/f-
11y-7
tth""i'!~ ~'1 :;,.~,:z:~'.;~ Sod," G<oup. Nl,......, I-- 1'1~ L 11.#\(./
Puhljc.. Civic a1'l.d Chcita~le Offit:e ~,.,dJar Q~er Act:i:viries or Tnrcrcsl:$
Re?~fCI ~7 ~^~~ltlJ~~J~~~5sion/C"mmitte<: 1=~ ~ J-
r
f,(1
f7r Jf~
How did you he:ar of this VlI.cancy (web, newsp1l.per, etc.) 17J",.... ~ ~ ~ ~ :J ~ J"""' ~
Ths i".fq tl/.i P idcd 011 thir applit:tJti()1'l win be rt:ktLfCd 10 thlll*bli~ 1t ~ eIt,
-
3 -~y--- (/7
DlIte
Return to:
Clerk, BoaX'd. elf County SUpc:rvi90r5
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Ro~d
Cb.lI.dQttesvillc~ VA 22902-4596
FAX: (434) 296-S800
PLEASE RESTRICT ANY A TTACHMliNTS
TO ONe PAGE
Ella Carey
Page 1 of2
From: Wogonjm@NewZero.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:51 AM
To: Ella Carey
Subject: Board/Commission/Committee Application
Date of this
Application:
Board/Commission/
Committee Applied
for:
Board/Commission/
Committee
Affiliation:
Magisterial District:
Applicant Name:
Address:
Home Telephone:
Email Address:
Employer:
Business Address:
Work Telephone:
Occupation/Title:
Date of Employment:
Years Resident in
Albemarle County:
Previous Residence:
Spouse:
Number of Children:
Education:
Memberships:
Interests:
4/17/2007
Application Information
04/17/2007
Agricultural andForestal District Advisory Committee
NOTE: This Board Name was not on the database
N/A
Rivanna
Michael Wheelwright
453Hidden Ridge Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 296-6134
WggpDim_@NewZerQ.net
Orange County
128West MainStreet
Orange, VA 22960
(540) 672-4347
Planning Tecnician
12/2005
2+
10 Casey Circle Waltham, MA 88' 05'
Jean
2
Bachelor Landscape Architecture University of CA, Berkley Urban Studies,
MIT, Cambridge
St Paul's Episcopal Church
PACEM Volunteer with Homeless Clients through St. Paul's Church
affiliation
Page 2 of2
Reason to Serve:
Committed to working to preserving viable,rural,agricultural character of
Albemarle County
Broad Land Use experience
some soil science experience
range management applications involving two family ranches (CA,AZ)
How did you Hear
About Vacancy:
Charlottesville Daily Progress
SIGNATURE REQUIRED:
Michael Wheelwright
DATE SIGNED:
4/17/2007
Meagan Hoy
Page 1 of2
From: Ella Carey
Sent: Monday, April 02,2007 1 :02 PM
To: Meagan Hoy
Subject: FW: Board/Commission/Committee Application
From: barbara.elias@mjh.org [mailto: barbara.elias@mjh.org]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:13 PM
To: Ella Carey
Subject: Board/Commission/Committee Application
Date of this
Application:
Board/Commission/
Committee Applied
for:
Board/Commission/
Committee
Affiliation:
Magisterial District:
Application Information
04/02/2007
Pantops Community Advisory Council
Martha Jefferson Hospital - Director of Replacement Hospital
Project
Rio
Applicant Name:
Address:
Home Telephone:
Email Address:
Barbara Elias
2507 Kerry Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22901
(434) 296-4110
barbara .elias@mjh.org
Employer:
Business Address:
Work Telephone:
Occupation/Title:
Date of Employment:
Martha Jefferson Hospital
459 Locust Ave
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 971-5256
Director of Replacement Hospital Project
06/1983
Years Resident in
Albemarle County:
Previous Residence:
Spouse:
Number of Children:
31
Note that I live in the City but my employer is moving to the County
Alfred
01
Education:
Currently completing a degree in Business Management through Western
4/212007
Page 2 of2
Governors University.
Memberships:
American Society for Healthcare Engineers
International Facility Management Association
Interests:
Past participation in the American Heart Association on the Board
Past member of PTO Central Council and Special Education Advisory
Council
Reason to Serve:
I am keenly interested in the Pantops Master Plan considering that I am
responsible for the project planning of our replacement hospital which
will be located on Pantops Mountain at Peter Jefferson Park. We plan to
open in 2012. I will represent Martha Jefferson Hospital on this
committee which will be one of your large businesses in this location.
Having lived in the area since 1976 I have watched a great deal of
change in our area and am pleased that Albemarle County is planning to
meet not only the current, but also the future needs of its residents and
businesses.
How did you Hear
About Vacancy:
Reviewing the Albemarle County website, Pantops Master Plan.
SIGNATURE REQUIRED:
Barbara Elias
DATE SIGNED:
4/2/2007
Meagan Hay
Page 1 of2
From: Ella Carey
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1 :39 PM
To: Meagan Hoy
Subject: FW: Board/Commission/Committee Application
From: tuckerhurt@virginialandcompany.com [mailto :tuckerhu rt@virginialandcompany.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:36 AM
To: Ella Carey
Subject: Board/Commission/Committee Application
Date of this
Application:
Board/Commission/
Committee Applied
for:
Board/Commission/
Committee
Affiliation:
Magisterial District:
Application Information
03/27/2007
Pantops Community Advisory Council
Resident, Business member, land owner representative (Pantops
Townhouses LLC, Albemarle Hotel LLC, Pantops-Lakeridge LLC,
Pantops Giant LLC, etc.)
Rivanna
Applicant Name:
Address:
Home Telephone:
Email Address:
Tucker Hurt
1055 Weybridge CT
Aprt 202
Charlottesville, VA 22911
(434) 981-8752
tuckerhu rt@virqinialandcompany.com
Employer:
Business Address:
Work Telephone:
Occupation/Title:
Date of Employment:
Virginia Land Company
195 Riverbend Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
(434) 979-8181
Project Manager
09/2006
Years Resident in
Albemarle County:
Previous Residence:
Spouse:
Number of Children:
22
No response to this question
No response to this question
No response to this question
3/27/2007
Page 20[2
Education:
University of Virginia, Bachelor of Arts in Math, 2006
Memberships:
none
Interests:
real estate development
Reason to Serve:
My company has an interest in promoting the prosperity of the Pantops
community as a large land owner. We have been in business on Pantops
for fifty years and we would like for it to continue to flourish with the help
of our stewardship as a landowner.
How did you Hear
About Vacancy:
Via a March 2007 newsletter.
SIGNATURE REQUIRED:
Tucker Hurt
DATE SIGNED:
3/27/2007
Meagan Hoy
Page 1 of2
From: glenna.kennett@RMSCVA.com
Sent: Friday, April 20, 200712:29 PM
To: Ella Carey
Cc: Meagan Hay
Subject: Board/Commission/Committee Application
Date of this
Application:
Board/Commission/
Committee Applied
for:
Board/Commission/
Committee
Affiliation:
Magisterial District:
Application Information
04/20/2007
Pantops Community Advisory Council
Property owner and resident of Pantops. Employed (full time
employee) in the Outpatient Care Center on Pantops.
Rivanna
Applicant Name:
Address:
Home Telephone:
Email Address:
glenna kennett
374 South Pantops Dr
Charlottesville, VA 22911
(434) 295-4032
gJ~DJ:lCl' ke n net!@RMSJ:\LA.com
Employer:
Business Address:
Work Telephone:
Occupation/Title:
Date of Employment:
Reproductive Medicine and Surgery Center of VA, Ltd
595 Peter Jefferson Pkwy
Charlottesville, VA 22911
(434) 982-8565
RN
11/2005
Years Resident in
Albemarle County:
Previous Residence:
Spouse:
Number of Children:
1
Franklin County, VA for "'20 years
Roanoke, VA for "'27 yrs.
n/a
1
Education:
Memberships:
Interests:
4/2012007
Diploma graduate- Roanoke Memorial Hospitals School of Professional
Nursing in May, 1978.
Overlook Condominium Homeowners Association.
I continue to visit various churches and am interested in having a church
Page 2 of 2
affiliation in this community.
Reason to Serve:
I moved into the Pantops area in March '06 and I have been involved in
the capacity available to me by attending and participating in the Pantops
Master Plan public open houses. Anything planned for the Pantops area
has a direct impact on me as I live and work on Pantops. Since the
Albemarle County Planning Commission is seeking public input and
representation, it would be an honor to have the opportunity to become a
part of my community in this capacity.
How did you Hear
About Vacancy:
Rebecca Ragsdale gave a presentation to our HOA April 18, 2007 and
mentioned a Pantops Community Advisory Council open to applications
from the public.
SIGNATURE REQUIRED:
glenn a kennett
DATE SIGNED:
4/2012007
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Proposed FY 2007 Budget Amendment
AGENDA DATE:
May 2, 2007
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing on the Proposed FY 2007 Budget
Amendment in the amount of $1 ,305,573.96 and
request approval of amendment and of
Appropriations #2007065, #2007066, #2007067,
#2007068,#2007069,#2007070,#2007071,
#2007072,#2007073,#2007074,#2007075, and
#2007076 totaling $1,166,072.71 for provide funding
for various local government, school, and capital
programs.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
STAFF CONTACTlS):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Breeden, Wiggans
----
,..----
/
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
BACKGROUND:
The Code of Virginia 915.2-2507 stipulates that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the current fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which
exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is
lesser, must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the
budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, Le" General Fund, Capital Fund, E-911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County's growing needs.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed increase of this FY 2007 Budget Amendment totals $1 ,305,573.96. The estimated expenses and revenues
included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund
Special Revenue Funds
School Fund
School Program Funds
Emergency Communications Center
Capital Fund
Storm Water Fund
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES - All Funds
$ 9,080.66
$ 656,832.05
$ 270,833,30
$ 176,652.95
$ 171,841,00
$ 11,000.00
$ 9,334.00
$ 1,305,573.96
$ 147,790.00
$ 196,517.05
$ 224,115.48
$ 466,868.66
$ 270,282.77
$ 1,305,573.96
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues (Fees, Contributions, Donations, Proffers)
State Revenue
Federal Revenue
General Fund Balance
Other Fund Balances
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES - All Funds
AGENDA TITLE:
Proposed FY 2007 Budget Amendment
May 2, 2007
Page 2
The budget amendment is comprised of twenty-two (22) separate appropriations, ten (10) of which have already been
approved by the Board as indicated below:
Approved March 7, 2007:
· Two (2) appropriations (#2007027 and #2007059) totaling $15,477 ,05 for grants received by the Commission
on Children and Families;
· Two (2) appropriations (#2007056 and #2007058) totaling $170,809,52 for various Education programs and
grants;
· One (1) appropriation (#2007057) provides $50,000,00 for funding of the Regional Transit Authority Plan from
the Board's contingency;
· One (1) appropriation (#2007060) in the amount of $18,105.00 for a Police Department grant; and
· One (1) appropriation (#2007061) to refund $2,080.66 insurance proceeds to Stony Point Volunteer Fire
Company
Approved April 4, 2007:
· Two (2) appropriations (#2007062 and #2007064) totaling $15,334.00 appropriating proffered funds for the
29N Corridor Study and storm water improvements; and
One (1) appropriation (#2007063) provides $22,993.43 for various education programs and grants
The twelve (12) new appropriations are as follows:
· One (1) appropriation (#2007065) provides $253,683.30 in funds for various Education programs;
· Five (5) appropriations (#2007066, #2007067, #2007068, #2007069 and #2007075) totaling $174,276,57 for
Social Service grants;
· One (1) appropriation (#2007070) provides $18,362,00 in funding for a Department of Criminal Justice Grant
for the Commission on Children and Families;
· One (1) appropriation (#2007071) providing $7,000.00 in state funds for Police Department overtime relating
to the Foxfield Races;
· One (1) appropriation (#2007072) transferring unused funds in the amount of $71,121.84 from the Fire Billing
Fund to the General Fund;
· One (1) appropriation (#2007073) providing $464,788.00 in funds for FY05/06 CSA overexpenditures;
· One (1) appropriation (#2007074) for a $5,000.00 donation from the Meriwether Lewis PTO for playground
equipment replacement; and
· One (1) appropriation (#2007076) totaling $171,841.00 for projects at the Emergency Communications
Center,
A detailed description of these requests is provided on Attachment A.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2007 Budget Amendment in the amount of $1,305,573.96 after the public hearing,
and then approval of Appropriations #2007065, #2007066, #2007067, #2007068, #2007069, #2007070, #2007071,
#2007072, #2007073, #2007074, #2007075, and #2007076 to provide funds for various local government, school, and
capital projects and programs as described in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Proposed Appropriations
Attachment A
Appropriation #2007065
$253.683.30
Revenue Source:
Local Revenue (Donations)
School Fund Balance
$ 200,00
253,483.30
At its meeting on March 22, 2007, the School Board approved the following appropriation requests:
Albemarle High School received two donations totaling $200.00. Scott and Donna Vandepol donated $50.00.
Gary and Deborah Lam donated $150,00, It has been requested that these donations go towards Albemarle
High Softball.
Following completion of the FY 2005/06 audit, reappropriation of school carryover funds takes place and
portions of building rental funds are returned to schools,
Appropriation #2007066
$1.500.00
Revenue Source:
Federal Revenue
$ 1,500.00
The County along with the City of Charlottesville and Region Ten CSB have entered into an agreement to
provide mental and substance abuse services to the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. Under this agreement,
federal funding is available for reimbursement of expenses incurred, For the period of June 1,2006 through
May 31,2007, the County can be reimbursed for up to $1,500.00 of incidental costs for the Mental Health
Worker housed at the agency,
Appropriation #2007067
$ 25.127.00
Revenue Source:
Federal Revenue
$ 25,127.00
The County has received renewed funds from the Federal Government in the form of the Child Care Quality
Initiative. These funds will be used in conjunction with the City of Charlottesville Department of Social Services
to create a position that will be housed at Albemarle's Department of Social Services that will serve both
departments under the grant. The revenues from this grant are 100% federal and no local match.
Appropriation #2007068
$ 11.783.85
Revenue Source:
Federal Revenue
Transfer from General Fund
$ 9,786.28
1,997.57
The Americorps Program, which is a continuation of funding provided by the Virginia Community Corps via a
federal grant, will serve the Adult Division of Albemarle County Department of Social Services to help achieve
the following strategic goals of the agency: Develop and implement strategies focused on prevention and early
intervention and ensure that all services meet the need of the changing demographics of the community.
Albemarle County has received a grant award of $9,786.28 and will provide the 15% local match, $1,997.57,
from existing appropriated funds with the Department of Social Services' operating budget.
Appropriation #2007069
$ 68.250.00
Revenue Source:
Federal Revenue
Transfer from General Fund
$ 54,600,00
13,650.00
The Federal Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) assess a state's performance with regard to seven child
welfare outcomes pertaining to children's safety, permanency and well-being. The CFSR found Virginia's (and
all other states') child welfare program to be substantially out of compliance in several areas. Therefore, the
State is required to implement a Program Improvement Plan (PIP). In order to strengthen Virginia's child
welfare system and to improve outcomes, the State allocated additional general funds to help implement the
PIP, Albemarle County Department of Social Services will use these funds to focus on improving an outcome
that has historically fallen short of the Federal standard - to increasing the percentage of children who reunify
with their prior custodian within twelve months of entering foster care.
The allocation for Albemarle County is $54,600.00 and requires a 20% local match of $13,650.00. The local
match will be funded with existing appropriated funds within the Department of Social Services' operating
budget.
Appropriation #2007070
$ 18.362.00
Revenue Source:
Federal Revenue
Transfer from CCF
$ 16,526.00
1,836,00
The Department of Criminal Justice Services has awarded the Commission on Children and Families a grant in
the amount of $16,526.00 with a local match of $1 ,836,00 for a total grant award in the amount of $18,362,00.
This grant will provide training and the implementation of promoting greater accountability in the juvenile justice
system including the increased accountability for juvenile offenders. Local match monies will be provided from
existing appropriated funds in the Commission on Children and Families' budget.
Appropriation #2007071
$ 7.000.00
Revenue Source:
State Revenue
$ 7,000.00
In an agreement with the Virginia Alcohol Beverage Control Board (ABC), the Albemarle County Police
Department will be receiving $7,000.00 to assist with overtime associated with the 2007 Foxfield Spring Race.
Appropriation #2007072
$ 71.121.84
Revenue Source:
Transfer from Fire Billing Fund $ 71,121,84
Prior to FY04/05, the County established a Fire Billing Fund to allocate funding for vehicle fuel and maintenance
for the volunteer fire and rescue companies in the County, This fund was supported by an annual transfer from
the General Fund and was allocated to fuel and maintenance line items for each volunteer company. In
FY04/05, the Board of Supervisors changed the funding mechanism for volunteer fire and rescue companies
whereby the operating expenses for companies were funded at 85% in FY05 and 100% in FY06, and the Fire
Billing Fund was no longer used. There remains a balance of unused funds in the Fire Billing Fund in the
amount of $71,121.84 which is now being transferred back to the General Fund.
Appropriation #2007073
$ 464.788.00
Revenue Source:
General Fund Balance
$464,788,00
Due to increased cost of the CSA Program, the Board approved additional local funds for this program in the
amount of $464,788.00 for FY06. Staff, however, failed to actually transfer these funds prior to completion of
the FY06 annual financial reports and audit. In order to correct staffs oversight, this request is to reappropriate
these funds for FY07 to be transferred to the CSA Program.
Appropriation #2007074
$ 5.000.00
Revenue Source:
Local Revenue (Donation)
$ 5,000.00
The existing playground equipment at Meriwether Lewis Elementary School, which is eighteen years old, is
scheduled to be replaced by the Parks & Recreation Department. This project, which is included as a part of the
Parks-Maintenance Projects capital budget, includes the removal of the existing equipment, wooden borders
and mulch, and replacing them with new equipment, fabric, mulch and plastic borders. The Meriwether Lewis
PTO has contributed $5,000.00 towards the cost of this project.
Appropriation #2007075
$67.615.72
Revenue Source:
Federal Revenue
Transfer from General Fund
$ 55,448.72
12,167,00
The Department of Justice has awarded the Albemarle County Department of Social Services, a federal Bureau
of Justice Assistance Grant in the amount of $55,448,72 with a local match of $12,167,00. This grant will
provide funds for a part-time position that will serve as a primary case manager for foster children whose
parent(s) are involved in the Family Treatment Court Program and for on-going Child Protective Cases whose
parents are involved in the Family Treatment Court Program. The case manager will coordinate substance
abuse services through Region Ten, attend weekly Family Treatment Court meetings, as well as monitor and
encourage parents' compliance with substance abuse treatment. The local match, $12,167.00, will be funded
through existing appropriated funds within the Department of Social Services' budget.
Appropriation #2007076
$171.841.00
Revenue Source:
State Revenue
$171,841.00
At its meeting on March 20, 2007, the Emergency Communications Center Management Board approved the
appropriation of $171 ,841.00 from additional funds received from the state's 911 Wireless Board. These funds
will be used for the following initiatives:
· $20,000.00 to purchase computer hardware, user licenses, and network connections for one prototype
remote Call Taker workstation. This workstation will allow ECC to test and evaluate telecommuting
options for emergency call taker positions, Telecommuting job options will give us flexibility and
alternatives when addressing vacant positions and emergency incident staffing needs, Telecommuting
is also a strategy when confronted with pandemic emergencies.
· $50,000.00 - The Computer Aided Dispatch and Public Safety Records systems are nearing their end
of life, Although the vendors will continue to maintain these systems for a few years longer, they will not
provide additional upgrades or enhancements. It takes at least three years to procure and install major
new computer systems. Therefore ECC will need to begin system replacement procurement process
now. The first step in procuring replacement computer systems is to define the need and investigate
our alternatives,
· $100,000.00 to expand and update the ECC building security system, The oldest computer system at
the ECC is the one that controls building access, The software is no longer supported by the vendor
and the hardware is prone to failure,
· $1,841.00 - As an all hazards approach to emergency management, the ECC should be prepared to
shelter in-place, ECC is often required to increase staffing in inclement weather which is our most
common emergency. It can be challenging to feed staff retained beyond their shifts especially if food
delivery services and grocery stores close. These funds would be used to purchase Meal Ready to Eat
(MRE's).
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2007065
EXPLANATION:
Education Donations and Use of Fund Balance
School Board Meeting 03/22/07
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION J 2 200.00
2 2000 51000 510100 APPROP-FUND BALANCE J 2 253,483.30
1 2201 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 10,135.00
1 2202 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 3,904.00
1 2203 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 1,606.00
1 2204 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 11,427.80
1 2205 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 4,246.40
1 2206 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 11,499.00
1 2207 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 6,396.00
1 2209 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 5,957.00
1 2210 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 2,074.00
1 2211 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 8,152.00
1 2212 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 11,097.80
1 2213 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 3,788.00
1 2214 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 365.70
1 2215 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 8,983.00
1 2216 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 33.60
1 2217 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 2,649.60
1 2251 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 8,300.20
1 2252 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 18,091.00
1 2253 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 15,750.00
1 2254 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 20,494.40
1 2255 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 31,325.20
1 2301 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 490.40
1 2302 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 9,629.20
1 2303 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 8,447.00
1 2304 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 48,641.00
1 2301 61105 580000 MISCELLANEOUS EXP. J 1 200.00
2000 0501 EST. REVENUE 253,683.30
0701 APPROPRIATION 253,683.30
TOTAL 507,366.60 , 253,683.30 I 253,683.30
PREPARED BY:
BD. OF SUPV APPROVAL:
ACCT. APPROVAL:
ENTERED BY:
Melvin Breeden
Ella W. Carey
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
3/28/2007
5/2/2007
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2007066
EXPLANATION:
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1660 33000 330027 Mental Health Substance J 2 1,500.00
1 1660 53014 332104 Maint. Contract - DP J 1 450.00
1 1660 53014 550100 T ravellT raining/Education J 1 250.00
1 1660 53014 520300 Telecommunications J 1 450.00
1 1660 53014 600100 Office Suoolies J 1 350.00
1660 0501 Est. Revenue 1,500.00
0701 Aoorooriation 1,500.00
TOTAL 3,000.00 , 1,500.00 I 1,500.00
PREPARED BY:
BD. OF SUPV APPROVAL:
ACCT. APPROVAL:
ENTERED BY:
Melvin Breeden
Ella W. Carey
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
4/4/2007
5/2/2007
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2007067
EXPLANATION:
Child Care Quality Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1561 33000 330001 Federal Grant Revenue J 2 25,127.00
1 1561 53115 110000 Salaries - Reaular J 1 22,296.33
210000 FICA J 1 1,705.67
312100 Prof. Services - Leaal J 1 1,000.00
600100 Office Supplies J 1 125.00
1561 0501 Est. Revenue 25,127.00
0701 Appropriation 25,127.00
TOTAL 50,254.00 I 25,127.00 I 25,127.00
,
PREPARED BY:
BD. OF SUPV APPROVAL:
ACCT. APPROVAL:
ENTERED BY:
Melvin Breeden
Ella W. Carey
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
4/4/2007
5/2/2007
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2007068
EXPLANATION:
Americorps Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1566 33000 330001 Federal Revenue J 2 9,786.28
1 1566 51000 512004 Transfer from G/F J 2 1,997.57
1 1566 53156 110000 Salaries J 1 10,900.00
1 1566 53156 210000 FICA J 1 883.85
1566 0501 Est. Revenue 11,783.85
0701 Aoorooriation 11,783.85
1 1000 53013 570600 ADC - Foster Care J 1 (1,997.57)
1 1000 53013 939999 Transfer to Grants J 1 1,997.57
TOTAL 23,567.70 , 11,783.85 I 11,783.85
PREPARED BY:
BD. OF SUPV APPROVAL:
ACCT. APPROVAL:
ENTERED BY:
Melvin Breeden
Ella W. Carey
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
4/4/2007
5/2/2007
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2007069
EXPLANATION:
Social Services - Child and Family Services Review - Program Improvement
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1568 33000 330020 Administration-Social Serv J 2 54,600.00
2 1568 51000 512004 Trs. Fr. General Fund J 2 13,650.00
1 1568 53013 110000 Salaries - Reaular J 1 39,890.00
1 1568 53013 210000 FICA J 1 3,052.00
1 1568 53013 221000 VRS J 1 5,170.00
1 1568 53013 231000 Health Insurance J 1 5,860.00
1 1568 53013 232000 Dental Insurance J 1 200.00
1 1568 53013 241000 VRS Life J 1 451.00
1 1568 53013 270000 Worker's Comoensation J 1 168.00
1 1568 53013 332104 Maint. Contract - DP EauiD J 1 580.00
1 1568 53013 520100 Postal Services J 1 354.00
1 1568 53013 520300 Telecommunications J 1 625.00
1 1568 53013 540200 Lease/Rent-Buildinas J 1 1,550.00
1 1568 53013 550100 T ravellT rainina/Education J 1 2,500.00
1 1568 53013 600100 Office Supplies J 1 700.00
1 1568 53013 601700 COpy Expenses J 1 650.00
1 1568 53013 800200 Furniture & Fixtures J 1 2,500.00
1 1568 53013 800700 ADP Eauipment J 1 4,000.00
1568 0501 Est. Revenue 68,250.00
0701 Aporooriation 68,250.00
1 1000 53013 570600 ADC - Foster Care J 1 (13,65000)
1 1000 53013 939999 Transfer to Other Funds J 1 13,650.00
TOTAL 136,500.00 I 68,250.00 I 68,250.00
. ,
PREPARED BY:
BD. OF SUPV APPROVAL:
ACCT. APPROVAL:
ENTERED BY:
Melvin Breeden
Ella W. Carey
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
4/6/2007
5/2/2007
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2007070
EXPLANATION:
CCF Grant - DCJS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1574 33000 330001 Federal Revenue J 2 16,526.00
2 1574 51000 512001 Transfer from Other Funds J 2 1,836.00
1 1574 53161 11 0000 Salaries J 1 13,355.65
1 1574 53161 210000 FICA J 1 1,106.35
1 1574 53161 550100 TravellTrainin!l J 1 1,750.00
1 1574 53161 800120 EquipmenUMaterials J 1 2,150.00
1574 0501 Est. Revenue 18,362.00
0701 Appropriation 18,362.00
1 4400 54105 110000 CCF - Salaries J 1 (1,836.00)
1 4400 93010 930200 Transfer to Grant Projects J 1 1,836.00
TOTAL 36,724.00 I 18,362,00 J 18,362.00
, . ,
PREPARED BY:
BD. OF SUPV APPROVAL:
ACCT. APPROVAL:
ENTERED BY:
Melvin Breeden
Ella W. Carey
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
4/6/2007
5/2/2007
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2007071
EXPLANATION:
Police Department Overtime - Foxfield Races
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1000 24000 240501 State Revenue J 2 7.000.00
1 1000 31013 120310 Overtime/Special Events J 1 6.541.00
210000 FICA J 1 459.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 7.000.00
0701 Appropritaion 7.000.00
TOTAL 14,000.00 , 7,000.00 I 7,000.00
PREPARED BY:
BD. OF SUPV APPROVAL:
ACCT. APPROVAL:
ENTERED BY:
Melvin Breeden
Ella W. Carey
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
4/6/2007
5/2/2007
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2007072
EXPLANATION:
Transfer from Fire Billing Fund to General Fund
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1802 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 71,121.84
1 1802 93010 930009 Transfer to General Fund J 1 71,121.84
2 1000 51000 512000 Transfer fr. Other Funds J 2 71,121.84
2 1000 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 (71,121.84)
1802 0501 Est. Revenue 71,121.84
0701 Appropriation 71,121.84
TOTAL 142,243.68 , 71,121.84 I 71,121.84
PREPARED BY:
BD. OF SUPV APPROVAL:
ACCT. APPROVAL:
ENTERED BY:
Melvin Breeden
Ella W. Carey
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
2/16/2007
5/2/2007
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2007073
EXPLANATION:
CSA Overexpenditure
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1000 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 464,788.00
1 1000 53013 930206 Transfer to CSA Fund J 1 464,788.00
2 1551 51000 512016 CSA - G/F Transfer J 2 464,788.00
1 1551 53120 999999 Continaencv J 1 464,788.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 464,788.00
0701 Appropriation 464,788.00
1551 0501 Est. Revenue 464,788.00
0701 Appropriation 464,788.00
TOTAL 1,859,152.00 I 929,576.00 I 929,576.00
,
PREPARED BY:
BD. OF SUPV APPROVAL:
ACCT. APPROVAL:
ENTERED BY:
Melvin Breeden
Ella W. Carey
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
4/10/2007
5/2/2007
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2007074
EXPLANATION:
Donation - Meriwether Lewis PTO
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 9010 18110 181128 Donation - MWL PTO J 2 5,000.00
1 9010 71000 800949 Parks - Maintenance J 1 5,000.00
9010 0501 Est. Revenue 5,000.00
0701 Appropriation 5,000.00
TOTAL 10,000.00 . 5,000.00 , 5,000.00
PREPARED BY:
BD. OF SUPV APPROVAL:
ACCT. APPROVAL:
ENTERED BY:
Melvin Breeden
Ella W. Carey
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
4/12/2007
5/2/2007
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2007075
EXPLANATION:
Family Treatment Court Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1562 33000 330029 Federal Revenues J 2 55,448.72
2 1562 51000 512004 Transfer from G/F J 2 12,167.00
1 1562 53158 11 0000 Salaries - Reaular J 1 54,384.33
1 1562 53158 210000 FICA J 1 4,160.31
1 1562 53158 242000 Group Life J 1 430.08
1 1562 53158 332104 Maint. Contract - DP J 1 1,555.00
1 1562 53158 520300 Telecommunications J 1 1,820.00
1 1562 53158 540200 Lease/Rent-Buildinas J 1 2,746.68
1 1562 53158 600100 Office Supplies J 1 1,363.32
1 1562 53158 800700 ADP Eauipment J 1 1,156.00
1562 0501 Est. Revenue 67,615.72
0701 Appropriation 67,615.72
1 1000 53013 570600 ADC - Foster Care J 1 (12,167.00)
1 1000 53013 939999 Transfer to Other Funds J 1 12,167.00
TOTAL 135,231.44 . 67,615.72 , 67,615.72
PREPARED BY:
BD. OF SUPV APPROVAL:
ACCT. APPROVAL:
ENTERED BY:
Melvin Breeden
Ella W. Carey
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
4/12/2007
5/2/2007
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2007076
EXPLANATION:
ECC Initiatives
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 4100 24000 240424 State Revenue -911 Wireless J 2 171,841.00
1 4100 31041 331800 ECC-Adm - R/M Buildina J 1 100,000.00
1 4100 31041 800700 ECC-Adm - ADP Eauip J 1 20,000.00
1 4100 31045 600200 ECC-Emera. Svc-Food Suppl J 1 1,841.00
1 4100 31046 312210 ECC Prof. Services J 1 50,000.00
4100 0501 Est. Revenue 171,841.00
0701 Aoorooriation 171,841.00
TOTAL 343,682.00 171,841.00 , 171,841.00
PREPARED BY:
BD. OF SUPV APPROVAL:
ACCT. APPROVAL:
ENTERED BY:
Melvin Breeden
Ella W. Carey
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
4/12/2007
5/2/2007
.
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
40] McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434)296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4012
April 25, 2007
Peter Sheeran
Sheeran Architects
226 East High Street
Charlottesville, V A 22902
RE: SP 2004-00050, Flow Automotive Companies Sales and Display (Sign #60)
Tax Map 78, Parcels 15E and 15D
Dear Mr. Sheeran:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 17, 2007, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Vehicles shall not be elevated anywhere on site.
2. Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas indicated for display shown on the site plan entitled "Flow
Automotive," prepared by the Collins Engineering, dated April 2, 2007.
3. Display parking shall be only in designated striped parking spaces as identified on this plan.
4. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the landscape plan (submitted with.the site
plan). Landscaping shown on the plan may be required to be in excess of the minimum requirements
of ARB guidelines or the Zoning Ordinance to compensate forthe negative visual impact of the
proposed use, particularly regarding the retaining wall on the west side of the property.
5. Final site plan approval is subject to the recordation of easements for ingress/egress, as well as the
installation, maintenance and use of parking spaces, planter islands, and landscaping on adjacent
parcels (Tax Map 78, Parcels 15D and 15E).
6. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the lighting plan (which shall be submitted with
the site plan). Maximum light levels on site shall not exceed 30 foot candles. Maximum spillover
lighting requirements must also be met.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on May 2,2007.
. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sheeran
Page 2 of2
April 25, 2007
Sincerely,
~~
David Benish
Chief of Planning
Planning Division
DBB/aer
Cc: Howie, Gary A
2883 Seminole Trail, Charlottesville, VA 22911
Ella Carey
Jack Kelsey
.
.
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP2004-00050 Flow Auto Staff: David Benish
Sales and Display
Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
April 17, 2007 May 2, 2007
Owners: Applicant:
Acreage: 1.94 acres Special Use Permit: Sales and Display in
the Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay
District (Section 30.6.3.2 (b)) of the
Zoning Ordinance
TMP: TM 78, Parcels 15D and 15E Existing Zoning and By-right use: HC-
Location: 1307-09 and 1313 Richmond Road, Hiqhway Commercial and EC, Entrance
south side of Richmond Road (Rt. 250 East), Corridor Overlay District - retail sales and
approximately 1060 feet east of Riverbend service uses.
Drive.
Magisterial District: Rivanna Conditions: Yes
Proposal: Expansion of the Flow Volkswagen- Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA
Audi-Mazda dealership.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Comprehensive Plan Designation: Regional
DA (Development Area): Pantops Service - regional-scale retail, wholesale,
business and/or employment centers, and
(Neighborhood 3) residential (6.01-34 units/acre).
Character of Property: Parcel 15 E (.69 ac.) is Use of Surrounding Properties: The subject
not developed and IS being used as a property is surrounded by commercial uses,
temporary parking area (old stone structure specifically other car dealerships on either side
recently razed). Parcel 15D contains the of this site and across the street (Brown
existing Flow Auto dealership. Toyota to the east and Battlefield Ford/Jeep to
the north, across Route 250 from this site).
Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable:
1. Motor vehicle sales use is a by-right There are no unfavorable factors.
use in the Highway Commercial
District;
2. ARB recommendation for approval
(with conditions).
3. There will be no detrimental impacts to
the entrance corridor as recommended
by ARB.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with conditions.
SF-' :::U(J4-.Cl:)()
IU'J.; /\UIC:' ~l.~-.!!f::~-) eJI-IU
F'C 4/17/C7
BC)S 5/02/(}T
2
SP 2004050 Flow .A.uta Sales al id Display
PC 4/17107 BOS 5/02/07
.
.
.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE:
David Benish
April 17, 2007
May 2, 2007
UPDATE: Attachment B has been revised to correct a typographical error in
the parking calculations found on the version reviewed by the Planning
Commission. Consequently, Condition 2 has been modified to reflect the date
of the revised version of the site plan (Attachment B).
SP 2004-00050 Flow Automotive, Volkswagen, Audi, Mazda
PETITION:
PROJECT: SP 2004-50, Flow Automotive, Volkswagen-Audi-Mazda
PROPOSAL: Special Use Permit (SP) to allow sales and display area associated with a proposal to
expand the existing Flow Auto dealership, including modifications to the existing building and outside
display, and the construction of a new auto dealership/showroom building with new outdoor display
area. A total of 46 outdoor vehicle display spaces are provided on the combined sites.
The existing Flow Auto building will be expanded and some reconfiguration of the outside vehicle
sales/display will take place. On the adjacent site, a new dealership/showroom building and new
outdoor vehicle sales/display area will be constructed. When completed, the sites will function as one
dealership (Flow Auto).
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: HC, Hiqhwav Commercial- Motor Vehicle Sales, Service
and Rental; and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlav District - Outdoor Sales and Display and/or Sales.
SECTION: 24.2.1 (25) and 30.6.3.2 (b)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Reqional Service - regional-scale retail, wholesale,
business and/or employment centers, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 3 (Pantops)
Development Area.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: South side of Richmond Road (Route 250), approximately 1060 feet east of its
intersection with Riverbend Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 78-58D and 58E
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna Magisterial District.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The area consists primarily of retail uses, with this immediate stretch of Richmond Road consisting of
auto dealerships. The subject parcel is located on the south side of Route 250 East, adjacent to the
Brown Toyota dealership (to the east) and across the street from Battlefield Ford (See Attachment A for
a location map). To the west is the site is the Crown BMW dealership. The ACSA headquarters and
equipment storage is to the south of the site.
One of the two parcels associated with this request contains the existing Flow Auto dealership. The
second adjacent Parcel is currently vacant but has been cleared and previously graded. A stone house
3
:::>F' .20C.J{f-()5CJ FieJ"\! ,i,l.ltu Salet:: (~II'lcl Displav
PC 4/": HC;3 5/()2/Ci-
was located on the parcel for many years. The house was recently demolished and debris removed
from the site (within the last 2 years).
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The intent of the special use permit requirement is to review the potential impacts to the Entrance
Corridor of the outdoor sales and display activity related to the dealership operation. Other activities
related to auto sales are considered by-right uses. The ARB has reviewed this proposal for its impact
on the Route 250 East Entrance Corridor and had no objection to the request for the Special Use Permit
with a condition related to landscaping.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
No prior planning/zoning history exists for the adjacent site.
CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Land Use Plan-
The property is located in Pantops Development Area (Neighborhood 3), and is designated Regional
Service in the current Land Use Plan. The purpose/intent of the Regional Service designation noted in
the Plan is to provide locations for highway related uses, comparison shopping and specialized goods
and services. Typical primary uses include regional-scale commercial uses, and auto dealerships which
typically include outdoor storage and display of vehicles for sale.
Neighborhood Model-
The ordinance limits the review of this Special Use Permit specifically to the impacts of the sales and
display activities to the Entrance Corridor. Therefore, this request is not reviewed in regards to
conformity to the Neighborhood Model.
STAFF COMMENT
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a
finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property, and that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The subject parcel is located in the HC zoning district. The dominant character of the segment of the
Entrance Corridor in which the subject parcel resides is that of a dense commercial strip. Many of the
properties in this corridor have already been developed as automobile dealerships with outdoor storage
and display (as described above under "Character of the Area"). The proposed use is compatible with
other existing auto dealers in the immediate vicinity.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
According to section 30.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, the intent of the EC Overlay District is, in part, to
ensure a quality of development that is compatible with the county's important scenic, architectural and
4
SF' 2004-05G Fiow J\ulo Sd!(~S allel Display
F'e 4/17/07 80S 5102107
.
.
.
cultural resources through the architectural control of development. The ARB has applied the County's
adopted guidelines for development within the EC to the review of this request and has recommended
approval with conditions.
with uses permitted by-right in the district,
Although a special use permit is required for the proposed modifications/additions to the outdoor sales
and display areas on these sites, this activity (sales/display area) is for an accessory use to motor
vehicle sales, which is already allowed by right within the Highway Commercial (HC) zoning district.
Other automobile dealerships exist in the immediate vicinity, Therefore, the sales and display use is
compatible with other permitted and existing uses,
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance related to vehicle storage or
display.
SUMMARY
The intent of the special use permit requirement is based on potential impacts to the Entrance Corridors.
The ARB has reviewed this proposal for its impact on the Route 250 East Entrance Corridor and had no
objection to the request for the Special Use Permit provided the site is adequately landscaped and
operated consistent the conditions recommended by the ARB (Attachment C).
Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this request:
1. A motor vehicle sales use is a by-right use in the Highway Commercial District and the proposed
use is accessory to that use;
2. The Architectural Review Board has reviewed the request for outdoor storage and display and
recommends approval with conditions.
3. There are no detrimental impacts to the Entrance Corridor, with conditions as recommended by
the ARB.
Staff has identified no unfavorable factors to this application.
The following factors are relevant to this consideration:
1. There are several automobile dealerships with outdoor sales/display of vehicles in the immediate
vicinity along the Route 250 East Entrance Corridor.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, Staff recommends approval of this special use permit
with the following conditions:
J
SF; l_C)04-()~)C ~ lovv' AL!lO Sd!l~.':_ df ld
PC "i/'17/Oi'
E-;O S 5/02/07
1. Vehicles shall not be elevated anywhere on site.
2. Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas indicated for display shown on the site plan entitled "Flow
Automotive," prepared by the Collins Engineering, dated April 18, 2007.
3. Display parking shall be only in designated striped parking spaces as identified on this plan.
4. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the landscape plan (submitted with the site
plan). Landscaping shown on the plan may be required to be in excess of the minimum
requirements of ARB guidelines or the Zoning Ordinance to compensate for the negative visual
impact of the proposed use, particularly regarding the retaining wall on the west side of the property.
5. Final site plan approval is subject to the recordation of easements for ingress/egress, as well as the
installation, maintenance and use of parking spaces, planter islands, and landscaping on adjacent
parcels (Tax Map 78, Parcels 150 and 15E).
6. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the lighting plan (which shall be submitted with
the site plan). Maximum light levels on site shall not exceed 30 foot candles. Maximum spillover
lighting requirements must also be met.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Location Map
B. Flow Automotive Volkswagen, Audi, Mazda Special Use Permit Concept Plan
(Sept. 27, 2006)
C. ARB conditions of approval
6
SP 2004-050 Flow Aulo Sales and Display
PC 4/17/07 BOS 5/02/07
061
::.-
062
2.268
063
78-57
31A1
31A
SX U E
79-7A
78-22
./u
i
)
/
.<'
92-16
'/
\
I
/
092
.---
Scale
BOO 1.600 2,400
Albemarle County
Tax Map:
078
~r
Feel
Note: This map is for display purposes only
and shows parcels as of 12/31/2005
See Map Book Introduction tor additional details.
Attachment A
.
.
.
Attachment C
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 Mcintire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
April 9, 2007
Fax (434) 972-4012
Sheeran Architects
226 East High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ARB-2007 -21: Flow Building Addition and ARB-2006-60 Flow Volkswagen & Audi Dealership-
Advisory Review for a Special Use Permit (parcels 150 and 15E) and Final Review of a Building
Design and Site Development Plan (parcel 150) - Tax Map 78
Dear Mr. Sheeran:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on March 19, 2007, completed a preliminary
review of the above-noted request. The Board took the following actions.
Reqardinq the Proposed Special Use Permit Request, the Board by a vote of 4:0, forwarded the following
recommendation to the Planning Commission:
The ARB has no objection to the request for the Special Use Permit on parcels 150 and 15E, with the
following conditions:
1. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the landscape plan (submitted with the site
plan). Landscaping shown on the plan may be required to be in excess of the minimum requirements
of ARB guidelines or the Zoning Ordinance to compensate for the negative visual impact of the
proposed use, particularly regarding the retaining wall on the west side of parcel 15E and display
parking spaces located along the EC on both sites.
2. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the lighting plan (which shall be submitted with
the site plan). Maximum light levels on site shall not exceed 30 footcandles. Maximum spillover
lighting requirements must also be met.
3. Vehicles shall not be elevated anywhere on site. Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas indicated
for display shown on the plan sheet S-1 entitled "Flow Automotive Site Plan" dated 12-11-06 by
Collins Engineering. Display parking shall be only in designated striped parking spaces as identified
on this plan.
Reqardinq the Buildinq Desiqn and Site Development Plan, the Board approved the Certificate of
Appropriateness for ARB-2007-21, Flow Building Addition and ARB-2006-060, Flow Volkswagon & Audi
Dealership, for parcels 150 and 15E, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provide a row of evergreen shrubs, 24" high minimum at planting, along the EC frontage of both
sites (parcels 150 and 15E). The shrubs species and spacing shall be sufficient to create a
hedge. Include the following note on the plan: "All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be
allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs
and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant."
2. Revise the landscape legend and all plant notations so that they are legible. Revise the landscape
plan so the retaining wall on 15E and the surrounding area are legible.
3. Revise the photometric plan to reduce spillover to meet ordinance requirements. Spillover shall not
exceed .5 footcandles at the property line along Route 250. Clearly show on the plan the light level at
the property line.
4. Coordinate the wall light locations between lighting plan and architectural elevations and check the
mounting height. Include in the luminaire schedule the proposed color/finish for all proposed fixtures.
Coordinate light fixtures with utilities and tree locations.
5. Coordinate pole lighUbase information. Coordinate wall light locations between plans and elevations.
Add wall lights to the architectural elevations.
6. Revise the photometric plan using a maintenance factor (LLF) of 1.0. Indicate on the photometric plan
that the light levels were calculated using a maintenance factor of 1.0. Revise the lighting plan to
maintain maximum fc below 30.
7. Revise the plan to clearly show the revised location of the access easement.
8. Provide for review complete information on the proposed wall and freestanding signs. Note: The
freestanding sign location is provided for information only. Its location will not be approved with the
site plan. Freestanding sign locations are approved with sign permits. Both the freestanding sign and
wall sign will require sign permits in addition to ARB approval.
9. Note on the plan that the equipment on both the east and west sides of the existing building will be
relocated to the back of the building, out of view of the EC. Add the following note to the architectural
elevations that accompany the building permit application and the plans submitted for site plan
approval: "Equipment shall not be visible from the Entrance Corridor".
10. All outstanding conditions of approval on ARB-2006-60 still apply.
11. Revise the plan to include the tree protection and tree removal/replacement notes shown on the July
24, 2006 Cox & Co. Exhibit C drawing previously presented to the ARB for review.
12. The Witch Hazel plant shall be replaced with an alternate tree, for example, a Crepe Myrtle.
To complete the review process for the architecture and site plan issues, please provide:
1. Two full sets of revised drawings addressing each condition 1-12. Include updated ARB revision dates
on each drawing.
2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes
other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting
the changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate review and approval.
3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your revisions to
ensure proper tracking and distribution.
When staff's review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of
Appropriateness may be issued.
If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Margaret M. Maliszewski
Design Planner
Planning Division
MMM/aer
Cc: Linkous, Janice S
2205 Shepherds Ridge Rd, Charlottesville, VA 22901
SP-2004-005 File
ARB-2007-21 File
ARB-2006-60 File
~
.,.
::
QJ
S
.:::
("I
~
.,.
.,.
--<
II
!il'
l'J
ct
U)
."
1:5
is
~ ~
~ f'4
fli +
~ ~
Bi ct
a U)
'" l'J
. ~
~~ '"
~s +
Vli' YI
~g l'J
!i;!~13~
i~~ftj
ii!U)llj~
m~~~
~",O'D
;!:U)""
~~"~
E~~ II~
1l;ot!~13'"
-. Ii .ullj
~'" 5r~).
I~~~~~
~~~~i
~~('ji~
~~~~;;:
.
itf
u
ct
U)
l'J
13 s
u fg
ct -,
U) :!;
~ +
~ ~
a ~~
~ ctl'j
"'~ ~~
l'J~ ~~
~i' U11fl
g "'0
~~ ~~
a:o~~",
~3j~*~
ii!~~~~
~9~oa
~\!)o~'"
~~"I(j~
~~.~~
E",g+"'fIl
::t: "'-:'N~.a
8111-:~::'ltl~
",..5r.~U<ll
!:l~lQ 5r~~).
1::~8...~~
:s.....~~-..;Vl
;:j, I is: Q
O~~~~~I""
"" ~::;~~
s:~~l'J~~
O~l;!lltffil!:!",
li",QolJll1i",
..,
i
~ ~
lis \!)
." i!;
12 ~
~ ~
~ ~
g l5
~ ~
~ l'J
~
~~ ;!:
Ci3:i . if
r;:\!) 5lw ~
~~ ~ ~ ow
~~ I ~ ~
~i ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~
:'It 1.1..I f 0 lU
~~ llIli ~
~~ ~ ~ ~
~I: uj lJI ~ Q'
t5~ uj ~ ~ ~ ~
>=i!: 9 ;J ~ '" lS
~~ ~ '" ;!: ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1lI
:tlli fil ~ !il \!) ~
::5Q! l'J l5 ~ ;!: :t:
:t", ill '" 1Ill;; lJI
~g S ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ '" ilI~:l! ~
~I(j i ~ I ~ ~
\!)~ '" ~ Q::l <II
..;!:~ U ~ ~ ~ ~
6~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,
. .. ". . ,. ,- - -.T- _,__n __, ~__
ilq -lOU !IDLlS PUQ j.~~d U! JO ..104.... U! p..~npojd...J ilq IOU ,{ow pUD :)NI,n:
NY1cI iWS
3J\lLOWOJJlV MOl:l
SJJaWWOO 9W l8d Q3S~ :1..0!8tl'v
DNllIiiNIDNi
"
. T
0. i
I
-
ID1lD
l~ I
I~
i"
~! i
B@ I
~~!i2In ~~ I 3 ~~
11+~"\ltlj ~~~ I. ~,i~
- \ IX ",
I \ 1\ \ \
t- ci~
01"'1
~"'8
~.
---
.----.....-
18~ so
co'"
6~
"'('5
~Cl
....
Q",
i2"
(f) Vi
,Jl1+9.3.q.3
/ '
----
w
ffi~..-:~
I
I
I
I.":'
~~
t-~
0'"
~~
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 20, 2007
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting, work session and a public hearing on
Tuesday, February 20 2007, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
Mcintire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Eric Strucko, Calvin Morris, Vice-
Chairman; Jon Cannon, Marcia Joseph, Chairman; Bill Edgerton and Duane Zobrist. Absent was Pete
Craddock. Julia Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia, representative for David
J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning &
Current Development/Zoning Administrator; Brenda Neitz, Budget Analyst and Melvin Breeden, Director,
of the Office of Management and Budget; Patrick Lawrence, Planner; Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner;
Summer Frederick, Senior Planner; Sean Dougherty, Senior Planner; David E. Pennock, Senior Planner;
Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Ms. Joseph called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Item Requesting Deferral:
SP 2004-00050 Flow Automotive Companies (Sian #60)
Request for special use permit to allow outdoor display in accordance with Section 30.6.3.2 (b) of the
Zoning Ordinance which allows for outdoor display and/or sales in the EC Entrance Corridor zoning
overlay district. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 15E contains .69 acres and is located in
the Rivanna Magisterial District on the south side of Route 250E, at 1313 Richmond Road. The property is
zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan designates this
property as Regional Service in the Neighborhood 3 (Pantops) Development Area. (David Benish)
APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO THE APRIL 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Ms. Joseph noted that the applicant has requested deferral of SP-2004-00050, Flow Automotive
Companies to April 10. She opened the public hearing and asked if there was any public comment.
There being none, the public hearing was closed to bring the matter before the Commission.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, to approve the applicant's request for deferral of SP-
2004-00050, Flow Automotive Companies, to April 10, 2007.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Craddock was absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that SP-2004-00050, Flow Automotive Companies, was deferred to April 10, 2007.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 20, 2007
DRAFT MINUTES - PARTIAL ON SP-2004-00050 Flow Automotive Companies
SP 2004-00050. Flow Automotive Companies Sales and Displav (Sian #60)
PROPOSED: Expansion of the Flow Volkswagen-Audi-Mazda dealership, including outdoor
display and sale of automobiles in the Entrance Corridor.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: HC - Highway Commercial - commercial and seNice
uses and residential use by Special Use Permit (15 units/acre); EC Entrance Corridor Overlay
District - overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual
impacts of development along routes of tourist access.
SECTION: 30.6.3.2 (b) which allows for outdoor storage, display and lor sales visible from an
EC street in the EC Entrance Corridor zoning overlay district.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USEIDENSITY: Regional SeNice - regional-scale retail,
wholesale, business and/or employment centers, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: 1307-09 and 1313 Richmond Road, south side of Route 250 East, approximately
1060' east of Riverbend Drive. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 78/15E and 78/150.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
STAFF: David Benish
Mr. Benish summarized the staff report.
. This is a request for a special use permit to allow for sales and display
associated with a proposal to expand the existing Flow Auto Dealership. The
existing Flow Auto Building is being expanded in some reconfiguration of the
outside vehicle sales and display area.
. On the adjacent parcel it is currently vacant, but a new dealership show room
building is being constructed with new sales and display on that site. There use
to be a stone resident on the adjacent site, which was demolished about two
years ago. The site is rough cleared. It has some gravel and is used as
temporary parking.
. The intent of the special use permit requirement is to review the potential impacts
of the Entrance Corridor for outdoor sales and display activity related to the
dealership operation. Other activities related to the auto sales is considered a by
right use. The ARB has reviewed the proposal and its impacts with the Route
250 Entrance Corridor and has not objections. The ARB has provided some
conditions, which have been reflected in the conditions for the special use permit.
As a general rule both the ARB staff, Planning staff and the ARB feel that overall
the proposed improvements on this site improve the conditions that are currently
there at this time, particularly for the existing auto dealership.
· The report indicated that there is no planning or zoning history on this site.
Obviously, there was development on this site at some point in time. There was
a site plan approval that took place in the early 70's. There is no information at
that time. But, technically there was a site plan approved.
· Factors Favorable:
1. Motor vehicle sales use is a by-right use in the Highway Commercial District;
2. ARB recommendation for approval (with conditions). There will be no
detrimental impacts to the entrance corridor as recommended by ARB.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 17,2007
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2007-09 LITTLE KESWICK SCHOOL AMENDMENT
AND SP-2004-050 FLOW AUTOMOTIVE COMPANIES SALES AND DISPLAY
5
. Staff found that no unfavorable factors to the sales and display request.
. Staff recommends approval with the six conditions as provided. Condition 2
should be corrected to April 2 from April 4.
Mr. Edgerton asked when the request was reviewed by the ARB. He questioned why the ARB's
conditions were not attached.
Mr. Benish replied that the ARB reviewed the request on March 19. He passed out copies of
the ARB's action memo.
Ms. Joseph noted that the reason for the special use permit is because the site is in the
Entrance Corridor and the use requested was outdoor sales and display.
Mr. Benish noted that the auto dealership use is a by right use. The review is primarily the
impact of the display area. There are 21 display parking spaces on the site to the west, which is
the new building. On the existing site there are 25 display parking spaces.
Ms. Joseph noted that they were putting in a new lane in the front of the site.
Mr. Benish said that as a general rule the frontage treatment is a vast improvement over what is
there particularly on the new site. The enlarged structure and the new building actually provide
a little bit of enclosure for that site enough though it has parking in front of it. There is a large
retaining wall. It is actually integrated into the building. The retaining wall and the building itself
arguably is the by right aspect of it. What the Commission is primarily looking at is the visibility.
But, the ARB did comment on the retaining wall and construction and is comfortable with the
design. He noted that there is actually a ravine there. The Crown dealership is also built up,
which has a small retaining wall. This would be more of view that would be seen from down in
the drainage area. The adjacent development actually obscures some of the height of the
retaining wall.
There being no further questions for staff, Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited the
applicant to address the Commission. There being no one representing the applicant, she noted
that the Commission could still act on the request. She invited other public comment. There
being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Kamptner noted that there was one correction in condition 2 to change the date to April 2.
Motion:
Mr. Edgerton moved, Mr. Craddock seconded, for approval of SP-2004-00050, Flow Automotive
Companies Sales and Display subject to the conditions recommended by staff, as amended.
1. Vehicles shall not be elevated anywhere on site.
2. Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas indicated for display shown on the site plan
entitled "Flow Automotive," prepared by the Collins Engineering, dated April 2, 2007.
3. Display parking shall be only in designated striped parking spaces as identified on this
plan.
4. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the landscape plan (submitted with
the site plan). Landscaping shown on the plan may be required to be in excess of the
minimum requirements of ARB guidelines or the Zoning Ordinance to compensate forthe
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 17,2007
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2007-09 LITTLE KESWICK SCHOOL AMENDMENT
AND SP-2004-050 FLOW AUTOMOTIVE COMPANIES SALES AND DISPLAY
6
negative visual impact of the proposed use, particularly regarding the retaining wall on
the west side of the property.
5. Final site plan approval is subject to the recordation of easements for ingress/egress, as
well as the installation, maintenance and use of parking spaces, planter islands, and
landscaping on adjacent parcels (Tax Map 78, Parcels 150 and 15E).
6. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the lighting plan (which shall be
submitted with the site plan). Maximum light levels on site shall not exceed 30 foot
candles. Maximum spillover lighting requirements must also be met.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Morris was absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that SP-2004-050, Flow Automotive Companies Sales and Display would go
before the Board of Supervisors on May 2, 2007 with a recommendation for approval.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 17, 2007
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2007-09 LITTLE KESWICK SCHOOL AMENDMENT
AND SP-2004-050 FLOW AUTOMOTIVE COMPANIES SALES AND DISPLAY
7
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP 2007-09 Little Keswick School Amendment
AGENDA DATE:
May 2, 2007
ACTION: x
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Planning Commission added conditions for
screening landscaping
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACTlS):
Cilimberg, McDowell
ATTACHMENTS: YES
REVIEWED BY:
Cilimberg
LEGAL REVIEW: No
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing for this project on April 17, 2007. In response to a concern
from a neighbor (TMP 80-114A) adjacent to the proposed new dorm regarding noise and visual impacts that
may result from the dorm's presence, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft a condition(s) of
approval to address landscape materials for screening the portions of school property from the neighbor.
DISCUSSION:
On April 20, staff met with the applicant and Mr. and Mrs. Rintel to discuss the type and extent of the
screening. An agreement between both parties was submitted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 (Attachment A).
Two conditions of approval (number 5 and 6 below) include the substance of this agreement. However, the
agreement describes an area to receive screening (Area 2 on the agreement) that will be planted on the
adjacent neighbor's property, due to the lack of available space between the existing gym building and the
fence. This screening will reduce visibility of the gym to the neighbor's house and guesthouse/office. Since
the County typicall does not impose special use conditions on adjacent properties, the terms of this portion of
the agreement were not included in these additional conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes conditions 5. and 6. below, in addition to staffs four original conditions contained in its staff
report, address the Planning Commission's direction and, therefore, recommend approval with the following
conditions:
1. Special Use Permit 2006 132007-09 shall be limited to the construction use of a maximum two-story ~
Qa! residential facility the "New Dorm" for students enrolled in the Little Keswick School and for the
conversion of the existing "Barn Dorm" to non-residential uses, such as office, recreational, storage, meeting
area, or other similar uses. The "New Dorm" shall be located and developed in general accord with the
concept plan, titled, "Little Keswick School, Concept Plan" (Attachment A.) aAd dated June 22,2006
February 16. 2007 (last revision date) (the "Concept Plan"). However, the Zoning Administrator may
approve revisions to the 2 .Q.oncep! ~ Elan to allow compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Maximum enrollment of students shall be limited to thirty-five (35). Any increase in enrollment shall require
an amendment to this special use permit and may require entrance improvements subject to Virginia
Department of Transportation requirements.
3. The existing dorm, labeled "Barn Dorm" on the concept plan (Attachment A) shall be subject to review by the
Building Official prior to conversion of the existing use to any other use.
4. Construction shall commence within five (5) years of the date of approval of the special use permit SP 2006
~ SP 2007-09.
5. Alono the shared property line of Tax Map 80-118 and TMP 80-114A (the adiacent neiqhbor). between the
soccer field and the fence. a plantino material screen of approximately 124 feet in lenQth and 17 feet in width
shall be established and maintained on TMP 80-118. The plantinq materials shall consist of a minimum of
17 Leyland Cypress. each a minimum of 8 feet in heiqht. and shall be planted approximately 6 feet on
center.
6. Alono the shared property line of Tax Map 80-110, TMP 80-110A and TMP 80-114A (the adiacent neiohbor).
a plant material screen of approximately 340 feet in lenoth and 40 feet in width between the existino qym
buildino and TMP 80-11 OA shall be established and maintained on TMP 80-110 and a portion of TMP 80-
110A. Startino at the qym and proceedino toward TMP 80-110A. the first 260 feet in lenoth shall be planted
with a minimum of 45 Juniperus Viroiniana, each a minimum of 8 feet in heioht. and shall be planted
approximately 6 feet on center. The remainino 80 feet in lenoth shall be planted with a minimum of 13
Leyland Cypress. each a minimum of 6 feet in heioht. and shall be planted approximately 6 feet on center.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Screening Conditions Agreement SP-2007 -009, dated April 23, 2007
.
.
.
Screenino- ('onditions ~~green]ent SP 2007-009
~ -
As Cl condition of SP 20()7-00C), Littlt Kes\vicL School - Amendment. LKS
Enterprises, LLC and .1 onathan and Patricia Rintels mutually agree 10 the
follo\ving regarding screening along their shared propel1-y lines:
AREA # 1 - Tax Map 80-1] 8
Along the shared property line of Tax Map 80-118 and Rintels ' property, to
screen the Little Kes,;vick School (LKS) soccer field, LKS shall plant and
maintain 17 Leyland Cypress at a minimum of 8 feet tall and approximately
6 feet on center. Planting to be in the grassy area approximatel)' 124 feet in
length and 17 feet ,vide between Rintels' fence and the LKS soccer field
drivevlay. At the time of planting, should Rintels request it, LKS agrees to
take dO'vvn 1 existing white pine tree at its expense that is presently leaning
and may not survive.
AREA # 2 - Tax Map 80-110A2
Along the shared property line directly behind the LKS gymnasium (metal
building), along the length of building structure, LKS shall plant at mutually
agreed locations 5 \Vhite Pines, 14 feet tall minimum, to fill gaps and open
areas in the existing gymnasium vegetative screening. Due to lack of room
on LKS side ofthis boundary, Area #2 planting will be on the Rintels'
propeliy. LKS agrees to maintain these trees based on the walTanty of the
nursery/planting company time period, or two years, ,vhichever is longer.
Beyond that period, LKS ,vi 11 not be held responsible to replace Area #2
screen if it fails to serve its purpose for any reason.
Attachment A
AREA # 3 - Tax Map 80-110A and 80-110
Starting from the corner of the LKS gymnasium near the existing fence gate
and continuing in the direction of the old Keswick train depot to adjoin Fir
trees now growing between the LKS driveway and existing fence, planting
area for screening new dormitory structure and existing driveway/buildings
will be approximately 340 feet long and 40 feet wide. Starting from the
gym, the first 260 feet will be planted with 45 Juniperus Virginiana at a
minimum of 8 feet tall and approximately 6 feet on center. The remaining
80 feet will be planted with 13 Leyland Cypress at a minimum of 6 feet
high, approximately 6 feet on center. LKS will remove existing gate and
fence section near the gym and replace it with fencing to co-exist with
existing fencing or three board section, as parties will mutually agree.
LKS agrees to maintain screen in all areas described as a condition of SP
2007-009, with the specific exception of Area # 2, as described above.
All above work to be completed by November 1, 2007.
Agreed to and signed on April 23, 2007,
For Little Keswick School and Little Keswick School Enterprises, LLC
.....,./y "- a
1-....- {.. /. ' . Lr. lr ~.L.' /,_,01 A
, '\c~LA.'v;~ 'v ~L,,""""" v v
Robert A. Wilson
LK:;;:e:;es, LLC
/ wJfk#&
! onathan Rintels
7; .",.1/ "'\
C LJ ""L,;tz lu utA~
Elizabeth Wilson
LKS Enterprises, LLC
;42%;~~~1
Patricia Rintels '-J
2
.
.
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
40] Mcintire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434)296-5832
Fax (434) 972-40]2
April 25, 2007
John Grady
2575 Dudley Mountain Road
North Garden, V A 22959
RE: SP 2007-00009, Little Keswick School- Amendment (Signs #101, 102)
Tax Map 80, Parcels 110, 11 OA, 11 OA2, 112, 117 A, 118, 119
Dear Mr. Grady:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 17, 2007, unanimously recommended
approval ofthe above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors, subject to the following conditions (includes
SP 06-13, as approved, with strikethroughs to delete reference to exact size and underlines for new
information).
I. Special Use Permit 2006 132007-09 shall be limited to the construction use ofa maximum
two-story 15' by 95' residential facility the "New Dorm" for students enrolled in the Little
Keswick School and for the conversion of the existing "Barn Dorm" to non-residential uses,
such as office, recreational, storage, meeting area, or other similar uses. The "New Dorm"
shall be located and developed in general accord with the concept plan, titled, "Little
Keswick School, Concept Plan" (Attachment A.) aHtl dated June 22, 2006 February 16, 2007
(last revision date) (the "Concept Plan"), However, the Zoning Administrator may approve
revisions to the ~ ~oncep! P Elan to allow compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Maximum enrollment of students shall be limited to thirty-five (35). Any increase in enrollment
shall require an amendment to this special use permit and may require entrance improvements
subject to Virginia Department of Transportation requirements.
3. The existing dorm, labeled "Barn Dorm" on the concept plan (Attachment A) shall be subject
to review by the Building Official prior to conversion of the existing use to any other use.
4. Construction shall commence within five (5) years of the date of approval of the special use
~ SP 2006 0]3 SP 2007-09.
5. Along the shared property line of Tax Map 80-118 and TMP 80-114A (the adjacent
neighbor), between the soccer field and the fence, a planting material screen of approximately
124 feet in length and ] 7 feet in width shall be established and maintained on TMP 80-11 8.
The planting materials shall consist of a minimum of] 7 Leyland Cypress, each a minimum of
8 feet in height, and shall be planted approximately 6 feet on center.
6. Along the shared property line of Tax Map 80-1 ]0, TMP 80-110 and TMP 80-114A (the
adjacent neighbor), a plant material screen of approximately 340 feet in length and 40 feet in
Grady
Page 2 of2
April 25, 2007
width between the existing gym building and TMP 80-116A shall be established and
maintained on TMP 80-110 and a portion ofTMP 80-11 OA. Starting at the gym, the first 260
feet in length shall be planted with a minimum of 45 Juniperus Virginiana, each a minimum
of 8 feet in height, and shall be planted approximately 6 feet on center. The remaining 80 feet
in length shall be planted with a minimum of 13 Leyland Cypress, each a minimum of 6 feet
in height, and shall be planted approximately 6 feet on center.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on May 2, 2007.
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,
~~~I~~
Principal Planner for the Rural Areas
Planning Division
JM/aer
Cc: LKS Enterprises LLC
POBox 24, Keswick V A 22947
Ella Carey
Jack Kelsey
e
.
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2007-09 Little Keswick Staff: Joan McDowell
School Amendment
Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
April 17, 2007 May 2, 2007
Ownerls: LKS Enterprises LLC Applicant: LKS Enterprises LLC
Acreage: 21.05 acres Special Use Permit: Zoning Ordinance
Section 10.2.2 (5) Private Schools
TMP: 80-110, 110A, 110A2, 112, 117A, 118, Existing Zoning and By-right use:
119
RA Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
Location: 500 Little Keswick Lane fishery uses; residential density (0.5
unit/acre)
Magisterial District: Conditions: Yes
RA: Rural Areas 2 Requested # of Dwelling Units: N/A
Proposal: Amend SP 06-13 to increase the Comprehensive Plan Designation:
footprint size of the New Dorm from 45' X 90' RA - Rural Areas: preserve and
to 56'8" X 100'. No additional students or protect agricultural, forestal, open
staff would result. space, and natural, historic and
scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/
acre)
Character of Property: Private school with Use of Surrounding Properties:
one and two story buildings, sports fields, and Agricultural, commercial, residential
open spaces
Factor Favorable: 1. The proposed square Factor Unfavorable:
footage increase would not increase traffic. 2. None
The increase in square footage would not
adversely impact visibility from neighboring
properties.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit, with
conditions.
SP 07 09 Little Keswick School Amendment
Page 1
Petition: PROJECT: Special Use Permit 2007-09 Little Keswick School Amendment
PROPOSED: Amend SP 06-13 to increase the size of the New Dorm from 45' X 90' to 56'8" X
100'. No additional students or staff would result. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE:
Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and
scenic resources/ density (.5 unit! acre) SECTION: 10.2.2(5) Private School
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes_No_X_
LOCATION: 505 Little Keswick Lane; Rt. 731 1/10th of a mile SE of Rt. 22 TAX MAP/PARCEL:
TM 80 Parcels 110, 110A, 110A2, 112, 117A, 118, 119 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
Character of the Area: The area surrounding the Little Keswick School consists of farmland,
commercial, scattered residential. The school buildings are generally located within the 21-acre
site and have limited visibility from the public road. The former depot that later served as the fire
department community building on Keswick Road now serves as the dining room for the school.
Stokes of England, a blacksmith, is adjacent to the dining hall on a parcel owned by the
applicant (TMP 80-11 OA). Keswick Country Club property is located to the south of the subject
property, across the CSX railroad.
Specifics of the Proposal: The applicant has requested an amendment of the underlined
stipulation in one condition of approval approved with SP 06-13, an application for an expansion
of a public school. The amendment pertains only to the limitations applied to the size of the
New Dorm residential facility (underlined).
1. Special Use Permit 2006-13 shall be limited to the construction of a maximum two-story 45'
bv 95' residential facility "New Dorm" for students enrolled in the Little Keswick School and
for the conversion of the existing "Barn Dorm" to non-residential uses, such as office,
recreational, storage, meeting area, or other similar uses. The "New Dorm" shall be located
and developed in general accord with the concept plan, titled, "Little Keswick School,
Concept Plan" (Attachment A.) and dated June 22, 2006 (last revision date). However, the
Zoning Administrator may approve revisions to the concept plan to allow compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance.
In explaining the requested change, the applicant stated that lithe architectural plans were not
100% complete; therefore the building window was inadvertently increased from 45' X90' to
56'8" X 100' by the architect. The actual increase in square footage is only 503 square feet per
floor as the building design has several cut outs as shown on the proposed plans. No additional
children (students), staff or time of operation [would result from this additional square footage]."
Amended concept plans are included as Attachment A.
Planning and Zoning History: SP 2006-13, a special use permit to relocate the dorm to the
New Dorm site and to use the existing dorm for office was approved by the Board of
Supervisors on September 6, 2006. The Board modified the number of students that could be
enrolled from 31 (the number of students enrolled in 2006 and approved by the Planning
Commission) to 35 students.
Further details of the school's planning and zoning history are included in the SP 06-13 Little
Keswick School Dorm Amendment staff report (Attachment B).
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: The property and the adjacent properties are
zoned Rural Areas. The uses permitted by right under RA zoning directly support agriculture,
forestry, and conservation of rural land. The private school and the relocation of the dorm and
SP 07 09 Little Keswick School Amendment
Page 2
.
.
.
change of interior uses of the existing dorm building would not negatively affect the permitted
by right uses in the RA zoning district. The private school has existed in this location for forty-
three years and has become a significant part of the Keswick community.
STAFF COMMENT: As the additional square footage of this new two-story student residence
would not affect enrollment or staffing of the school and would not increase visibility from the
public right-of-way or from the adjacent neighbor, no concerns were offered from the reviewing
divisions or departments.
The square footage included in condition number one (SP 2006-13) reflected information
obtained from the applicant, at that time. However, due to later, unanticipated changes of the
architectural drawings, the applicant has requested an additional 503 square feet per floor of
this two story building. Staff believes that removal of the strict limitations on the building's
dimensions would not affect the findings of this report (compliance with Section 31.2.4.1) and
the provision that "The "New Dorm" shall be located and developed in general accord with the
concept plan.." would provide some flexibility to allow the applicant to make future minor
changes, without an additional amendment to this special use permit. The findings would not be
affected, as the building's two-story height limitation (key to keeping the limited visual impact of
the building), and the limitation on enrollment (key to VDOT's concerns regarding safety - see
Attachment B, Staff Comment finding for public health, safety and welfare) would remain
unchanged.
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance:
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a
finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property,
As the New Dorm would be sited at a lower elevation than the nearest neighbor, the additional
503 square feet per floor of the New Dorm would cause minimal visual impact and no additional
noise or traffic would result.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The character of the Rural Areas district will not be affected by the additional square
footage of the New Dorm, as the building would be minimally visible in the area. The
school use and its improvements have been sensitively designed and sited to blend with
the rural character.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The purpose and intent of the Rural Areas zoning is to preserve agricultural and forestal lands
and activities, to protect the water supply, to limit service to rural areas, and to conserve the
natural, scenic, and historic resources of the County. The proposed additional square footage
would be in accord with the purposes and intent of the ordinance, as the adjacent agricultural
use would not be affected and the additional square footage would not require additional
demands for service.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
The subject property and the adjacent properties are zoned Rural Areas. The uses
permitted by right under RA zoning directly support agriculture, forestry, and conservation
of rural land. The private school and the additional square footage of the relocated dorm
would not affect the permitted by right uses in the RA zoning district. The private school
has existed in this location for forty-three years and has become a significant part of the
51' 07 09 Liule Keswick School Amendment
Page 3
Keswick community.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no regulations in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance that apply to private
schools.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
No additional staff or students over what was approved with SP 06-13 (35 students) would
result from the increased square footage. The changes to condition number one would not
adversely affect nor require additional measures to address the public health, safety and
general welfare.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The proposed square footage increase would not increase traffic.
2. The increase in square footage would not adversely impact visibility from neighboring
properties.
Staff has not identified any factors unfavorable to this application.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of Special
Use Permit 2007-09 Little Keswick School Dorm with the following conditions (includes SP
06-13, as approved, with strikethroughs to delete reference to exact size and underlines for
new information).
1. Special Use Permit 2006 13 2007-09 shall be limited to the construction use of a
maximum two-story 45' by 95' residential facility the "New Dorm" for students enrolled in
the Little Keswick School and for the conversion of the existing "Barn Dorm" to non-
residential uses, such as office, recreational, storage, meeting area, or other similar
uses. The "New Dorm" shall be located and developed in general accord with the
concept plan, titled, "Little Keswick School, Concept Plan" (Attachment A.) aM dated
June 22,2006 February 16. 2007 (last revision date) (the "Concept Plan"). However,
the Zoning Administrator may approve revisions to the ~ Concep! f) .Elan to
allow compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Maximum enrollment of students shall be limited to thirty-five (35). Any increase in
enrollment shall require an amendment to this special use permit and may require entrance
improvements subject to Virginia Department of Transportation requirements.
3. The existing dorm, labeled "Barn Dorm" on the concept plan (Attachment A) shall be
subject to review by the Building Official prior to conversion of the existing use to any
other use.
4. Construction shall commence within five (5) years of the date of approval of the spoci::ll
use permit SP 2006 013 SP 2007-09.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - "Little Keswick School, Concept Plan", dated February 16, 2007 (last
revision date)
Attachment B - Staff report for SP 06-13 Little Keswick School Dorm Amendment dated
SP 07 09 Little Keswick School Amendment
Page 4
. August 8, 2006 (Planning Commission hearing)
.
.
SP 07 09 Linle Keswick School Amendment
Page 5
l-
I
~ [ J lU~ I
NVld ld3~NO~ 0- _
;;; F-~
e \!) "''''<:n
Z gg.2 W ~; 1i
w () C)
f- N NN'" -lb
<{ () \fi ON-S <{ ~ 0-- iEl
D : ): NNO () '- V'INI0ClI^ ''uNrlO-:J ::::!1ClV'1.+::-jB1V' ~i'ti
<{ ~ ~~~ \!) ~5 i
1: =J,oll lOOH~S )I~IMS3)1 31111l
[] ~
lU
"-
!
;!l! g:
2
D ~
~~>l '"
~~~ ~
~ ~B~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~
~ 9 ~ ~~~ ~ ~
~ 6 ~ ~~~ g ~
Qu 9~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ h~ -~~ ~ ~ i ~~.
~ ~i~~~~i;~~~~I~i~!~!~~~~ ~i
~ !~~~~li:i;~li~I!~~r~ F~~~
~ ~~ b~~~~~~dn~ ~ ~~2
CL ~N m~~~~9=dm~~~ ~
III
Z+m
3
.....I
o
o
I
o
CJ)
Z
~
c..
~
Ob:
-
~O
en OZ
w
~O
w
.
// -
// / \\
,///// \\ . / ./
~// \\
\
\\ g;
\\ ; . /\/'\
\ ~ /~
\\\\ \
\\ ~ \
\\ \\; (~j
1/"\\ cj,,'S;:::'
w l J~ ~
~ ~()' '\\\ 1~~a l,.(r}1>-;~~")
8 ~ \ :<:- ('Ie 1
~ ~ '--.L./,.0"j
~ il \ ( . \
S ~ \ ql
o ~\" (:,C::( /'
~ ~ I \\ I !,~J J,
8 8 ~ ~/,f'y-'~)' (~:) C)
w ~ 0 c' r>4_"-)\C)T\ r
~ (!) >-:C ,~-' / B ~ ~J~,
~ :< F- "'" <( (~I':
8 a ~ ~o- ~ ~ (e~(~ ~ /'" ~,~)~
9 00 <( ...... ~:' r); /'. ~ D.. (. . j ~I. [I
<: ,x 0 ~~, \c.#' ',- ~ \,~ c / './;
W ~ l l ' / I '-, " ~ / Z
Z'" I \<~y / "
l "' '-',- "" ''''c- ( , ~
'--..... ~'~(' '71 ~~
~,.~ ~-~~~ ~~
~,~J:~~ ~
t (T~C~/~ ' ( , ~ ~~\(.
("-'11/'COg ~ (J r~
..(-,..!,;,\. -);//'/ ~'" /^-.... A
1 /j~ / ~ 1/1"___""
(~1;1 ~/~ / 0 //
\J (.('''J.,\J'/'I -::> ~..l1: \ \!
I- C 10 4: -;~. 0' ",,~~ "-\_ o:2c
() --1t <--y~~.<_\_) / / () ~ J ...... ~~U,
'J ~ ~~ t, JI/I ~ ~ D.. J: \
W ~ l <~~, / I D.. ",_,~;' /,/" ,
~. ~ ,~) f/.~. ';' 'hr~ "'. ' //<fc/ ~ \\
~ " f 11(-L)L~l(jf3'<~;;~.'l ~~(, "Ii \..y\\Jr~l'
~ (' ,\(('"')") y-----~ <~CJcJ \ ~
C) ,.cr>-~~/ "'/ Il( ,,)/ ('~'1C \J C J - s, (-~, \ / _____
I r. j I // \~j. 'L)} '_.>.J ",' 0 " , '\ \
,M,( . \ 'J .-/..---1:--. ~ \ i<"'>, '7 '" ~,L ,; /, w-,-,-
\)
@
u
o Ii Cl ~
Z I':! ill !l! ~
~ ~~~~
~ ~i~~~i
0@Q++l
g;
g
!
~
~
o
...I
W
u::
/
a ~
o 0
~ ~
~~
]6
1l
~
I -E5~ ~
~ E f: 3
a5g:~
I E ~ 6,l
;g c;I 0\ t:I
a E)( P..
L~ ~ ~ :
~
W
()
o
~
~
-----~~
o
z
~
(!)
Z
w
u...
o
B3
:::.::
o
~
I
o
a..
w
o
l
,/,,-
./
/ //
// ./
././ "./"" 5:)
/ / \::)~~Of>'
/' 4< f>'-\
,/' / {---U
/ / f>'U
// / -:o'v
(
./
./ ~
./
/ ........
........
9
w
u::
~
.
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2006-13 Little Keswick Staff: Joan McDowell
School Dorm
Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
August 8, 2006 September 6, 2006
Owners: Little Keswick School Enterprise Applicant: Robert Wilson
Acreage: 21.005 Special Use Permit: SP 06-13 private
schools. Section 10.2.2.(5) of the zoning
ordinance applies to this proposal.
TMP: 80-110, 110A, 110A2, 112, 117A, 118, Existing Zoning and By-right use: RA
119 Rural Areas District agricultural, forestal, and
Location: 500 Little Keswick Lane fishery uses; residential; game preserves;
wayside stands; electric, gas oil and
communication facilities; accessory uses
including home occupation Class A;
temporary construction uses; public uses
Magisterial District: Rivanna Conditions: Yes
Proposal: A private school proposes to Requested # of Dwelling Units: N/A
construct a new dorm on the school property
for existing resident-students and convert
their existing dorm into offices, meeting
spaces, and storage. No increase in
enrollment or staff is requested.
DA (Development Area) Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural
RA (Rural Area) X Areas RA -- agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre)
Character of Property: Private school with Use of Surrounding Properties:
school one and two story buildings, sports Agriculture, commercial, residential
fields, and open spaces.
Factors Favorable: 1. The proposed dorm Factors Unfavorable
would be located in an area of the site that Staff has not identified any factor that is
would cause minimal visual impact to the unfavorable to this application.
adjacent property. 2. The proposed dorm
would comply with current state Department
of Education standards. 3. The dorm
relocation would not increase the enrollment
or the number of staff.
. SP 06 13 Little Keswick School
1
-7
ATTACHMENT B
I RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with conditions
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Joan McDowell
August 8, 2006
September 13, 2006
SP 2006-13 Little Keswick School Dorm
Petition: PROPOSED: Construct building for dorm; use existing dorm for offices
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre) SECTION: 10.2.2(5) Private
School COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USEIDENSITY: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes_No_X_ LOCATION:
500 Little Keswick Lane; Rt. 731 1/20th of a mile south of Rt. 22
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 80 Parcels 110A, 110A2, 112, 117A, 118, 119
Character ofthe Area: The area surrounding the Little Keswick School consists offarmland, commercial,
scattered residential. The school buildings are generally located within the 21-acre site and have limited
visibility from the public road. The former depot that later served as the fire department community building
on Keswick Road now serves as the dining room for the school. Stokes of England, a blacksmith, is
adjacent to the dining hall on a parcel owned by the applicant (TMP 80-11 OA). Keswick Country Club
property is located to the south of the subject property, across the CSX railroad.
Specifics of the Proposal: The applicant has proposed to construct a 45' by 95' two-story dormitory
building for 13 students in a private school. The existing dorm building, adjacent to the CXS Railroad
would be used as storage and office areas. A concept plan has been submitted to show the existing and
proposed dorm sites, as well as the other buildings located on the school properties (Attachment A). The
applicant has not requested approval for any additional staff or students, with this application. The
Commonwealth of Virginia has granted a license to the school to operate a children's residential facility
providing educational and treatment services for 31 male residents with ages ranging from 9-17 years. The
current license expires on June 30, 2007. A copy of a letter sent by Ms. Gloria Dalton of the Department of
Education stating that the proposed dorm meets their required residential standards. The letter is attached
as reference (Attachment S.)
Planning and Zoning Historv: The school was established in 1963 prior to the adoption of zoning. There
have been four special permits approved for this facility since opening. These are briefly summarized as
follows:
SP-84-43 was approved on August 14, 1984, permitting the housing of one teacher and three students in a
dwelling on Parcel 112 (yellow house on the concept plan - Attachment A). It was approved with no
conditions. The staff report mentioned inadequate sight distance "toward Route 22 is inadequate for either
a private or a commercial entrance due to a short, sharp hill in the road" and recommend denial.
SP-86-54 was approved on August 20, 1986, permitting a mobile home classroom on Parcel 11 0 until May
1, 1988. The staff report noted that the license limits the school to 27 students. The report mentioned that
the sight distance is inadequate for a commercial entrance; however, access through the fire department
property would provide adequate sight distance.
SP 06 13 Little Keswick School
2
~
SP-1990-30 was approved on June 6, 1990, permitting construction of a new recreational building on TMP
.80-110A. The following conditions were approved with this application:
1. Virginia Department of Transportation issuance of a commercial entrance permit (SP 90-31 only);
2. Staff approval of a sketch plan for a new building;
3. Virginia Department of Health approval;
4. No increase in enrollment; and
5. Parcels to be combined prior to the issuance of a building permit for the recreational building or the
commencement of activity in the existing Fire Company building.
SP-90-31 was also approved on June 6, 1990. This permitted the expansion of the school into the existing
fire department community building on Parcel 11 O-A. The following conditions were approved with this
application:
1. Virginia Department of Transportation issuance of a commercial entrance permit in the event of
increased enrollment or paving of Rt. 731;
2. Virginia Department of Health approval;
3. No increase in enrollment; and
4. Parcel to be combined with the existing parcel (Parcel 110) prior to the commencement of activity in the
existing Fire Company Building.
The Board granted one six-month and two eighteen-month extensions for SP 90-31.
On February 5, 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved relief from #4 (SP 90-31) with a substitute
condition: "Use is for expansion of the Little Keswick SchooL" (#4 required the combining of parcels)
SUB-90-144 was approved on August 71990 combining Parcels 110, 110A(1) and 111.
. SDP-90-73 was tentatively approved on September 4, 1990. The plan showed the new gym and recreation
facility.
STAFF COMMENT:
The Little Keswick School proposes to construct a 45' by 95' dormitory to replace the dorm currently used
by students. The existing dorm is "grandfathered" in by the state, but it does not meet all current state
requirements, according to a phone conversation with Gloria Dalton, of the Department of Education. The
existing dorm is also located close to the CSX Railroad, causing concerns regarding safety and noise
according to the applicant. The existing dorm would be converted to office, storage recreational type uses
after the new dorm was occupied.
The proposed site for the dorm would be at a lower elevation than the adjacent property not owned by the
school, thereby, reducing its visibility. The owner of the neighboring property also allows the school to use
the area of his property closest to the school as a pasture for the school's horses, according to the
applicant.
In existence since 1963, the school is an established part of the Keswick community. The school
maintains a low-key presence and does not intend to expand its enrollment. The school's continuation
avoids fragmentation of land for residential development.
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
. SP 06 13 Little Keswick School
3
(1
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the
Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properly,
The proposed dorm would be constructed into the side of a slope and at a lower elevation, making only a
portion of the roof visible from an adjacent farm property. The dorm would be set back 60' from the nearest
property line, as well. With permission from the landowner, the school uses a portion of this adjacent
property to pasture their horses. The new dorm would not be visible from Keswick Road or from Louisa
Road.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The character of the surrounding rural area would not be affected by the relocation of the dorm or by a
change in the interior uses of the existing dorm building, as this application does not propose an increase
in the current staff or enrollment and will be minimally visible in the area.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Section 18, Chapter 10 of the zoning ordinance outlines the purpose of the Rural Areas zoning: "This
district (hereafter referred to as RA) is hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment of
the zoning map for the following purposes: (Amended 11-8-89)
-Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
-Water supply protection;
-Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and
-Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources. (Amended 11-8-89)
Residential development not related to bona fide agricultural/forestal use shall be encouraged to locate in
the urban area, communities and villages as designated in the comprehensive plan where services and
utilities are available and where such development will not conflict with the
agricultural/forestal or other rural objective."
A private school is permitted by special use permit in the Rural Areas District. The dorm would be
sensitively located, so not to interfere with the adjacent agricultural use and the new dorm would not
intensify the private school use.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
The property and the adjacent properties are zoned Rural Areas. The uses permitted by right under RA
zoning directly support agriculture, forestry, and conservation of rural land. The private school and the
relocation of the dorm and change of interior uses of the existing dorm building would not negatively affect
the permitted by right uses in the RA zoning district. The private school has existed in this location for
forty-three years and has become a significant part of the Keswick community.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no regulations in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance that apply to private schools.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
A report of accidents in the area of Route 731, Keswick Road Route 22, revealed 64 accidents from
January 1,2000, and January 31,2006. The report states, "It is likely that the majority of these accidents
took place at or near the intersection of Route 22. Due to the data gathering methods, it is difficult to
determine the exact location of accidents." Although there has been some concern with the school's
entrance with a past applications (SP 90-30,31), further entrance improvements have not been required by
the County Engineer or VDOT, as there would not be additional traffic created by this application. A
condition of approval that limits the number of students to the existing level (31) is recommended to replace
existing conditions that prevent increases in enrollment. As the previous conditions did not include the
SP 06 13 Little Keswick School
4
}O
number of students enrolled at that time, enforcement was difficult. The condition also provides guidance
. that entrance improvements may be required with any future increase in enrollment or the size of the
school. The applicant has advised that they do not plan any increases in either staff or enrollment.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The proposed dorm would be located in an area of the site that would cause minimal visual impact from
the adjacent property.
2. The proposed dorm would comply with current state Department of Education standards.
3. The dorm relocation would not increase the enrollment or the number of staff.
Staff has not identified any factor that is unfavorable to this application.
Waiver Request:
The Zoning Ordinance allows 24 months for both construction and start of the use of a Special Use Permit
(18-31.2.4.4). As the applicant may need additional time to construct the dorm, staff recommends that the
time allowed for construction and start of the use of this Special Use Permit, should it be approved, be
increased to five (5) years.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit
2006-13 Little Keswick School Dorm with the following conditions (existing conditions that are not
applicable or have been changed for this permit are shown with strikethroughs):
. 1. St::lff ::lpprov::l1 of::l sketch pl::ln for::l new building. Special Use Permit 2006-13 shall be limited to the
construction of a maximum two-story 45' by 95' residential facility "New Dorm" for students enrolled in
the Little Keswick School and for the conversion of the existing "Barn Dorm" to non-residential uses,
such as office, recreational, storage, meeting area, or other similar uses. The "New Dorm" shall be
located and developed in general accord with the concept plan, titled, "Little Keswick School, Concept
Plan" (Attachment A.) and dated June 22,2006 (last revision date). However, the Zoning
Administrator may approve revisions to the concept plan to allow compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance.
2. No inore::lce in enrollment; Maximum enrollment of students shall be limited to 31. Virgini::l Dop::lrtment
of Transport::ltion issuanco of ::l commeroi::ll entr::lnce permit in the event of inoro::lced enrollment or
p::lving of Rt. 731. Any increase in enrollment shall require an amendment to this special use permit
and may require entrance improvements subject to Virginia Department of Transportation
requirements.
3. The existing dorm, labeled "Barn Dorm" on the concept plan (Attachment A) shall be subject to review
by the Building Official prior to conversion of the existing use to any other use.
-1. Virgini::l Deportment of Health approv::ll;
5 P::lroels to be combined prior to the issu::lnce of 0 building permit for the reore::ltion::ll building or the
commencement of ::lctivity in the exicting Fire Company building.
6. Use is for exp::lnsion of the Little Keswick School.
Waiver Request: Staff recommends a waiver from Section 18-31.2.4.4 to allow five years from the date of
approval of this Special Use Permit to commence construction.
. SP 06 13 Little Keswick School
5
,
i !
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A _ "Little Keswick School, Concept Plan", dated June 22,2006 (last revision date)
Attachment 8 - Letter from Gloria L. Dalton, Virginia Department of Education Children's Residential
Facilities Specialist, dated July 19, 2006
Attachment C - Location Map
Attachment 0 - Staff reports/Action letters SP 84-43; SP 86-54; SP 90-30; SP 90-31
SP 06 13 Little Keswick School
6
11-
Albemarle County Planning Commission
August 8, 2006
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
August 8, 2006, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401
Mcintire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Eric Strucko, Calvin Morris,
Vice-Chairman; Jon Cannon and Pete Craddock. Absent were Marcia Joseph, Chairman; Jo
Higgins and Bill Edgerton. Julia Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia,
representative for David J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; Amy Arnold, Planner; Scott
Clark, Senior Planner; Joan McDowell, Principal Planner; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current
Development; David Pennock, Principal Planner; Amy Arnold, Planner; Glenn Brooks, Senior
Engineer and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
SP-2006-013 Little Keswick School Dorm Amendment (Siems #23,24)
PROPOSED: Construct building for dorm; use existing dorm for offices.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre).
SECTION: 10.2.2(5) Private School.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: 500 Little Keswick Lane; Rt. 731 1/20th of a mile south of Rt. 22.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 80 Parcels 110A, 110A2, 112, 117A, 118, 119.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
STAFF: Joan McDowell
Ms. McDowell summarized the staff report.
· This is a special use permit for dorm relocation for Little Keswick School. It is located at
500 Little Keswick Lane in the Rivanna Magisterial District. It has both rural area zoning
designation as well as the Comprehensive Plan designation. The Little Keswick School
was established in 1963 prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. The dorm itself
that the children are using now has been grandfathered in. She spoke at length with the
State representative and they are very anxious to have the old dorm replaced with the
new dorm. The applicant proposes to change the old dorm into offices and recreational
and storage type uses.
· There were a couple of issues with previous special use permit conditions of approval
that staff would like to note. One was that they would not increase enrollment. The
other was that if there was an increase in enrollment, then the Virginia Department of
Transportation would want a commercial entrance permit. She spoke at length with the
zoning department and their concern was that no increase in enrollment, but not tying it
to an actual number. So there is a condition of approval in this special use permit that
would tie it to 31, which is what the State license is and what they have. The applicant
does not intend to increase the enrollment. Staff also spoke with VDOT and the County
Engineer and they both agree because there is no increase in enrollment anticipated
and that the enrollment is 31 that there would not be any commercial entrance
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - AUGUST 8, 2006 1
PARTIAL MINUTES FOR SP-2006-013 Little Keswick School Dorm Amendment
requirement. Therefore, the new conditions of approval would remove that requirement
because they don't believe it is necessary.
· There are no other issues that staff found with this application. The new dorm would be
located in an area a little recess down an embankment. Although it has some visibility to
the neighbor, it is not much. So staff recommends approval with the conditions as listed
in the report.
Mr. Morris asked if there were any questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public
hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Mark Columbus, Head Master of Little Keswick School, said that this school has been in school
for 44 years. They have boys that have been diagnosed as emotionally disturbed learning
disabled. They are not court advocated boys, but are between the ages of 9 and 15 upon
admission. They have had boys in the past from Egypt, Peru, Louisiana, Texas and California.
They still have the sort of catch man area that is nation wide. The vision of the founders of the
school certainly in keeping with improving the quality and enhancing the experience of these
boys with our national reputation is to envision this existing dorm and now locating it away from
the CSX Railroad track, which is pretty noisy. They plan to put the dorm in the bank, which
aesthetically keeps the view very low from the adjoining properties. The only thing that they
would ask is a modification on the 60' setback. Under construction if they were to come across
any bed red or under ground spring areas that they would have the ability to move it within that
area, but certainly not to violate the 25' setback. They were not changing the number of staff or
number of students. They are licensed by the Department of Education to have 31 students.
The owner of the school, Mr. Wilson, met with Gloria Dalton, their educational representative.
They have long applauded the work that the school does. The school is the only school in
VASES history to have an unblemished review or audit within the VASES, Virginia Association
for Special Education Schools, who is one of their crediting agencies. So they want to just keep
growing in quality and this dorm expansion will allow us to do that. There will be no change in
the number of cars parked on site. They have ample parking spaces around the campus. The
total number of day time staff is only 31. The night time staff, since it is residential, is 8. They
have a total number of parking spaces of 72. Access has been made to the road for emergency
purposed. They were able to purchase the old Keswick train depot and use it for their dining
facility. They have access to the back railroad bed or the road to the existing dorm as it does
now when they built the gymnasium in 1990. So there are really no changes at all.
Mr. Morris asked what the original use of the current dorm was.
Mr. Wilkes replied that back in 1993 it was called the barn dorm. It is a frame building with a tin
roof. They have modified it and put rooms and dorms in up to specs. The only variances that
they have there is that they would like for us to have another bathroom adjoining to it. They did
do an expansion of the bathroom. They already have approval by the health department for a
septic field already approved for this building. Then if they were to add another bathroom they
would have to have the quality of the septic field enhanced. Right now they do have a variance
on that.
There being no further questions for the applicant, Mr. Morris asked if there was any other
members of the public present to speak regarding this request.
John Grady, representative for the applicant, noted that a comment was made about the 60'
setback. They certainly showed that because it is what they want to do. But, looking out here if
they get back in here and encounter either rock or a spring, which is highly likely, they needed
to modify it by 15' to 20'. They wanted the Commission to be aware of this because if they go to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - AUGUST 8, 2006 2
PARTIAL MINUTES FOR SP-2006-013 Little Keswick School Dorm Amendment
j
the zoning administrator the way this is written if it is within the concept plan she needs to hear it
from the Commission that it was okay for it to be modified. If they had to shift something around
15' the side setbacks from the Zoning Ordinance for the Rural Area are still only 25'. Therefore,
they would be more than what they would be required to be away from that line. They wanted
to play safe. If they need to move it they don't want to have to stop and come in and come back
just because they lost 15' some where.
Mr. Morris asked if they moved back if that would then restrict vehicular traffic getting into the
gymnasium.
Mr. Grady replied no, because the road is fairly tucked up along the rear property line. If they
were to go back 20' it would not restrict the traffic going back to the gymnasium. There would
still be a road back there.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter
back before the Commission.
Mr. Craddock asked if staff has heard any comments from any of the neighbors, and Ms.
McDowell replied no.
Regarding the waiver request to extend the time to commence construction, Mr. Kamptner
recommended that a condition be added to state: "Construction of the dorms shall commence
within five (5) years of the date of approval of the special use permit, SP-2006-013."
Mr. Strucko asked if they need to add a condition about the setback.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the wording in condition 1 is that it be located and developed in general
accord and the Zoning Administrator may approve revisions to allow compliance. If the
Commission's intent is that there is a bit of flexibility based on what the Commission heard
tonight what staff could do between now and the Board meeting is just check with the Zoning
Administrator in seeing if there needs to be any additional language to accomplish that.
Mr. Craddock agreed with Mr. Cilimberg's proposal.
Motion: Mr. Craddock moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, to approve SP-2006-013, Little Keswick
School Dorm Amendment, with the recommended conditions, as amended by Mr. Kamptner
and Mr. Cilimberg, and to approve a waiver from Section 18-31.4.4 to allow five years from the
date of approval of this special use permit to commence construction.
1. Special Use Permit 2006-13 shall be limited to the construction of a maximum two-story 45'
by 95' residential facility "New Dorm" for students enrolled in the Little Keswick School and
for the conversion of the existing "Barn Dorm" to non-residential uses, such as office,
recreational, storage, meeting area, or other similar uses. The "New Dorm" shall be located
and developed in general accord with the concept plan, titled, "Little Keswick School,
Concept Plan" (Attachment A.) and dated June 22,2006 (last revision date). However, the
Zoning Administrator may approve revisions to the concept plan to allow compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Maximum enrollment of students shall be limited to 31. Any increase in enrollment shall
require an amendment to this special use permit and may require entrance improvements
subject to Virginia Department of Transportation requirements.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - AUGUST 8, 2006
PARTIAL MINUTES FOR SP-2006-013 Little Keswick School Dorm Amendment
3
3. The existing dorm, labeled "Barn Dorm" on the concept plan (Attachment A) shall be
subject to review by the Building Official prior to conversion of the existing use to any
other use.
4. Construction of the dorms shall commence within five (5) years of the date of approval of the
special use permit, SP-2006-013.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:0. (Commissioners Higgins, Edgerton and Joseph were
absent.)
Mr. Morris stated that SP-2006-013, Little Keswick School Dorm Amendment would go to the
Board of Supervisors on September 6 with a recommendation for approval.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - AUGUST 8, 2006
PARTIAL MINUTES FOR SP-2006-013 Little Keswick School Dorm Amendment
4
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 17, 2007
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, April 17, 2007, at
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Pete Craddock, Duane Zobrist, Jon Cannon,
Bill Edgerton, Eric Strucko and Marcia Joseph, Chairman. Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman was
absent. Julia Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were David Benish, Chief of Planning; David E. Pennock, Principal
Planner; Joan McDowell, Principal Planner; Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator/Director of
Zoning & Current Development; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer; Allan Shuck, Engineer; Elaine
Echols, Senior Planner and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Ms. Joseph called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
SP 2007-00009. Little Keswick School Amendment (Siems #101.102)
PROPOSED: Amend SP 06-13 to increase the size of the New Dorm from 45' X 90' to 56'8" X
100'. No additional students or staff would result.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre).
SECTION: 10.2.2(5) Private School.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: 505 Little Keswick Lane; Rt. 731 1/10th of a mile SE
of Rt. 22.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 80 Parcels 110, 110A, 110A2, 112, 117A, 118, 119.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
STAFF: Joan McDowell
Ms. McDowell summarized the staff report.
A special use permit was approved last year to allow the relocation of a dorm to an existing
dorm for offices and storage. The applicant has requested a modification of a condition of
approval for that application to allow additional square footage for the new dorm due to changes
in the architecture. In its approval the Board of Supervisors increased the enrollment from 31 to
35 students. The dorms increased square footage would not cause a further increase in
students or staff. The new dorm would have limited visibility from Keswick Road, the nearest
public road. The height would not be affected.
Staff's opinion is that amending the square footage from the condition would allow some
flexibility for minor changes in the future should they occur without compromising the findings of
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of SP-2007-09 subject
to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report.
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The proposed square footage increase would not increase traffic.
2. The increase in square footage would not adversely impact visibility from neighboring
properties.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 17, 2007
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2007-09 LITTLE KESWICK SCHOOL AMENDMENT
AND SP-2004-050 FLOW AUTOMOTIVE COMPANIES SALES AND DISPLAY
Staff has not identified any factors unfavorable to this application.
There being no questions for staff, Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited the
applicant to address the Commission.
Mark Columbus, Head Master of Little Keswick School, thanked staff for helping them to push
this minor change through to allow them to get before the Board. They already had a builder in
line upon the first approval. When these minor changes were made it set back the building
process. The minor change as indicated is as indicated that after approval of the first one is
simply a dorm located in this area that originally had the dimensions of 45' X 95'. His
understanding is that when looking at the modifications and the architectural plan that fits the
boys of the school it came out to be 56'8" by 100'. So the concept plan now shows that, which
is indicated by the change of the new dorm. That is the only change that they have made to the
Little Keswick School Concept Plan.
Public comment was opened. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Commission.
Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Columbus to come back to address a question concerning an email
received by the Commission from Johnathan Rintels who lives next door. She also received a
phone call from Mr. Rintels.
Mr. Columbus noted that since the Commission received that email that he had talked to John
Rintels. He used to be the President of the Foundation of their School. So they have good
relationships with them. Some of the things that they talked about were visually providing some
Leyland Cyprus to provide a buffer. They have already planted some Spruce trees along this
line. Another property that they have is in back of the soccer field and for their view and
protection they have already planted Leyland Cyprus. Their plan is to certainly work with
Johnathan Rintels and provide a buffer there. Although, if you look at the visual height of the
building this sets down a good 40 '. So the actual profile of the building is very low. It is lower
than the actual gymnasium.. With the Leyland Cyprus and the Spruce that they have already
planted it will give adequate protection.
Ms. Joseph noted that Mr. Rentall was saying something about the soccer field, too.
Mr. Columbus noted that there are some existing Pine trees along this drive. It is sort of a right-
of-way. Mr. Rentall has put up a lattice fence there. They would be happy to plant some
Spruce or Leyland Cyprus.
Ms. Joseph asked if he could accept as a condition of approval some screening trees being
planted between the school and the adjacent neighbor.
Mr. Columbus replied yes, that they can. They have already had an arborist that has planted
some trees along there. They certainly can plan some trees.
Motion: Mr. Strucko moved, Mr. Cannon moved for approval of SP-2007-00009, Little Keswick
School Amendment, with that additional condition of screen plantings.
Ms. Joseph asked staff if that was specific enough.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 17, 2007
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2007-09 LITTLE KESWICK SCHOOL AMENDMENT
AND SP-2004-050 FLOW AUTOMOTIVE COMPANIES SALES AND DISPLAY
2
Ms. McDowell suggested Leyland Cyprus.
Ms. Joseph asked staff to figure out the type of species to be used. She asked if staff wants
spacing. She suggested that staff allow the applicant to figure out what he can buy at a good
price that will work in that location. She asked staff to suggest the size and spacing.
Ms. McDowell replied that she had also talked with the adjacent neighbor. He is interested in
some screening to be provided as quickly as it can grow. She suggested starting off with
something around 3' to 4' tall and she would leave it up to the Commission as to how close they
should be.
Ms. Joseph asked that the trees be 15' on center.
Mr. Benish asked if the intent is to block the view with the vegetation.
Ms. McDowell replied yes.
Ms. Joseph suggested planting the trees 15' on center in a double staggered row.
Mr. Benish noted that it would depend on the species. So maybe the intent of creating that sort
of obscured view is what the Commission needs to identify such as planting Leyland Cyprus,
White Pines, etc.
Ms. Joseph asked staff to work out that condition before it goes to the Board.
Mr. Benish replied yes, if the Commission could just direct staff to do that and meet that intent
they will provide something.
Mr. Strucko asked staff to provide the language of that condition.
Mr. Craddock asked if they wanted the screening down that side and also to make the turn at
the soccer field.
Amended Motion: Mr. Strucko moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, to approve SP-2007-009, Little
Keswick School Amendment, subject to the conditions recommended by staff, as amended, to
provide language of that condition concerning screening to be worked out by staff prior to the
Board of Supervisors hearing.
(includes SP 06-13, as approved, with strikethroughs to delete reference to exact size and
underlines for new information).
1. Special Use Permit 2006 13 2007-09 shall be limited to the construction use of a
maximum two-story 45' by 95' residential facility the "New Dorm" for students
enrolled in the Little Keswick School and for the conversion of the existing "Barn
Dorm" to non-residential uses, such as office, recreational, storage, meeting area,
or other similar uses. The "New Dorm" shall be located and developed in general
accord with the concept plan, titled, "Little Keswick School, Concept Plan"
(Attachment A.) aM dated June 22, 2006 February 16, 2007 (last revision date) (the
"Concept Plan"). However, the Zoning Administrator may approve revisions to the S!
Concep! f'} Elan to allow compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Maximum enrollment of students shall be limited to thirty-five (35). Any increase in
enrollment shall require an amendment to this special use permit and may require
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 17,2007 3
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2007-09 LITTLE KESWICK SCHOOL AMENDMENT
AND SP-2004-050 FLOW AUTOMOTIVE COMPANIES SALES AND DISPLAY
entrance improvements subject to Virginia Department of Transportation
requirements.
3. The existing dorm, labeled "Barn Dorm" on the concept plan (Attachment A) shall
be subject to review by the Building Official prior to conversion of the existing use to
any other use.
4. Construction shall commence within five (5) years of the date of approval of tAe
special use permit SP 2006 013 SP 2007-09.
5. The screening condition to be worked out by staff prior to Board of
Supervisors hearing.
Mr. Driver asked for a quick clarification concerning Mr Craddock's comment about providing
screening at the turn of the field. When talking with John Rentall this morning about this the
substantial Leyland Cyprus that he sees there he likes. The turn here is not the problem. It is
really these two other areas. He did not feel that Mr. Rintels could see the property in that
corner.
Ms. Joseph felt that was something that they needed to work out with staff and Mr. Rintels
before May 2.
Mr. Craddock said that would be fine because it does not show any trees on their property. It
looks like it is all on Rintels's property.
Ms. Joseph agreed.
Mr. Driver said that in fact if they look at this most of the trees are in a culvert on their side of
that. He did not think that this was really indicative of the vegetative of tree growth.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Morris was absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that SP-2006-009, Little Keswick School Amendment, would go before the
Board of Supervisors on May 2, 2007 with a recommendation for approval, but with a change to
the conditions to allow for the planting.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 17,2007
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2007-09 LITTLE KESWICK SCHOOL AMENDMENT
AND SP-2004-050 FLOW AUTOMOTIVE COMPANIES SALES AND DISPLAY
4
l
Allan D. Sumpter
Charlottesville Residency Administrator
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
~.
CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY MONTHLY REpORT
APRIL 2007
ALBEMARLE COUI\TY BOS ACTION ITEMS
David Slutzky
. The guardrail hit at Greenbrier and Hillsdale has been repaired.
· Sidewalk repairs on Hillsdale - Residency has been reviewing sidewalk repair needs county
wide in hopes of developing a contract for multiple locations, which will help decrease unit
costs.
· Signal adjustments at Hydraulic Road have been completed.
Ken Bovd
· Rural Rustics: Work on Route 769 (Rocky Hollow) is ongoing. Others are in the
administrative process, including the securing of environmental permits.
· Route 20/250 - Traffic Engineering staff is continuing to review this intersection for timing
adjustments at peak hours in morning and evenings.
Dennis Rooker
· The repair work to the guardrail hit on Roslyn Ridge is awaiting utility clearance. It is expected
that this work will be completed by mid-May.
· Transportation Bill- The residency is waiting to receive final allocations for the secondary
system as a result of the passage ofHB 3202. Preliminary numbers indicate that Albemarle
County will receive approximately $7.1 million in additional funds during the FY2008-2012
period.
Dave Wyant
· A citizen information meeting has been scheduled on May 8th to discuss replacement scenarios
for the Advance Mills Bridge. Alignment options will be discussed in general terms along with
the preliminary engineering process for a project of this nature. This project is in the very early
stages. No plans have been developed and environmental impact studies have not begun. As
the project develops, there will be official public hearings held to receive comment from the
public.
Sally Thomas
· Belair Market Signal along Route 250 - Materials are backordered for installation of video
detection cameras. Traffic Engineering knows this location is a priority and will begin work as
soon as possible.
Lindsav Dorrier
· Biscuit Run - VDOT staff continuing to assist County Staff in development of acceptable
proffers.
Page I of4
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
CONSTRUCTION Active Construction Projects
. Project No. (NFO)PM07-056-177, C501 (Rte. 29 SBL Bridge over Rapidan River deck repair
and latex concrete overlay) Contractor began work on 3-28 beginning with guardrail removal
and reinstallation. This activity requires periodic lane closures controlled with flag persons.
. Project No. SS-7B-07 (Asphalt Slurry Seal) Contractor began work on 3-27 applying slurry
seal to the scheduled routes in the west area of Albemarle County.
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
Albemarle County
· Route 22 / 250 Intersection Improvements, 0022-002-104, C501
R1W is currently being negotiated. VDOT, Albemarle County and Luck Stone met on March 30th to
discuss the construction funding for this project. A follow up meeting is scheduled for July 20th, 2007.
. Route 631 Meadow Creek Parkway, 0631-002-128, C502, B612, B657
R/W phase update: Right-of-Way appraisals and acquisitions continue. Still on schedule for R/W to be
clear by November 2007 and utility relocations to begin. This project remains on schedule for a June
2008 advertisement.
· Route 631, Meadow Creek Parkway, UOOO-I04-102 (City portion)
Project funding update: Estimated funding shortfall at this time is $5.1 million. Potential cost
reductions and additional funding have been identified for $3.9 million leaving total shortfall at $1.2
million
· Route 691 Jarmans Gap Road, 0691-002-158, C501
Administrative functions related to the phasing of this project are still ongoing. An exact advertisement
date cannot be firmly established until final secondary six year plan funding allocations are in place. At
present projected allocations, it is expected the project will be advertised in late 2008 or early 2009.
· Route 656 Georgetown Road, 0656-002-254, C501
Aerial Survey completed. Data conversion for use in design is underway and should be completed in
late April.
· Route 643 Rio Mills Road, 0643-002-P76, N501
The curve has been staked in the field and a scoping meeting has occurred. Environmental has
evaluated impacts and residency staff is developing environmental permits and box culvert information.
Aerial survey has been completed and is being compiled.
· Route 769 Rocky Hollow Road, 0769-002-P89, N501
Please see attached report regarding rural rustic program.
Greene County
· Route 627 Bacon Hollow Road, 0627-039-195, C501
The project advertisement date will be set for the fall of 2007. The estimate has been revised and
funding for the project is in place.
PLANNING, PERMITS AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
Land Development Items
Total This
Month
Special Use Permits and Rezoning Application Review
Site Plan Reviews for new Subdivisions
New Entrance Plan Reviews
Total Permits Processed
Utility Permits Processed
Inspection of new Subdivision Street conducted
Inspection of new entrance conducted
Miles of Street Accepted in the State System
4
18
11
79
16
17
102
0.07
Total This
Fiscal
Year
44
106
138
741
117
101
1011
4.35
Page 2 of 4
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 2291/
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Albemarle - Completed
RTE LOeA TION REQUEST ACTION
Albemarle - Being reviewed
RTE LOCATION REQUEST STATUS
29 Post Office Mark Curb for safety Residency is taking care of
631 (5th St) Near County Bldg Painting for Bus Stop To Paint Crew on 4/24/07
53 South of Monticello Place Chevrons for curve Residency is taking care of
614 (Sugar At bridge Place Chevrons for parking Residency is taking care of
Hollow Rd) near bridae
708 (Red Hill) Red hill Quarry Request to place Trucks Trees cut on 4/23/07, signs ordered
enterinQ siQn and trim trees
Greene - Being reviewed
RTE I LOCATION REQUEST ACTION
MAINTENAl\CE WORK COMPLETED
Albemarle County
. Patching operations completed on Routes 29,240,250,600 (Stony Point Pass), 610 (Lonesome Mtn),
621 (W olftrap), 631 (Rio/5th St/Old Lynchburg), 641 (Burnley Station), 645 (Magnolia), 682 (Broad Axe),
712 (Plank), 727 (Blenheim), 743 (Earlysville), 810 (Crozet), 820 (Buckingham Cir) and 825
(Yancey Mill Ln).
. Graded and replaced stone on Routes 612 (Hammocks Gap), 636 (Batesville), 637 (Dickwoods), 640
(Gilbert Station), 641 (Burnley Station), 643 (Rio Mills), 661 (Reas Ford), 668 (Fox Mtn), 671 (Ballards
Mill), 672 (Via), 674 (Clark), 678 (Ridge), 689 (Pounding Creek), 702 (Reservoir), 725 (Dawsons Mill)
736 (White Mtn), 758 (Smith), 762 (Rose Hill Church), 766 (Pea Ridge), 774 (Appleberry Mtn), 778
(Johnsons), 813 (Starlight) and 821 (Blufton Mill).
. Litter pickup on Rt 6, 29, 250, 618 (Martin Kings), 620 (Rolling), 627 (Porters), 631 (Old Lynchburg),
632 (Faber), 712 (Plank), 715 (Esmont), 717 (Secretary Sand), and 800 (Schuyler).
. Cleared pipes and ditch work on Routes 29, 601 (Garth), 640 (Gilbert Station), 646 (Lovers Ln),
743 (Earlysville), 795 (Presidents), 810 (Crozet), 831 (Tompkins), 854 (Carrsbrook), 1452 (Westfield)
. Mowing Routes 231 and 708 (Red Hill).
. Tree cleanup on various routes throughout the county due to storm.
. Cleaned up from rain, high water and wind damage across the county. Cleaned up equipment.
. Dust Control on Routes 20,606 (Dickerson), 633 (Cove Garden), 643 (Rio Mills), 668 (Fox Mtn),
671 (Millington), and 674 (Clark).
. Bridge work on Routes 600 (Watts Passage) and 627 (Carters Mtn).
Page 3 of 4
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Greene County
· Graded and replaced stone on Routes 603 (Bingham Mtn), 624 (Beazley), 626 (Snow Mtn), 629 (Welsh
Run), 630 (Rosebrook), 632 (Wyatt Mtn), 634 (Mutton Hollow), 637 (Pocasan Mtn), 638 (Ted Mtn),
642 (Taylor Mtn) and 806.
· Dust control on Routes 603 (Bingham Mtn), 624 (Beazley), 626 (Snow Mtn), 629 (Welsh Run), 630
(Rosebrook), 632 (Wyatt Mtn), 634 (Mutton Hollow), 637 (Pocasan Mtn), 638 (Ted Mtn), 642 (Taylor
Mtn) and 806.
· Ditch and pipe cleaning on Routes 29,33,604 (Celt), 632 (Wyatt Mtn) and 810 (Dyke).
· Patching operations on Routes 33, 604 (Celt), 609 (Fredericksburg), 618 (Heights Hill), 810 (Dyke)
1143 and 1152 (Hillcrest).
· Entrance pipe installed on Rt 609 (Fredericksburg).
· Treelbrush cutting on Rt 621 (South River), 638 (Turkey Ridge) and 645 (Moore).
· High wind damage across the county. Cleaned up equipment after event.
· Bridge work on Routes 603 (Bingham Mtn), 604 (Celt), 633 (Amicus) and 646 (Garth).
PLANNED MAINTENANCE WORK - MA Y 2007
· Guardrail mowing, machining and patching on various routes in Albemarle and Greene County.
· Preparing for surface treatment schedules.
· Installing pipes, ditching, tree removal, grading on Route 769 (Rocky Hollow) for Rural Rustic Program.
· Route 646 (Garth) bridge replacement work continues in Greene County.
MAINTEl\ANCE BUDGET
Highway Maintenance Expenditures
20
- - Total Maint Budget
. Cumulative Budget
----/:}.-Cumulative Actual
15
9.21
829
7.37 9.64 9.76
6.59 8.98
5.82 829
7.45
6.61
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~
c:
~
:i!
10
Jul-06
Aug-06
Sep-06
Oct-06
Nov-06
Dee-06
Jan-07
Feb-07
Mar-07
Apr-07
May-07
Jun-07
Page 4 of 4
(
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
40] McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4012
April 18, 2007
Todd Barnett
PO Box 4234
Charlottesville, V A 22905
RE: SP-2006-043 Field School (Signs # 35, 36, 39)
Tax Map Parcels 56A2-0 1-72 and 72A
Dear Mr. Barnett:
.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 3, 2007, unanimously recommended
approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Maximum enrollment shall be 48 students.
2. Hours of operation for the school shall be from7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
3. The school is limited to existing buildings and park grounds as indicated on the concept plan
(Attachment C). Any additional building or site changes for the school use will require an amendment
to this Special Use Permit (SP-2006-043).
4. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for the private school use, water line dedications to the
satisfaction of the Albemarle County Service Authority are required.
5. The playgrounds and the park grounds, with the exception ofthe Community Building, will remain
open and available for public use during the hours of school operation.
6. The athletic fields at the park shall not be available for the school's use after 4 p.m. on weekdays and
shall not be available on weekends.
7. The athletic fields shall not be available for school use when closed by the Department of Parks and
Recreation for inclement weather, overuse, fields restoration, or when any other scheduled use is
authorized by the Department of Parks and Recreation.
8. The school use may begin and continue only ifthe Crozet Park covenants and restrictions expressly
allow the use.
9. Special Use Permit 2006-043 shall be valid until June 30, 2009.
. 10. Shuttle bus service for students to and from school shall be provided each school day.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on May 2,2007.
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,
1lw{l ~~
Rebecca RagSd~
Senior Planner
Planning Division
RAR/aer
Cc: Claudius Crozet Park Inc
POBox 171, Crozet Va 22932
Ella Carey
Jack Kelsey
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
.
Project Name: SP2006-43 Field School Staff: Rebecca Ragsdale
Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
April 4, 2007 Mav 2, 2007
Owners: Claudius Crozet Park, Inc. Applicant: Todd Barnett, Head of School
(Robert A. Maupin, President) Field School
Acreage: 22.396 Special Use Permit: Private School
18.10.2.2.5 of the zoning ordinance
applies to this proposal.
TMP: 56A2-01-72 and 72A Existing Zoning and By-right use:
Location: Claudius Crozet Park in Crozet, RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
north side of Park Street fishery uses; residential density (0.5
unit/acre); public uses and parks
Magisterial District: White Hall Conditions: Yes
DA (Development Area): Crozet Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA
Proposal: Applicant requests a private middle Comprehensive Plan Designation:
school for boys of up to 70 students. Open Space and Crozet Transect
(CT) 1 Development Area Preserve
Character of Property: The parcels subject Use of Surrounding Properties: The
to the special use permit are part of Crozet building in which the school is located is
Park. surrounded by recreational uses and
parking. The nearest homes are located at
the end of Hilltop Street and on Indigo Road,
adjacent to the park to the north.
Factor Favorable: Factor Unfavorable:
1. The private school will provide 1. Concern has been expressed by a
expanded educational opportunities nearby resident that the school use
to the community, located near would deter the public from using the
residential areas. park. However, the recreational
facilities of the park will continue to
remain open for public use.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit, with conditions.
.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
REBECCA RAGSDALE
April 3, 2007
May 2, 2007
SP 2006-43 FIELD SCHOOL AT CLAUDIUS CROZET PARK
Petition:
PROJECT: SP 200600043 Field School
PROPOSED: Middle School for boys of approximately 70 students max. to be located in the
existing community building at Claudius Crozet Park.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre)
SECTION: 18.10.2.2.5 Private Schools
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Designated CT 1 Development Area
Preserve for Parks and Greenways in the Crozet Master Plan.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 22 acre parcel at Claudius Crozet Park, north side of Park St, 1500 Feet east of
High Street
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 56A2-01-72 and 72A
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
Character of the Area:
The park site is 22 acres and includes a community building, swimming pool, one acre lake,
baseball and T-ball fields, soccer field, basketball courts, 2 large picnic pavilions, 2 new
playgrounds and space for special activities such as the Crozet Arts and Crafts festival. The
park community building is currently available for rental for private functions but there are no
recreational programs planned for the building at this time.
Surrounding the park site to the north and west are the Parkside Village and Hilltop/Myrtle
neighborhoods. There are also some residences south of the park site, across Park Road.
There is undeveloped property surrounding the eastern corner of the park site. Properties
surrounding the park are zoned R2, R4, and R6 residential districts. Please refer to the
attached location maps for more information. (Attachment A-Aerial, Attachment B-Zoning)
Specifics of Proposal:
The Field School of Charlottesville is requesting a special use permit for a private school, to
allow a middle school for boys to open in the Fall of 2007 at Claudius Crozet Park. The school
would use the existing one-story 80'x60' Community Building in Claudius Crozet Park for the
initial 3-5 years of the school's start-up and would seek a more permanent facility as needed,
based on growth of the school. (Attachment C-Concept Plan and Detail) The school would
initially open with about 16 students and offer only Grades 5 and 6, then adding Grades 7 and 8
in the following two years of operation for a maximum school size of 70 students. The school
would use the existing athletic fields of the park for recess and sports. No exterior construction
or site work is proposed with this application. Some minor alterations are anticipated for the
interior of the existing building. Hours of operation will be limited to regular school hours,
typically 8:30-5:00pm. The school anticipates employing 8 teachers and staff. The school would
be operating a bus to alleviate traffic.
SP 2006-043 Field School
PC 4-3-07 BOS 5-2-07
2
.
.
.
Site History & Park QDeration:
The park was zoned R2 Residential but rezoned to RA Rural Areas during the comprehensive
rezoning in 1980. The site has been in use as a park for more than 50 years and the community
building is possibly historic. SDP 99-093, the most recent site plan, was approved for additional
ball fields and to allow overflow parking.
Claudius Crozet Park, Inc. owns and operates the park in cooperation with the Albemarle
County Department of Parks and Recreation. The Crozet Park board determines use of the
community building and not the County Parks and Recreation department. However, County
Parks and Rec. has a member on the Park's Board. The County has an agreement with the
park, by which it is made available for public recreation and the County maintains the park
grounds. Parks and Rec. has made comments relative to the special use permit, which are
attached. (Attachment D) Parks and Rec. does not feel that the proposed use will have a
negative impact on the public recreational use of the park, provided that the conditions of usage
stipulated by Parks and Rec. are followed. These have been incorporated into the
recommended conditions of approval for this special use permit.
The County's agreement with Crozet Park includes covenants and restrictions as to uses
allowed in the park which would not allow the private school use. These covenants and
restrictions must be modified by the Board of Supervisors, should the special use permit for the
private school be approved. The Park Board is currently drafting a proposed amendment to this
agreement to allow the school use on a temporary basis.
Conformity with the ComDrehensive Plan:
CrozetAlasterPlan
The Place Type & Built Infrastructure Map (inset below) does not designate the majority of the park with
a land use color because it is existing open space. A portion of the park, in the northwest corner, is
designated as CT2 Development Area Preserve. CT 2 areas are expected to be fairly restricted in terms
of land use. However, the proposed school will make use of the existing park building and facilities and
has the same land use designations as the exiting schools in Crozet, so the use would be consistent
with uses recommended in the master plan.
The Green Infrastructure Map (inset below) designates Crozet Park as an existing park and proposes
greenway connections to the park. Establishing greenway trails (for pedestrians and bikes) from
Lickinghole Creek Basin to Crozet Park and downtown is a priority in the master plan. The Field School
is open to partnering with the greenways program to further trails shown on the Green Infrastructure
map.
SP 2006-043 Field School
PC 4-3-07 BOS 5-2-07
3
Place Type & Built Infrastructure Map
,'.,1 -_.
.... : ,. I
'n.'. , ~
.-......\ .
I ... , ; -.' -'-0,;
I.. I .....
Neighborhood Model
The Neighborhood Model describes the more "urban" form of development desired for the Development
Areas. This special use permit request is for a private school use within an existing building and no site
development changes are proposed. As such, staff has not undertaken an analysis of its relationship to
the 12 Principles of the Neighborhood Model, but notes that the park does serve as a neighborhood
center so locating a school within the park would be consistent with the principle of Neighborhood
Centers.
Staff Comment:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a
finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property,
Staff does not anticipate any substantial detrimental impacts to adjacent property. The school
will utilize existing facilities that can be shared by the several users, and the applicant has
addressed potential traffic and parking impacts with the use of a bus. The proposed school will
be limited in size to 70 students and compared to other uses of the park, will be fairly low
intensive.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
There will be no site development changes and new buildings on the property. The proposed
private school will make use of the community building, which has always been available for
use during the daytime hours that the Field School proposes to use the building.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The purpose of the Rural Areas Zoning District is the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and
activities; water supply protection; limited service delivery to the rural areas; and conservation of natural,
scenic, and historic resources. However, in this case, the Rural Areas Zoning is located central to a
Development Area and the intent is to preserve the property for primarily park uses. Since the school
will be using an existing building and park uses will be unchanged, the use is not in conflict with Rural
Areas Zoning.
SP 2006-043 Field School
PC 4-3-07 BOS 5-2-07
4
.
.
.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Park and public uses are permitted by right in the Rural Areas zoning district and the school use should
not conflict with any other by-right RA zoning uses. As mentioned, the park is further limited in terms of
land uses allowed by the restrictive covenant agreement with the County.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no additional regulations in section 5.0 that address private schools.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community are protected through the
special use permit process which assures that the proposed uses are appropriate in the
location requested. The Building Official has verified acceptability of the structure for school use
and the Fire Marshall offered no objection to the proposal.
The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) has indicated that the site is served by water
and sewer and has noted that there is an outstanding dedication of waterlines that needs to be
made. This dedication is important to ensure that lines are properly maintained and functioning,
both for service at the site and fire protection. At present, since the lines have not been
dedicated, the ACSA does not maintain them. Dedication of the water lines is a recommended
condition of approval of this Special Use Permit. (Attachment E- Service Authority Comments)
Access to Crozet Park is provided by Park Road (Rte. 1204), which ranges from 20.5 to 21 feet
wide and has a maximum capacity of 1750 vehicle trips per day. Total trips on Park Road west
of Claudius Crozet Park were 1600 ADT based on 2002 VDOT traffic counts. Potential traffic
impacts to Park Road have been assessed with review of this special permit request and were
also a concern raised by an adjoining property owner. Given the limited size of the school use
requested and that a bus will be used to reduce car trips, there are no significant concerns with
additional traffic impacts. The applicant has estimated that approximately % of the total
enrollment of 70 students will ride the bus to the school. The Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) has indicated that site distance is adequate at the entrance into the
park, but has also noted that, with future development that may occur in that area of Crozet,
Park Road (Rt. 1204) will need to be further addressed. (Attachment F)
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The private school will provide expanded educational opportunities to the community,
located near residential areas.
Staff has identified one factor unfavorable to this application:
2. Concern has been expressed by a nearby resident that the school use would deter the public from
using the park. However, the recreational facilities of the park will continue to remain open for public
use.
SP 2006-043 Field School
PC 4-3-07 BOS 5-2-07
5
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of Special Use
Permit 2006-043 Field School, with the following conditions:
1. Maximum enrollment shall be 70 students.
2. Hours of operation for the school shall be from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
3. The school is limited to existing buildings and park grounds, as indicated on the concept plan
(Attachment C). Any additional building or site changes for the school use will require an
amendment to this Special Use Permit (SP-2006-00043).
4. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for the private school use, water line
dedications to the satisfaction of the Albemarle County Service Authority are required.
5. The playgrounds and the park grounds, with the exception of the Community Building,
will remain open and available for public use during the hours of school operation.
6. The athletic fields at the park shall not be available for the school's use after 4pm on
weekdays and shall not be available on weekends.
7. The athletic fields shall not be available for school use when closed by the Department
of Parks and Recreation for inclement weather, overuse, fields restoration, routine
maintenance, prescheduled conflicting public use, etc.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Aerial Map
Attachment B - Zoning Map
Attachment C - Concept Plan
Attachment D - Parks & Recreation Comments, E-mail from Pat Mullaney to Rebecca
Ragsdale, dated January 24, 2007
Attachment E-Albemarle County Service Authority Comments, Memo from Gary Whelan to
Rebecca Ragsdale, dated January 15, 2007
Attachment F-Virginia Department of Transportation Comments, letter from Joel Denunzio, PE
to Bill Fritz, dated January 26, 2007
Attachment G-Adjoining Property owner concerns and objection, letter from Emil Groth to
Rebecca Ragsdale, received February 16, 2007
SP 2006-043 Field School
PC 4-3-07 BOS 5-2-07
6
Attachment A
-<
....
~ 1
tt!
.... I
.... ~
-< f
f
s
j~ JIll
! fl I f I I I J I I
II OJ I I 0 I I. I 0
il
B'N
i~~~
~ftlElb
~H~
0. .;\
~ ~~
J
<1z
I If 1 I I
JdJJI
~...
cu
'i:
(1,):
~
-
o
0'"
-'=
(J
U)
"C
-
(I,)
LL
(II)
..,.
co
o
o
N '"~
a..
U)
I
Attachment B
=
..
=
.
..
..
<
I
i
~ r
t
6
j ~
J f J
h OJ
a !
I I J J I J
j I I J I I ! I I I , j 1 I I I f J
.. ....1...r::....
1 f
1 J J
I J .
I j !
..rn.,
il
.~ '"
~~l:j
...",!::l
~1l~",
~~~~
<> .;1)
~ I~
I
<{z
J ! 1 I J I
1 f j ] J I I j j t
11011_10
Q.
ns
:!E
C)
s:::
.-
s:::
o
~
-
o
o
.c:
CJ
U)
"C
-
(I)
.-
LL.
('t')
'lilt
o
.
UL _
o -=--~
o
N
C.
U)
~
.
I
~ttachrnent C
I _
~
~
i:
cl:
-w
~
~
U
~ ]
] J!
~
U
. -w
~
-
8
-D
U}
~
Ib
I.C::
Ib
~
.----- !
/' 0.;
,/'
//'/
;/// !~
/ ~
i
r
!!
I
I ~
I
I ~
o .
I
I
~ l
~~
~~
-0
-[
J
--,
: -..
::=:---1
[-=-__-1 ! ~
.....- a
: -_.~ 1:
r.~~~
.
I
11
I
:-.-=- -
o
't ~
~(S~~~
\,- (J \3 ~ ~
"-'--- ..s:::. I\) " -:::
11\ \.) ~ ~ ~
'U If'''\ ..I:: _
;-S::\J)Il'I't)
\-.,:: ~><
I\}
I\}
~
~
Il'I
~
~
~
C\1
~~
S (J
-\...:> -
~S
tG~
-
~~
S (J
-\...:> -
~S
tG~
CJ
"t
~I~-
tJDlJ
Il'I _-
I\) -
~ 6ildD
Il'I ---
~ tJ d)]
,
t
l!)
Q-~.
QdlJ
lJ
.-..-- ---.~~
-,,,,
..."
'""
'\
\
\
\
"
/
/
~
~
10'>
c
E ~
.a~
~~
CJ
~
Attachment C
~
~
~
o :
,
,
@
8
\0
.
.
.
Attachment D
From: Pat Mullaney
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 4:04 PM
To: Rebecca Ragsdale
Subject: Field School Use of Crozet Park
We have reviewed the Field School request to use Crozet Park. We do not feel that this use will have a negative
impact on the public recreational use of the park with the understanding that:
. the athletic fields at the park will not be available for the school's use after 4pm on weekdays and not
available at all on weekends.
. the athletic fields will not be available for use when closed by the Department of Parks and Recreation for
inclement weather, overuse, field restoration, routine maintenance, prescheduled conflicting public
use, etc.
. the playgrounds and the park grounds, with the exception of the Community Building, will remain generally
open and available for public use during the hours of school operation.
It does appear that the Restrictive Covenant Agreement would need to be reworded to allow this use.
Finally, there is a positive aspect of this use from a recreational standpoint. The Crozet Park Board is solely
responsible for all expenses related to the swimming pool operation and also pays the utility expenses for the
Community Building along with other expenses not covered in the County's routine maintenance of the
grounds. This use will generate revenue to help defray some of those expenses allowing more funds to be
invested in the park which will benefit the Community and potentially reduce the level of additional County funding
required.
l t
file://C:\Documents and Settings\rragsdale\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2... 3/23/2007
Attachment E
TO: Rebecca Ragsdale
FROM: Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer
DATE: January 15, 2007
RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: Field School
TM 56A2-1-72 & 72A
SP 2006-00043
The below checked items apply to this site.
X 1. This site plan is within the Authority's
jurisdictional area for:
X A. Water and sewer
B. Water only
C. Water only to existing structure
D. Limited service
X 2. An 8 inch water line is located on site.
X 3. Fire flow from nearest public hydrant, located on
site is 5056 gpm +/- at 20 psi.
X 4. An 8 inch sewer line is located on site.
5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be
completed.
X 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed
within existing or future easements.
7. and plans are currently under review.
8. and plans have been received and
approved.
9. No plans are required.
10. Final and plans are required for our
review and approval prior to granting tentative
approval.
11. Final site plan may/may not be signed.
12. RWSA approval for water and/or sewer connections.
Comments: Final dedication of Crozet Park Water required.
The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows:
meter locations
waterline locations
sewer line locations
easements
waterline size
sewer line size
expected wastewater flows
expected water demands
t'l--
.
.
.
Attachment F
David S. Ekern, P.E.
COMMISSIONER
C()MMONWEAL T~l ()F VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
VirginiaDOT.org
January 26thth, 2007
Mr. Bill Fritz
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
40 I McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Special Use Permits and Rezoning Submittals
Dear Mr. Fritz:
Below are VDOT's comments for the January 2007 Rezoning and Special Use Permit
applications:
SP-2006-00043 Field School (Rebecca Rae:sdale)
. Sight distance is adequate at the entrance.
. Rte. 1204 to the west of the site before rte. 240 has some below standard curves in the
road that may need to be addressed in the future with development.
SP-2006-00044 Avemore Commercial- Amendment (Rebecca Rae:sdale)
. No additional traffic will be generated with the amendment and no work to the existing
roads is proposed.
. No comments are necessary from this office for the change.
ZMA-2006-00021. Avemore Commercial- Amendment (Rebecca Rae:sdale)
· No additional traffic will be generated with the amendment and no work to the existing
roads is proposed.
. No comments are necessary from this office for the change.
ZMA 2006-00022. The Commons at Albrecht Place (Sean Doue:hertv)
· This Code of Development does not conform to the Places 29 plan.
. Only one entrance for this site will be permitted.
· A traffic study will need to be done. Please ask the applicant to contact the VDOT
Charlottesville Residency to schedule a scoping meeting for the traffic study.
is
If you have any questions, please let me know
Sincerely,
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Residency Program Manager
VDOT Charlottesville Residency
IIf
.
.
.
Attachment G
Emil Groth
3015 Indigo Rd
Crozet VA 22932
Rebecca Ragsdale
Senior Planner
Planning Division
County of Albemarle
401 Mcintire Rd
Charlottesville VA 22902
Re: SP 2006-043 Field School
Tax Map Parcels 56A2-01-72 and 72A
Dear Ms. Ragsdale;
With regard to the pending Special Use Permit Application for the Field School, I
would like to note the following issues and concerns:
Crozet Park operates under a restrictive covenant on the property providing that:
the entire "Park shall in perpetuity be used only for park and recreational
purposes which may include any lawful activities such as festivals, carnivals,
concerts, celebrations and other community related entertainment uses that have
historically been allowed at the Park and shall be open for public use unless the
County and Crozet Park jointly agree otherwise. This restrictive covenant shall
run with the land for the benefit of the citizens of the community of Crozet and
Albemarle County, Virginia and shall be enforceable on their behalf by the
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors." Deed Book 1601 page 100.
The proposed use of the park building as a private school is inconsistent with
this restrictive covenant.
I live in a home adjacent to the park and I have observed that park grounds are
used during the weekday school hours for recreational purposes by parents with
young children and by active adults, such as myself. My concern would be that
the use of the park building and related outdoor facilities by seventy middle
school boys would tend to discourage use of the park facilities and grounds by
the public, especially families and seniors. Further, by having a private school
operate in the facility, other recreational uses of the building would be
precluded. Although the Park Board has not recently sponsored such uses, just
IS-
off the top of my head, I could think of several uses of that building that would
be more consistent with recreational purposes of the park such as a pre-school
playgroup room for inclement weather, space for exercise/dance classes
conducted by Parks and Recreation; or space for senior citizen
meetings/ games/ activities.
In addition, there is only one entry/exit road from Crozet A venue/Rte 240 to the
Park and the surrounding neighborhoods. These roads are quite busy during
morning and afternoon hours with school buses and commuter traffic. Adding
additional buses and incoming traffic would increase the burden on these local
roads.
For these reasons, I believe the special use permit should be denied. Thank you
for your consideration in this matter.
Emil Groth
I~
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 3, 2007
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, April 3,
2007, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Bill Edgerton, Jon Cannon, Eric Strucko, Pete
Craddock, Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman and Marcia Joseph, Chairman. Duane Zobrist was absent. Julia
Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; David Benish, Chief of Planning; David
E. Pennock, Principal Planner; Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator/Chief of Zoning and Current
Development; Allan Shuck, County Engineer; Jack Kelsey, County Transportation Planner; Pat Lawrence,
Planner; Summer Frederick, Planner; Sean Dougherty, Senior Planner; Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior
Planner and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Ms. Joseph called the meeting order at 6:06 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearings:
SP-2006-043. Field School (Sian #35. 36. 39)
PROPOSED: Middle School for boys of approximately 70 students max. to be located in the existing
community building at Claudius Crozet Park.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 uniUacre)
SECTION: 18.10.2.2.5 Private Schools
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Designated CT 1 Development Area Preserve for Parks
and Greenways in the Crozet Master Plan.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 22 acre parcel at Claudius Crozet Park, north side of Park St, 1500 Feet east of High Street
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 56A2-01-72 and 72A
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
STAFF: Rebecca Ragsdale
Ms. Ragsdale summarized the staff report.
· This is a special use permit request for a private middle school for boys. It is requested
to be located in an existing community building in Claudius Crozet Park. The park is
owned by Claudius Crozet Park and is managed primarily by the Park Board. The
applicant is the Field School. The County has a relationship with the Park Board and a
partnership with the Park. It is not an entirely public entity and there are folks here
representing the Park both from County Parks and Recreation, the Park Board and the
applicant so that they can try to clear up any confusion that may have come up around
that and expand a little more about the relationship that the County has with Crozet Park.
· It is a request for up to 70 students starting out with just fifth and sixth grade and then
expanding. She displayed an aerial of the park. The park properties were outlined in the
yellow central to the residential areas adjacent to Crozet Park where Parks ide Village is
and the established Hilltop neighborhoods. To access the park from Crozet Avenue
coming down Tabor and Park Road is the main access point in the park. The property is
zoned Rural Areas. It is a doughnut of Rural Area surrounded by residential zoning.
· The Master Plan designations for the park recognizes that it is primarily a park use
designated as open space and then CT-1 and 2 and then the green infrastructure map
emphasizes the park is a major focal point and greenway with trails leading to it.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2007
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2006-043 FIELD SCHOOL
· The red outlines area is the primary area that Field School will occupy. The Field School
is proposing to use the existing community building and not make any major
modifications, given the temporary nature of it. It will be something that can be tucked
away if the building is used for something else on the weekends and that sort of thing.
The layout shows the pool, parking layout and the pavilions. She pointed out the sketch
provided by the applicant to show primarily where their activity for the private school
during the day would be located and where bus parking would be provided. Also, it
shows that there is adequate turn around for a bus to be used.
· The hours of operation will generally be school hours with after school care until 6:00
p.m. There are conditions that address the Field School use of the facilities based on
Parks and Recreation comments allowing the recreational fields to be used. She showed
a photograph of the community building.
· In summary, staff has received some public comments both favorable and unfavorable.
The Commission has seen some of the em ails and concern expressed by residents of
deterring public use of the park and taking away a public facility. Then some of the
factors favorable includes that it is an additional educational opportunity in the community
within walking distance of the residential areas.
· In the review of the special use permit, staff focused primarily on the intensity of the use
proposed and not necessarily on some of the broader policy questions as to the
public/private use of the park that have come up in public comments. Based on the small
scale use of the park staff did not have any concerns with any of the impacts to be
addressed. Staff did recommend approval in the staff report with conditions limiting the
number of students, the hours of operation and limiting the use on the park grounds.
One condition to note is some outstanding water line dedications with the Service
Authority. It also recognizing in the conditions that this use is unique because it is not
entirely a public park. A unique partnership with the County is that there is a restrictive
covenant agreement that the County Board of Supervisors approved that does not
actually allow this school use. So there is another step with the County and the Park
Board to allow this private school use in the park. So staff is recognizing that in the
conditions of approval.
· As noted earlier, there are representatives here from County Parks and Recreation and
the Park Board as well that may be more appropriate to answer some of the questions
that the Commission might have in terms of specific usage and of the Park Building and
who has primary control of what, whether it be Parks and Recreation or the Crozet Park
Board entity.
Ms. Joseph asked if there were any questions for staff.
Mr. Morris asked would the school be available for public use every evening after that 6:00 p.m. close
down as well as on the weekend. He asked if the school folks were going to have to vacate virtually
everything.
Ms. Ragsdale replied yes, the school would be limited to the hours of operation as the school functions
that are listed on the special use permit. Then generally it would be available for public use or any other
sort of meetings in the evenings and weekends.
Mr. Strucko asked if access was restricted from the soccer field, the two ball fields, the pool and the
playground. He asked if the school was going to use those facilities at any point under this proposal.
Ms. Ragsdale replied that the school would use some of the fields for recess. The school will not be
restricted from using the park grounds at all.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2007
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2006-043 FIELD SCHOOL
2
Mr. Strucko said that even during the day when the school is in operation these residents may compete
with the students of the school for use of these facilities.
Ms. Ragsdale noted that there are two playgrounds and there are multiple playing fields. Given the size
of the school there is room enough for everyone basically is what she meant.
Mr. Strucko asked if there would be 70 students potentially.
Ms. Ragsdale noted that staff left that to Parks and Recreation to advise us on whether or not there would
be over use of the park or whether the park grounds and community recreational needs could be met with
the school at maximum capacity. Based on the information that they have the park is not over used now
during the week days and the school year. The community building is somewhat under utilized and the
park is looking for other uses.
Ms. Joseph noted that Tim Hughes was present from Parks.
Mr. Strucko said that he just wanted to get his facts straight first. He asked if the SOCCER Organization
have an agreement with County Parks and Recreation to use that field for the adult soccer field located
behind this building. The Peach League Little League uses the ball fields, T-ball fields and the two
standard ball fields. If there was an event held during the day would they potentially compete with the
school for use of these facilities.
Ms. Ragsdale said that basically they were saying that all of those uses would take precedence over and
that they would have priority access to the areas. She was not certain of the detailed scheduling with the
different organizations that use the playing fields and which fields they are using. But, she understands
his comments about potential conflicts in the future if they have the school there and they are playing and
somebody else shows up to use a particular field. They are trying to avoid those types of conflicts as
much as possible. The school has been working with the Park Board and Parks and Recreation to
anticipate that sort of thing and the Field School going in with clear understandings of what would be
available and what would not.
Mr. Strucko asked if there would be no improvements to any of the physical space as a result to this
agreement and no improvements to the parking, pavement or the cinder block building itself.
Ms. Ragsdale noted that the Building Official has said that the building is adequate and can be used as a
school.
Mr. Cannon asked staff if there is a restricted covenant applicable to the park.
Ms. Ragsdale said that the restricted covenant expressly allows recreational and entertainment uses that
was approved by the County.
Mr. Cannon asked if the covenant is between the County and the owner of the park.
Ms. Ragsdale replied yes. The County Attorney's Office was very involved in that. A copy of the covenant
was not included in the packet.
Mr. Cannon said that he was trying to get an idea of what it involved. He asked if the County does not
own the land.
Mr. Kamptner replied that Claudius Crozet Park Incorporated owns the land. As part of the County's
contribution of about $200,000 in 1997 the park and County entered into an agreement, which was
recorded as a restricted covenant that was designed to make sure that the park lands were used for
primarily recreational uses, but also entertainment uses.
Mr. Cannon said that for return for the money that the County contributed to the maintenance of the park
the owners of the park agreed to restrict its use to certain uses. He asked if that was correct.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2007
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2006-043 FIELD SCHOOL
3
Mr. Kamptner replied that was correct.
Mr. Cannon said that those uses did not include schools. He asked if it specifically excluded a school
use.
Mr. Kamptner replied no. The document states that the park is to be used "only for park and recreational
purposes, which may include any lawful activity such as festivals, carnivals, concerts, celebrations and
other community related entertainment uses that have historically been allowed at the park and shall be
open for public use unless the County and Crozet Park jointly agree otherwise."
Mr. Strucko asked if that agreement was part of a financial arrangement between the County and the
Park in terms of maintenance and other things.
Mr. Kamptner replied that Tim Hughes was nodding his head yes.
Ms. Joseph invited Tim Hughes to come forward and respond to the questions.
Tim Hughes, Athletic Supervisor for Albemarle County Parks and Recreation, replied that the covenant
was brokered by our Director, Pat Mullaney, back in the 90's. The purpose of the covenant was when
Crozet Park started to build a new pool they were financially short and came to the County and asked for
help to build the swimming pool. In exchange for that the County saw an opportunity that if they could get
a restrictive covenant put in the deed and they would allow us to develop the open space into badly
needed athletic fields for that area. The County currently maintains all of the athletic fields.
Mr. Strucko asked if the County built the T-ball field in the lower baseball field.
Mr. Hughes replied that the County developed all of the athletic fields.
Mr. Strucko asked if the County maintains pavilions 1 and 2.
Mr. Hughes replied that the County does not. The County maintains all of the athletic fields, which
includes the soccer field. They do not maintain the pool or spend any money on the pool.
Mr. Strucko asked if there was a fee for use of the pool. He asked if there was a financial arrangement
between the Field School and Crozet Park pending this.
Ms. Ragsdale replied that there is.
Mr. Craddock noted that years ago the Indians used Crozet Park for a weekend festival. He asked if they
still do that. Would any groups like that be restricted to using the park if the school is there? With the
school's 50 or 60 children along with the parking mean that they can't have a festival going on during the
day.
Mr. Hughes replied that the Crozet Park Board could answer that better because they actually take care
of those arrangements when they have other activities other than the athletic activities. But, historically
those events have been on weekends. So it should not be a conflict with any other public or recreation
use.
Mr. Craddock asked if the school would operate on a similar school year schedule like Albemarle
County's Schools and will not be operated during the summer.
Ms. Ragsdale replied that was correct.
Mr. Strucko asked what hours of operation are proposed:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2007
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2006-043 FIELD SCHOOL
4
Ms. Ragsdale replied that it was 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. to include both before school staff and the after
school program.
Mr. Strucko asked what time the Peach League Little League practice starts.
Mr. Hughes replied that practice generally begins at 5:30 p.m.
Mr. Strucko noted that there would be a % hour overlap with the traffic going in for practice with the
school operation.
Ms. Ragsdale said that the school may have, as they describe, students there that are getting picked up
and staff. But, condition 6 says specifically that the athletic fields are not available for the school's use
after 4:00 p.m.
Mr. Strucko said that currently the parking there is difficult with the use of the athletic fields. In fact, the
open space close to Park Street doubles as a parking lot.
Ms. Joseph asked if there were any other questions for Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Edgerton said that regarding Mr. Strucko's earlier question it has been represented that there is not
any concern from the Parks and Recreation about competing for use of athletic facilities. He asked if that
is correct. He asked if they feel threatened by having 70 children there. He was a little confused by the
representation because staff's drawing with the red box around it was pretty clear, but that is really not
what is being asked for. They are intending to use all of those athletic fields during the day. He asked if
Parks and Recreation have programs during the school year that would have to be compromised
because the school would have the first option for the use of those fields.
Mr. Hughes noted that the County does not have any organized activity programs that would conflict
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
Mr. Edgerton asked if occasionally the children of the neighborhood go out there and have a pick up
game.
Mr. Hughes said that he was sure that there are probably pre-school aged children that use the
playgrounds and the fields some during the day.
Mr. Edgerton asked if they know how much use that involves.
Mr. Hughes replied that while maintaining the fields their maintenance crews have said that occasionally
they have seen a mom and 3 or 4 children on the playground and the T-ball field. Therefore, it appears
that is a minimum use.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the playgrounds would be used by the school.
Ms. Ragsdale replied that the school would have access to the two playgrounds. But, these are middle
school boys.
Mr. Strucko asked if they anticipate an increase in the maintenance budget for maintaining these fields
with potentially 70 middle school aged boys using the facilities.
Mr. Hughes replied that if they were just using them in a manner consistent with a regular P.E. class they
would not anticipate a huge jump in their maintenance budget.
There being no further questions for Mr. Hughes, Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited the
applicant to address the Commission.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2007
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2006-043 FIELD SCHOOL
5
Dr. Todd Burnett said that he was opening Field School, which was a boy's middle school inspired by the
model of Village School for girls.
· There will be 16 students each in grades 5 through 8 starting in 2007 with grades 5 and 6
and adding grade 7 and 8 the following 2 years. The Village School has been very
successful in providing something that our public schools can't as a single sex middle
school education providing all of the benefits associated with learning that focuses on
girls. His efforts for Field School have been inspired by the many parents that he has
met in this area over the years that have encouraged him to start this school for boys.
Their mission is to develop well rounded boys of character and accomplishment. He
thanked all of the Board members, parents and supporters who came out tonight to
support the Field School request. With the County's approval, they plan to establish the
school next year at Claudius Crozet Park in their community building.
· He thanked Bryan Campbell and Kelly Strickland, particularly of the Park Board, and the
entire Park Board for their support. The park is a private community organization opened
under the public under the approval of the Crozet Park Board. He went to the Park Board
back in the fall and told them what he was interested in doing. The Park Board liked what
he was proposing, particularly since he embraced the idea of their students helping out
by volunteering in the park at the Arts and Craft Festival in the spring and fall. The
students would also assist in maintaining the appearance and up keep of the park. In
addition to those benefits they will also provide annual rental income to the park. They
intend to make two minor improvements to the building. One is to put a wood floor in to
improve the appearance inside and possibly cut down on some of the noise. They also
want to put in 6 to 8 skylights to bring natural light into the middle of the building.
· They are making this petition with certain efforts to minimize impact there. It is going to
be a small school. They will start with a maximum of 32 students. It will probably be
more like 20 students next year. They will slowly building, but get no larger than 70
students. If they are in Crozet for 5 years and they grow at the same rate that the Village
School did they will have an average of 42 students over the 5 year period. They will
only be operational during the school day and during the school year when the
community building is literally unused. According to Bryan Campbell, who manages the
park operation for the Board, he could not remember a single rental of the building during
this time period over the past 5 years. Field space will be generally available to the
public, which is one of the recommendations in the staff report and not available to the
school after 4:00 p.m. weekdays or at all on the weekends. They are doing what they
can to minimize traffic. Most of the students will be coming from Charlottesville and will
ride the daily shuttle bus that they are going to drive in and out everyday. He runs a
camp in town called Field Camp, which is run at Camp Albemarle. He takes a daily
shuttle out from the A.L.C. Copies Building to Camp Albemarle in Free Union. Three-
quarters of the children, which he has 50 to 55 everyday in the summer, take that shuttle.
They will probably have about the same number who will take the shuttle out to Crozet
every day. Assuming that three-quarters of the children ride the shuttle every day that
leaves an average of about 22 additional parent car trips each day with 11 in the morning
and 11 in the afternoon per school day over the 5 year period. He understands from the
staff report that there are 1,600 average daily trips there on Park Street. Therefore, he
would add 20 on average to 1,600, which he did not think was very much.
· As part of their agreement with the Park Board they will build classrooms that can be
broken down whenever any community group needs the building on the weekends or in
the evenings. They will get in the habit of breaking down their classes and putting them
in the corner whenever someone wants to use the building. They embrace the
opportunity to do that. As part of his camp they have a lot of things that they do as active
hands on learning. Therefore, that actually appeals to him as an educator. It will be a
temporary home. The Park Board and Field School have reached an agreement for their
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2007
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2006-043 FIELD SCHOOL
6
first year, which will be re-evaluated on either side each year. He hopes to be there for 3
to 5 years before moving on to another space.
· They plan to be good neighbors. The school will teach values everyday to include
respect, honesty, compassion, duty and fairness. They will do that in a variety of ways.
They plan to give responsibilities to the students and then follow up with them. That will
be done through their work program. He intends to impress upon the students the
importance of being a good neighbor. When he learned about this he set up a meeting at
the Crozet Fire House. He attended a meeting at the Crozet Community Association. He
put flyers in all of the homes in the area. He set up meetings to alleviate the concerns of
neighbors and community members. He had one person show up at his meeting. He
has been able to develop an excellent relationship with Camp Albemarle through his
summer camp, Field Camp. He knows that they appreciate their use and their excellent
stewardship of that facility each summer. He fully intends to develop the same
relationship with all of the people of the Crozet community and with all of their neighbors
through service, good behavior and attention to their concerns. He hoped that they
would be welcomed in the same spirit of friendliness, trust and social ability by their
neighbors.
· They are asking for a special use permit to allow for education in a space that is meant
for park and recreational purposes. It has been very difficult to find a site for the school
because he thought given their population that they needed immediate access to outdoor
recess space. He felt that it was difficult to separate those ends, recreation and
education. In fact, he would bet that there is a substantial amount of education going on
in the park right now through the Little League and Soccer Programs. If they are doing
their job well they are educating those young people about values such as preparedness,
timeliness, hard work, team work, determination and sportsmanship. All of those things
are being taught in a recreational context.
· In sum, they have the support of the Park Board. They are providing a variety of benefits
to the community and are making every effort to minimize impact there. They are using
the space in the building, which has been dormant for the past 5 years during the time
that they are proposing to use it. It is proposed only for current non-use hours that will
minimally affect the opportunities for other groups to use the buildings. He hoped that the
Commission would grant them the opportunity to start the school in this location next
year.
Ms. Joseph asked if there were any questions for the applicant.
Mr. Edgerton asked what the intended use would be for the pavilions.
Mr. Burnett replied that he did not have any intention to use them. It would be nice to be able to go
outside on a rainy day and use those places. He could see using the basket ball court the most and any
of the field space. He appreciated the concern about taking care of the field as well. That is very
important. The children need recess time. They will not touch the jungle gyms. The students are too old
for that. Basically, he saw children throwing a football around or a playground ball on the ground. They
will have a 20 minute recess in the morning, a 10 minute recess after lunch and then the sports hours will
go from 2:45 to 3:45 p.m. The after care will be a situation where children will drift away. The shuttle bus
will leave, but there will not be a lot of children left that will create a large impact.
Mr. Strucko asked what the school's parking requirements would be during operation.
Mr. Burnett replied that the capacity would be about 8 cars during the day for the teachers plus the bus.
Otherwise, he envisioned parents dropping off the children and leaving. Most of the children will be
taking the shuttle bus. He has noted about 60 to 100 cars at the park in the evening. They might add a
few cars to that, but not many.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2007
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2006-043 FIELD SCHOOL
7
Ms. Joseph invited public comment.
Emil Groth, resident of Crozet, said that the Commissioner's questions are relevant and important to
approving this. He was retired and moved to the Parkside Village home, which is directly across from the
park area for recreational use. He has young children and likes to go to the park. The Charlottesville
Field School might be a good school and might be a good idea, but not here. He has nothing against the
school. The problem is that it is not a good recreational or park use. The park is intended for the
recreation use. There is an existing deed that places restricted covenant on the land in perpetuity. That
means forever and not to be necessarily written off. If the covenant restrictions can be negated like that,
then other portions of the County are questionable. Even our homeowner's association has a property
that was deeded over to the park with a restricted covenant. Therefore, that also may be in question. In
the report there was a traffic study that was done, which indicates certain numbers. But, that traffic study
was done 5 years ago in 2005. Parkside Village was not there. West Hall, which is a new development,
will definitely increase the use of those roads. There is only one road that comes in from Tabor Street.
There is just that one exit through Tabor Street. In terms of the water and sewer lines needing to be
dedicated, he was not sure what that involves. But, if it needs to come into compliance and it needs to be
worked on, then who is going to pay for that. Is the county going to pay for that again? The County has
contributed a lot of money to the park already and maintains the park essentially. Or is it going to be the
Park Board? That is something to think about. The use of the Park building for the school is not a
recreational use. The suggestion that they will be able to break down class room walls to make the
building available for other activities he has a bit of a problem dealing with that suggestion. There is a
possibility for using the building for senior citizens, games, exercise and play gym for pre-school. These
are more in line with what the Park is suppose to be used for. If the Park grounds are used there is some
discouragement to use the park by the young children. If the green way opens up they are looking at
running and bicycling with hopefully more people using the park for recreational use. The question is
would the Planning Commission allow a private boy school in the County park. If not, why. It would
reduce the accessibility for recreational use. He asked that the Commission consider all of the things
mentioned. He asked that the Commission not approve this because this is the only recreational area in
the Crozet area that is available to his neighborhood.
Kelly Strickland, a member of the Board of Directors of Claudius Crozet Park, said that he was present to
speak as a resident of Crozet and as a neighbor. He respects Mr. Groth's comments. They have had a
lot of conversations and discussions among the park board along the same lines.
· He asked to give a brief history of Crozet Park. The Crozet began in 1960. It was
originally part of the Rosengrant's property. They still have members of the Rosengrant's
family on the Board of Directors. When the pool, which was built in 1965, got very old in
1995 and needed to be replaced they raised around $200,000 in Crozet to replace it.
They did not have enough money and the county came in and helped them out to pay for
the remainder of that. In exchange that is when the covenant came to be in keeping the
park in perpetuity.
· The Park Board is represented by members from the local schools, the churches, White
Hall Puritans, the Community Association, the Crozet Lion's Club, the volunteer Fire
Department, Crozet Women's Club, the Crozet Advisory Council, Rescue Squad and
Albemarle County Parks and Recreation. The activities hosted in the park include Peach
Tree Baseball League, SOCCA, the Crozet Gators Swim Team, etc. They have 22 acres
of open space in the park, including a fishing pond.
· Events they host are twice a year their annual fund raiser is the Crozet Arts and Crafts
Festival. It is on May 11 and 12 this year. The Firemen's Fourth of July carnival has
always been hosted in Crozet Park. This year the Crozet Fire Department is not actually
doing a carnival. They are in the progress of making plans to have a big party in the park
that the firemen will host. They are trying to get the fireworks to stay there with it as well.
That is in the planning stage. The City Parks and Recreation hosts a summer camp for 2
weeks every summer. They use the community building for the summer camp. They
rent the building and the entire park to groups and organizations among other things.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2007 8
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2006-043 FIELD SCHOOL
They have lots of projects on their schedule that they would love to get to. Next week
they are going to start on renovations to the Arts and Crafts Festival grounds. They have
a new director for the festival. The last 2 falls they have been rained out, which hurts the
revenue for the Park Board. That is a big project of about $35,000. They want to
improve the basketball courts and turn them back into basketball courts. Right now it is
functioning as a parking lot, which is literally never used.
· The community building is their big gray elephant in the middle of the park. They have
spent money on the building and have been looking for a good use for the last 5 years.
They have been trying to find a year round use to include the winter months when there
is no one in there. They are existed about the opportunity to use the building at least
temporarily as a school while they keep exploring ideas for other uses of that building that
would be consistent.
· A recent project came before the Commission last year in the Lewis and Clark
Observatory Center in Darden Towe Park. That is a similar example. The difference is
that this proposal does not have a site plan, a new building and everything associated
with it. This is just using an existing building, which needs to be used in a park. They are
very concerned that the use of that building does not cause any detriment to any of the
existing uses in the park. They are confident that the conditions recommended will
provide for that.
Brian Campbell, a member of the Park Board, said that he was also a member of the Pool Committee.
He has 3 daughters and lives about a quarter of a mile away from the park. In fact, his daughter used the
park building for her birthday party this year. If the school was here they would still be able to use it. One
of his primary functions with the Park Board is the rental facility. The rental facility is virtually unused. It
has been one of things that they have been looking for something to bring some activity to the park.
When the summer is here it is flowing with activity. When the off season comes it just dies. They are
looking for something to do. In 2006 they had 7 rentals. As Mr. Strickland said for the past few years
they have been trying to find something else that they can do in this building. They have talked with the
YMCA who is doing a study right now to see if it would be feasible to bring in a remote facility there. The
County has told us that they will not be ready to help us out there until 2012 when it is in their plans. The
bottom line is that this is a win/win situation. They have a facility that is not used. As the Park Board they
are not going to sacrifice any uses just to force this through. This school is a great plan. This facility is
not utilized at all. The building closes down from December to May. They turn off the water, heat and
lock the doors because of the lack of use. The fields don't get used during the winter time. This is going
to be something on a temporary basis that is actually going to bring people. If there is a use on a week
day evening the building will be cleared and it will be available for use. That will be true for any weekend
use. The Park Board has to approve any use of the facilities. He asked that the Commission approve the
request.
Kelly Hunt, resident of Crozet, said that she was a mom of preschool children that uses Claudius Crozet
Park. She could not think of a better use for this space. If ever there was a population of children that
needed another opportunity for some kind of education it is fifth and sixth grade boys. As a resident of
Albemarle County she was excited about the possibility that there was just one more place that boys can
get an education. This will give parents another option for educating their young boys. She liked what
Mr. Burnett had to say. As the mother of a 6 year old boy she was pleased to think that possibility might
exist for him some day.
Stephanie Saderly stated that her 11 year old son would attend Field Stone School next year. They were
very excited about the school and what it offers to these young boys. Basically she wanted to reiterate
what everyone else has said. She felt that Albemarle County needs a single sex day school for boys. It
is affordable and it caters to their special needs. They need to be outside, active and to be moving. This
building seems to provide Field School with what they need to provide the type of environment that boys
will thrive in. This is a small school that will provide transportation with a bus that will bring in most of the
students. There will be about 20 students to start off with. The bus will provide for less traffic on the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2007
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2006-043 FIELD SCHOOL
9
grounds. They will be using the bus that will be coming in from Charlottesville. She asked that the
Commission approve the request.
Mr. Saderly thanked Mr. Burnett for bringing this opportunity to the community for those who need it. He
supported the school's mission. He asked that the Commission approve the request.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the
Commission.
Mr. Edgerton asked Mr. Kamptner for assistance. There have been several representations through
emailsandlettersthatthiswouldnotbelegaltochangetheuse.Mr. Kamptner read some of the
covenant language earlier. If he heard it correctly the description of all the activities that could occur in
the park could be adjusted by mutual agreement by the county and the Park Board. He asked if that was
correct.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the covenants would need to be amended to allow this use. The county's
primary concern back in 1970 that would continue would be that the park as a whole would have a public
benefit. Ultimately that will be for the Board of Supervisors to decide when they are considering both the
special use permit and the declaration. As it is worded right now it would not allow the school use. It
clearly does not fit within the park recreational or entertainment uses that were envisioned when the
declaration was entered into.
Mr. Edgerton said that if the Commission were inclined to recommend approval would they have to add a
condition of the approval that would cover the legal need to amend the covenant.
Mr. Kamptner noted that condition 8 was added after the staff report was written. That is an additional
recommended condition. Part of it is to be clear that the consideration of the special use permit needs to
be independent of the agreement and the declaration.
Mr. Cannon asked what the process is if there is a separation process by which the covenant would be
amended.
Mr. Kamptner replied that it is really negotiated between the county and the Park Board. It is presented to
both the Park Board and to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The Board's approval would authorize
the County Executive to sign the amendment on behalf of the county.
Mr. Cannon asked at whose instance those negotiations would begin.
Mr. Kamptner said that it would be the Park Board since they are the ones who are seeking the change
essentially.
Mr. Strucko said that legal issues aside he was having several thoughts about this proposal. He knows
the intended use of Crozet Park in the Crozet Master Plan and given its location in the middle of the
residential area not too far from the downtown Crozet area, given its history and use by local residents of
Crozet, whether they be the people coming in for the Firefighter's Festival, the Arts and Crafts Festival it
draws not only people from Crozet but other areas as well, but he did know that it serves as the hub of
Peach Tree Little League Baseball, which is 300 children from ages 5 to 12 that go to the local
elementary schools. It has been intended for use as a park and recreational facilities for this particular
segment of our community. He also knows that cinder block building that is very raw and its
interior/exterior appearance does get under utilized. From personal experience he knew that a 70 student
school is an intensive use. He sat on the board of the Free Union Country School, which had 70 to 80
students. From his 5 years in that capacity that active recreational space is necessary. That does offer
wear and tear to these facilities if they are indeed going to use the baseball and soccer field. County
funds are going to maintain these fields. This is a private school use. He was trying to piece together the
virtues of maintaining this as a park for the immediate area of the community of Crozet and allowing it to
continue in that capacity while permitting a use of an under utilized asset, which is this building. But, is
this the right use for 70 students of this age group. That equates to 12 baseball teams. It may restrict the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2007 10
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2006-043 FIELD SCHOOL
use of these residents to have access to these facilities during the day of the school year. Crozet is a
changing community. Some of the decisions they have made on this board have instigated those
changes. So whereas the use today may be one thing, it may be something very different once West Hall
Phase V goes in. With all due respect to the Field School, he felt that it was quite virtuous but saw the
proposal coming in and potentially conflicting with public access to this very pivotal park inside the Crozet
community. It does not help him with this use when he knows that 20 to 30 students are being bused in
from the City of Charlottesville. It is not being used by Crozet residents. So right now his disposition is to
deny this request.
Mr. Craddock said that his church use to use that property years ago. They were in the city and came out
to Crozet Park. During the school years his children had gone out there when the Indians had their POW
for learning experiences. The County Fair was there for a short time period. The Crozet parade winds up
at the park at the end. So he has been out there a number of times as well as for swim meets at night.
He was in favor of this use. It is a good use for the property if it is something that the Park Board and
county can work out. The mention that the Park Board and the Field Stone School would revisit the issue
every year up to 5 years helped sway him. So at any time by mutual agreement the school could be
vacated. He has no problem with the school since it appears that they will be out of there when the
heaviest use occurs at the park during the summer, in the afternoons and the evenings. It would be a
good security issue having people there during the winter time to keep potential vandalism down.
Therefore he was in favor of the request.
Mr. Morris echoed what Mr. Craddock said, particularly that this is going to be revisited each year. Also,
they had Park Board members say that after due deliberation they were in favor of it and backed it.
Those are the people who have to live with it and govern it. They should know.
Mr. Cannon asked Mr. Kamptner when they grant a special use permit that is forever.
Mr. Kamptner replied that typically special use permits run with the land. The Commission has
occasionally recommended that a time limitation be placed on the permit.
Mr. Cannon asked if the Commission was able to do that as a legal matter, and Mr. Kamptner replied yes.
Mr. Cannon said that his initial instincts coming in were consistent with Mr. Strucko's, but he has heard
the folks who are on the Park Board speak as well as the folks who are representing the school and was
sympathetic to the need to use the building and to make optimal use of the park. He was concerned,
however, for the following reasons. They have seen this happen frequently that school that start expand
and they tend to expand where they start because it is very difficult to find space elsewhere to develop
these schools and to expand them. So he was imagining that in five years that they will be looking at a
request to expand the school in place and make a more intensive use of this area for a school that may
have already been in existence for five years and be flourishing. At that time it will be very difficult to say
no. He would be interested in putting a time limit on this, which felt would be consistent with the
representation they heard from the school and the Park Board that this is a transitional moment, a short
term temporary use of the building while some permanent use is found and for the school a short term
use of the building while some more permanent site is found. Maybe that allows us to have the best of
several worlds here. He would be interested to entertain that if others thought it was useful.
Mr. Edgerton said that was an excellent idea. He was curious whether there was some way to condition
the special use permit so that the county could participate in the determination. Since the county has
contributed significant funds to the park the county does maintain the athletic field, which the school will
benefit from. The county does not maintain the building, which is not an issue. But, if a year down the
road the determination by the county was that this was a negative experience he would like to figure out a
way to allow the county to be sitting at the table to make that decision. He questioned whether they could
condition the special use permit with that kind of review. He agreed with Mr. Cannon about putting a
specific time limit on the special use permit because there is a real possibility that 3 to 5 years down the
road, regardless of how the school feels now, they might find it to be more advantageous to stay where
they are. They have had several schools within recent months that have come back and asked to
expand. He was a little threatened by the number of 70 students because it sounds like a lot. Mr.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2007 11
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2006-043 FIELD SCHOOL
Strucko's point is well taken that is a large group of children. He felt that 20 students sounded like it
would work with the space that they are asking for that is being under utilized. He felt that the private
school children have the same rights to use the park as public school students.
Mr. Strucko felt that Mr. Craddock's comment about the school being in use during the winter months
when the intensity of use was low and being absent during the summer high usage period was very
compelling. He agreed with Mr. Cannon's concern that once a use like this gets started for a temporary
space that the need to continue to search for more permanent space dies down and they may be faced
with a permanent resident here, which may not be a bad thing for a building that gets used very rarely
throughout the year anyway. If the time was more restrictive and if the access to some of these public
facilities was a little more restrictive he may accept it. But, he was thinking that the public utilizes this
space most intensively during the very months that this school would not be there.
Mr. Edgerton asked if there is overlap with the normal school schedule. He heard Mr. Hughes comment
that the school would not have access to the athletic facilities after 4:00 p.m. even though the special use
permit was requesting to be there until 6:00 p.m. But, they would only be in the building to 6:00 p.m.
There would be no conflict with the scheduled use. He asked if the parking would be an issue if there
was an overlap period in the spring and the fall.
Mr. Strucko pointed out that starting in March through July he has to take his son to the park for baseball
practice by 5:30 p.m. twice a week. The parking does overflow. The depiction in Attachment C is a little
inaccurate. The parking overflows into the open space that is to the left of the main entrance. The
parking in the area down past the pavilions fills up quite quickly. There are only 2 fields that are used for
practices. Only 2 teams can practice at one time. The practices do spread out through the week. It is
the schedule for particular teams is twice a week. So the practices start at approximately 5:30 p.m.
That brings in about 24 cars. The school operation until 6:00 p.m. may overlap here. But, that will only
be in the months of March, April, May and part of June. He felt that it was workable particularly if 70
students are transported by a single vehicle like a bus and the parking was restricted to 22 daily parent
car trips. That is not prohibited. If 70 students were rolling in and a significant portion of them were
coming in with their parents in individual vehicles he foresees a bottle neck a problem. The park gets it
most intense use on the weekend from sun up to sunset. Of course, the school would not be in operation
then. He was sensitive to the Park Board's concerns and the financial considerations regarding the under
utilized facility. Again, his concern was access for the immediate public around this park in the designated
growth area that is Crozet that was master planned and used this particular facility that receives public
funds as the active recreational area within walking distance from a lot of homes. He questioned if the
proposed school use could work and if there would be a proposed expansion past the requested amount
of 70 students.
Ms. Joseph said that one thing they could do is limit the time. The thing that bothered her was that these
children were not coming from the neighborhood. If it was a neighborhood school it would make more
sense that there would not be much traffic. But, if they were busing them in that was a little bit of a
concern. If they could limit the number of students to start out with for less than 70 she felt that would
alleviate some of her concerns at this point. Also, they could limit the approval to a year. If they are
going to renegotiate every year then they could come back at least after the first year and they could hear
from the neighbors. That way they could see whether it is working. She had concerns that they were
spending some county money on that for maintenance purposes. It is not what was intended. It is
obvious when reading the language it says in perpetuity that they expected it to be a park. That was not
the intent when the county invested the money for this to become something like this. She could support
the request if they limited the students and the time. She asked staff if the county has an agreement to
allow the Waldorf School to operate in one of the county schools out in Crozet.
Mr. Benish replied that it was in the old Crozet Elementary School. But they are constructing a new
facility in town. He believed that they will be vacating that. It created a viable use for that building to keep
it inhabited and functional.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2007
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2006-043 FIELD SCHOOL
12
Mr. Benish noted that if they do put a time limit it will bring the county involved in the decision making to
continue the use once it reaches that expiration date. If there were any other role or involvement that
they saw on the county it would be helpful to clarify that.
Mr. Edgerton said that if the county is not part of that decision making process there may be other
motivations that the school and the Park Board might have interest that might not necessarily represent
the county's interest. He suggested that the county be a party to that discussion. He suggested that they
try it for a year and see how it goes. If the school is only interested in starting with 20 to 25 children, then
let's go ahead and approve it for that. If they come back next year and want to do it for a few more and
there has not been a problem, then that could be considered. There are some good things going on here,
but he thought that they need to be a little careful because this is a community facility and a very
important one.
Mr. Strucko noted that his concerns were speculating on the impact. If they could come back and have
the explicit data on what the impact is, then they could make a more informed decision. Therefore, he
agreed with Mr. Edgerton.
Ms. Joseph said that she could agree to 35 children. It would allow the school to have a good start.
Mr. Benish said that there may be a few issues to think about when the clock starts for the reviewing
planner. It needs to be clear.
Mr. Kamptner suggested that it be a date certain and that it not be one year from the date of approval
because that year will end during the school year.
Ms. Joseph said that they wanted them to be able to start in 2008 if everything is acceptable. That is the
part that gets a little sticky.
Mr. Kamptner said that the Commission would want to look what happens over one full school year. He
suggested that they have the special use permit come back to amend that condition by June 30, 2008.
That would allow time to get the new one in place before the fall semester.
Ms. Joseph said that sounded good.
Mr. Benish said that if staff has that general direction they could make a recommendation so council and
staff can work on the exact language for the Board of Supervisors meeting.
Mr. Cannon said that he was comfortable with some limitation, but wanted to make sure it is consistent
with what the school's expectations were for the first year.
Ms. Joseph invited Mr. Burnett to come forward to address the question.
Mr. Burnett said that 32 students would be acceptable. They will not have more than 32 students next
year. He felt that it would be less and did not anticipate that will be a problem. If the Commission says
that they will let him know again whether they have the facility in 2008/2009 in June or July of 2008 then
he is going to start searching for something else. He cannot wait until that date to find that he does not
have the facility for the following year. He realized that he was not going to be there for a full year for the
Commission to have the opportunity to review a full year. He was completely comfortable with that. He
knows that they will pass with flying colors. He has had the camp in Free Union for the past 8 years and
they do not go past the number of children that they can fit on the bus. There is a huge temptation to
grow bigger, but he did not want to grow bigger because he liked teaching in a small school. Actually the
limitation to 5 years was attractive because they do want to have their own space.
Mr. Edgerton agreed that his point was well taken that if he did not find out until June that he was going to
have to make other plans before that. He asked how early he would have to be making other plans.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2007
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2006-043 FIELD SCHOOL
13
Mr. Burnett noted that the sooner the better. He has parents in the room that are dependent on them
having a school building next year. The experience of the Village School was that when they did not lock
things down quickly enough they started losing students. Losing students meant losing precious funds for
next year. He would think that a half way through the year would be a good time. He would love to
investigate the Waldorf School's location that was wrapped up at least through the end of June and they
have a 6 months extension through the winter. Their school year goes from September 4 through June 6.
Mr. Strucko said that if they were to access the impact of this park they would be able to do it just for the
fall and winter period.
Ms. Joseph noted that from what he told them most of the activity happens in the spring.
Mr. Strucko agreed that from his experience in the park that it would be March through June.
Mr. Benish said that the applicant had indicated that he needed about 6 months advance notice. If they
put the time limit at 2 years the applicant would probably come back and seek an extension before that
second year because he will be in the same situation. So the Commission might want to reconsider that.
He suggested that the applicant come back after 1 year so that he could make plans for the third year.
Mr. Cannon noted that the number might need to be changed for that proposal.
Ms. Joseph asked the applicant to comment on the 2 year proposal at which time he could amend it to
allow more students at that time.
Mr. Burnett replied that he wanted to go from 32 students this year to 48 students the second year.
Ms. Joseph noted that the applicant was asking for 48 students for 2 years.
Mr. Morris encouraged the applicant to request a deferral so these things can get hammered out right
now since it was very confusing for everyone.
Mr. Kamptner said that the concept of the 2 year special use permit life would allow the applicant to file an
application approximately in September of 2008. They would go through the process and get a decision
from the Planning Commission and the Board by February of 2009, which would give the school enough
time to find another site by September, 2009.
Mr. Strucko said that would not allow the Commission to assess the impact of the school during the
spring months.
Mr. Kamptner replied that it would because they would have the entire first school year to evaluate the
impacts.
Mr. Cannon felt that would be a reasonable review cycle.
Mr. Burnett agreed with the time line with a maximum of 32 students next year with 48 students the
second year.
Mr. Kamptner noted the following changes should be made to staff's recommended conditions.
· The special use permit shall end on June 30,2009.
· In condition 2, the hours of operation should be limited from Monday through Friday
based on the representations that have been made and the possible conflicts.
· In condition 7, that last clause that it should be prescheduled conflicting public use, etc.
should be changed to "or any other scheduled uses authorized by the Department of
Parks and Recreation."
· The school year should be defined September through June.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2007
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2006-043 FIELD SCHOOL
14
· There was a representation that a number of students will be coming in by shuttle, but
there was nothing in the special use permit conditions that address that. Staff will work
out the language of a condition with zoning staff that says that some kind of shuttle
service will be provided as represented by the applicant.
Mr. Cannon agreed to all of the suggested changes.
Motion: Mr. Cannon moved, Mr. Craddock seconded, to approve SP-2006-043, Field School, subject to
the conditions recommended by staff, as amended.
1. Maximum enrollment shall be 48 students.
2. Hours of operation for the school shall be from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
3. The school is limited to existing buildings and park grounds as indicated on the concept plan
(Attachment C). Any additional building or site changes for the school use will require an
amendment to this Special Use Permit (SP-2006-043).
4. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for the private school use, water line dedications to the
satisfaction of the Albemarle County Service Authority are required.
5. The playgrounds and the park grounds, with the exception of the Community Building, will remain
open and available for public use during the hours of school operation.
6. The athletic fields at the park shall not be available for the school's use after 4 p.m. on weekdays
and shall not be available on weekends.
7. The athletic fields shall not be available for school use when closed by the Department of Parks
and Recreation for inclement weather, overuse, fields restoration, or when any other scheduled
use is authorized by the Department of Parks and Recreation.
8. The school use may begin and continue only if the Crozet Park covenants and restrictions
expressly allow the use.
9. Special Use Permit 2006-043 shall be valid until June 30, 2009.
10. Shuttle bus service for students to and from school shall be provided each school day.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Zobrist was absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that SP-2006-043, Field School was approved and would go before the Board of
Supervisors on May 2.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2007
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2006-043 FIELD SCHOOL
15
In
C
0
--
.....
CO
-
::s
u CD
- CD
CO .....
.....
u --
E
.... E
~ 0
U
.....
0 ~I'-
.... o 0
c.. tn 0
__ N
~ > ..
-eN
<C ~
C ..... ca
::s CJ :E
0 ca
C-
U E
-
CI) -
ca
- CJ
....
CO tn
--
E u.
CI)
.c
-
c(
CD I-
> CD
;; c.
CD ns 0
-~ c 0
..... CD 0
J9 tn
; ~ g
tn c.-c
CD CD -
I- D::: CD
~ c: ~
D::: 0 .:
-- tn
tn tn --
I- tn E
o --
tn E 0
.~ E 5
CD 0 w(.)
c.0
~ C) ..:
en c: en
..... --
o c:
c:
-c ns
I- _
ns D..
o ~
m 0
~ ~
-c (.)
~ ~
o =
men
s:: CJ
CD -~
~w
.............
(.)
<(
-
LL
~
CD
CD
.....
.....
--
E
E
o
(.)
~
o
f/)
--
>
-c
<(
.....
(J
co
c.
E
-
-
ca
(J
f/)
--
LL
-
I-
.....
o
~
ns
-I
-
>
c:
W
c:
I-
CD
J:
.....
~
o
en
~
~
CD
c:
I-
~ 0
- .....
c .....
-c(
J:
D.. I- ~
~ CD
c.;::;
c. ~
ns m
c: s::
~ ns
c: C)
-'= I-
o 0
,:E
. . . .
-
o
-0
I-
.....~
o
-0)
tn = CD
CD CD --
E ..... en
c: _
o - ~
:I: -c _
s:: ,
-
- ~ ~
--
J: 0 ..:
(.) I- 0)
I- C) :E
~ -
J: ns n;
o c: I-
~ 0 CD
..... ;; c:
c: ns CD
~ZC)
-(ii ~ ~
~ CJ D..
D..ij:>
cD 0 ~
(.) ~ c:
; ~ ~
c.-- ns
cn~~
CD c( .....
- - .....
E -c 0
ns 0 (.)
,D:::en
. .
.
~ 0) (;)
; c: ~
-- -
~ c: ns
(.) c: c:
CD ns c(
>< -
WD.......
(.)
~o [
c: I- E
~ 0 _
o .....
o ~ n;
..... I- (.)
c: C _!!!
ns LL
..... ~
tn 0) ~
-- I- CD
tn CD tn
tn .c ~
~E,g
~=
CD - - ..!!!
-0:::;:
o CD ~
LL c: CD
E ~ >
~;:~
. . .
...ca
(.) t/) (1).-
... ~.=
.... ... .- E
O.c 0 0) 00)
<C~..... (I) ca ......
.... (I) c.:>
_.....t/) ca ...
u..o~ ... .... 0)...
.... t/)
(I)(I)tI:: U) C:(I)
(I) · .- .J:
.J: 0. 0 t/) ~! ~.....
..... ~... ... (1)0
......... 0. ~ c:~ C=c:
~ ~.J: ..... (I).....
c: >~ ~(I)
.....ct/) ~ (I).... t/)>
U) ...ca 0 "'(1) ~(I)
O~(.) 0 -.J:
-c OC:t/) . ca..... .ct/)
(I) "'-c c:
c:: N~ca(l) JII::: ._
~ - .J: ~c: .......
............. .....
0 (I)(I)(.)ca . (I)~ Ot/)
....(1)
... .c 0. (I) E 0... t/).... ~.><
C) E ... 0. (I) U)~ ....0 t/)(I)
~ (I)~><.c :u:~ 0..... ....
.- ....
0 .... c: (1)- - .... (1)(1) c:ca
ca o.~-c<C ca(l) c:t/) ca=
m (l)o-c: O.J: o~ O)t/)
U) E g.- C).... ....c:
(1)-
c: .... 00) c:ca .c(l)
.- ca (.) c: (1)(.)
-C ... ~ (I) ....c: (I)-c
.- t/)(I)
(I) ~.... E (I)-C (1)- (1)0
....-c:o. .....c: ...... :::E
t/)o~o ~~ o.ca .-
(I)-CO_ (I).... (l)E EC:
~ (I) 0 (I) ... ... "'(1) o ·
. E.- t/)
t:T.... (I) > t/)(I) t/).c ....(1)
(I) ca.J: (I) ... . ... - o ca._
... - -C (1).- ~<C o3~
~.... ~ ...
00(.)....;: ot: 0..... (1).2 ~
Ocaca(l) .....!!:! ...ca .J:cao
m(.)=c: 0..0.. 0..= 1-(.)(.)
. . . .
...
-
ca (I)
U ~
-- tn c:
0) c: (1)(1) ca
-0 0 "'C> (I)
(1)- -- "'C
"'Ctnai .... - ~ (I) ....
ca (I) -~ ~
0-- 0) -St (.) ....
E Cii c: c:.... --
....
c:"'C.! U(I) -- tn tn
- .... -0 c:
00- catn (1)0 0
-- E ca U (I) "'C
.... J: ....J: O"C U
............ .!!!tnU ....
. ~o E ~
..... ~.- - 0
c: U J: ca .....(1) c: ~ c::
0 -1-0) ~J: o. 0
(.) ca (I) c..... -- ~ "'C
U -- ca c: .... -
~ .... (I) (I) ca.... (I)
-c (I)-~ c: "CO _C:
~ (I) c:
c: =1:)0 (I)~ ut: 0
~ oca.... ....(1) -~ -
.... .... tn UO) ~u ca
0 c.= ca ~ .... tn
L. tn ca (I) .=ca .... tn _ (I)
en ... - tn- ~CD~ ....
~ ~ ~.... C:"C ..... - ~
U ....-ca o (I) 0....- 0)
c:n;
ca U tn ....ca~ --
~ -- "'C C.Eo 'I-
OJ o U (I) (l)ca ;~
0(1)> (I).c _ (I) (I) "'-"
c.-- ....tn~ -.c- =0
"Ctne: .... - (I) o=.::::
.... -- 0) cac("C
--
-(I)~ E .... 0 E E 0 "'CO
(I) ca- ....a..
-- "C tn
't:(I)tn E J: 0 ~0:E ca tn
(I) .... ca 0...."C -........ J:....
....caJ: oCiio c('l-U ....(1)
tn(l) J: ca (l)tt:
(I) c. "'C (I)"C.... (I) S C. ....0
J: C. c: J:O(l) J:caE 0....
Ocaca I-EE I-"C_ Zc.
. . . .
...
CD CD
0 ~ tn'l-.
..... CD CD 0
~ tn .J:
- I-CD
c: ... ~ ,...,
0 0 .~
- ..... ... ~
c:..... tn CD
-- c: ..... fa CD
ca CD ..... ca ::::.J:
~E c: ~ 0.....
~ -0'"
CDc. 0 ..... CI)~
,.........., c.o E c:
. ~
.... c:- ~ -0
c: o CD ca 0 ~CD
0 -- > ... 0 ~,...,
.....CD ca 0 o ~
0 ca"'C - ca
..... -
~ c:....... 0 0 ,...,.~
CD.~ "'C c:~
-c ..... -- fa
tn~ c:
c: CD t: CD -- "'CCD
~ c.~ "'C CD CDJ:2
~
0 ~ .....
. .... - ca 0
L. tn CI) 0 ca ..... .....
C) -- m c: ..... tn"'C
.J:~ -- .....
~ -
.....'1-. ..... - o tn CD CD
(J _!: 0 0 0) c:..... ... CD
CO c: c: tn ca c:
a:I tn~ -- 00 ~"'C
o tn "'CO
.....CI) "'C~ c:-
c: 0 tn 0 tn CD ~ ~
5 (.) CD ... o 0
c:.J: ... ~
E....... o CD ~..... E ~ _
J!! -- - 0)0 catn"'"
ca..... .....J:2 -- ~ .....c::
...Q.. ca ca ..... ... ... c: CD
- ........
CD fa ~"'C ca tn ~~e
~(.) (.) ... -ca
o CD -0 - ... OO~
cat: 0..... ... E fa
a:~ Oca c _!: Q.caQ..
. . . .
-
co
....
CD
c::
CD
C)
I
I
~
C)
o
-
o
-c
o
.J:
......
CD
:E
c:
o
--
....
ca
~
o
c.
U)
c:
ca
~
....
-0
~
Q)
0) --
-g E
..Q;
..... c:
~ --
Sc
--
U) 0
-~ c.
.... CD
c: c:
5 0
on;
CD U)
.c:....
.... U)
CD 0
.... (.)
ca_
- ca
~....
(.) --
-c.
ca ca
o (.)
.
U)
....
U)
o
(.)
o
....
c:
--
- -
U)::
.... c:
~ ~
(.) C')
c: c:
0=
-- -
.... CD
~~
0'1-
C.O
U) CD
c: c.
~ ~
.... ....
-~
S.c
o
....
.:
. ....
CD c::
U) :::s
!O)
.... . c::
CD~
............
.! ~
U)-o
c:
~ ~
I-Q.
.
I
~
o
c.
U)
c:
ca
~
....
I
c:
o --
c: CD
-c E
CD;
Q) c:
C) --
-Cc
~ --
.c 0
_c.
ca CD
.... c:
S 0
U)....
- ca
CD
- U)
~....
ca U)
E 0
CD (.)
:en;
<(::
CD c.
.... ca
ca (.)
-
~ c:
(.) 0
- --
ca....
oS
.
o
....
c: --
-- ....
--
U) c:
en ~
o C)
(.) c:
--
c:=
o CD
; ;:
ca-c
~'I-
o 0
c.CD
U) c.
c: ~
ca....
~
....~
c.c
o ~-
c: .....
c::
n; :::s
....0)
S c::
CD;=:
U)........
CD ~
;-0
s ~
ca Q.
-
U) U)
c:....
ca U)
~ 0
I- (.)
.
----...
.
...
c:
o
U
~
-
a:s
...
CD
c:
CD
C)
I
I
~
C)
o
-
o
-c
o
.s:::
...
CD
:E
..
...
.- CI)
C:.c-c
::::2 ... c:
C) a; cu
c: tn ...
.- ~ ...
- .-
-
CI) 0 c:
3= c. ::::2
-c - C)
... CI) c:
CI).c=
c.-c-
_ CI)
-c ::::2 3=
Cl)O-c
1a 3= CI)
.......c
Cl)CU'"
c: .c ~
CI)....c
C) ..
CI)~-c
Q) c: CI)
::s::::21a
t: C)'"
~ .= ~
- CI)
e Gi C)
CI) 3= tn
.c:-c'"
.......tn
CI) 0 0
"'CI) 0
E Q. 'i
.- ~~
u; ~ c.
w.c~
.
.CI)
....
~
tn
CI) ·
::::2(1)~
c: C. t:
CI) ~ ::s
>"'0
CI) ~ ~
... .c ~
..... ..ca
O"'l.
cu .- ....
...c:~
...::::2\i.;;
.c...O
::::2 CI) ...
tnc.Q..
.. -0
~tnQ)
c:......
::::2 ~ (.)
C)oQ)
c: ... S.
.- CI) ~
= c: 'II
CI) c: Q)
3= . - ..c::
-ccu~
....:c-!!!
o 0 ca
CI) 0 ::s
c.... 0-
~tnQ)
.c:U;e
o 0 ::s
cu 0 .0,
CI) -t::
...E...
o 0 CI)
u..J::-!!!
.
. '""
'"" I ~
.....ca CI)::::: ~
it:: . '""
u'~ 0 >."I.
.s [8.GJ
:E~~ -I-
c<i:
-coCl)E Cl)t:Q)
Cl)U-
CI)_e:o >::Je t::CI)
. '"" E~ECI) >.0
CI)
=Eo ::I a...
.8- ::ICI).......... UCI)
~ CI) -c..... 0 cacau 0.0.
CI) 0..... -c Q)
tn .!!! ca;:CI)CI) a... .!!! .Q .-cg
.... CI) CI) Q) 0 CI)~~ ~cg
tn U a...e:>u 0. ~ CI)~
0 . .... ..... u .
..c:: ca..... CI)- UN "I.
U t: ~ 0- ca CI) '. Q)
0 CI) ..... O~'& ._~:E
......J:.....O .J: . '""
I . .... Ut::e:..... UOa.;. CI) C a...
I ~ CI) e:~Q.
~ (I)' > U- CI)
~ c= .~ 0 CI) CI)
O;:(I).J: o ...... ~c.
C) 0 CI) a... a........ ..r--:O -
.- a... en
0 ~ CI) c.,"" 0. CI) caco~ caCl)N
- CI) e:~CI)E.'"" 1::MCI) -c o.~
0 t: .....
-C u ca ca e:.- e: O~O a...O~
e - CI) ..... o.CI)U 8.o~
0 (I) c.. .iij CI) ;:
~ .~ >.......- 0 Cl)Cij::::
.J: 0 CI) t--.'"" -c
a... Ue:e:.J: ;::I~
.... 0. .- .-..... e: .....Me:
(1) C) S ca..... ~ a... c- Q) CI) ~ ca
:E e: SGJE<(O .....CI) 00.'""
0 ca..... -c >.5 u.....u-
.- bcaniaie: S;:;CI) e:e::E
.....
ca CI)-C.J:UCI) .-
Cl)e:ca .-
a...
1:: <i: 0......-.- C)(I)Q) t--.CI)CI)
0 zEi;'~.! -cCl)CI) coSo.
0. ::I~ca Mcaco
CI) og~~~ .c o.m ~Ci)en
e: D: U ca e:.() CI) c. ~ Cl)e:1l)
ca .- '""
a... - U 0 a... .J:.- t: .J:caN
I- o ca.~.. 0. I- b ..... I-b~
. . . .
~
.
...
c:
o
U
~
tn
...
tn
o
U
I
>.
C)
o
-
o
-c
o
.c
...
(1)
:E
c:::
o
. ....
,.,..
~
o
~
c:::
e
~
.
c:::
o
~
- ~
~ tn
~ .....
tn --
~ ~
~ .... ::1
::10-C
-CQ)~
~ e. ca
ca ~ E
E ..... Q)
Q)J:-c
-c(.)....
... ca 0
... w
Q) ::
c=ui~
Q)::-C
tn e. ~
tn ::1 ::1
..... e. ~
(.) IP\::
Q) tn '"
-~ ~ ,,,
20-c
e. -..... Q)
~ ....
~ ~ Q)
oo-c
-- --
;.....tn
ca ca ~
~-o
o 5. (.)
e.Otn
tn e.--
~tng'
.... ca __
..... -
· .J: -
~ (.) Q)
o ::1 ~
Ztn-C
.
.
ca
~
.2':0
-c~e.
Q) Q) tn
E E ~
::1 e. ....
tnO~
tn Gi ~
ca > 0
Q) Q) ~
....-c.....
ca ..... 0
tn 0 tn
.....J:-
(.) ..... Q)
Q) .... >
-() e ~
....;>.....
e. ~ ~
~ tn Q)
ca i tn
- Q) Q)
c.. ~ c..
-~ ~ en
enQ)~
Q) ..... --
..... ~n ~
ca ~ --
.... ca ca - ~
....."PIt.....Q)
enw~(.)
......... 0----
<(Ecac=
zEEQ)
~o~tn
c.. (.) -- ~
-(.)J:o
Oca~;
.
~
o
--
.....
ca Gi
~e.-
o :I:
e. 0 -==
tn~-==
~ N ....
caM'Q)
.... ~ e.
.....
.~Ln
~ -~Ln
OCU)
~LLai
,;en~
Q)....~
(.)Q)-C
~ e. ~
ca ~ ca
~ ~ -~
i+:t--LL
. ~-==
.....co-==
~~....
Q) ~ Q)
-C0e.
.........CO
.2tn~
.....Q)~
tn E ~
00::
(.)(.)~
-
ca tn -~
..........:I:
O(.)t-
.....(1).........
Q) -~ <(
.J:2LL
t- e. en
.
...........
.
...
c:
o
o
~
I
c:
o
c:
tn
~
-
0.
c:
o
.-
.....
ns ..
~.!!l.
o ns
o.~
tn c-
c: CD
ns tn
........
..... tn
..... 0
o u
CD c:
~ 0
ns .-
>1;
n;~
00.
..... tn
CD c:
.c: ns
....=
(/J
...
(/J
o
o
I
~
C)
o
-
o
-c
o
.c
...
(1)
:E
.
. ~
c
u..
en
...
CD
0.
~
~
~
~
N
N
tR-
.
. ~
:I:
I-
~
LL
en
...
CD
0.
U)
o
II)
~
II)
~
tR-
.
-c
c:
ns
. ~
u..
:E
...
CD
0.
U)
~
I'-
~
M
~
tR-
.
.
:I:
:E
...
CD
0.
~
CO
II)
~
o
N
tR-
.
~ G)
.J:
...~ E ....
caG) G)'" "'C
-c. "'C
~o ...G) ...
.....~ ca: _ ca"'C
-- ... fn~S:::
~c. 0-- ....s:::fn
..... -- ... G)O~
ca- G)G) S:::G)ca ~.........
c.ca c.E ~EG) s:::oc.
s::: O)~~ G) 0)-
tn cao ~o s:::ca~ > G)
CD ---. fn. ~ ~fn -- c..... G)~.J:
~ ~ ... -
fnG)(J .c~ =G)S::: ...s:::~
c: G) c..... G)"'G) G) ~o
.... G) ~.c ~G)~
CD ca ~ ~ .... .J: 0) 0
> "'G)"'C -c ~ "'C.J:.... .... 0)
.....s:::...
CD G) ~__ ~o ...I-Cij -- G)
s:::s:::ca 0-
~ 0)'" G) -.J:
G)G)- s:::0) c.-~ ~G)....
I ...0) > ~ "'Co- o ~ 0
-- 0 "'CG)G)
I ... G) G) = .... G)(Jo ~"'CG)
~ ~"''''C G)"'C ....s:::.... ....ca.J:
C) S:::><G) ~G) ~ca"'C ca ....
0 ~ca"'" "'CE-~ .J: ~-~
.... ~ G)_!: G) .....c....
- O)G)"'C ...~... s:::..... E
0 s::: -- G)fnca G).... fn ... s::: -
~ =1;ca C.fnG) O).c ~ G)caG)fn
0 -....G) G)ca~ fnG)fn EG)EG)
G)fn.... ~~fn
.J: ~G)ca ~fn.J: ...."'Cfn ~.J: ca s:::
.... "'CCij(;) s:::-- (J fnG)ca fn (J C. G)
CD G) ~ca O.cfn fncaG)c.
:E ..... G) ~ >~ G) (J -- caG)"'><
O...G) G)S:::G) -0....
G)..... ~ ca.....c _ ....G)
...~O) G) "'C.c 0)
c.0S::: Cij 0) ca ~"'CG) "'CG)G)s:::
~G)G) ....s:::.... c.G)"'C o 1; "'C --
....E~ 0-- ; caEG) E"'fn1;
.J:~... ....=(J (J~.J: G)~ ...
(J_>< G)G)... G)fn.... G) s::: ~ G)
caoca .J:~G) .J:fnS::: .J:G)S:::c.
w>.... I- "'C C. I-cao I-O)~O
. . . .
~
.
....
c:
o
o
~
I
-
G)
~
"'C
G) G)
.J:.J:
........
....."'C
o s::: __
.-.-... ~ fn
>.....-
D.. C. ca
- ~
ZG)e-
~.J: G)
G)"'C....
~ - s:::
- ~ G)
ca 0 E
~~~
s::: .... ca
G) ~ g.
fn .... ...
G)
...fn....
D..G).c
.... ~ G)
G)S:::"'C
Z ~ ~fn
G)G)~
.J: ... s:::
.... fn ~
....
ca .. 0)
.J: - C s:::
....~=
S O)G)
o s::: ~
Z="'C
t/)
CD
~
c:
CD
>
(1)
~
I
~
C)
o
-
o
~
o
.J:
....
(1)
:E
.
- ~
C
LL
en
...
G)
C.
M
"-
~
..
co
~
.
- ..
J:
I-
~
LL
en
...
G)
c.
CD
CD
o
..
CD
~
.
"'C
s:::
ca
- ~
LL
:E
...
G)
c.
~
~
M
..
N
~
.
-
J:
:E
...
G)
c.
"-
CD
CO
~
N
~
.
c:
o
--
....
CO
-
~
(.)
-
CO
o
....
c:
~
o
E
<(
...
CD
:1
o
...
D..
I
~
C)
o
-
o
~
o
.J:
....
CD
:E
~fn fn
....G)
--
s:::~~
~ G) s:::
G) > G)
=~E
fnG)~
-.J:ca
ca .... c.
~ G)
0- ..... ...
G)o....
~>.c
CIJ D.. G)
oz"'C
U "'C
........G)s:::
CU.J: ~
,.., .... .J
. .... .....
Q.fn"'C
ca~_
U s::: ~
~ -- 0
(I) E ~
t:....
fnfn1;
~ O.J:
~CJ....
s:::_.....
~ S -c
O)-a.~
_!: ca G)
=CJ.J:
G)fn.....
~ fn E
<C"'C ~ ~
0).....
.
- ..
C
LL
en
...
G)
c.
~
~
N
..
~
~
~
II
M
"-
~
..
CO
~
I
~
~
~
..
N
N
~
.
- ..
J:
I-
~
LL
en
...
G)
c.
~
~
~
..
0)
~
II
CD
CD
o
..
CD
~
I
CD
o
II)
..
II)
~
~
.
"'C
s:::
ca
- ..
LL
:E
...
G)
c.
II)
M
~
..
~
~
~
II
~
~
M
..
N
~
I
CD
~
"-
..
M
~
~
.
-
J:
:E
...
G)
c.
"-
~
"-
..
"-
~
~
II
"-
CD
CO
..
N
~
I
~
CO
II)
..
o
N
~
.
-
....
--
s:::
~
...
G)
c.
....
s:::
~
o
E
ca
...
G)
:1
o
...
c.
G)
.J:
.....
.....
s:::
G)
fn
G)
...
c.
G)
...
fn
G)
...
~
0)
--
.....
G)
fn
G)
.J:
I-
.
tn
c:
o
--
tn
~
-
(.)
c:
o
o
fn
-- CD
;; 1; -
... ....
s::: CD s:::
-- s::: CD
s::: CD E
~O)c.
o "'C 0
.J:--
fn ~ CD
fn 0 ~
....~"'C
s::: ..
~ ~.....
o u 0
E -- ....
- fn
ca 0 0
C.u
...-
CD ca CD
tt:E.J:
0........
... 0 CD
c...... .....
G) ca ca
.J: ,.. _ 2'
.... -- ....
.... --
'0 -i E
s:::0)c.
o -
__ s::: CD
....O.J:
g-Cij 0
"'C .......
ca ~ fn
G)0"'C
.J: C. s:::
I-CD~
... .....
.
... I
G) C. _
tt:0~
o - u
... G) --
c.>(5
G) ~ C.
fn ..... ...
G) 0 CD
;;CDtI:
.....E~
o~c.
s:::--
o 0 ca
;:;>E
c.G)'"
o .J: 0
"'C..........
ca s::: ca
G)O.....
.J: 0
....."'Cfn
..... s::: U
o G) .-
.... c. ~
u G) U
ca "'C CD
C. "'C C.
E - fn
-- g CD
....::..J:
G);>....
O)fn"'C
"'C....s:::
~ s::: ca
.c~....
G) 0 s:::
.J: E G)
I-caE
.
....
U fn
G) CD
'i::0)
G) s:::
... ca
O.J:
.... U -
~ "'C ~
= s::: s:::
ca ca ~
~ s::: 0
s::: ca E
; c: ca
"'CUCD
G) -- ~
.... 0) s:::
ca G) CD
"'C....>
C.~CD
~ .... ...
G)UJ"'C
.c~S
"'CZfn
-Oca
~ ......... U
o D.. CD
.J:-'"
fnO~
fn CD fn
~ ;; "CD
~s:::L:
0)-- ca
It:fnE
... G) CD
~ O).c
....s:::-
oca<C
... .J: s:::
D.. u._
.
s:::
G).....
c.o
o ..
~
.... CD
.J: ...
O)~
.- ....
E g.
~ ...U
ca ...
- CD
O.J:
.... ....
.!: s:::
--
o G)
~ fn _
.--..1 ca fn
" 'lllI CD ....
- ... tn
m U 0
- s::: U
J: .-
..... s::: s:::
o ca .2
0).......
s::: 0 ca
- - ..... 1::=
s::: tn 0
O)CDC.
-- .- tn
fn := s:::
.... .- ca
s::: .c ...
CD - - .....
utn~
CDfn....
... 0 s:::
G) c. ~
.J: C. 0
I-~O
.
('-
tn
c:
o
--
....
tn
(1)
~
a
tn
c:
o
I ~
"'CCD ~
o .J: ....
.J:.... s:::
a; 0 g
E':;ocno
CDCD[gCD
.J: "'C E .- L:
:s:::-taca
OC.g(ij>E
... (J ... CD ·
"'C ~ fn 0 .c "-
ca fn .- ..... <C 0
enCDLLfn 0
O.2~ g.=~
m ca> .... .- tn N
.........~
CD ... s::: ~ .- _
.J: ca .- ~ s::: .i:
....="'C(J:Jc.
.... 0 CD - C) <C
~ "'C .!: ~ s::: ~
.... C) ca = w
tns:::~t!!G)S
"'C ;:; 0 CD ~ ca
S:::3(Jtt:c"'C
CD 0 ..
E~"""::"''''''E
E...OD..O~
0... fn
o "'C ~... CD "'C
(J s::: ~ fn ._ s:::
CDca..........ca
... .. fn fn 0 0'"
,,, ~ CD ~ C) E
'-' C) ... - CD
<COcaca....CD
-- CD s::: ca E
LLOS:::<CO
--
...
(.)
<(
.
o
....
"'C
CD
CD fn
"'C ~
.- CD
~.c
... 0
c.....
en fn
o tn
m B
CD 0
.J: ...
.....c..
1;CD~
,.. .J: ._
-- .... -
.... C) 0
fn s::: C.
"'C - - ...
s::: "'C CD
CDtatt:
E C) 0
E CD ...
... C.
01..&.--
(J 'I:: ca
CD ca E
... (;) ...
tt: 0
caO.....
........ca
fn s::: c.
~.2 0
s:::....-
~ g CD
O ... >
.- CD
O"'C"'C
.
.
.
.
COUNTY or ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 Mcintire I~(I:ld, North "'ing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-45%
Phone (434) 2%-5832
Fax (434) 972-4012
April 11, 2007
Frank D. Cox. Jr
The Cox Company
220 East High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: CPA 2005-00009, Southern Urban Area B Study
AND
CPA-2005-00005, Granger Tract CPA
Tax Map 76, Parcel 24; and Tax Map 76, Parcels 17B, 17BI-B8 and 17W and 17BX
Dear Mr. Cox:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 13, 2007, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted requests to amend the Comprehensive Plan to the Board of
Supervisors as recommended in the staff report dated March 13,2007, subject to the following changes to
the proposed amendment language:
1. Remove the reference to Stadium Road connection pending further discussion with University and
City representatives ofP ACe.
2. Provide more clarification on water and sewer needs in the area.
3. Provide for the specific road improvements that are the minimum necessary for the timing and the
capacity expectations. (Staffwill work with the County Attomey's Office on the language to make
sure that it does what they intend it to do.)
4. Make the two corrections as noted by staff regarding a redundant sentence and the addition of
transi 1.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review these amendment proposals
in a work session on May 2,2007. A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for June 13,2007.
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,
D/li"/{
./ [;t/l' I (.I,
BCA/lLjj m:,z....
David B. Bemsh
Chlef of Planning
Planning Division
Cc: Granger, Gordon IV
400 Stribling Ave Extd, Charlottesville, V A 22901
Jim Tolbert (City of Charlottesville)
605 E. Main St., Charlottesville, VA 22902
David Neuman (University of Virginia - Office of the Architect)
Ella Carey
Jack Kelsey
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
CPA 2005-009 Southern Area B Study amend CPA
2005-005, Granger Tract CPA
AGENDA DATE: May 2, 2007
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work session to review amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to incorporate
recommendations of the PACC Southern Urban
Area B Study and a request to amend the land use
designation for a 70-acre (approx.) parcel located
within the Southern Urban Area B Study area.
ACTION:
INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Graham, Cilimberg, Benish
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of the work session is to receive comment from the Board on the above noted Comprehensive Plan
Amendments. The Planning Commission has held three work sessions and a public hearing on these proposals,
.commending approval of the draft amendment language and land use map originally included as Attachments A, Band C
f the March 13, 2007 staff report. That report and its attachments are included with this Executive Summary. Page 2 of
the March 13th report provides an overview of the subsequent attachments. Please note that Attachments D and E are staff
reports from earlier Planning Commission work sessions. Also enclosed are a copy of the "Southern Urban Area B Study"
and the applicant's proposal (booklet) for the Granger Tract CPA.
DISCUSSION:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission recommended approval with the following comments/direction. The status of
staff's response to this direction is included after each comment.
1. Remove the reference/recommendation to develop the Stadium Road connection pending further
discussion with PACC representatives regarding the form and specificity of that recommendation.
Status: Concern was raised by the University at the Planning Commission public hearing regarding the specificity of
the recommendation calling for the construction of the Stadium Road Connector and its consistency with the intent of
the Area B Study. The Commission recommended deleting the language from the draft amendment at this time to
allow PACC representatives (County, City, and University) to further discuss consistent and acceptable language for
this concept.
.
Staff is in the process of working with PACC representatives from the City and University to develop alternative
language for this recommendation. The Executive Committee of the PACC Technical Committee has discussed some
of the issues of concern and is currently working on alternative language for a recommendation regarding the Stadium
Road Connector. The direction at this time focuses on revised language calling for a future study of a possible stadium
road connector concept, recognizing the need for more analysis of the need, benefit and impact of such a concept and
to consider possible design concepts and alternatives. Once completed, the proposed revision may be forwarded to
the PACC Technical and/or Policy Board for discussion and comment. At this time the previously recommended
language has been deleted (strikethrough type) as recommended by the Planning Commission.
f&l)' 1.
2. Provide more clarification on water and sewer.
Status: The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is in the process of completing an assessment of water and, more
specifically, sewer infrastructure needs. Final information is not available at this time. Staff will provide additional
amendment language utility needs and recommendations as information becomes available.
3. Provide for the specific road improvements that are the minimum necessary for the timing and the
capacity expectations.
Status: The Commission has recommended amendment language related to the Granger Tract and Fontaine
Research Park that states:
Any rezoning approval and/or development of the site should be timed with the construction of
recommended/planned or necessary improvements to the road network which provide an adequate level of
service to support development in this area.
There was a desire to provide more specificity regarding what would be considered an adequate level of service for the
road network, what roads were expected to meet this LOS, and what improvements were expected to address road
network LOS. The following language has been added to the proposed amendment to address this issue. (Other
specific road improvements were already identified in the draft amendment language):
Adequate level of service (LOS) is considered 0 or better (or the LOS acceptable to VDOT) for network roads in
the County and City, including Fontaine Avenue, the Fontaine Avenue/U.S. 29 Bypass interchange, Sunset
Avenue, Old Lynchburg Road and Fifth Street.
Please note that the changes made to the proposed amendment language in response to the Commission's
direction are highlighted in red and italic type in Attachments A and C.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The purpose of this work session is to receive comment from the Board on proposed amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan. No action is necessary at this work session. The next step in the process would be to schedule a Public Hearing to
receive public comment on the proposed amendments.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment - March 13, 2007 Staff Report
&J) 2-
.
.
.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING:
DAVID BENISH
MARCH 13, 2007
RE: Southern Urban Area B Study CPA and Granger Property CPA
PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING:
This public hearing is to receive public comment and review the proposed text and map
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan incorporating the recommendations of the
PACC Southern Urban Area B Study. The draft also includes text amendments
addressing a public request to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use
recommendation for the Granger property, which is located within the Southern Urban
Area B study area. The Commission previously discussed these proposals at work
sessions on January 9, 2007 and November 28, 2006. These amendment requests
have also been reviewed with the Planning and Coordination Council on numerous
occasions since this review began in September of 2005.
BACKGROUND:
Southern Urban Area 8 Study - Under the Three Party Agreement signed by the
City, County and University in 1986, certain areas adjacent to the University of
Virginia in the City and County were designated as "Area B," where joint planning
efforts among the three jurisdictions will be conducted. The Planning and
Coordination Council (PACC) was established by the Agreement to oversee these
activities and coordinate planning among the jurisdictions. A number of Area B
studies have been completed over the years, including West Main Street, Venable,
Lewis Mountain, and Blue Ridge Hospital. The Southern Urban Area B Study is an
update of a previous Area B study for this area completed in 1989 (known previously
as the Jefferson Park A venue - Fontaine A venue Area B Study).
Granger Property CPA Request - A Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposal has
also been submitted by the owner of the "Granger" property to change the land use
designation of this area to "Office Service" use. The 69.5 acre Granger property is
located south of the Norfolk Southern railroad track and is bounded by 1-64 to the west,
Sunset Avenue to the South, and Stribling Avenue and Moore's Creek to the east. The
property is located within the boundary of the Southern Urban Area B Study area. The
County's Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Plan currently recommends this area for
"Neighborhood Density Residential" (3-6 du/ac) use. The Southern Area B Study
recommends a combination of "Mixed-Use" and "High Density Residential" (16-24 du/ac)
uses. Since the Granger property is a key site within the Southern Urban Area B Study
area, the Area B CPA and "Granger CPA" have been reviewed and discussed together
in a unified process.
g6S 3
DISCUSSION:
The following information has been provided as attachments to this report:
Attachment A - Draft text amendments to the Neighborhood 5 and Neighborhood 6
Profiles incorporating the recommendations of the Southern Urban Area B Study
including the recommendations regarding the Granger Tract. The amendments
reflective comments received from the Commission at the previous work sessions. The
amendment language is in blue and italic type, with deleted language in strike-through
type.
Attachment B - Proposed land use map amendments including the addition of the
Fontaine Ave. - Sunset Ave. Connector Road, the Stadium Road Connector and the
change in recommended land use for the Granger Tract from Neighborhood Density
Residential (3-6 du/ac.) to Office Service.
Attachment C - Draft text amendment to the Transportation section of the Land Use
Plan incorporating discussion and recommendation for the development of the Fontaine
Ave. - Sunset Avenue Connector Road and Stadium Road Connector and reference to
an alternative alignment concept for the Southern Parkway. The amendment language
is in blue and italic type, with deleted language in strike-through type.
Attachments D and E - Copies of the staff reports from the November 2006 and
January 2007 work sessions which provide project background, a discussion of the Area
B Study recommendations and Granger Tract proposal, and staffs analysis and
recommendations regarding these proposals. To simplify the contents of this report only
selected attachments from the November and January work session staff reports have
been provided here.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Commission recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan
text and map amendments as provided in Attachments A, Band C of this report.
86)" If
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT A
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN DEVELOPMEMNT AREA PROFILES
FOR NEIGHBORHOODS 5 AND 6
[Text amendments are in blue and italic ~vpe]
[Revisions based on Planning Commission comments in Red and italic type}
Neighborhood Five
Location
Neighborhood Five is bounded on the east by Biscuit Run, on the south by a series of
lakes and a tributary to Biscuit Run, on the west by Route 631, a ridge line and utility
easement, the 700 foot contour, Route 29 and the Interstate 64 interchange and on the
north by Moore's Creek.
Existing Land Use
Residential - Neighborhood Five contains an estimated t949j (1,951) dwelling units
and a population of 4,061 people. Nineteen Twenty-jive percent fl-8-l-1 (485) of the
housing units in the Neighborhood are single-family attached; eleyen eight percent f-l--l-Gf
(158) of the housing units are either townhouses, single family attached or duplexes;
t',l'yrcnty seyen/orty-six percent ~ (902) are multi-family; and forty three twenty-one
percent ~ (406) ofthe housing units are mobile homes (June 2005). Major residential
developments include Redfields, Southwood Mobile Home Park, Mountainside, Country
Greene Apartments, Sherwood Manor and Commons, and Oak Hill Subdivision.
Commercial and Office Jefferson National Bank's Operational Headquarters
(118,980 square feet) and Virginia Power's Headquarters (38,300 square feet) are located
in this Neighborhood. A large hotel is also located this Neighborhood.
The Albemarle County Office Building, Fifth Street Building, and one hotel are located
along Fifth Street. A mixed use office-residential building and country store are located
along Old Lynchburg Road.
Other Land Uses - The UV A polo grounds, the Covenant School (loeated at the old
Mountaimvood Rehabilitation Center) and two churches are located in the Neighborhood.
Environmental Characteristics
The major portion of the area drains east to Biscuit Run, while smaller drainage basins in
the northern part of the Neighborhood drain directly into Moore's Creek. Presently, the
majority of the land area is forested. Steep slopes exist along Interstate 64 and to the west
B6S t;
of Route 631 and Sunset Avenue. Areas of floodplain exist along Biscuit Run and
Moore's Creek.
Public Water and Sewer
Water capacity to most of the Neighborhood was improved with the pending construction
of the a new water tank at the southern end of Avon Street water tank and a new tank off
of Fifth Street. However, water lines will need to be extended and additional storage will
be necessary as development occurs in the southern portion of the Neighborhood. A
major sewer interceptor was extended across Interstate 64 with capacity to provide
service to this Neighborhood. Extension of the Biscuit Run Interceptor with capacity to
serve the entire Biscuit Run Drainage Basin is expected. [NOTE: To be further updated
pending further information from the R WSA/ ACSA I
Transportation
Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road/Fifth Street Extended) is the major road serving the
Neighborhood. The realignment and widening of this roadway in the northern portion of
the Neighborhood from the City limits to Sunset Boulevard has provided for a major
development corridor. The portion of Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) south of Sunset
Boulevard has a narrow pavement width and poor horizontal and vertical curves which
make access from some local roads difficult. Walkways exist along one side of the
improved portion of Route 631.
Public Facilities
The County Office Building, Fifth Street Building is located within this neighborhood and
houses the Police Department, Department of Fire Rescue, and Department of Social
Services. There are no public facilities in this neighborhood, hmve'ier, Nearby facilities
like Walnut Creek Park, Azalea Park (City), and recreation facilities at Cale Elementary
School and PVCC adequately serve this area. Police response times are adequate for the
area, but fire, rescue, and library services fail to meet the standards in the Community
Facility Plan and need to be improved. This need will continue to increase with continued
residential development.
Recommendations
· The Regional Service area that is located southwest of the Interstate
64/Route 29 South interchange is to be accessed from the existing frontage
road off of Route 29 South. Steep natural drainage swales are not to be
disturbed in the development of this area.
(36) "
.
.
..
.
An Office Service-Mixed Use land use is recommendedfor the Granger
tract. A new neighborhood center is anticipated as a component of this
mixed-use development, with small scale mixed-use, transit stops and
connection to a new park and open space system of Moore's Creek and
beyond. The level and intensity of development permitted on this site
(total square footage/number of units of development and the mix of uses)
should be limited to that which can be supported by the planned road
network. Any rezoning approval and/or development of the site should be
timed with the construction of recommended/planned or necessary
improvements to the road network which provide an adequate level of
service to support development in this area. Adequate level of service
(LOS) is considered D or hetter (or the LOS acceptahle to VDOT) for
network roads in the County and City, including Fontaine Avenue in the
County and City, the Fontaine Avenue/U.S 29 Bypass interchange, Sunset
Avenue, Old Lynchhurg Road and Fifth Street.
The intensity of development on-site (massing, scale, form, orientation.
and green design) will be important to addressing neighborhood model
design, environmental, and Entrance Corridor issues. In addition, the
following are also recommendedfor this site:
- Supporting commercial services of a Neighborhood Service scale should
be provided with the development of this site to provide necessary
convenience services current not available and to provide these services
within a walkable/bikeable distance of a large population concentration in
this area. Residential use may be a component of the mixed of the uses
developed on this site, but is not a required component of the mix of uses.
-The proposed Sunset Avenue-Fontaine Avenue connector shall be
accommodated on-site consistent with "Alternative 4" recommended in
the P ACC Southern Area B Study. Provision of the road will be an
expectationfor any rezoning request and subsequent development of this
site.
- The provision of pedestrian, bike facilities, and transit service and/or
transit ready site design will be an expectation of any development of this
site.
-Open space, greenway and park areas recommended in the
Comprehensive Plan and the Southern Area B Study should be provided
on this site.
-Minimize the visual impacts to the Entrance Corridor through
maintenance of vegetated buffers, and careful site grading, and careful
treatment ofbuilding locations, heights, massing and clustering on the
site. "Green" building and site design concepts should be incorporated
into the project development.
t36S 1
-Water quality impacts will be an important consideration for any future
development of this site. Measures should be put in place to not only
minimize stream impacts, but also to help improve the current condition of
Moore's Creek.
· The existing polo club along Route 631 in the central portion of the
Neighborhood that is currently designated Institutional may be developed
at a Neighborhood Density.
· The north side of the 1-64/Fifth Street interchange IS subject to the
Interstate Interchange Development Policy.
· Access to the community service area located southwest of, and
immediately adjacent to, the 1-64/Fifth Street interchange, should be
limited to the existing crossovers. Pedestrian access should be
incorporated into the site design for the area. Amended 10/28/98
· Construct a greenway along Biscuit Run and Moore's Creek. This
provides an opportunity for passive recreation in the Urban Area. Develop
the greenway to meet the recreation and conservation needs of the
residents in Neighborhoods Five, as well as the remainder of the County.
· Transportation improvements include:
Consider the recommendations of the Southern Charlottesville
Transportation Study.
-Construct the Fontaine/Sunset Avenue Connector Road as
recommended in the Southern Urban Area B Study, specifically
Alternative 4, and improve the existing alignment of Sunset Avenue
from the new connector road to its intersection with Fifth Street.
RoadvlaY interconnection of ,\VOfl Street Extended and Fifth
Street, which '.v-ould provide access to Interstate 64 and tra-ffic
circulation within the Neighborhood.
Construct a road connecting Avon Street Extended and Fifth Street
by extending Southern Parkway to connect to Fifth Street,
providing access to 1-64 and traffic circulation within, and between
Neighborhoods 4 and 5. Consider the recommendations of the
Southern Urban Area B Study for possible alignment alternatives
for the Parkway and/or other neighborhood street interconnections
to the Parkway to create a more integrated street network in the
Neighborhood 5.
Alignment improvements of Old Lynchburg Road from Sunset
B6S ?
.
Avenue to the southern portion of the Neighborhood. Construct
bicycle facilities and walkways in conjunction with this upgrade.
Old Lynehburg Road/gooset }..'1enue int-ersection needs to be
redesigned as a "T" intersection.
Consider the following improvements for the Interstate 64 and
Fifth Street interchange: 1) installation and coordination of new
traffic signals at the interchange; 2) widening of both off ramps to
two lanes; 3) adding a third lane south bound on Fifth Street; 4)
and adding separate right turn lanes north bound and south bound
beginning at the ramps.
Evaluate the need for transit service to the Neighborhood as the
area continues to develop. Consider the transit, bicycle and
pedestrian recommendations of the Southern Urban Area B Study.
Provide service to the Fifth Street corridor including the COUnly
Office Building, Fifth Street location.
.
· Utility Improvements include: [NOTE: To be updated pending fUlther
information from the RWSA/ACSA]
Provide additional '.vater storage in the southern portion of the
Neighborhood to support demand and ensure adequate fire flov/.
Extend the Biscuit Run Interceptor to provide capacity for the
entire drainage basin.
· Public Facility Improvements include:
Locate a joint fire/rescue station in or near Neighborhood Five to
reduce response times and increase fire fighting and rescue
capabilities.
Locate a library branch in or near Neighborhood Five.
Continue to evaluate the Old Lynchburg Road system storm sewer
for repair needs.
.
· Consider recommendations of the City/CountylUniversity Planning and
Coordination Council Southern Urban Area B Study.
.
Maintain or establish a buffer along Interstate 64 and the Route 250
Bypass to protect the visual quality and character of the area as seen from
(365' q
the roadway.
· Development plans along Route 29 South, Interstate 64 and Fifth
StreetIRoute 631 are to be sensitive to their status as Entrance Corridor
Roadways.
B DS I D
. Southpointe Commercial Area
Amendment to Neighborhood Five Profile Recommendations (pp. 63-65)
Adopted, 10/28/98 (CPA 1997-02)
Location
[NOTE: new text in addition to text found on pp. (64-66).7
The Community Service area located southwest of, and immediately adjacent to, the 1-
64/Fifth Street interchange is intended to serve as a commercial/office services center for
Neighborhoods Four and Five and other residential development located south of 1-64.
This area is larger than what is normally associated with Community Service areas.
Therefore, the square footage limits outlined in the Land Use Plan is not necessarily a
maximum limit. Expectations for development of this area include development under a
master plan emphasizing:
.
a village center character, design theme and scale which blend with nearby
residential development; construction materials appropriate for a village
center type commercial district (no metal buildings); a community center
function for the Neighborhood;
mixed use allowing some residential occupancy or conversion thereto;
pedestrian and bicycle access to and throughout the site;
areas of open space/recreation for shoppers and Neighborhood residents;
maintenance of a vegetative buffer along Fifth Street and 1-64;
internalized parking to the greatest extent possible; use of trees and other
landscaping material to minimize visual impact of parking areas (parking
orchard concept);
A compatible Regional Services use for the Community Service area can include hotels
and/or motels, provided they have an internal site and building orientation (as opposed to
a "motor court" design), incorporate uses which support the Neighborhood (meeting
facilities, restaurants, recreational facilities, etc.), are compatible in scale to the height of
the largest buildings within the shopping center to the south, and are designed to visually
connect and blend with the shopping center located on the same Community Service site.
Service stations are not considered to be a compatible Regional Service use.
Transportation improvements include:
Roadway interconnection of Avon Street Extended and Fifth Street (the "Southern
Connector"), which would provide access to Interstate 64 and traffic circulation within
Neighborhoods Four and Five. This improvement is needed if the community service
area at 1-64/Fifth Street is to be accessible to residents south of 1-64 and serve as a
commercial/office service center.
.
.
When development of the Community Service area at 1-64/Fifth Street
occurs, the following improvements should be constructed:
rb5 I J
signalize the Fifth Street/Old Lynchburg Road intersection;
signalize the Fifth Street/Stagecoach Road intersection, which will
be the location of a major point of access to this site;
continuous right turn lane from Fifth Street to entrance to site from
Old Lynchburg Road;
· Approval of further development along Fifth Street may depend upon the
following improvements to the 1-64/Fifth Street interchange are funded
and construction is scheduled:
signalize of the interchange ramp intersections;
double-Ianing of the interchange ramps;
possible dual left turn lanes on Fifth Street for interchange ramps.
Bb5 {2..-
.
.
.
Neighborhood Six
Location
Neighborhood Six is bounded on the east by the City limits, on the south by Moore's
Creek and 1-64, on the west by the South Fork Rivanna River watershed boundary and on
the north by Route 250 West.
Existing Land Uses
Residential - Neighborhood Six contains an estimated 9-l-2- 2,947 dwelling units and a
population of ~ 7,509 people. F6fty Fourteen percent ~) (421) of the housing
units in the Neighborhood are single-family attached; sHf two percent (~) (57) of the
housing units is either townhouses, single family attached or duplexes; and fifty one
fifteen percent (464) (453) are multi-family (July, 1996). There are 2,016 group quarters
type units, mostly consisting of University housing. The University Heights apartment
complex accOlmts for approximately one half of the d':lelling units. ..^..lso, a portion of the
University of Virginia housing units are loeated in this Neighborhood. Major
developments include University Heights Apartments, Huntington Village, Ednam
Forest, Ednam, Ednam Village, Bellair, and Buckingham Circle, White Gables and
Kennridge.
Commercial and Office - The area along Route 250 West is largely institutional in
nature with the Kluge's Children's Rehabilitation Center; Birdwood GolfCourselBoar's
Head Inn and Sports Club (owned afld operated by the UVa. Real Estate Fmmdation); the
University of Virginia Police Department; Charlottesville City Satellite Fire Station; the
University of Virginia Information Center; and a number of smaller offices operated by
U.Va. are located within this Neighborhood. Other non-institutional office and
commercial uses are also located along Route 250 West and large office uses are located
in the lPAlFontaine Avenue Research Park. Larger retail and office uses along Route 250
West include Townside East Retail (30,377 square feet) and Ednam Professional Center
(20,980 square feet). Large office buildings that exist in the lPAlFontaine Avenue
Research Park include the Virginia Public Authority Building (60,000 square feet) and
the University of Virginia Health Sciences Foundation Building (60,000 square feet).
Other Land Uses- The University of Virginia Central Grounds, McCormick
Observatory and Camp Holiday Trails are located within the Neighborhood.
Environmental Characteristics
This area is within the Moore's Creek drainage basin. A wide wooded area screens the
Route 29/250 Bypass from residential areas between Route 250 West and Interstate 64.
F~5 1'3
Areas of steep slopes are immediately north and south of Interstate 64 and west of the
Route 29/250 Bypass and Fontaine Avenue.
Transportation
Route 250 West is heavily traveled and it is projected that traffic volumes along this
roadway will double by 2015. The road is heavily used by commuters, students and
visitors to the University. This road is also heavily used by bicyclists traveling into the
University. Flooding occurs periodically on Route 250 West near its intersection with
Old Ivy Road. Walkways are constructed on both sides of Route 250 West from Route 29
to Old Ivy Road. Fontaine Avenue is also heavily traveled. Walkways and a bicycle
facility exist along Fontaine Avenue in front of the Fontaine Avenue Research Park.
Also, the Route 250/29 bypass intersects the Neighborhood.
Public Water and Sewer
Public water and sewer are available in the Neighborhood, with the Morey Creek sewer
interceptor and major water lines running along Fontaine Avenue and Route 250. Water
is provided by both the South Rivanna and Observatory treatment plants. ACSA has
identified small internal system upgrades that need to be completed in order to provide
better service to the area. [NOTE: To be updated pending further information from the
RWSA/ACSA]
Public Facilities
Park, police and library service are adequate to the area. Fire and rescue service does not
meet service standards established in the Community Facilities Plan and needs to be
improved.
Recommendations
. Infill and expansion of the Fontaine Research Park may be permitted. The
level of expansion permitted on-site should be limited to that which can be
supported by the planned road network, and timed with the construction of
the recommended/planned or necessary improvements to the road network
which provide an adequate Level of Service to support development in this
area. Adequate level of service (LOS) is considered D or better (or the
LOS acceptable to VDOT) for network roads in the County and City,
including Fontaine Avenue. the Fontaine Avenue/U S 29 Bypass
interchange, Sunset Avenue, Old Lynchburg Road and Fifth Street
(36S /t
.
.
Additional support commercial should be provided on-site in the future to
serve the park and the immediate area. In addition, the following are also
recommendedfor this site:
- The proposed Sunset Avenue-Fontaine Avenue connector shall be
accommodated on-site consistent with Alternative 4 of the P ACC Southern
Area B Study. Provision of the road will be an expectation for any
rezoning request in this portion of the study area.
- The provision of pedestrian, bike facilities, and transit service and/or
transit ready site design will be an expectation with any new development
of this site.
-Provide additional access points to the Research Park on the Sunset
Avenue-Fontaine Avenue connector road and Fontaine Avenue.
- Minimize the visual impacts to the Entrance Corridor through
maintenance of vegetated buffers, and careful site grading, and careful
treatment of building locations, heights, massing and clustering on the
site. "Green" building and site design concepts should be incorporated
into the project development.
.
-Water quality impacts will be an important considerationfor any future
development of this site. Measures should be put in place to not only
minimize stream impacts, but also to help improve the current condition of
Moore's Creek and its tributaries. "
-Provide open space, greenway and park areas recommended in the
Comprehensive Plan and the Southern Area B Study should be provided
on this site.
· Development plans along Route 250 West and Fontaine Avenue are to be
sensitive to their status as Entrance Corridor roadways.
· Limit the Neighborhood Service designation on Fontaine Avenue west of
the Bypass (Old Route 29 South) to existing zoned land. "A mixed Use
development may be permitted. The gross density of the mixed use
development should be consistent with Neighborhood Density Residential
and Neighborhood Service designations as shown in the Land Use Plan. "
.
A conservation easement exists on an area located on the western
boundary of the Neighborhood, south of Bellair and Birdwood, north of
Camp Holiday Trail and west of Buckingham ,Circle. This conservation
easement prohibits development of this property (noted as See Text on
Land Use Map).
.
8DS Ie;-
. Consider the design l:l:Hd public facility recommendations of the
City/County/Uniyersity Planning l:l:Hd Coordination Council for the
Jefferson Park .^..'leooelFontaine }..'/enuc "Area B" Study Consider the
information and recommendations of the P ACC Southern Urban Area B
Neighborhood Study and the Lewis Mountain-University Heights "Area
B" Study (each found under separate cover).
· Transportation Improvements include:
Widen Route 250 West (Ivy Road) to four lanes from the City to
the Route 29/250 Bypass and i\S possible, implement the
recommendations of the Ivy Road Design Study. That study
recommends a design to make Ivy Road an attractive, welcoming
place in which to easily walk, bike, shop, and drive.
Recommendations include separated bicycle facilities, continuous
walkways, raised planted median, landscape planting, relocation of
utility wires, sign guidelines, benches, trash cans, shared parking
and consolidation of entrances.
Route 250 West, west of the Bypass west should be maintained in
its existing alignment and width and not be widened.
Consider iHlfllementing the recommendations of the Fontaine
A';eooc Corridor Plan that is outlined in the Jcff-erson Park
.t..veooe/Fontaine i\.yeooe "Area B" Study. Design concepts
incorporate many of the sam.e elements that are recommended for
Route 250 West.
-Construct the Fontaine/Sunset Avenue Connector Road as
recommended in the Southern Urban Area B Study, specifically
Alternative 4, and improve the existing alignment of Sunset Avenue
from the new connector road to its intersection with Fifth Street.
Construct em extension of Stadium Road to Fentaine Ayenue. The
int-crsection of this ext-cnsion should align with the int-crsectien of
the future Fontaine/Sunset Avenue connector.
Provide a greenway corridor along Moore's Creek in the southern
portion of Neighborhood Six. This greenway should connect to the
F ontaine Avenue Research Park.
Provide pedestrian connections from the residential areas in the
Neighborhood to the Fontaine Avenue Research Park.
(iDS' I~
.
Censider the transit, bieycl-c and pedestrian recemmendatiens of
the Southern Urban Area B Study.
Evaluate the need for transit service to the Neighborhood as the
area continues to develop. Consider the transit, bicycle and
pedestrian recommendations of the Southern Urban Area B Study.
Provide service to Fontaine Avenue corridor including the
Fontaine Research Park.
· Utility improvements include: [NOTE: to be updated pending information
from R WSA/ ACSA}
In Bellair and Buckingham Circle, replace the existing water line
and replace it with a 6" to 10" line to improve system hydraulics.
In Ednam Forest, loop the existing 6" water line to improve system
hydraulics.
.
Provide public sewer service to Buckingham Circle, Bellair and
Ednam Forest if public health becomes an issue.
.
Locate a new fire and rescue station in this area to service Neighborhood
Six and Seven, the University and Ivy as response times require. The
station should be funded and operated jointly by the City, County and
University. The station should be staffed by volunteers to the greatest
extent feasible.
.
Coordinate with the University on the development of its parcels.
.
Maintain or establish a buffer along Interstate 64 and the Route 250
Bypass to protect the visual quality and character of the area as seen from
the roadway.
.
f?6S 17
eO) /9
I ~
o
I j ~ j
t[]J
"
1:l "
" ., E
"'C ~ ('IJ
~ .ffi ~
a:: a:: Ci5
Q) ~ 8 8 (/)
'(ii '~ >.
l/) 8 c '~ Q) ~
::s '~ 8 Q) Q) CI) c 8 c
'0 0 CI) Cil ~ Q)
c Q) .~ '0 '0 8 '~ ~ E
CI) c
ns Q) 8 8 0 <!l Q) Q; '(ii a.
~ CI) Cil .~ Cil 0 Ql
...J .r: .r: '", '0 CI) C c co Qj
'c c Q) c Q) ~ N
Cil 0 0 Q) c Cil Q) 0 >
C ::l 0 CI) c:: 0 e
'C "" .0 .0 co C 0 ..., <I: Q)
ns E iil ~ .r: .r: 8 fl (/) 0 c '(ii c ~ 0 0
c.. E ::l Ol Ol ~ '0, ~ C <Il Q) Q)
0 '0 iil 'Qi 'Qi it: it: co Q) co -e ::l Q) Q)
C- o .E .E z z 0 0 a. c:: ~ .= :::> c:: CI) CI)
E III I IluDIID~D
0
0
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT C
AMENDMENT TO TRANSPORTATION SECTION OF THE LAND USE PLAN
[Text amendments are on pages 6, 7 and 14 in blue (or red) and italic type]
Streets and Roads
The development and maintenance of an efficient and safe road system is critical to
influencing the location of future residential development and economic activity while
also accommodating existing needs. Planning for roadway improvements is a complex
procedure due to fragmented and limited funding sources. In addition, the ultimate
responsibility for construction and maintenance of roadways in the County lies with the
State, through the Virginia Department of Transportation: there are no County maintained
public roads.
All County roads are categorized either as interstate, primary or a secondary. Interstate
highways are the highest level of functional road and are part of a national system of
freeways and expressways, providing long distance traffic, high speed and limited access
connections. Interstate 64 traverses the County and connects the Charlottesville-
Albemarle County area to major north-south interstates (1-81 and 1-95) and the
Richmond and Norfolk metropolitan areas. The total length of Interstate 64 in the County
is approximately 31 miles.
The Primary System consists of arterial roads. From the state level planning perspective,
the primary purpose of these roads is to move traffic; access to properties is considered a
lower function/priority. There are 115 miles of primary roads in the County, including the
following:
Route 53
Route 231
Route 29
Route 6
Route 22
Route 250
Route 20
Route 240
Route 151
All of these primary roads are designated as Entrance Corridor routes, providing provides
access to the City and County's historic districts and properties. Therefore, these roads are
important not only for the transportation function, but also for scenic and visual
character.
The majority of roads in Albemarle County are secondary roads. As of December 31,
2000 there were 818.07 miles of secondary roads in the County. Of this, 587.53 (72%)
were hard surfaced and 230 miles (28%) were gravel roads.
1
8DS 2J
Major Corridors
The County has three major corridors that present particular transportation concerns.
These corridors are Route 29 North, Route 250 East, and Route 250 West.
Route 29 North
Route 29 North is the major north-south arterial road through the County, and a major
state arterial which links Washington, D.C., Charlottesville, Lynchburg and, Danville.
Route 29 north of Charlottesville is the major commercial corridor in the County. Route
29 is proposed to be upgraded from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport Road
(Route 649). However, plans have not been developed or scheduled for construction by
VDOT. VDOT has conducted a major study of the Route 29 Corridor from Albemarle
County (from the South Fork Rivanna River) to Warrenton, Virginia. The purpose of the
transportation analysis was to determine the future level of travel demand along the
corridor and to assess whether the highway is designed adequately to accommodate
projected traffic volumes.
In early 2003 a staff team from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission &
Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO, VDOT, City of Charlottesville, and Albemarle County
conducted the 29H250 Study. The purpose of the study was to develop specific
intersection design concepts that address vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
movement for improved mobility, safety, and development opportunities within the
Route 29/Hydraulic Road/Route 250 Bypass area, while protecting existing tax base,
business, neighborhoods, and employment. This study was considered the first
component of an ultimate study including the full length of Route 29 in the County. This
initial study has been completed and adopted by the MPO, City and County as the
guiding plan for improvements to Route 29 in the area.
The major traffic improvement recommendations include a grade-separated interchange
at Route 29 and Hydraulic Road, constructed with roundabouts at the end of the off-
ramps for optimum traffic controls. Signalized intersections could also work. A new
Hydraulic Road alignment is proposed just north of existing Hydraulic Road to allow full
traffic movement during construction.
The County is currently undertaking a Master Planning process (Places29 Study) for the
Northern Development Areas along the Route 29 corridor (Neighborhood 1 and 2,
Hollymead, and Piney Mountain). The Places29 Study includes a major transportation
planning component which will not only complete the "29H250" study process for Route
29 north, but will establish recommendation for overall road network serving the
Northern Development Areas. This unified land use and transportation study will be
completed within the next 2 years (2007). Other studies that have been conducted along
the Route 29 Corridor are described below.
U.S. Route 29 Corridor Development Study
The U.S. Route 29 Corridor Development Study (Phases I Albemarle County to Fauquier
2
(3oS 2-:2
.
County. The goals of this Study are to create a unified multi-modal transportation system
of air, rail, transit, and highways, improve energy efficiency, promote economic
development, and improve quality of life. The Study reviewed all relevant elements of
the federal legislation including an extensive public participation process. It addressed
land use planning, advanced acquisition and preservation of right of way, and overall
social, economic, and environmental effects. The Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors supports the use if access management techniques as the principle means of
controlling traffic on this corridor ofRt. 29.
U.S. Route 29 Corridor Development Study (combined Phases JIIlJI N.c. to
Charlottesville)
This study resulted in a long-range multi-modal plan for transportation in the corridor and
will assistance state and local governments in prioritizing transportation projects, identifying
and requesting funding, and planning the location of various land uses and public facilities.
Most all of the area along this section of the Corridor Study is not in the County's
Development area and the County did not support any of VDOT's widening
recommendations. On February 14, 2001, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisor
endorsed a resolution that established their position regarding this study and the Route 29
South Corridor. It states:
.
Almost all of the area along the Rt. 29 South Corridor is not in the County's
Development area. Data developed by the consultant and verified by the County
does not project significant development in this area of the County through the study
period. Therefore, the County does not believe controlled access through
elimination of all individual access points and an extensive system of service roads
and signalized intersections should be assumed as necessary for Albemarle County.
The County does support the coordination of land use planning and transportation
system planning through specifically incorporating the access management
recommendations of the Phase I Corridor Study into the planning for the Route 29
South corridor in Albemarle and throughout the study area. Albemarle County
believes that access management planning is a logical and viable recommendation
for the Route 29 corridor south of Charlottesville. Through proper planning that
balances land use and transportation priorities in the particular sections of the
corridor in the County, appropriate access management measures can be identified
and pursued.
Use the "Parkway" design cross-section in Albemarle County, without service roads
and limited access should be used in Albemarle County. Under no scenario should
the "Freeway" design concept be used in Albemarle County. Furthermore, it is not
anticipated that signalization of intersections will be necessary in Albemarle County,
but in no case is reservation for interchanges at any Albemarle County intersections
necessary. The full study with recommendations is available at the Department of
Community Development.
.
Route 250 East
Significant commercial development exists along Route 250 East mostly within the
3
() f'" '71.
DO,) /./)
designated Development Areas. The County is currently conducting a Master Plan for the
Pantops Development Area. This study should be completed by 2006. This study will
identify land use and transportation recommendations that will guide the growth of the
Pantops area. A separate study will evaluate the feasibility of an Eastern Connector. The
Eastern Connector is identified in the UnJAM 2025 Plan to be studied to determine it
potential impact to analysis the traffic on the Route 250 East and Route 29 north
corridors.
In 1999, VDOT conducted the Route 250 East Corridor Study. The purpose of the study
was to examine existing and future travel conditions within the corridor in order to
identify transportation deficiencies. The Route 250 East Corridor Study area begins at the
east corporate limits of Charlottesville and ends approximately three-tenths of a mile east
of Route 15 at Zion Crossroads in Louisa County. A conceptual multi-modal
transportation plan to address these deficiencies will result from the study.
The study recommended a series of short term and long term recommendations. The
Study's recommendations will be considered in conjunction with the Pantops Master Plan
process.
Route 250 West
In the fall of 1997, VDOT initiated the Route 250 West Corridor Study to produce a long-
range planning study with conceptual engineering plans. The Route 250 West Corridor
Study may be used to assist VDOT and Albemarle in preserving rights-of-way to
accommodate future transportation needs in the corridor. The subject ofthe study was the
segment of Route 250 in between 1-64 (Exit 107 Yancey Mills) and the west corporate
limits of Charlottesville.
The study recommended a series of short term and long term recommendations (the
Route 250 West Corridor Study is on file in the Albemarle County Department of
Community Development Department). A controversial long term recommendation was
to widen Route 250 from the City limits to Mechums River. The Citizens Advisory
Committee and the Board of Supervisors opposed VDOT's recommendations for Route
250 West. The Citizen Advisory Committee and the Board of Supervisors supported
maintaining Route 250 West with its present roadway cross section. The Board also
created the Route 250 Task Force, which is a standing committee charged to review and
make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors with regard to all transportation
improvements on the Route 250 West corridor (Route 250 Bypass to the Yancey Mill
interchange). The Task Force will review each proposal prior to approval.
It should be recognized that Route 29 North, Route 250 East, and Route 250 West
provide both access for inter-regional travel and access for the major commercial and
residential areas of the Urban Area and City. Road improvements should be designed to
accommodate anticipated traffic demands and present capacity should be utilized to the
greatest extent possible.
4
eDS'2/f
.
Meadow Creek Parkwav
The Meadow Creek Parkway, from the intersection of McIntire Road and the Route 250
Bypass in the City of Charlottesville to Rio Road at Norfolk Southern Railroad will
provide new north-south route connection from the County northern urban area to
downtown Charlottesville. The new road will also provide an alternative to Rio Road
and Park Street.
The Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report, May 2001, by Jones and Jones Consultants,
establishes an alignment location and design standards for the development of Phase I of
the Parkway in the County, from Melbourne Road to the railroad bridge on Rio Road.
This report can be found under separate cover. In summary, the study calls for a two-lane
road constructed on sufficient right-of-way to allow for its upgrade to a four-lane road, if
necessary. The proposed design calls for a parkway concept, which includes pedestrian
and bicycle facilities, landscaping and an adjacent linear park. The linear park will
provide an open space and recreational benefit to the community and will serve to
connect McIntire Park, Greenbrier Park, and the City/County greenway along Meadow
Creek, with additional linkages, to Pen Park, Charlottesville High School, CA TEC and
Charlottesville Catholic School. The proposed road alignment and design in the Meadow
Creek Parkway Final Report are consistent with the alignment and design for the City
portion of the road.
.
Northern Free State Road
The Northern Free State Road was formerly referred to as the Meadow Creek Parkway
Phase II. The UnJAM 2025 Plan recommends that this road be studied in conjunction
with the Eastern Connector, based on changes in development patterns and proposed
projects in the northern area. It is assumed that portions of the roadway will be built by
private developers, and that the character of the roadway may change within and between
neighborhoods.
This road will be considered with the Route 29 Corridor Transportation Study (29H250)
Master Planning process and with the Places29 Study now underway. This road will
provide access to existing neighborhoods and areas of development north of Rio Road
and potentially connect Urban Area to the Hollymead Community and Route 29,
Hillsdale Drive Extended
The Hillsdale Drive Extended will connect existing Hillsdale Drive from its terminus at
Greenbrier to Hydraulic Road, creating a parallel roadway east of Route 29. This
roadway will create an efficient alternate route for many residents, allowing them easier
direct access to work, shopping, schools, and community facilities without having to
travel on the Route 29 corridor. This roadway should be timed to be completed after
completion of the Meadow Creek Parkway.
.
5
PbS 25
Southern Parkwav
The Southern Parkway will connect Avon Street to 5th Street Extended. Currently, there
is no direct east-west connection tmtl of the southern Development Area neighborhoods
(4 and 5). This requires travelers to take a circuitous route to travel a very short distance.
This road will provide an important east/west connection to the Southern urban area and
provide important emergency (fire/rescue/police) access to in the area. This road will
also improve east/west traffic now traveling through city neighborhood streets. Since
some commuters use Interstate 64 to make this connection, this project could reduce local
traffic on the Interstate. The Planning and Coordination Council's (P ACC) Southern
Urban Area B Study dated September 10, 2004, identifies a possible alternative for the
alignment of the Southern Parkway in Development Area Neighborhood 5 which would
link the road into existing and future streets to the south of the identified alignment.
Consider the recommendations of the PACC Southern Urban Area Study for possible
alignment alternatives and/or other neighborhood street connections to the Parkway as
development occurs in this area.
Fontaine Ave.-Sunset Ave. Connector Road and Stadium Road Connector
There is no collector road which provides a direct connection of the southern
Development Areas to the Fontaine Avenue and University grounds area. This requires
travelers to use city neighborhood streets to reach these locations. The Fontaine Avenue-
Sunset Avenue Connector Road would provide a more direct connection of these areas,
reducing traffic impacts to neighborhood streets. The alignment for this road should be
consistent with the recommendations of the P A CC 's Southern Urban Area B Study,
specifically the alignment noted as Alternative 4 in the Study.
The Stadium Read Connect-or would extend Stadium Road on the Uni'.lcrsity Grounds to
Fentaine A';Jenue, pre'.liding an important connection from Fontaine Avenuc and the
propesed Fontaine A';cnue Sunset Avenue connecwr to Uni';ersity destinations. This
road will help address impacts of traffic groH,th 01'1 Fontaine .k;enue. Dc-.'clopment of
this road should be consistent with the recommendations of the Southern Urban Area B
Study. The alignment of this road should intersect with Fontaine .k;enue at the
intersection ofthc propesed Fontaine A'v'enue Sunset A'.lenuc connecwr road.
Route 29 (Western) Bvpass
The Western Bypass is a proposed six-mile long roadway from the interchange of Route
29 and Route 29/250 Bypass to just north of Route 643 (Polo Grounds Road). It is
planned to connect with Route 29 and the proposed Northern Free State Road.
The County has been working with VDOT through the MPO to address the County's
concerns with the Western Bypass. As a result of this effort, the UnJAM 2025 Plan
described the Western Bypass as noted below.
The project as designed does not meet community or regional needs, and has
been determined too costly for the transportation benefits to be gained (draft
6
eD f 2~
.
design plans for the Western Bypass can be found in the Albemarle County
Department of Community Development and the local VDOT Residency
Office). The transportation goals of the Bypass can be more effectively
realized with improvements to the existing Route 29 corridor.
Portions of the right-of-way reserved for this project should be considered for
potential use in other projects such as Berkmar Drive Extended. The
remaining right-of-way should be sold, with the proceeds going toward other
projects in the Route 29 corridor that better deliver cost-effective solutions to
congestion along the corridor. These include adding additional lanes to Route
29 North. These actions would effectively contribute to the near-term
improvements needed to maintain Route 29 as the major north-south
automobile and truck route.
.
Recommendation
. Implement the recommendations of the UnJAM 2025 Plan, including but not
limited to the following:
- The recommendation for the Western Bypass.
- To undertake a traffic impact and location study for the Eastern
Connector.
· Implement the recommendations of the 29H250 Study and implement the
transportation recommendations of the Places29 Study, when adopted.
· Maintain existing cross-section of Route 250 West from Route 29/250 Bypass to
the 1-64 interchange.
· Implement improvements to Route 250 East consistent with Neighborhood Plan,
when adopted.
· Construct the Meadow Creek Parkway, including an interchange at the Route 250
Bypass.
· Construct the Hillsdale Drive extension as recommended in the Hillsdale Drive
Extension Study.
· Complete construction of the Southern Parkway by extending the road to connect
to 5tli Street. Consider the recommendations of the P ACC Southern Urban Area
Study for possible alignment alternatives and/or other neighborhood street
connections to the Parkway.
· Construct the Fontaine Avenue-Sunset Avenue connector road and upgrade
Sunset Avenue from the connector road to Fifth Street consistent with the
recommendations of the PACC Southern Urban Area B Study.
· Construct the Stadium Road C01'inectar from the existing end of Sftldium Road to
Fonftline A....enue consistent with the recommendations of the PACC Southern
Urban Area B Study.
· Implement the UnJAM 2025 Plan recommendations regarding the Route 29
Western Bypass.
.
7
BtS 2J
Road Development
There are several major tools and processes that are used to plan for needed road
improvements. These tools and processes are discussed below.
Six Year Primary and Secondary Road Plans
The Primary System Construction Program consists of a prioritized list of improvements
and a financial implementation plan for all projects in each locality within the Culpeper
Highway District (Culpeper, Fauquier, Madison, Orange, Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene,
Rappahannock, and Louisa Counties). The Board of Supervisors reviews and approves a
priority listing of projects for the County and forwards this list to VDOT. The final list of
improvements and financial plan is established by VDOT for the entire district.
The Six Year Secondary Road Plan also consists of a priority list of improvement
projects and a financial implementation plan for all projects within the County. Each year
the financial implementation plan must be reviewed and approved for appropriation by
the Board of Supervisors. The County adopts a priority listing of projects every two
years. The list is based on transportation recommendations identified in the UnJAM 2025
Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and related planning studies. The total list of projects
exceeds anticipated that which can be completed during the six year time horizon of the
plan. The County has significantly more control over project priorities on the Secondary
System than it does on the Primary System.
Traditionally, most County roadway improvements have been limited to funding through
VDOT's six year road planning process for both primary and secondary roads. Recently,
however, the County has made a more concerted effort to fund the development of
proposed roads and work with the development community to encourage participation in
the development of these roads. Examples of these projects include the connection of
Commonwealth Drive to Greenbrier Drive, and the construction of Hillsdale
Drive/Branchlands Boulevard and Berkmar Drive Extended in which the County and
developers shared construction costs. In order to take advantage of these types of efforts
in the future, it is necessary that the County have an effective transportation planning
process which provides standardized methods to identify and prioritize new projects.
Future roads which the County proposes for development, but which are ineligible for
VDOT construction funds, will need to be funded through the Capital Improvements
Program.
Recommendation
· Maintain and regularly update a County Priority List of Secondary and
8
gtS' ZY
.
Primary Road Improvements.
General Design Standards For Roads
The following are general design standards for roads in the County:
1. Design new roads in a manner which is sensitive to County and regional
efforts which encourage multi-modal opportunities and neighborhood and
pedestrian-friendly character:
Provide sidewalks on both sides of the street along all arterials,
collectors, and local through-roads in the Urban Area,
Communities and Villages unless, other pedestrian access facilities
adequately address current needs or pedestrian access in a certain
location is deemed inappropriate for reasons of safety.
.
Encourage, where right of way is reasonably available, paved
shoulders on shoulder and ditch designed roads (rural cross-
section) and wider outside lanes on curb and gutter designed road
(urban cross-section) on any new or reconstructed road to more
safely accommodate bicycles. Paved shoulders also improve long
term road maintenance by reducing pavement deterioration along
road edge of rural cross-section roads.
Accommodate, where appropriate, bus stop pull-outs or other
improvements necessary to support bus service. For new major
road projects consider long term need for additional room to
support mass-transit facilities (rapid/express bus lanes, rail service,
etc.). Major road projects can be considered a significant widening
or improvement to a primary road or a secondary road.
2.
In the Rural Area, road improvements should be designed to protect
environmentally sensitive areas and conform to County goals to preserve
rural character. In this regard, improvements which contribute to
increased vehicle speed, such as straightening alignments and additional
lanes may create less safe conditions and may not be consistent with the
rural character of the County. Paving shoulders for enhanced safety and
bike use should be encouraged. In the Development Areas, streets should
be designed with a streetscape (sidewalks and plantings) that support the
Neighborhood Model. Any anticipated road improvements or
construction in sensitive or significant resource areas as defined by the
Open Space Plan, Natural Resource and Cultural Assets Plan, or other
documents should receive extremely careful scrutiny and provide
protection measures to eliminate ecological, environmental, and aesthetic
concerns.
.
9
BD$' 2-1
3. Landscaping should be provided along major roads in the Urban Area,
Communities and Villages, particularly along designated Entrance
Corridor Roadways and areas of intensive development.
4. Mast arm traffic light poles and street light poles and sIgns are
encouraged over hanging street lights.
5. Locate utilities underground where feasible. If utility poles are to be
above ground, encourage their consolidation into one corridor along the
road.
6. Minimize clearing activities associated with construction to the greatest
extent feasible.
7. Require interconnection of adjacent developments/neighborhoods within
Development Areas, and, where appropriate, in Rural Area development,
to achieve a local road system and provide alternatives to the regional
road network for local trips. This principle should apply to residential and
non-residential developments. "Traffic calming" measures (lower speed
limits, all directional stop intersections, speed bumps, traffic channeling
measures).
8. Discourage direct access from individual lots to arterial and major
collector roads. Utilize joint entrances, frontage roads, and side street
access or other methods to reduce access points to adjacent properties on
major collector or arterial roads.
9. Minimize the number of access points per parcel or development area to
those necessary to provide safe and convenient access to and from the
site.
10. Minimum desirable separation of street intersections is 1,000 feet for
principle arterial roads and 800 feet for minor arterial roads. Minimum
desirable spacing for cross-overs (divided road) is 1,300 feet for principle
arterial and 1,000 feet for minor arterials. Entrances shall be located
either directly across from a cross-over or at a minimum of 500 feet from
a crossover. Encourage use of block configurations in the Development
Areas. Block lengths should range from 200-600'.
10
e65 '3 D
.
Traffic Reduction
Traffic reduction initiatives are intended to reduce dependency on the automobile, and
change the pattern of single-occupant auto trips, as the dominant means of transportation.
Although it is recognized that auto travel will continue to be a primary means of travel,
reducing auto trips can: 1) delay the need for road improvements by better utilizing
existing road capacities; and, 2) conserve fuel and reduce pollution (air, water, noise).
Alternative transportation services and initiatives which can reduce single-occupant auto
travel include public transit services, ride-sharing/vanpooling programs, bicycle and
pedestrian access facilities, and travel demand reduction techniques such as tele-
commuting and flex-time work hours. Adherence to the General Principles for
Transportation recommendations for the above noted services and facilities should serve
to implement traffic reduction initiatives.
Transportation Services
.
Public transportation includes any public mass transit services available to County
residents such as the Charlottesville Transit System (CTS), the University Transit Service
(UTS), and JAUNT. The County also benefits from other providers it does not fund, such
as taxi services and inner-city bus services. The transit service providers to the County
are described in more detail below. An important component in planning and providing
public transportation services is the "Private Sector Process" adopted by MPO members.
This process is designed to more equitably involve the private sector when selecting
public transportation service options. The inclusion of the private sector perspective has
resulted from Federal Transportation Administration (FT A) regulations requiring: (1)
notification of proposed services to private providers; (2) consultation with private
enterprise for public services; (3) consideration of private carriers in providing services;
(4) comparison of costs between service proposals by the private and public sectors; and,
(5) complaint resolution mechanisms for private operators.
.
Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS)
Public transportation in the Charlottesville and the urban areas of Albemarle County is
provided by Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS). CTS operates six days a week with
ten daily, fixed routes, one demand response, and six night service routes throughout the
urban area. Creating the hub of the public transportation network, bus routes circle
around the downtown pedestrian mall before breaking off in the designated direction.
CTS service extends south to Interstate 64, as far up Route 29 North to Wal-Mart, and
east to Pantops. Buses are wheelchair accessible and CTS offers paratransit programs,
in conjunction with JAUNT, for riders with disabilities who are unable to use regular
route buses. CTS buses are also equipped with bike racks. The County will continue to:
· Implement County related recommendations of the Charlottesville Transit
11
86'S '11
Development Plan, and participate in its update which occurs every five years.
. Continue to support Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC)
Rideshares services and the Commuter Information Team (CIT).
. Participate with TJPDC, MPO, and Rural Area Transportation Long Range Plan to
develop regional plan for park and ride lots.
. Continue to work with area employees to reduce single occupancy commuter
vehicles.
JAUNT
JAUNT, Inc. is a regional transportation system providing fixed-route and demand-
response service to the citizens of Charlottesville, Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa, and
Nelson Counties. JAUNT receives federal and state mass transit funding as well as funds
from the local governments, human service agency payments and passenger fares. The
eighty-vehicle fleet carries the general public, agency clients, the elderly and people with
disabilities throughout Central Virginia. Mobile Data Computers have been installed in
all of JAUNT's vehicles and new, sophisticated scheduling software handles all 1,200
scheduled trips per day. Reservationists can quickly find the most effective vehicle for
each trip, dispatchers know exactly where each vehicle is, and operators access their trip
information directly from their on-board computer. Fixed route services primarily
connect outlying communities to the urban area, but routes to less populated centers are
available as well. Weekday transit routes operate on most primary roads: Route 29 North
and South, Route 20 South, Route 250 East and West, and Interstate Route 64.
Routes in rural Albemarle County originate in various communities including Scottsville,
Covesville, North Garden, Keswick, Advance Mills, Earlysville and Slate Hill.
The following services are provided to the County by JAUNT:
. Coordinated transportation services for all human service agencies serving the
County.
. Rural public transportation servIces, including rural to urban commuter work
runs.
. Special services to the handicapped and elderly, including door-to-door pre-
arranged personalized service.
. Supporting services to the handicapped in CTS areas.
U niversitv Transit Service (UTS)
UTS offers transportation and charter services to students, employees, and visitors to the
University of Virginia. It operates twenty fixed routes throughout the calendar year, with
a focus on the academic year. UTS has three types of service: full, holiday, and
commuter. Transfers can be made between CTS and UTS buses.
12
gD)' 32
.
Currently, UTS is wholly owned and operated by the University and is funded through
mandatory student fees and parking passes. The service is oriented toward students,
faculty, and employees of the University.
The County's growth management policy and land use plan create both distinct
advantages and disadvantages in providing public transportation services. The effort to
concentrate growth in specified Development Areas, particularly in the Urban Area
around the City, permits a large portion of the population to be served with relative ease
and efficiency. However, the low density and wide dispersal of population in the Rural
Areas make it more difficult to provide convenient access to public transportation to
those areas in a cost effective manner. While providing public transportation in the urban
areas only is consistent with the County's growth management policy, it results in little or
no service to low-and moderate-income individuals and families, the elderly, and the
handicapped who reside in the rural regions of the County.
.
Ride Sharine:
RideShare is a program of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission working
to reduce traffic congestion and increase mobility throughout the city of Charlottesville
and the counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson by promoting
alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. Its services includes car and vanpool
matching, referrals to transit providers, inventory, marketing, development of Park and
Ride lots, operating the Guaranteed Ride Home Program, and promotion of bicycle and
pedestrian transportation. This program is continuing to expand and most recently has
implemented a SchoolPool program, to assist schools with traffic congestion that
frequently occurs in their lots. RideShare is also an active participant of the Commuter
Information Team (CIT) which includes RideShare, Charlottesville Transit Service
(CTS), JAUNT, University Transit Service (UTS), and Greene County Transit.
Park and Ride lots located in Albemarle County include:
Scottsville - Rt. 20 at the Scottsville Market Keene
Mountainside Senior Living
Avon Street Extended
Pantops Shopping Center
Darden Towe Park
Wal-Mart
Forest Lakes South Entrance
Peace Lutheran Church
.
Forest Lakes North (Health Services Center)
Maple Grove Church
13
00 S 'j 1
Grace United Methodist Church
Recommendations
· Identify methods of funding transit services and develop a funding
structure/program to support transit in the County.
· Expand transit service in the Urban Area, and to the Hollymead, Cedar
Hill Mobile Estates and Piney Mountain Communities.
· Utilize the Transit Development Plan and other studies (including
MPO/UNJAM studies, Master Plans, and PACC Area B Studies) to assist
in determining the location and timing for the provision of transit services.
· Consider expansion of service hours to include nights and weekends on
appropriate routes to improve ridership and service.
· Continue to recognize and support JAUNT as the primary public
transportation provider for rural Albemarle County and the County's
transportation disadvantaged.
· Continue to support MPO and JAUNT ride-sharing services.
· Participate with MPO and JAUNT to develop a regional system of park
and ride lots.
· Work with area employers through MPO to encourage development of
ridesharinglvanpooling programs and travel demand reduction programs.
Encourage development of ride sharing and travel demand reduction
programs in evaluating rezoning and parking lot requests for major
industrial, office, and commercial projects.
Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Greenway Access
Pedestrian and bicycle access is an important aspect of the County's overall
transportation system. Walkways and bikeways provide for safe and convenient travel
and improve the efficiency of the roadway system by reducing potential conflicts
between motor vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists.
Pedestrian and bicycle access improvements can also complement and enhance the mass
transportation system by improving access to bus stops and places of economic activity.
The provision of an effective pedestrian/bicycle system can also enhance the sense of
community within developed or developing areas of the County by providing
pedestrian/bicycle facilities that interconnect communities and facilitate and encourage
interaction within the area.
14
(l6S' $1
.
Appropriate facilities such as walkways, pathways and bike facilities create a safe and
effective pedestrian/bicycle environment. These facilities alone, however, do not provide
for adequate safe and efficient access, and as a result, additional facilities or
improvements may be necessary such as street lights, signs, and other road intersection
improvements.
The Department of Community Development in cooperation with the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission has developed the Jefferson Area Bicycle, Pedestrian, and
Greenways Plan. This Plan will replace the existing Pedestrian Obstacle Study, and the
Bicycle Plan for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County.
.
The purpose of this plan is to provide information and guidance on development of
facilities and other accommodations to enhance safe bicycle and pedestrian travel within
the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. This plan will also satisfy the Virginia
Department of Transportation requirement that a roadway be identified as a bike lane or
sidewalk in a locally adopted bicycle or pedestrian plan before improvements can be
made. Descriptions are given as to how localities can create and maintain safe and
efficient walking and biking systems, linking people to the services they need. An
overall network is proposed that connects the many communities of the region, and
smaller networks proposed for within those communities. The plan also identifies
methods for increasing awareness among the public, especially automobile drivers, about
the needs of walkers and cyclists. The Plan provides recommendations for both physical
improvements and programs aimed at improving bicycle and pedestrian facilities and
safety, and discusses implementation and funding issues. The improvement
recommendations from the study are provided in Appendix B of the Land Use Plan.
The Jefferson Area Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Plan begins with a description of
existing conditions, demand and need, and possible facility types for both bicycles and
pedestrians. The Plan allows for links to surrounding localities. Public input was
invaluable to the development of this plan. Local biking clubs and organizations were
invited to the meetings. The Jefferson Area Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Plan
incorporates the recommendations of the County's Greenway Plan (Appendix A of the
Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Section of the Comprehensive Plan (page 201).
Goals and Objectives of the Regional Plan are:
GOAL 1: Provide a comprehensive and coordinated regional bicycling and walking
system.
.
Objective: Provide safe bicycle and pedestrian access to public facilities, employment
and commercial centers, schools, residential areas, and recreation and tourism attractions.
Objective: Integrate bicycles and pedestrians into planning for transportation and land
development.
Objective: Ensure consistency among local plans, designs, and facilities in the region.
15
o r 1c
I:;;1>J ;:;
Objective: Provide adequate support facilities for the travel networks.
Objective: Encourage developers to include bicycle and pedestrian access in projects.
Objective: Integrate bicycle and walking networks with transit systems.
Objective: Preserve and restore walking and bicycle access when roadways expand.
GOAL 2: Provide safe bicycle and walking networks. convenient for all users.
Objective: Provide a system that serves expert, intermediate, and novice users of all ages.
Objective: Provide a system that serves recreational and utilitarian user needs.
Objective: Create a network easily used by residents, guests, and tourists.
Objective: Develop a system that meets or exceeds VDOT standards.
Objective: Minimize potential conflicts between bicycles, motor vehicles, and
pedestrians.
Objective: Provide signage, markings, and physical improvements to ensure safe and
easy usage.
Objective: Provide and maintain riding surfaces free of obstructions, trash, gravel, and
other hazards.
Objective: Develop improved methods of bicycle accident data gathering, analysis, and
retrieval.
GOAL 3: Educate the public of bicycling and walking advantages. facilities. safety and
regulations.
Objective: Develop a comprehensive public information and education program to raise
the community's awareness and enjoyment of walking and bicycle riding facilities.
Objective: Inform public of health and environmental benefits to further entice users.
Objective: Incorporate maps of facilities into standard transportation and tourist maps.
Objective: Inform bicyclists and pedestrians of their responsibility in relation to traffic.
Objective: Educate bicyclists and drivers on the rules of the road and bicycle safety.
GOAL 4: Establish a system to coordinate steady implementation of the plan.
Objective: Establish priorities for facility development consistent with funding priorities
while maintaining flexibility to develop any segment of the system as opportunities
permit.
Objective: Develop facilities which are cost efficient to construct and maintain.
Objective: Maintain awareness of and pursue all potential funding sources.
Objective: Hire staff at each locality or regionally to be in charge of grant writing, plan
coordination, and other activities that will provide the necessary support to implement the
plan.
191.1
8DS J 0
.
Recommendations
· Utilize the existing Neighborhood and Master Plans for identifying
potential walkway, bicycle, greenway, and streetlight projects.
· Implement the recommendations of the Jefferson Area Bicycle, Pedestrian
and Greenway Plan.
· Evaluate existing Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements and
enabling legislation to ensure pedestrian facilities are being provided as
called for in this Plan.
· Evaluate the need (and method) for the County to supplement VDOT's
walkway maintenance, grassy strips, and tree lawn areas.
· Maintain an on-going walkway, bicycle, and greenway construction fund
in the Capital Improvements Program. Utilize all possible funding sources
for the construction of walkways and bicycle facilities,
· Utilize Development Standards for Roads and Land Use Standards for
Development as guidelines for pedestrian facility development.
.
.
Implement the recommendations of the existing Bicycle Plan for the City
of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Regularly review and update
Plan.
Include bicycle and sidewalk facilities within new major developments
depending on their location. Provide amenities such as bike racks and
shower facilities.
· Consider using VDOT and railroad excess right-of-way for multi-use
trails.
Other Transportation Types
Air Travel
.
The purpose of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Master Plan of August 18, 2004 is
to provide the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority with useful, understandable
information and guidance to develop and maintain a safe and efficient airport. It also
provides the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Virginia Department of
Aviation with information concerning the planned development at Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airport. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Master Plan is a
(:5DS 3 ~I
{3DS B ~
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT 0
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION:
DAVID BENISH
JANUARY 9, 2007
RE: Southern Urban Area B Study CPA and Granger Property CPA
PURPOSE OF WORK SESSION:
This work session is to review proposed text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
incorporating the recommendations of the PACC Southern Urban Area B. The draft
amendments also include text amendments addressing a public request to amend the
Comprehensive Plan land use recommendation for the Granger property, which is
located within the Southern Urban Area B study area. The Commission previously
discussed these proposals at a November 28, 2006 work session.
BACKGROUND:
Southern Urban Area B Study - Under the Three Party Agreement signed by the
City, County and University in 1986, certain areas adjacent to the University of
Virginia in the City and County were designated as "Area B," where joint planning
efforts among the three jurisdictions will be conducted. The Planning and
Coordination Council (PACC) was established by the Agreement to oversee these
activities and coordinate planning among the jurisdictions. A number of Area B
studies have been completed over the years, including West Main Street, Venable,
Lewis Mountain, and Blue Ridge Hospital. The Southern Urban Area B Study is an
update of a previous Area B study for this area completed in 1989.
Granger Property CPA Request - A Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposal has
also been submitted by the owner of the "Granger" property to change the land use
designation of this area to "Office Service" use. The 69.5 acre Granger property is
located south of the Norfolk Southern railroad track and is bounded by 1-64 to the west,
Sunset Avenue to the South, and Stribling Avenue and Moore's Creek to the east. The
property is located within the boundary of the Southern Urban Area B Study area. The
County's Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Plan currently recommends this area for
"Neighborhood Density Residential" (3-6 du/ac) use. The Southern Area B Study
recommends a combination of "Mixed-Use" and "High Density Residential" (16-24 du/ac)
uses. Since the Granger property is a key site within the Southern Urban Area B Study
area, the Area B CPA and "Granger CPA" have been reviewed and discussed together
in a unified process.
A COpy of both the Area B Study and a Gram:!er CPA (bound booklet) were provided to
the Commission for the November 28th work session.
DISCUSSION:
Traditionally, Area B studies have been incorporated into the County's Comp Plan by
general reference and the documents have stood as separate documents under
separate cover. For example, the Area B Study covering the Blue Ridge Hospital area is
1
6~ S 3 q
included in the Comprehensive Plan as a recommendation listed in the Land Use Plan's
Profile for Neighborhood 4. It states "Consider the recommendations of the
City/County/University Planning and Coordination Council's Blue Ridge Neighborhood
Area B Study." Several other recommendations regarding the Area B Study were also
included in the Comprehensive Plan for emphasis, specifically comments related to the
Study's recommendations for development of the Blue Ridge Hospital site and for the
PVCC campus. Staff recommends followina the same approach for includina the
Southern Urban Area B into the Comprehensive Plan including more specific statements
included within the body of the Comprehensive Plan document, specifically in the
Recommendations section of the Neighborhood Profiles for Neighborhoods 4, 5 and 6.
While the Southern Urban Area B Study is lengthy, much of the information provided in
the Study document is supporting technical information. The recommendations of the
Study can be found in Section III. Development Scenarios, and are summarized on
pages 13 and 14. Commissioners may want to focus their review on this section of the
Study. The "Framework Plan" can be found on page 15. Several recommendations are
made for areas that are outside of the PACC's Area B Study boundary, but were studied
and proposed by the consultant at the direction of the County and PACC.
Staff worked closely with the Study consultant and PACC in the development of the Area
B Study and supports most of the recommendations of the Study. The Area B Study
recommendations would add to and/or modify some of the recommendations now in the
Land Use Plan for this area. The recommendations cover areas in both the City and
County. Recommendations related to the County include:
. Numbers 2-9 under Land Use and Urban Design Characteristics (p. 13);
. Numbers 1,2 and 4-6 under Infrastructure and Transit Possibilities (pp. 13-14);
. All items listed under Open Space, Historic Preservation, and Planning (p. 14).
SUMMARY COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT LANGUAGE:
For this section of the report, the staff's summary comments on the major
recommendations of the Area B Study from the November 28th staff report have been
provided, followed by provided proposed amendment language to be included in the
Comprehensive Plan in blue type:
land Use and Urban Design Characteristics (p. 13)
#2. "New neighborhood on the Granger property"-- The Area B Study recommends a
combination of "Mixed-Use," "High Density Residential" (16-24 du/ac), and "Park/Open
Space" uses. The Southern Urban Area B Study does not provide a specific definition of
the "Mixed-Use" designation shown on the land use plan, and does not provide any
information on the specific elements of the mix. The Study does state the following:
To accomplish the goal of an integrated and better functioning community... [Slome
of the possible approaches presented in this report include:
. A new neiahborhood center on the Granaer property. with small scale
mixed-use. transit stops and connection to a new park and open space
system of Moore's Creek and beyond.
2
0",-\ 40
DJ..- /,
.
The Study also indicates that the Granger site is one of "at least two settings where
compact, interconnected 'neighborhoods' could emerge... Housing numbers in this area
alone could be significant (500-750 for the Granger property alone... II (p. 34, Housing
Issues).
The small scale service area is a very important component in this area because of the
extensive residential development already developed and approved in this area and the
lack of service to support this population.
Staff opinion is that either an Office Service/Mixed-Use land use designation or High
Density Residential/Mixed-Use land use designation is an appropriate designation for
the Granger property. Staff believes that the Office Service/Mixed-Use designation
provides a better balance of land uses in the southern Development Areas, which are
currently lacking developable areas for new office/industrial development.
The critical issues for future reviews of any development on this site will be density,
scale and form of development. The level of development permitted on-site will need to
be limited to that which can be accommodated on the planned road network, and timed
with the development of the planned improvements to the road network. Intensity of
development on-site (massing, scale, form, orientation, and green design) will be
important to address neighborhood model design, environmental, and Entrance Corridor
issues.
.
Staff comment (1/9): Based on the Commission's discussion of the Granger proposal,
there was a general consensus to allow for an Office Service/Mixed-Use development
on this site, consisting of a mix of office-employment and support commercial uses, with
the possibly for residential as part of the mix. Staff recommends the following text be
added to the Neighborhood 5 Profile of the Comprehensive Plan:
.
"An Office Service-Mixed Use land use is recommended for the Granger tract, A
new neighborhood center is anticipated as a component of this mixed-use
development, with small scale mixed-use, transit stops and connection to a new
park and open space system of Moore's Creek and beyond. The level and
intensity of development permitted on this site (total square footage/number of
units of development and the mix of uses) should be limited to that which can be
supported by the planned road network. Any rezoning and/or development of the
site should be timed with the construction of recommended/planned
improvements to the road network which provide an adequate level of service to
support development in this area. The intensity of development on-site
(massing, scale, form, orientation, and green design) will be important to
addressing neighborhood model design, environmental, and Entrance Corridor
issues. In addition, the following are also recommended for this site:
.
- Supporting commercial services of a neighborhood scale should be
provided with the development of this site to provide necessary convenience
services currently not available and to provide these services within a
walkable/bikeable distance of a large population concentration in this area,
Residential use may be a component of the mix of the uses developed on this
site.
3
e6S 41
- The proposed Sunset Avenue-Fontaine Avenue connector shall be
accommodated on-site consistent with "Alternative 4" recommended in the
PACC Southern Area B Study. Provision of the road will be an expectation
for any rezoning request and subsequent development of this site.
- The provision of pedestrian, bike facilities, and transit service and/or transit
ready site design will be an expectation of any development of this site.
-Open space, greenway and park area recommended in the Comprehensive
Plan and the Southern Area B Study should be provided on this site,
-Minimize the visual impacts to the Entrance Corridor through maintenance of
vegetated buffers, and careful site grading, and careful treatment of building
locations, heights, massing and clustering on the site. "Green" building and
site design concepts should be incorporated into the project development.
-Water quality impacts will be an important consideration for any future
development of this site. Measures should be put in place to not only
minimize stream impacts, but also to help improve the current condition of
Moore's Creek."
#3 - "Old Lynchburg Road Rd. and Fifth Street neighborhood center"-- This
recommendation is generally consistent with the current land use designations in the
County Land Use Plan. Staff does not feel any additional comments or aualifvina
statements are necessary to address this recommendation. The Study does show this
area as a possible school site. Staff believes this area provides a reasonable option for
a school location.
Staff comment (1/9): No text amendment recommended regarding this Area 8 Study
recommendation.
#4 - "Trinity Presbyterian Church neighborhood center" -- This area is currently
shown for Neighborhood Density Residential and Neighborhood Service use. While the
Area 8 Study shows some areas at 16-24 dulac, the traffic study modeled the area for a
gross density more in keeping with the current Comprehensive Plan land use
designations (mostly Neighborhood Density Residential, with some small amount of
Urban Density Residential). Staff recommends that the mixed use concepts be
considered a possible land use option, but at the gross densities currently shown in the
County Land Use map in order to limit the traffic impacts to Fontaine Ave. from this
development. The non-residential uses should be very limited in scale (neighborhood
scale and orientation).
Staff comment (1/9):
Staff recommends the following text be added the Neighborhood 6 Profile of the
Comprehensive Plan:
. "Mixed Use development may be permitted on Fontaine Avenue in the vicinity of
Trinity Church. The gross density of the mixed use development should be
consistent with Neighborhood Density Residential and Neighborhood Service
designations as shown in the Land Use Plan. "
4
abS 41-
.
#5 - "Additionallnfill Development possibilities at Fontaine Research Park with
limited mixed uses (service & retail, not residential)"-- The research park is a very
good location (close to downtown, U.Va., hospital, Bypass) to continue providing this
type of land use. It is currently limited to 535,000 sq ft. total on site. The site is currently
built out. A rezoning request is under review that would add an additional 30,000 square
feet of laboratory and research space.
Additional support commercial on-site is important to serve the park and the immediate
area. The primary concern with expansion will be the impact on the existing and
proposed street system. Any expansion to the Park should be limited to that which can
be sustained on this street system with planned improvements, and the timing of the
expansion should be consistent with improvements to the road network and
transportation system.
.
Staff comment (1/9):
Staff recommends the following text be added the Neighborhood 6 Profile of the
Comprehensive Plan:
· Infill and expansion of the Fontaine Research Park may be permitted. The level
of expansion permitted on-site should be limited to that which can be supported
by the planned road network, and timed with the construction of the planned
improvements to the road network which provide an adequate Level of Service to
support development in this area. Additional support commercial should be
provided on-site in the future to serve the park and the immediate area. In
addition, the following are also recommended for this site:
- The proposed Sunset Avenue-Fontaine Avenue connector shall be
accommodated on-site consistent with Alternative 4 of the PACC Southern
Area B Study. Provision of the road will be an expectation for any rezoning
request in this portion of the study area.
- The provision of pedestrian, bike facilities, and transit service and/or transit
ready site design will be an expectation with any new development of this
site.
-Provide additional access points to the Research Park on the Sunset
Avenue-Fontaine Avenue connector road and Fontaine Avenue.
- Minimize the visual impacts to the Entrance Corridor through maintenance
of vegetated buffers, and careful site grading, and careful treatment of
building locations, heights, massing and clustering on the site. "Green"
building and site design concepts should be incorporated into the project
development.
.
-Water quality impacts will be an important consideration for any future
development of this site. Measures should be put in place to not only
minimize stream impacts, but also to help improve the current condition of
Moore's Creek and its tributaries."
5
~)' 13
#6 - "Possibility of attached residential with mixed-use at Department of Forestry"
-- This may be considered a viable optional use for this site at some point in the future.
However, the Department of Forestry use is unlikely to change within the next 5-10
years.
Staff comment (1/9): Staff does not recommend amending the Comprehensive Plan to
reflect this Area 8 Study recommendation.
#7- "Single-family detached residential south of railroad tracks across from
Granger property."-- This statement acknowledges the existing Redfields development.
There are no recommendations for changes in this area proposed in the Study.
Staff comment (1/9): No amendment is needed.
#8 - Residential and mixed-use opportunities and 1-64 interchange" - This
recommendation generally refers to the same area discussed in #3, above. Staff has no
additional comments.
Staff comment (1/9): No amendment is needed.
Recommendation #9 - "Possible location of new County elementary school in this
neighborhood center" - Staff believes this area does provide a reasonable option for a
school location, but it should not be considered the only possible site in the area or the
preferred site at this time.
Staff comment (1/9): Staff is not recommending any additional language be added to
the Comprehensive specifying this area for a school site. Staff is recommending that a
general statement be added to the Profiles for Neighborhoods 4, 5 and 6 which states:
. "Consider the information and recommendations of the PACC Southern Urban
Area B Neighborhood Study (found under separate cover). "
The purpose of this general statement is to recognize that there is useful information and
ideas within the study that may be helpful when addressing/evaluating issues in the
area, and that the Study should be consulted when considering comprehensive
planning, land use and development related issues within the study area (such as when
a school location study needs to be conducted in this area).
Infrastructure and Transit Possibilities
#1 - "Add Fontaine/Sunset Connector Street and/or re-open Sunset Avenue
Bridge" - This is a key recommendation of the Study. This road will provide a critical
alternative link from the County's southern urban areas to the University and the City,
relieving traffic impacts on Old Lynchburg, Jefferson Park Avenue (JPA), and Cherry
Avenue. The Study establishes a preferred alignment, Alternate 4 (Refer to pages 16-24
for further information). The Fontaine-Sunset Connector Road is assumed to be a two-
lane road (35 mph) in this study.
6
f6S 41
.
.
.
Staff comment (1/9): Staff recommends the following text be added to the Profiles for
Neighborhood 5 and 6 of the Comprehensive Plan:
· Construct the Fontaine/Sunset Avenue Connector Road as recommended in the
Southern Urban Area B Study, specifically Alternative 4, and improve the existing
alignment of Sunset A venue from the new connector road to its intersection with
Fifth Street.
#2 - "Extend Stadium Road from Fontaine Ave, connecting with...new
Fontaine/Sunset Avenue" - Due to the limited improvements planned for Fontaine
Avenue (and limited capability to further widen), the Stadium Road extension will
become an essential improvement to support future development in this area. Traffic
modeling indicates that Fontaine Avenue already functions at Level of Service E and
would function at a Level of Service of F under either current by-right development,
current Comp Plan recommended densities, or Area B Study recommended densities.
Stadium Road will be essential to distribute traffic to destinations in the area and to
create a viable road network.
Staff comment (1/9): Staff recommends the following text be added the Profile for
Neighborhood 6 of the Comprehensive Plan:
· Construct an extension of Stadium Road to Fontaine A venue, The intersection of
this extension should align with the intersection of the future Fontaine/Sunset
A venue connector.
#4 - "Add new connector road north of 1-64 between Fifth Street and Avon in
conjunction with private sector development..." - This is the connector located on
the Willoughby-Fifth site. This recommendation is already in the Land Use Plan.
Staff comment (1/9): This road is already a recommended in the Comprehensive Plan
(Neighborhood 4 Profile); therefore, no additional amendment is needed.
#5 - "Build the projected Southern Parkway (with revised location linked to
Sunset Avenue Extended" -- The southern parkway is already identified on the Land
Use Plan. The alternate location provides for a more neighborhood scale road network
in the southern area. This alignment concept should be noted as a viable option for
development.
Staff comment (1/9): Staff recommends the following text be added the Neighborhood 4
and Neighborhood 5 Profile of the Comprehensive Plan:
· Construct a road connecting A von Street Extended and Fifth Street by extending
Southern Parkway to connect to Fifth Street, providing access to 1-64 and traffic
circulation within, and between Neighborhoods 4 and 5. Consider the
recommendations of the Southern Urban Area B Study for possible alignment
alternatives for the Parkway and/or other neighborhood street interconnections to
the Parkway to create a more integrated street network in the Neighborhood 5
7
~ 05 f';
#6 - "Add new EastlWest connector south of 1-64 between Sunset Avenue and Old
Lynchburg Road" - Staff believes this road would be very expensive to construct, is
located on difficult terrain, and would be of limited utility. This road should not be
included the Land Use Plan amendment.
Staff comment (1/9):
This Area 8 Study recommendation for a road just south of 1-64 connecting Sunset
Avenue to Old Lynchburg Road is not recommended for inclusion into the
Comprehensive Plan.
Open Space, Historic Preservation, and Planning
#1-7 - All of these recommendations are viable and most are already incorporated into
the Land Use Plan to some extent (specifically, #'s 1, 2, 5, and 6 are shown as either
open space or greenways in current Land Use Plan), The Study also makes bicyclel
pedestrian facility and transit recommendations, which can be found on page 33 of the
Study.
Staff comment (1/9): Staff recommends the following text be added the Profiles for
Neighborhoods 4, 5 and 6 of the Comprehensive Plan:
. Consider the transit, bicycle and pedestrian recommendations of the Southern
Urban Area B Study.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests the Commission provide comment on the proposed amendment language
and schedule public hearings for the Southern Urban Area 8 Study CPA and Granger
Property CPA.
ATTACHMENTS
None
8
B b S ifh
.
.
.
~DS 1'7
BuS 4~
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT E
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION:
DAVID BENISH
NOVEMBER 28, 2006
RE: Southern Urban Area B Study CPA and Granger Property CPA
PURPOSE OF WORK SESSION:
The County is in the process of amending its Comprehensive Plan to include the
recommendations of the Southern Urban Area B Study adopted by PACC.
A Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposal has also been submitted by the owner of
the "Granger" property to change the land use designation of this area to "Office Service"
use. The 69.5 acre Granger property is located south of the Norfolk Southern railroad
track and is bounded by 1-64 to the west, Sunset Avenue to the South, and Stribling
Avenue and Moore's Creek to the east. The property is located within the boundary of
the Southern Urban Area B Study area. The County's Comprehensive Plan's Land Use
Plan currently recommends this area for "Neighborhood Density Residential" (3-6 du/ac)
use. The Southern Area B Study recommends a combination of "Mixed-Use" and "High
Density Residential" (16-24 du/ac) uses. Since the Granger property is a key site within
the Southern Urban Area B Study area, the Area B CPA and "Granger CPA" should be
reviewed and discussed together in a unified process. A copy of the both the Area B
Study and a GranQer CPA (bound booklet) are provided with this report.
This work session is to begin to discuss with the Commission the issues, findings and
recommendations for these CPAs. Staff would like feedback from the Commission
regarding staff's findings and preliminary recommendations. Representatives for the
Granger CPA proposal will present the project and be available to answer questions.
This report is structured to provide background, discussion, and recommendations for
each project separately below, beginning with the Southern Area B Study.
SOUTHERN URBAN AREA B STUDY:
Backaround:
Under the Three Party Agreement signed by the City, County and University in 1986,
certain areas adjacent to the University of Virginia in the City and County were
designated as "Area B," where joint planning efforts among the three jurisdictions will
be conducted. The Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) was established by
the Agreement to oversee these activities and coordinate planning among the
jurisdictions. A number of Area B studies have been completed over the years,
including West Main Street, Venable, Lewis Mountain, and Blue Ridge Hospital.
Because of increasing development activity in the Jefferson Park
Avenue/Fontaine/Sunset Avenue neighborhoods, the City, County, and University
agreed to update an earlier Area B Study completed in 1988. In June 2003, the
Renaissance Planning Group was retained as consultant for the project. In May 2004
eO) LJL'(
an addendum to the original contract was signed by the three parties, to procure
additional services from Renaissance and Kimley-Horne and Associates, Inc. for an
engineering evaluation of transportation connection alternatives between Fontaine
Avenue and Sunset Avenue Extended.
The Area B Study was reviewed and approved by the Planning and Coordination
Council (PACC) in late 2004. The Board of Supervisors and City Council received one
presentation of the Study prior to PACC approval. The City Council and the Board of
Supervisors have had an initial review of the Study and its major recommendations. The
City has not adopted the study into its Comprehensive Plan, but is considering the Area
B recommendations as part of the review and update of its Comprehensive Plan now
underway.
Traditionally, Area B studies have been incorporated into the County's Comp Plan by
general reference and the documents have stood as separate documents under
separate cover. For example, the Area B Study covering the Blue Ridge Hospital area is
included in the Comprehensive Plan as a recommendation listed in the Land Use Plan's
Profile for Neighborhood 4. It states "Consider the recommendations of the
City/County/University Planning and Coordination Council's Blue Ridge Neighborhood
Area B Study." Several other comments regarding the Area B Study are also included
for emphasis, specifically comments related to the Study's recommendations for
development of the hospital site and for PVCC. Staff recommends followino the same
approach for includino the Southern Urban Area B into the Comprehensive Plan. There
will be several additional statements/ recommendations that will need to be added to
specify County expectations regarding Area B Study implementation.
Discussion:
While the Study is lengthy, much of the information provided in the Study document is
supporting technical information. The recommendations of the Study can be found in
Section III. Development Scenarios, and are summarized on pages 13 and 14.
Commissioners may want to focus their review on this section of the Study. The
"Framework Plan" can be found on page 15. Several recommendations are made for
areas that are outside of the PACC's Area B Study boundary, but were studied and
proposed by the consultant at the direction of the County and PACC.
Staff worked closely with the Study consultant and PACC in the development of the Area
B Study and supports most of the r,ecommendations of the Study. The Area B Study
recommendations would add to and/or modify ,some of the recommendations now in the
Land Use Plan for this area. The recommendations cover areas in both the City and
County. Recommendations related the County include:
. Numbers 2-9 under Land Use and Urban Design Characteristics (p.13);
. Numbers 1,2 and 4-6 under Infrastructure and Transit Possibilities (pp. 13-14);
. All items listed under Open Space, Historic Preservation, and Planning (p.14).
Staff has provided summary comments on the major recommendations:
Land Use and Urban Design Characteristics
#2. "New neighborhood on the Granger property"-- The Area B Study recommends a
combination of "Mixed-Use," "High Density Residential" (16-24 du/ac), and "Park/Open
Space" uses, The Southern Urban Area B Study does not provide a specific definition of
2
g D S C)b
.
the "Mixed-Use" designation shown on the land use plan, and does not provide any
information on the specific elements of the mix. The Study does state the following:
To accomplish the goal of an integrated and better functioning community...[S]ome
of the possible approaches presented in this report include:
· A new neiqhborhood center on the Granqer property. with small scale
mixed-use, transit stops and connection to a new park and open space
system of Moore's Creek and beyond.
The Study also indicates that the Granger site one of "at least two settings where
compact, interconnected 'neighborhoods' could emerge... Housing numbers in this area
alone could be significant (500-750 for the Granger property alone..." (p. 34, Housing
Issues).
The small scale service area is a very important component in this area because of the
extensive residential development already developed and approved in this area and the
lack of service to support this population. This recommendation will be discussed further
with the review of the Granger CPA later in this report.
.
#3 - "Old Lynchburg Road Rd. and Fifth Street neighborhood center"-- This
recommendation is generally consistent with the current land use designations in the
County Land Use Plan. Staff does not feel any additional comments or qualifying
statements are necessary to address this recommendation. The Study does show this
area as a possible school site. Staff believes this area provides a reasonable option for
a school location.
#4 - "Trinity Presbyterian Church neighborhood center" -- This area is currently
shown for Neighborhood Density Residential and Urban Density Residential. While the
Area B Study shows some areas at 16-24 dulac, the traffic study modeled the area for a
gross density more in keeping with the current Comprehensive Plan land use
designations (mostly Neighborhood Density Residential, some Urban Density
Residential). Staff recommends that the mixed use concepts be considered a possible
land use option, but at the gross densities shown in the County Land Use map in order
to limit the traffic impact to Fontaine Ave. from this development. The non-residential
uses should be very limited in scale (neighborhood scale and orientation).
#5 - "Additionallnfill Development possibilities at Fontaine Research Park with
limited mixed uses (service & retail, not residential)"-- The research park is a very
good location (close to downtown, UVa., hospital, Bypass) to continue providing this
type of land use. It is currently limited to 535,000 sq ft. total on site. The site is currently
built out. A rezoning request is under review that would add an additional 30,000 square
feet additional laboratory and research space.
.
Additional support commercial on-:~ite is important to serve the park and the immediate
area. The primary concern with expansion will be the impact on the existing and
proposed street system. Any expansion to the Park should be limited to that which can
be sustained on this street system with planned improvements, and the timing of the
expansion should be consistent with improvements to the road network and
transportation system.
3
eoS 5)
#6 - "Possibility of attached residential with mixed-use at Department of Forestry"
-- This may be considered a viable optional use for this site at some point in the future.
However, the Department of Forestry use is unlikely to change within the next 5-10
years.
#7- "Single-family detached residential south of railroad tracks across from
Granger property."-- This statement acknowledges the existing Redfields development.
There are no recommendations for changes in this area proposed in the Study.
#8 - Residential and mixed-use opportunities and 1-64 interchange" - This
recommendation generally refers to the same area discussed in #3, above. Staff has no
additional comments.
Recommendation #9 - "Possible location of new County elementary school in this
neighborhood center" - Staff believes this area does provide a reasonable option for a
school location, but it should not be considered the only possible site in the area or the
preferred site at this time.
Infrastructure and Transit Possibilities
#1 - "Add Fontaine/Sunset Connector Street and/or re-open Sunset Avenue
Bridge" - This is a key recommendation of the Study. This road will provide a critical
alternative link from the County's southern urban areas to the University and the City,
relieving traffic impacts on Old Lynchburg, Jefferson Park Avenue (JPA), and Cherry
Avenue. The Study establishes a preferred alignment, Alternate 4 (Refer to pages 16-24
for further information). The Fontaine-Sunset Connector Road is assumed to be a two-
lane road (35 mph) in this study.
#2 - "Extend Stadium Road from Fontaine Ave, connecting with...new
Fontaine/Sunset Avenue" - Due,to the limited improvement planned for Fontaine
Avenue (and limited capability to further widen), the Stadium Road extension will
become an essential improvement to support future development in this area. Traffic
modeling indicates that Fontaine Avenue already functions at Level of Service E and
would function at a Level of Service of F under either current by-right development,
current Comp Plan recommended densities, or Area B Study recommended densities.
Stadium Road will be essential to distribute traffic to destinations in the area and to
create a viable road network.
#4 - "Add new connector road north of 1-64 between Fifth Street and Avon in
conjunction with private sector development..." - This is the connector located on
the Willoughby-Fifth site. This recommendation is already in the Land Use Plan.
#5 - "Build the projected Southern Parkway (with revised location linked to
Sunset Avenue Extended" -- The southern parkway is already identified on the Land
Use Plan. The alternate location provides for a more neighborhood scale road network
in the southern area. This alignment concept should be noted as a viable option for
development.
#6 - "Add new EastlWest connector south of 1-64 between Sunset Avenue and Old
Lynchburg Road" - Staff believes this road would be very expensive to construct, is
located on difficult terrain, and would be of limited utility, This road should not be
included the Land Use Plan amendment.
4
Br..S' tiZ
.
.
.
Open Space, Historic Preservation, and Planning
#1-7 - All of these recommendations are viable and most are already incorporated into
the Land Use Plan to some extent (specifically, #'s 1, 2, 5, and 6 are shown as either
open space or greenways in Land Use Plan).
The Study also makes bicycle/ pedestrian facility and transit recommendations, which
can be found on page 33 of the Study.
Summary:
As noted previously, staff worked closely with the Study consultant and PACC in the
development of the Area B Study and supports most of the recommendations of the
Study. Staff recommends moving forward with development of text and map
amendments to incorporate the recommendations of the Southern Area B Study into the
Comprehensive Plan.
Granger Tract CPA
Backaround:
A Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposal has been submitted to County by the
owner of the "Granger" tract to change the land use designation of this area from
"Neighborhood Density Residential" (3-6 du/ac) to "Office Service" use. The applicant's
proposal can be found in a separate booklet provided with this report. The 69.5 acre
property is located south of the Norfolk Southern railroad track and is bounded by 1-64 to
the west, Sunset Avenue to the South, and Stribling Avenue and Moore's Creek to the
east. The property is located within the boundary of the Southern Urban Area B Study
area. The County's Land Use Plan currently recommends this area for "Neighborhood
Density Residential" (3-6 du/ac) use. The Southern Urban Area B Study recommends a
combination of "Mixed-Use" and "High Density Residential" (16-24 du/ac) uses.
The applicant's proposal follows many of the concepts outlined in the Area B Study
(including provision of the Fontaine/Sunset Avenue connector road on site). However,
the mix of uses proposed by the owner places more emphasis on office/employment
uses (research, development, heaith care "employment generators") and less emphasis
on residential uses than is found in the Area B Study recommendations. The applicant
proposes the majority of the development on the site be for office type uses and some
supporting commercial uses, with high density residential making up a much less
significant proportion of the total development on the site. To date, there is no
commitment to provide a minimum amount of residential use on-site. For traffic study
purposes, a total of 540,000 square feet of office, 20,000 square feet of supporting
commercial, and 440 units of residential are proposed. An illustrative plan for the site
can be found on pages 7 of the applicant's booklet. Page 8 is a land use summary of
the proposal.
As noted earlier, the Southern Urban Area study does not provide a specific definition of
the "Mixed-Use" designation shown on the Framework Plan, and does not provide any
information on the specific elements of the mix for the area in question (the Granger
property). The following comments from the Area B Study provide direction and
guidance as to the expectations for this area:
5
~b S c;j
. "Several key elements are presented in the Area B Framework Plan that suggest
compelling alternatives to by-right development under current zoning and the
associated absence of coordinated transportation strategies. Alternatives to the
status quo in the area introduce:
-Compact mixed-use development that supports integrated strategies for
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit approaches tied to land-use and open space
strategies. This approach builds on the recent innovative planning work in
the County, City, and University Master Plans.
-Retail/commercial services to support residential development in and around
the area, helping to reduce trip generation beyond the study area."
. "Some of the possible approaches presented in this report include:
A new neighborhood center on the Granger property, with small scale mixed-
use, transit stops and connection to a new park and open space system of
Moore's Creek and beyond,"
Discussion:
Since the applicant's proposal is not entirely consistent with the mix of land uses
identified in the Southern Area B study, Staff has evaluated the appropriateness of this
land use change relative to the land use recommendation of Neighborhood Density
residential currently in the Comprehensive Plan and the High Density Residential/Mixed-
Use recommendation in the Area B Study. Staff comments are summarized below:
PACC Input -- Staff has consulted with the PACC Technical Committee about this
proposal on several occasions. One of the primary concerns of PACC representatives is
ensuring that the traffic impacts of the proposal do not overload the existing and planned
road system, particularly Fontaine Avenue, Sunset Avenue, Old Lynchburg Road and
the proposed Fontaine-Sunset Connector Road, It was also important to PACC that
mixed-use, support commercial service component be provided on-site, regardless of
the predominate use. The commercial service component was an important
recommendation of the Area B Study and was intended to provide supporting
commercial services to a densely developed residential area currently lacking those
services.
Concern was also expressed regarding the character and visibility of the development
on the site, as well as potential water quality impacts to Moore's Creek. All of these
concerns were important to the site regardless of whether the primary use was
residential or commercial. To date, PACC has not indicated a strong preference for one
use over another, provided the above-noted concerns were addressed.
Inventory of Officellndustrial Land in Land Use Plan - Countywide, there appears to
be adequate area designated to support employment-based office/industrial land uses in
the County. However, there is concern with the consistent erosion of this land area and
the "exclusiveness" of several sites currently developed for office/industrial use.
Industrial Service and Office Service land designated in the Land Use Plan is located
primarily in the Route 29 North area, specifically in Hollymead (North Fork Research
Park), Piney Mountain, and in Pantops (Peter Jefferson Place).
6
p6S lilf
.
There are very limited industrial-office service designated lands remaining in the
southern Urban Areas. Most areas designated in the Land Use Plan for Neighborhoods
4 and 5 area developed. The Willoughby-Fifth Street property was converted to
Community Service use in the Land Use Plan several years ago, and only a limited area
of that site (7.8 acres) is proposed for basic employment-type use. The only other office-
industrial undeveloped land use areas available in Neighborhoods 4, 5 and 6 are small
sites along Avon Street near the City Yard and Snow's Garden Center and the UVAF
Fontaine Research Park. The Fontaine Research Park is approaching build-out and
potential expansion on the site is identified in the Area B Study.
Need for Residential Land Use - Abundant land remains available for residential use
in Neighborhoods 4 and 5. Significant high-density residential developments have been
approved and developed in the immediate vicinity of the Granger tract along Sunset
Avenue and Old Lynchburg Road (Eagles Landing, Jefferson Ridge, Sterling University
Place, and Sherwood Manor). Staff opinion is that sufficient areas exist within
Neighborhoods 4 and 5 to provide higher density residential development. High-density
residential land use is not critical to this site.
.
Traffic Impacts of the Proposal - One of the key issues for PACC and staff in
considering the Granger CPA is its traffic impact on the road network compared to the
traffic impacts from the Area B Study land use assumptions and recommendations. The
applicant has subsequently completed a traffic analysis, which compared the traffic
impact of the two land use proposals for the Granger site (the Area B Study mixed use-
residential proposal and the Granger CPA's mixed use-office/employment proposal).
City, County, and VDOT staffs have reviewed the study. Staff also had the Renaissance
Group, the lead consultant for the Area B Study, evaluate the applicant's study against
the Area B Study traffic forecast information.
The most significant findings are:
· The Granger CPA (mixed use office/employment concept) generates between
3,800 and 5,300 additional daily trips more than the Area B Study recommended
Mixed Use, High Density Residential concept, possibly exceeding the capacity of
the proposed Fontaine-Sunset Connector and definitely exceeding the capacity
of Fontaine Avenue. It should be noted that the traffic generation assumptions
used for the Granger property in the Southern Urban Area B Study appear to be
lower than would typically be expected for a combination of "Mixed-Use" and
"High Density Residential" (16-24 du/ac) uses. The Area B analysis considered a
gross development of 10-12 units per acre as opposed to the 16-24 proposed in
the land use description. Therefore the modeling done for the Area B study may
have under estimated the traffic generated from this site.
.
· Fontaine Avenue/JPA will be subject to significant traffic increases over the 20
year planning period regardless of the ultimate land use proposed on the
Granger property. The Granger CPA mixed use-office/employment proposal,
depending on the density of development, creates the most significant impact on
Fontaine Avenue. However, an analysis of by-right development in the Area B
Study Area indicates that Fontaine will function at LOS E. When the current
Comprehensive Plan (CHART) land and proposed Area B land use
recommendations are modeled, both scenarios result in LOS F.
7
{3;65 'i~
. The Fontaine-Sunset connector road is an important future road needed to
address City and County traffic issues. The applicant for the Granger CPA is
willing to build portions of the road. Further modifications to the scale and mix of
activities proposed on-site could further mitigate the traffic impacts of the
proposal on the area road network, The traffic analysis assumed 520,000 sq. ft.
of office, 20,000 sq. ft. of support commercial, and 440 dwellings.
Consistency of Request to Area B Recommendations - The applicant's proposal
follows some of the concepts outlined in the Area B Study (including provision of the
Sunset Avenue/Fontaine Avenue connector road onsite and some mix of uses on the
site). However, the mix of uses proposed by the owner places more emphasis on
office/employment uses (research, development, health care "employment generators")
and less emphasis on residential uses than is found in the Area B Study
recommendations. The applicant proposes the majority of the development to be office
type uses and some supporting commercial uses, with high density residential making
up a much less significant proportion of the total development/site.
. Staff opinion is that the mixed use components of the Area B Study
recommendations are critical to this area to provide necessary convenience
services not now available and to provide these services within a
walkable/bikeable distance of a large population concentration, potentially
reducing traffic generation.
. The proposed Sunset Avenue-Fontaine Avenue connector is being
accommodated on-site. The concept as shown generally provides an alignment
oriented towards the eastern side of the Fontaine Research Park. Provision of
the road will be an expectation for any rezoning request in this portion of the
study area,
. The provision of pedestrian, bike facilities, and transit service and/or transit ready
site design will be an expectation of any development in this area. The applicant
has recognized the need for the proposal to incorporate these facilities.
. Open space, greenway and park area recommended in the Comprehensive Plan
and the Area B Study will need to be provided. The concept Plan provided with
the CPA generally recognizes these areas.
Site Development Issues - Other concerns that have been expressed include the visual
character of the proposed development (its visibility from the 1-64 Entrance Corridor) and
the environmental impacts of the proposal, particularly to the adjacent Moore's Creek
and tributaries.
. The site has difficult terrain, with rolling hills and valleys. Two stream valleys with
floodplain traverse the site. Any intensive development of the site, whether
residential or non-residential, will require significant grading. Construction of the
connector road through this area will create similar impacts.
. 1-64 is an Entrance Corridor and the site will be subject to design review. Again,
significant clearing and grading of the site would be expected, given the
recommended density of development, regardless of primary land use. Building
8
eD5 ~~,
.
heights, massing, and clustering on site will be important considerations in
mitigating the visual impacts to the Entrance Corridor.
.
Water quality impacts will be an important consideration for any future
development. Measures should be put in place to not only minimize stream
impacts, but also to help improve the current condition of Moore's Creek.
Summary:
Staff opinion is that either an Office Service/Mixed-Use land use designation or High
Density Residential/Mixed-Use land use designation is an appropriate designation for
the Granger property. Staff believes that the Office Service/Mixed-Use designation
provides a better balance of land uses in the southern Development Areas, which are
currently lacking developable areas for new office/industrial development.
The critical issues for future reviews of any development on this site will be density,
scale and form of development. The level of development permitted on-site will need to
be limited to that which can be accommodated on the planned road network, and timed
with the development of the planned improvements to the road network. Intensity of
development on-site (massing, scale, form, orientation, and green design) will be
important to address neighborhood model design, environmental, and Entrance Corridor
issues.
.
NEXT STEPS: SOUTHERN URBAN AREA B AND GRANGER CPA REVIEWS
Staff recommends the following:
· Based on the input from the Commission, staff will develop text and map
amendments to incorporate the recommendations of the Southern Area B Study
into the Comprehensive Plan, including language addressing the land use
recommendations for the Granger property. Staff recommends language be
drafted recommending an Office Service/Mixed-use land use designation for the
Granger property, with additional language reflecting expectations for future
development of the site. A first draft of several of the text amendments have
been provided (Attachment 5) so the Commission can see the form these text
amendments might take.
· Schedule a follow-up work session to review amendment language and map
amendments (and any additional information requested by the Commission) and
invite the City Planning Commission to this work session to receive input from the
City.
.
ATTACHMENTS
1 - Granger Property Location Map [not included-see applicant's proposal
document]
2 - Area B Study, Built Environment [not included-see p. 8 of Southern Area B
Study document]
3 - Area B Study, City/County Comprehensive Plan Map [not included, see p, 10 of
Area B Study document]
4 - Area B Study, Framework Plan
5 - Draft Text Amendment to Land Use Plan [not included]
9
VD S 51
10
IJoS r;2
r
J r
.. "(\(
. \ i '. . J.
.. ':') \ .
, \ ~
'.r" f ./~ l
1:....-\
t.... . ~
~ ~...
r\~-.....I'~ ~.
, l l '"
~- 'j
': 'j"-
~! .....'...'iP
i , ' i.' '. ~
; . i/ ." ..,~.. .
, i ,
,'" l " . ;~"--' " /,.~;-::...
I . / .' '#'!"'-... \. //' '. './ >""
.. I~':' "\ ... ,\; .,..~f'"
'I (;, '. "..\ , ' ". .,.~.",....-:.:"".,. .'
f, /""1-<,,:~:)< '.:->.,'. ~>~;;:f' , )
i\' ,r J, .... .'.(.. ", .# "-
: .. \,f . -', t ~~) ~."1~\ . 1 .'J..;rr..
~ ~~. -- . \;)~~-"':'~l .~. . "" "er~
,.' "\:0. ". /.C-' .,,~"""', '., ';;,. ,.....
~ . , """\:. .: .~... 't /' ... .F '.... "
\ . ~\ ,,,,",' " " ,r...~, , \ \ "'. "
'\, ''''\~ ','\, ........,", ' '_W~-"~-:, :''- \
\"'.. <~\" : "~
\, ; ~, ~; -: :... '--. ',-- . (
, ",' \ ' .
,. " ~'.', ..~
~(~. '.- >, ; ,.~~' '(..~: :" ( \, i
:1 j. \ ~ '. I , \
i l .. ..>-'~\ \ 'il'-. . .' I \ "
r.... ...." \~,. \ . . J
!~ 't..~" .~. -\,..~," , .. ~ ~ ~,~, ":~' I '. .\
<s-
10
ca
~
Lrl
"'"-
v-
a
a
N
c:i
~
Qj
.0
E
'"
Ci
<ll
en
;rj' "-
. .
, ,
. .. ..
..q
I-
Z
w
:2:
J:
()
e:(
l-
I-
e:(
......
',~~
,~ (.
~.)'.
~ r,l
S
l1J_
;>.:=
Qj:I:
1Il
.c
o
,I,
.
(
F. "n =--:--
: "..i"\.,\
i"#
i.
. 1> .: ,.Y::'
~.'~ (
.....
\
""-. \
',.
i
\ ' "
"-.,
.\ '
;/
,/
,,:
/
'1',
\
..
(/'
\ :
-J>
.4
....
--7"
-,,~~ ,
,/ .
, .
/
L
I
..
\
..
."'\'.
\,
(.It '.
n'.
It;
;...
~
~
E-<
'Z
l::
--f.
""
i::::
..., --f.
'"
~
;;..
l=
-r.
?:
l'::
t.<;,
bi
-'I
""I
J
!
~
"
~
~
~
o
~
~ d S
~ < 0 ~
I B i
I !
<
<
~ $ .
I Q ~
o ~ ~
~ ill!:~
)2 "" t<
Hd
Dill
I"" /~.
j ,.
./ ,"
\
,'~,~,> \j
i.
"
\.
'')
,
.I
iF
I
'..
\
..j
~
i '
~
~
~
I::
, E-<
;;;;
o
:r.
~i
&:J
~ t !
~J_~
~ 19.
~!~ '
<: :
;i i ~c
~I..-.
I - ! ~
Hd
i i ~ ~
~ n ~ ~
diHH
nn~n
IIUoll1
~ .
~ ~ ~ 9
~ n i ~
dLd
- y ~L1D
\
, .,
\.
... ". \, ',..."
\ i.\ \ \
\ \ \ \.'\ ';
i '. \ ','
.\.
/
"
'-
,
:: ,
c
ctj
CL
~
I..-
o
S
(1)
E
ctj
'-
LL
lC)
I
"'"-
en
~
'fa
E
.$
<(
..
;-.
..
..
~
'lID'
lilD"
..
1E.f'
...
-
-
-
-
-
_.
-
-
..-
Albemarle County Planning Commission
November 28,2006
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on
Tuesday, November 28, 2006, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Second
Floor, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members
attending were Eric Strucko, Jon Cannon, Duane Zobrist, Pete Craddock, Marcia
Joseph, Chairman and Bill Edgerton. Absent was Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman. Julia
Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia, representative for
David J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; David Benish, Chief of
Planning; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Rebecca
Ragsdale, Senior Planner; David E. Pennock, Principal Planner and Greg Kamptner,
Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Ms. Joseph called the regular meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. and established a quorum.
Work Session:
CPA 2005-05 Southern Area Band Granaer Property (David Benish)
CPA 2005-05 Southern Area B Study - Review amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan to include the recommendations of the Planning and Coordination Council's
(PACC) Southern Urban Area B Study.
Granaer Property - Proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use
designation from Neighborhood Density Residential (3-6 dwellings per acre) to Office
Service use for a 69.5 acre property located south of the Norfolk Southern railroad track
and is bounded by 1-64 to the west, Sunset Avenue to the South, and Stribling Avenue
and Moore's Creek to the east. The property is located within the boundary of the
Southern Urban Area B Study area.
In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on two proposed
comprehensive plan amendments that staff has been working on. One is staff initiated,
which is the process of adopting the recommendations of the Southern Urban Area B
Study, a Planning and Coordination Council's (PACC) study into the County's
Comprehensive Plan. The second is an applicant request for an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation, which is referred to as the
Granger property. That tract of land is approximately 69 acres of land, which is located
off of Stribling Avenue. It is designated for Neighborhood Density Residential in the
current County Comprehensive Plan. In the proposed PACC Area B Study is
recommended for high density residential and mixed use development. The applicant is
proposing an office/service designation in order to allow for a mixed use development
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 28, 2006
PARTIAL MINUTES FOR SOUTHER URBAN AREA B AND GRANGER PROPERTY
consisting of primarily basic employment related office development with mixed
commercial and possibly residential development.
Because the Granger property lies in the PACC Study, staff has been working on these
two projects together and really has taken the approach as you look at the amendments
to include the Southern Urban Area B Study take into consideration the request the
applicant has made to modify the land use designation on that Granger tract so that
really they could think of this as one comprehensive plan amendment. But, there is a
private request, which is a unique request that is part of it.
Staff reviewed the recommendations of the study in the staff report and answered the
Commission questions. Frank Cox, applicant, made a power point presentation and
explained the Granger request. The Commission took public comment. The
Commission provided comments and changes reflecting an office mixed use land use
on the Granger site and the changes identified in the staff report.
Staff will bring back revised language and maps to incorporate in to the Comprehensive
Plan to the Commission for future work sessions. Staff will also work on having a
dialogue with Jim Tolbert on how to get City comment.
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 10:11 p.m. to the Tuesday, December
5, 2006 meeting at 6:00 p.m. in the auditorium at 401 Mcintire Road, County Office
Building.
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 28, 2006
PARTIAL MINUTES FOR SOUTHER URBAN AREA B AND GRANGER PROPERTY
2
Albemarle County Planning Commission
January 9, 2007
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, January 9,
2007, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road,
Charlottesville. Virginia. Members attending were Bill Edgerton, Eric Strucko, Jon Cannon, Calvin Morris,
Duane Zobrist, Pete Craddock and Marcia Joseph. Julia Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner for the
University of Virginia, representative for David J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia was
absent.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; Tamara Ambler, Natural Resources
Manager; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Lori Allshouse, Strategic Planning Manager and Greg
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Cilimberg called the regular meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. and established a quorum.
Work Session:
Southern Urban Area B Study CPA and Granaer ProDertv CPA - Work session to review proposed
text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan incorporating the recommendations of the PACC Southern
Urban Area B. (David Benish)
David Benish gave an overview and a power point presentation on the Southern Urban Area B Study
CPA and Granger Property CPA.
· Staff added to the previous reports based on their discussion of both the Southern Urban
Area B Study and the Granger CPA proposal. Staff had received direction on November
28, 2006 on the various recommendations of the study and the Granger site. Staff has
now begun to draft some language that would be text amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan that would try to reflect those comments and recommendations of
the Area B Study. This is the first step for the Planning.
· The Area B Study is a study that is conducted by the Planning Coordination Council,
which consists of City, County and University representatives. They drafted a plan for the
study area, the Fontaine Avenue/ Sunset Avenue area, which was depicted in the map.
Within the center of that area is the property known as the Granger tract, which is an
approximately 70 acre piece of land that in our current Comp Plan recommended for
Neighborhood Density Development. The Area B Study had identified a Mixed
Use/Residential High Density Residential Land Use for that area. The applicant is
proposing an Office/Service oriented mixed use development on that site. They are
actually looking at two CPA's at one time, amending the PACC recommendations and
considering the Granger Proposal at the same time.
· The recommendations of the Area B Study, which begins on page 2, were reviewed. As
background, primarily the Area B Study focused in on transportation improvements to
support the development of this area in both the City and County. It did make some land
use recommendations fairly general and broad Comp Plan level type of
recommendations. Those were found in Section 3 of the report, which was summarized
on pages 13 and 14. Staff went through the specific statements or recommendations that
are relevant to the County's portion of the study area and have added to the report in
blue print the first attempt at Comprehensive Plan language to address those Area B
recommendations.
· The first recommendation deals with the Granger Property, which is a new neighborhood.
The Area B Study had called for it to be primarily high density residential mixed use
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 9, 2007 1
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - Southern Urban Area B Study CPA and Granger Property CPA
development with a center. The center was an important small scale neighborhood
center, which was an important component of the Area B Study recommendation to
provide for essential services that were lacking in that portion of the County.
· What staff has identified is that the primary concern with both the Area B Study
recommendation and the Granger Proposal was the impact of traffic of any development
at this site. The language proposed is based on the discussion last time with the
Planning Commission. Staff felt that it was the general consensus that a non-residential
mixed use development may be appropriate, but it had to be focused in a size and
development intensity and form that could be sustained both by the land and primarily the
transportation system that is being proposed. The language proposed recognized that an
Office Service-Mixed Land Use is recommended for the Granger Tract. It did identify that
a Mixed Use Center needs to be provided as part of that. Staff tried to set some staging
within the language that said that the size of development had to match the planned
transportation network for the area and that the timing for development had to be
consistent with the actual development and improvements of that transportation system.
There was some discussion about the general principle of trying to encourage green
development within major development proposals. Staff added a simple sentence that
made that reference.
Ms. Joseph questioned if they should work with the applicant to see if there is some sort of percentage of
mixed use. She did not want to put them in a box in requiring X amount of square feet. But, it was
important to try to identify a certain percentage range so they don't get some little commercial thing out
there when they were anticipating something more than that. Last time the Commission discussed this
they said that it was okay to have office use, but that it does not have to be residential. She questioned if
they want a mixed use or does it matter.
Mr. Edgerton recalled that the Commission's conversation on the 28th was very clear that it did matter and
they wanted mixed use.
Ms. Joseph asked if they should give some guidance as far as that is concerned. As a reaction to
something that happened in the City where the applicant came in with such a small percentage of the
use, the Commission members were very concerned about it and denied the request as a result of that.
Mr. Edgerton worried about in the abstract trying to come up with a percentage that is appropriate without
actually seeing a project. There was a lot of discussion about the need for additional mixed use in the
community and they would be supportive of some of the other properties in the area.
Mr. Cannon asked if there was a way to flag the concern without coming up with quantitative ranges, such
as mixed use and appropriate balance to give some room for judgment by a future Commission to
respond to the merits of a particular proposal.
Mr. Benish said that there isn't an amount. There is a lack of specific direction in this statement. In the
second bullet, a new center is anticipated as a component of mixed use, which is small scale. That was
one of the governing qualitative statements with transit stops and connections in the centers. That is
actually a quote out of the plan itself. But, being small scale was some indication that it was something
less than a community center. The first hyphen down below the bullet was supporting commercial service
of a neighborhood scale. Neighborhood scale actually refers to our Neighborhood Service Designation in
the Comp Plan. He was trying to tie it back to that designation. It is intended to be somewhat similar to
what is seen in supporting commercial uses and non-residential development. By zoning that is about 10
percent of the Planned Development, as an example. He believed it is 20,000 to 50,000 square feet in
Neighborhood Center with no use exceeding 10,000 square feet. He was hoping that language would
refer them back to that section of the plan. It went on to say to provide the necessary convenient services
because staff does not see the center as necessarily being oriented to providing a major grocery
store/shopping center. This is more service oriented. Perhaps a stronger reference to that Neighborhood
Service Designation will take them to a chart that has some ranges in it. That might help.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 9, 2007 2
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - Southern Urban Area B Study CPA and Granger Property CPA
Mr. Morris noted that he liked the emphasis that any rezoning is going to be tied to the actual
improvements of the road and infrastructure.
Mr. Benish noted that one of the main points of the Area B Study is that there was a particular location for
that road that was agreed to. That is why the second hyphen specifically references that Alternative IV.
Staff has not drafted an actually land use map, but he pointed out the digitized maps of the area. Staff
would hope to have a schematic line that would show that location. The idea is that they look at the
master plan and look at that alignment that shows enough detail to know where the major points are.
Ms. Monteith said that staff talks about an Office Service Mixed Use land use and then talks about a new
Neighborhood Center. But, it seems a little funny that staff speaks of office and then says mixed use, but
never suggests anything about residential. In other words, she could imagine generically saying mixed
use and not including the term office, or if they are going to use the term office to also include some
wording regarding residential. The way it reads, it is not clear that there would be residential. Maybe it is
intentional on his part other than the fact that he says total square footage and number of units of
development. One could imply that units of development mean that it would be residential. She felt that it
was a little confusing to use the term office and not to include residential.
Mr. Benish suggested that it should be a little clearer. The consensus that came out of the November 28
meeting was that residential would not be necessary as part of the mix, but that it would be allowed. The
only reference made to residential is in that first hyphen in the last sentence. Residential use may be a
component of the mix. He agreed that it was not clear whether residential was necessarily not expected.
Mr. Zobrist recalled that there were 3 or 4 alternatives that they discussed last time. He did not remember
this one being any of them. He asked if the long red line was where staff expected the access to go.
Mr. Benish said that this was just a schematic to show how they would draw the plan.
Mr. Zobrist recalled that there were 3 or 4 alternative accesses or egresses out of the site. He felt that
everyone was in favor of two of the alternatives, but not the one drawn on the plan. He pointed out that
Mr. Strucko might be more familiar with the access because he works in Fontaine.
Mr. Benish pointed out that staff took those comments. This alignment shown is Alternative IV, which
PACA agreed was the preferred alignment. What staff thought that they were hearing in terms of the
other alignments was really an issue about the lack of access into this site. This is the preferred
alternative, which is near Stribling.
Mr. Strucko said that road is not part of the Fontaine Research Park currently. He asked if that was
correct. It is immediately adjacent to the parking lot.
Mr. Benish said that the way it was shown in the Area B Study is that it was the road on the outside of the
buildings.
Mr. Strucko asked if it was between the parking lot and the building.
Mr. Benish replied that is correct the way that he understands it. The important component of this
alignment is that intersection/railroad crossing and the fact that it connects to Sunset Avenue. Whether
that line suddenly moves differently relatively speaking in the Comp Plan to accommodate that is
something that they would look at in a rezoning.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that Mr. Strucko mentioned this in particular that for the road that goes through
that the Commission wanted to make sure that there were internal connections for the park existing as
well as any future park development to that road going through.
Mr. Strucko agreed. If the use of the Granger property is going to be an office park of this magnitude and
this intensity as Fontaine Research Park currently is his antidotal experience is that they are going to
need to create multiple accesses in and out of Fontaine. Currently there is only one access point, which
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 9,2007 3
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - Southern Urban Area B Study CPA and Granger Property CPA
dumps onto Fontaine Avenue. However, if they can access Fontaine Research Park with the railroad
crossing road and create two access points, it has the potential to alleviate what could become quite a
traffic congested area on Fontaine Avenue with two research parks dumping onto that road. That line as
shown was cutting through a parking lot right now. That is a parking lot road. However, along the stream
is an existing gravel road that he thought potentially would be the access from Granger to Fontaine. Then
Fontaine could connect to that road through this dotted line and there would be a single railroad crossing.
He remembered discussing the cost effectiveness of the single railroad crossing versus multiple. That
was probably the two options that they talked about.
Mr. Benish said that the consultant in their study identified an alignment that kind of skirts it. They
provided the information on a Comprehensive Plan type of scale, although they have been looking at it
and engineering it recognizing the next hopeful step of the process. They have actually shown something
different. Staff wanted to reflect what PACC has agreed to as what is in that document as the
recommended Alternative IV. This is the reason that they wanted them to refer to the document and this
specific aerial information, which he did not have in his presentation. But, it does articulate what the
expectations are for that Alternative IV. When staff gets to the recommendations for the Fontaine
Research Park, they made a specific statement that said that additional access points should be provided
to the Fontaine Research Park. The status of Stribling is something that they are going to have to look at
with the City as the plan for this roadway emerges and how it interconnects. This Area B Study is not
clear on what that ultimate status is going to be. He asked for other comments.
Mr. Edgerton agreed with Mr. Morris in how staff worked into each of these comments the needed linkage
between the ability of the transportation system to be able to support whatever rezonings came in. He
questioned what effect this would have on rezonings if this strong language is in the Comp Plan
ultimately.
Mr. Benish noted that he still has to vet this language with Mr. Kamptner. It is somewhat consistent with
some very old recommendations from years ago that they used for the Comp Plan. He wanted to make
sure that he was on the right track, but noted that the County Attorney's Office still needs to review the
language.
Mr. Edgerton noted that there was a lot of discussion about the topographic restrictions in that area for
putting in the roads.
Ms. Joseph asked if the applicant wanted to speak on the Granger property at this time.
Frank Cox, representative for New Era Properties, pointed out that he was generally in disagreement with
just about everything. Regarding the transportation issue, there seems to be a little bit of confusion
relative to what they tried to communicate on the road planning. The point of departure for the work that
his firm has been doing for the Granger interests has been very loosely coordinated with the Real Estate
Foundation. He believes that the Foundation, though he is not speaking for them, has weighed in on the
concern for any road running smack dab through their property, whether it is option 1, 2, 3 or 4. In option
4, as shown on the Area B Plan, it does run along the parking lot access road. They have studied that
alignment. That alignment will not work for an interconnection road. There are too many problems of
many different natures. They have presented an alignment in a preliminary design that they have actually
tested and done a cost estimate in the little booklet presented with their CPA application. Their alignment
basically went along the existing Stribling Extended or the gravel road. To the extent that they believe
that is feasible they believe they can achieve coordinated tie-ins to the Foundation property as Mr.
Strucko has suggested. He felt that was possible. He thought that one thing that might be helpful just
speaking globally on the whole Area B Study is to challenge those particular applicants, the Foundation
and Granger, to do sufficient coordination to achieve an alignment that is to their mutual satisfaction.
That will take a lot of work and will take a lot more engineering to be done before either Granger or the
Foundation can reach that conclusion. But, he certainly thinks it would be an appropriate challenge by the
Commission to include in a CPA, given the fact that if any additional development is to proceed on the
Foundation property as he understands from staff, it will require a rezoning. Certainly there is no way that
they can get across the railroad tracks unless they undertake a major transportation improvement from
Fontaine to the Granger property. To the point of the mixed use question, their CPA application did not
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 9,2007 4
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - Southern Urban Area B Study CPA and Granger Property CPA
mix residential. It was fairly clear in the range of potential densities that could be achieved for residential
and for non-residential development. They have no problems with the Commission setting a general
guideline, if they feel that is appropriate. There is nothing in the CPA application that they have
independently filed that indicated that they don't want to do residential. What they would like to have is
the option as they move forward with the zoning to test the market further given that significant
transportation improvements are going to need to be made. Also, given the fact that there is very limited
development area on the property, it is going to have to be a tall project rather than a spread out project.
So whether the buildings are being used for retail, office or commercial it will have a similar look. They
have tried to represent what that look will be in the illustrative plan that was included in the CPA.
Ms. Joseph invited public comments on the Granger Property.
Jean Chase, resident of Old Lynchburg Road, said that the Granger property development will impact her
residential street and neighborhood of Fry's Spring. She asked that before there are any changes given
in the rezoning or zoning of the Granger property to please include plans for the connector plans
designed to relieve the already intense traffic that comes from the County development south of Azalea
Park. The plans of the road needs to adequately funded and built before the new developments at
Granger are built. They need to be willing to work with the neighborhoods. They have lived in this area
for over 30 years. They would like to have the quality of life that they have adopted in this area to be
sustained, and ask the Commission to take that into consideration when casting their vote. On behalf of
the Fry Springs Neighborhood Association, of which she is also Secretary, she thanked the Commission
for their time and sensitivity in these areas of voting. Also, a letter has been submitted on behalf of
Andrea Wieder who could not attend the meeting. (The letter is as follows.)
"Jan. 9, 2007
To: Albemarle County Planning Commission
From: Andrea K. Wieder
Re: Granger Property development re-zoning request
and the Southern Urban Area B Study
My name is Andrea K. Wieder. I live at 2331 Highland Avenue in the city of Charlottesville.
My neighborhood of Fry's Spring is close by the University of Virginia, and right on the border of
Albemarle County. Development of the Granger property and Biscuit Run will have a huge impact for us.
Tonight's Albemarle County planning commission meeting will, as part of a work session, discuss
the Granger property application for re-zoning and the Southern Urban Area B Study.
The Biscuit Run development is on the agenda tonight for the City of Charlottesville planning
commission.
Representatives from the Fry's Spring Neighborhood Association are attending both these
meetings since both of these developments are right in our back yard. Our voices will be heard.
I am sure that you know that Old Lynchburg Road is already overwhelmed with traffic, with
vehicles regularly exceeding the posted 25 mph limit. Morning and evening rush hour traffic on Jefferson
Park Avenue is intense and gets more fierce every day.
You know this because members of the Fry's Spring Community have regularly attended
meetings and spoken up, written letters, and sent em ail along to commission members, both in the city
and in the county.
We request that any changes to the zoning of the Granger Property include plans for connector
roads designed to relieve the already intense traffic that comes from county roads to city streets. And
that the plans for roads be adequately funded and built before the new developments at Granger are built.
The city of Charlottesville is a small southern city of neighborhoods and streets and trees and
bikes and shops. And schools and businesses and people living lives of peace.
We believe that progress and preservation can work side by side.
We expect the Albemarle planning commissioners to help make that happen.
Thanks for your consideration in this matter. A copy of these remarks will be left with the clerk for
inclusion in the public record of this meeting."
There being no further public comment, Ms. Joseph asked if there was any further discussion.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 9, 2007 5
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - Southern Urban Area B Study CPA and Granger Property CPA
Mr. Edgerton asked that they address Ms. Monteith's point that Mr. Cox referenced that his CPA
application did not exclude residential. He felt that the language is confusing in what is being proposed
by staff. He remembered some conversation that there is no shortage of residential in the area.
Therefore, there is no a perceived need for it. But, at the same time it may be appropriate to have a
component of residential in the project.
Mr. Benish noted that in the first bullet he would introduce the whole notion and say that there may be
some residential.
Mr. Edgerton noted that mixed use includes a lot of things, which residential is one of those. If they say
mixed use and then start listing things and don't list residential, then the question is if they are sending
the signal that they don't want it. He felt that they need to be careful about the language.
Mr. Benish said that the first priority would be for it to be non-residential, mixed use. That residential
mixed use would also be appropriate, but was not necessary on this site. That was his understanding of
what the direction was. They need to make that clear in the first bullet. This is intended to at least be a
non-residential mixed use and that residential could be included. In Fontaine Research Park staff notes
that residential is not expected on that site. There being no further questions on the Granger proposal, he
moved on to the Old Lynchburg/Fifth Street Neighborhood Center.
· That is the area near the bull's eye where the County Office Building South is located,
Staff feels that the current Comp Plan already shows Office Service/Neighborhood
Service, high density and Community Service designations in there. The Neighborhood
Model direction would lead towards encouraging mixed use developments. Staff felt that
at this time there was not a need to make a specific statement regarding mixed use in
that area. Also, that might be something that is better addressed when they begin master
planning for Neighborhood IV and V, but recognize that it probably will be a year and a
half away. This area is technically outside of the Area B Study Area, That was staff's
conclusion on that one. There being no comments, he moved on to the next item.
· Next is the Trinity Presbyterian Church Neighborhood Center, which is at the end of
Fontaine Avenue. It is another area that was shown for a Neighborhood Center use. Our
Comp Plan currently shows that area currently as a Neighborhood Service
Designation/Neighborhood Density Residential and then Office Services where the
Forestry Department is located. When the consultant modeled this area it basically
modeled it assuming the same type of build out that would be seen under the current
Comp Plan Designation of Neighborhood Density and Neighborhood Service. Staff's
recommendation was to make a reference since those uses were across the streets from
one another that those uses could be kind of put together and a Mixed Use Development
could be created, but the gross development coming from that would not be any different
than what could be generated out of our current Comp Plan. Therefore, staff did not
recommend a change in the Land Use Map and the gross densities, but just to identify
that is an area where there could be a Neighborhood Center.
· Infill development on Fontaine Research Park is the other major development in an area
currently in the Comp Plan shown for Office Service Use. The Study recommended infill
and expansion within this area. Staff does believe that this is a good location to continue
that level and scale of development. However, the same issues and concerns with the
extent of that expansion and infill were relative in being able to be served by the existing
and proposed transportation system. The bullets are in much the same form as used for
the Granger Proposal. Staffs in the third hyphen down said provide additional access
points to the Research Park to Sunset Avenue Connector Road and Fontaine Avenue.
· There is a possible attached residential mixed use at the Forestry Department. Although
that might be viable in the future, staff does not feel that is a use that is going to happen
within the next 5 to 10 years. Staff did not think there was a need to make that reference.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 9, 2007 6
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - Southern Urban Area B Study CPA and Granger Property CPA
· Single family detached residential south of the railroad tracks and across from the
Granger property. Redfields development was referenced incorrectly. The Area B Study
was actually referencing the Knob Hill development. Staff does not feel any amendment
is necessary there. It is already shown as Neighborhood Density Residential.
· Residential and mixed use opportunities at 1-64 interchange. Again, that is a reference
back to pretty much the same area shown as Community Service, Office Service and
Urban Density Residential. That is Neighborhood Service use there. Staff does not feel
that there is a need to amend that. That will best be considered during the master plan
review for Neighborhood IV and V.
· The possible location for a new school in this area was identified. At the November
meeting staff had indicated that this might be an okay site for a school. Again, that is
something that would be better addressed when they look at the Neighborhood IV and V
master plan. Staff proposes to have a general reference to the Area B Study for its
information and consideration of the information and recommendations contained with it.
By that reference if they were to be doing a school locator analysis it would be a
reference document where they would look at various possible recommendations. Staff
feels that is sufficient. It is a study that staff can look to for additional information and
ideas. But, no reference to the schools is necessary in the Comp Plan.
· Infrastructure - Staff would add a specific reference to construct the Sunset/Fontaine
Connector Road. They believe that the other references on those sites where the road is
located tie it to the timing of development with a development proposal. So a simple
reference to the road construction is all that is needed. There is a reference to the
upgrade to Sunset Avenue that would be necessary all the way to Fifth Street. That is
already identified in the Comp Plan by a map.
· Staff will go back and make sure that the intent of the road is in the Comp Plan verbiage.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that Alternative IV is as Mr. Benish explained a dotted line on a small scale map.
The reality is what Mr. Cox was referring to that ultimately when dealing with a development of Fontaine
and Granger that is when you really have to decide exactly where the road can best go to meet the intent.
That is where Mr. Benish was suggesting some possible added language that would talk about intent.
Ms. Monteith noted it shows the connection points that were discussed. There are certain key connection
points that they want to achieve.
Mr. Edgerton said that so much of the dotted lines and the vagueness in the maps in the Comp Plan has
come back to haunt the Commission. When actual proposals come in it is hard for the Commission to
interpret what those lines mean. If the lines happen to go across a piece of property that they are
considering for a rezoning all of a sudden those lines take on a life of their own whether dotted or not.
Mr. Cilimberg said that what has ended up happening more recently is that they have been in the position
of having to interpret where those locations are as development proposals have come in. In the absence
of actual location studies that is where they are left. He felt that they could take the example of Crozet
where Eastern Avenue might be, which they ultimately had determined was not directly on one property
that was subject to rezoning, but was literally on the edge of that property. The project ultimately got
through. On the western side of Crozet they had a Western Avenue that was not exactly where the plan
called for it, but it met the intent of providing Western Avenue in Old Trail.
Mr. Edgerton noted that in that case fortunately it was controlled by one developer, which is such a rare
occasion.
Mr. Benish noted that PACC was very adamant about where certain points were, which was what staff
would emphasize. It is fairly precise as to where the entrance needs to be, which is east of the existing
Fontaine Park. There needs to be a railroad overpass, which the physical features are going to predicate
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 9, 2007 7
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - Southern Urban Area B Study CPA and Granger Property CPA
where that is going to be. It needs to intersect with Sunset. Those are the key points. There is a level of
flexibility about how that can be accommodated.
Mr. Cilimberg said that one of the things that came up during the Area B Study and probably will not
become something they can get their arms around was that those parking lots were redevelopment areas
for Fontaine. Until they see the plan for Fontaine for its expansion they can only go by intent now. So
they should not think of a road passing through a parking lot as necessarily being what is there now. It
may be a very different scenario under redevelopment. That is why it is important to express the intent of
what they want to accomplish. The rezoning is where it becomes reality. The idea of connections
needed on Fontaine is the critical pieces.
Ms. Monteith noted that Mr. Benish already noted that the general discussion was to align more closely
with Stribling and to go around rather than to go through.
Mr. Benish said that the next road recommendation was to extend Stadium Road from Fontaine Avenue
and connecting with the new Fontaine/Sunset Avenue. From the City and County staff's perspective, it
was seen as a road that needs to be considered as a piece for solving the potential road network
transportation issues out there. Staff believes they need to make that recommendation and identify that
as a possible connection. It's particularly line location is less important than its intersection point,
particularly at Fontaine Avenue to create an intersection with the Fontaine/Sunset Connector.
Mr. Strucko pointed out that it was a walking path now.
Mr. Benish said that there was also a recommendation put back to the Study Area for a connector road
between Fifth Street and Avon Street. One day it may have some potential depending on what might
happen in the long term. It might be of some value to that. Staff did not feel that right now that road has
a great benefit. It is a costly road to build. There is not much development opportunity to incorporate
that. Most of that area has been developed. Staff is not recommending that to be included in the plan. It
will obviously be in the Study Area so it will be an idea that has been articulated. But, staff is not
recommending it as a road that needs to be constructed. The last major road item is the recommendation
regarding the Southern Parkway. It is outside the Study Area, but the consultant did provide
recommendations for a possible alignment for the Southern Parkway. The Comp Plan shows the road
running up between two subdivision streets down the stream and intersecting generally in there. The
consultants considered an alignment that would tie in with the roadway for Oak Hill and the road that
serves Covenant School. Staff believes that is a neighborhood roadway network that is worth considering
as the Southern Parkway is considered for construction. This would be an alternative alignment that
would tie into some existing and potentially future road systems and intersect with Sunset Avenue at Fifth
Street. There are some opportunities to create some of these linkages with the development of
Southwood Mobile Home Park by Habitat of Humanity. The language says to consider this as a possible
alignment and/or interconnection to the Southern Parkway. It could end up being something done as a
next phase after Southern Parkway is built.
Ms. Joseph noted that it looks impossible. There are a lot of houses in that area as well as a stream and
topographic issues.
Mr. Benish said that the alignment would pick up several existing roadways. There are some vacant lots
in this area. When the consultant looked at it they acknowledged that those lots were vacant. But, ten to
fifteen years from now they may not be. But, there are small corridors that they could get through to
make this connection. There are subdivision streets there and not through streets. So it is a different
character of road way.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that whenever the Southern Parkway has been discussed the biggest challenge
has been getting over Biscuit Run and then finding a way to make it to Fifth Street on the west side of
Biscuit Run because of the existing lots. They face the same kind of challenge if they are coming up
through the other areas. The Southern Parkway in general has that challenge. It has been on their plan
for so many years.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 9, 2007 8
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - Southern Urban Area B Study CPA and Granger Property CPA
Mr. Benish said that the consultant at the time was trying to split between the two neighborhoods. There
are some pretty significant constraints with the original concept of getting that road in. It is something that
someone is going to have to take a closer look at to see what the cost benefit is environmentally and to
the neighborhood. It is going to be a very expensive crossing. The consultant wrapped the road around
the critical slopes.
Mr. Strucko said that staff's language is flexible enough to accommodate a variety of circumstances. The
point staff is making is that it is in the best interest for a connection to occur.
Mr. Benish agreed that the intent was to say that this makes some sense to consider. If the Southern
Parkway ends up going through this area they might decide to do a neighborhood connection. But, all of
these linkages have some sense to them whether it is the Meadow Creek Parkway or not. One of the
times they should take a look at this is when they move forward with the Southern Parkway, which is a
high priority roadway that the Board has established for construction. The City feels that it is a very
important connection.
Mr. Edgerton noted that there would be some very serious budget constraints dealing with the critical
slopes.
The Planning Commission was okay with leaving the language in.
Mr. Benish noted that they had already covered #6. There are a number of good recommendations
embedded in the Open Space and the Historic Preservation Plan Study. Most of them are already
referenced in various documents that the County has already adopted. But, he thought that it would be
useful to remind people to take a look at the Area B Study. Staff recommends considering the transit,
bicycle and pedestrian recommendations. Staff has some direction on better articulating the intent on the
Fontaine/Avon Street Connector and making sure that they are clear about the expectations for
residential use on the Granger property. Those are the two major issues that need to be considered.
Mr. Craddock commented on page 6 in #1. It is included in the whole document about adding the
Fontaine/Sunset Connector Street. But, in a literal interpretation you could read that sentence as you
either add Fontaine/Sunset Connector Street or reopen Sunset Ave Bridge. He suggested that it read
"and" reopen Sunset Avenue Bridge eliminating "or". If they open the Sunset Avenue Bridge, then they
don't have to do the connector street.
Mr. Benish noted that the major focus of the recommendation is to get the connector road. The City
component of developing this plan, to both staff and the community, was very adamant about the
connector road. They were very much less in favor of opening Sunset Avenue. He felt that the plan and
sensitivity to City concerns was leaving that as the and/or as being the broadest variable about how they
address the Sunset Avenue Connector.
Mr. Cilimberg said that from the City's point of view the Sunset/Fontaine Connector was priority one and
then Sunset Avenue in the City being upgraded with connection back over into the County would be a
potential subsequent action. But, Sunset/Fontaine needed to be in first.
Mr. Craddock agreed.
Mr. Benish said that it is okay to take the "or" out because it seems like if you don't do one that you would
do the other. He did not think the City has any interest in that. It also could be misinterpreted though that
the "and" means that you are definitely going to open up Sunset Avenue, He did not know that they were
comfortable with the final decision that they are definitely going to open it.
Mr. Craddock suggested putting in that it is a possibility.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the next step is the public hearing. Staff is talking with the City staff to
make sure that they understand.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 9, 2007 9
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - Southern Urban Area B Study CPA and Granger Property CPA
Mr. Benish noted that there would be a meeting between the two Chairmen as opposed to a joint
City/County meeting. That is the consensus of the City. Therefore, they would start with a liaison
approach.
Ms. Joseph invited public comment. There being none, the meeting moved on to old business.
In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on the Southern Urban Area B Study CPA
and Granger Property CPA. Staff reviewed the proposed text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
incorporating the recommendations of the PACC Southern Urban Area B. The Planning Commission
took applicant input and public comment. The Commission discussed, asked questions and made
comments and suggestions. The Commission was in general agreement with the direction of the
recommended amendment language. There was a suggestion to clarify the amendment language to be
clearer on whether residential uses are allowed as a possible use or expected as part of the mix of uses
on the Granger site. There was another suggestion for staff to clarify the scale of the commercial aspect
of the development recommended for the Granger site, that being of a smaller Neighborhood Service
scale of development. Staff will be discussing the County staff's recommendations with the City's
planning staff (Neighborhood Services Dept) and possibly with the City Planning Commission depending
on the feedback from the City Director of Neighborhood Services. The next step is a public hearing.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 9,2007 10
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - Southern Urban Area B Study CPA and Granger Property CPA
Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 13, 2007
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, March 13,
2007, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Bill Edgerton, Jon Cannon, Eric Strucko, Duane Zobrist,
Pete Craddock, Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman and Marcia Joseph, Chairman. Ms. Joseph arrived at
7:05 p.m. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia, was present.
Other officials present were David Benish, Chief of Planning; Jack Kelsey, County Transportation
Planner; Elaine Echols, Senior Planner and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris called the work session to order at 6:04 p.m. and established a quorum.
CPA 2005-009. Southern Urban Area B Study amendment and CPA 2005-005. Granaer Tract CPA:
The proposed amendments would modify the Land Use Plan and Transportation elements of the
Comprehensive Plan. Revisions to Neighborhood Five and Neighborhood Six include: updated housing
and population information, revised land use designations/recommendations, new and revised
recommendations for road and transportation improvements, including a new Fontaine Avenue-Sunset
Avenue connector road and Stadium Road connector road and alternative alignment options for the
Southern Parkway consistent with the recommendations of the Southern Urban Area B Study. The
proposed land use amendments would change the land use designation for Tax Map 76, Parcel 24
(Granger tract, approx. 70 acres) from Neighborhood Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre) to
Office Service which would allow a mixed-use office oriented development. Recommendations regarding
the mix of uses and intensification of development are also proposed for the area that includes Tax Map
76, Parcels 17B, 17B1-B8 and 17W and 17BX (Fontaine Research Park). Amendments to the
Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan include incorporating recommendations for new road
improvements including a new Fontaine Avenue-Sunset Avenue connector road (generally located on
parcels noted above), and Stadium Road connector road (generally located on Tax Map 76, Parcels 4, 5,
and 8). (David Benish)
Mr. Benish summarized the staff report and presented a power point presentation.
· Based on some phone calls he had recently he prepared a long presentation. There is some
public interested in this based on the recent public notification. The public has not participated in
the prior work sessions. Therefore, he would provide some background so that they understand
where they are in the process.
· The County has been in the process of amending its Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the
recommendations of the Planning and Coordination Council's Southern Urban Area B Study.
About the time that they began that work they had an applicant's request for a Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Amendment on the 69 acre piece of land referred to as the Granger Tract. The
requested change was to change the land use designation in our current Comp Plan from
Neighborhood Density Residential to Office Use. What is in the Area B Study was an Urban
Density Residential recommendation. They had 3 different recommendations on that site. One is
in the current Comp Plan, another in the proposed Area B Study and the other is the applicant's
request.
· The study area is generally bounded in the County by Fontaine Avenue and Sunset Avenue and
the Redfields Development. It goes on into the City into the Fry's Spring/Jefferson Park Avenue
area. The Planning Coordination Council Area B Study recommended a framework plan. The
framework plan recommendation focused primarily on transportation improvements. Although
they did make some land use recommendations that encouraged a more mixed use and more
urban higher density of development. By and large their work to date has focused in on
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 13,2007
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES FOR CPA-2005-009, SOUTHERN URBAN AREA B STUDY AND
GRANGER TRACT CPA
incorporating the transportation recommendations and has paid particular attention to 2 land use
changes. One is for the Granger Tract, which was a request by the applicant. The other site is
the Fontaine Research Park and recognizing the potential expansion interest on that site. But,
those are really the only two substantive land use recommendations or changes that they are
recommending.
· The infrastructure and transportation recommendations focus in on the construction of the
Fontaine/Sunset connector road. It discusses the extension of Stadium Road from Fontaine
Avenue and also a connection within the City of Maymont Lane. It also recommended a new
connector north of 1-64 from Fifth Street to Avon Street. That is already incorporated in our
Comprehensive Plan. It also encourages building the Southern Parkway, an extension of that to
Fifth Street. That is also already in our Comp Plan. It will add a new easUwest connector south
of 1-64 between Sunset Avenue and Old Lynchburg Road. That is a project that staff is not
recommending including in the Comp Plan.
· The study also makes recommendations regarding transit service in the area in completing the
sidewalk system and bike way system. Many of those recommendations are also identified in our
various planning documents. A reference to this study in the Comp Plan will allow this document
to be used as a reference tool in looking at those recommendations.
· They touched on the Granger proposal, which is on about 70 acres of land just north of 1-64 west
of Sunset Avenue and northeast of the railroad tracks. It is a project that is designated in our
Comp Plan for Neighborhood Density Residential and the proposal is for Office Service. It does
propose a mix of uses. The mixes are of neighborhood scale commercial and the potential for
residential. The traffic modeling work that the applicant has done and the range of square
footage of the site generally falls within the perimeters noted there of 540,000 square feet and
20,000 square feet of supporting commercial and 440 residential.
· One of the important components of the Area B Study recommendation was the Inclusion of the
mix of uses that provided for the Neighborhood Services. That was one way to address traffic
impacts by allowing for convenience services within the residential areas that exist and are
emerging in that area. Staff has discussed this item a number of times with PACCT. The primary
issue has been the traffic impacts of the change in land use designation. Since traffic was an
important component to this proposal in looking at a change that differed from the Area B Study
PACC particularly wanted them to pay attention to not blowing the transportation system out of
the water by allowing for too much use inconsistent with the network that was proposed. They
were also concerned about other infrastructure issues and how they treat the environment of this
site since it is an important site with some significant resources on it.
· The findings for the Granger proposal, which was the specific applicant's request for non-
residential, was that proposal as modeled would add between 3,800 and 5,300 trips to the system
as studied in the Area B Study. Again, it was modeled at a certain level of development, which
was the mid- to mid-high range that is proposed in the applicant's request for the Camp Plan
Amendment. An important issue is that Fontaine Avenue is a roadway that is pretty close to
capacity in terms of the traffic volumes on it. There is limited potential to upgrade that road based
on City interest and also based on just physical limitations as it moves through the City
neighborhoods. So that is an important issue in balancing traffic generated from new land uses.
How the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that was submitted to the Commission has addressed these
major recommendations -
· Staff is recommending that the Fontaine/Sunset Connector road be include as a recommendation
within the Comp Plan.
· The extension of Stadium Road is a situation where County staff may have overstepped a little bit
in not getting good clarity on what was actually the intension of the recommendations in the Area
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 13,2007 2
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES FOR CPA-2005-009, SOUTHERN URBAN AREA B STUDY AND
GRANGER TRACT CPA
B Study. So staff will need to go back and discuss this a little bit more with the University and the
City. Stadium Road is in one aspect seen as a very important opportunity to address that
problem on Fontaine Avenue because of the limitations on Fontaine for a significant
improvement. At this point in time the recommendations that staff have put forward in the Comp
Plan are not necessarily what the University has agreed to. One of the purposes of the PACC
process and the Area B Study is that they all come together with a mutual recommendation and
they move forward with that mutual recommendation. So he does not want to put something
forward that is not consistent with that recommendation coming out of PACC. So they need to
get a little more clarity on that and get some better direction from PACC. There are very clear
specific recommendations about constructing the Stadium Road Connector. If the Commission is
going to act tonight he would ask that they not act on that particular item. They may very well not
be ready to act tonight anyway. But, if they are he would recommend that they not act on that
particular item until staff gets more clarity on that.
· The Avon/Fifth Street Connector is already one that is in our Comp Plan and they are reviewing it
as part of another rezoning request. The Commission recently had a work session on it.
· The Southern Parkway is already a recommendation of the County's Comp Plan. The Area B
Study did note as sort of an alternative alignment or a neighborhood system that might link to that
Southern Parkway. Staff has suggested that they simply reference that as a possible alternative
to consider as they do further planning for the Southern Parkway.
· The connection south of 1-64 between Sunset and Old Lynchburg road staff is not recommending
at this time.
· Staff distributed the actual draft language proposed for review. It is the specific language that
implements those findings or recommendations that he just went over. He asked if the
Commission had any questions since his overview covered the substance of all of those
recommendations. He noted that when staff went in and updated the profiles for Neighborhoods
V and VI there were some corrections that they included. Some corrections were typos and
others included updated information. One in Neighborhood VI there was a specific statement.
There is a reference in not widening Route 250 west past the bypass towards Ivy. That was
simply a housekeeping item. That is a recommendation that is already in the transportation
section of the plan. It never got amended in the profiles. Therefore, that is not something new.
That has been a long standing recommendation. He asked Ms. Monteith if his comments had
reflected the issues that came up.
Ms. Monteith replied yes, that in general that in the previous draft of the Southern Area B Report the
Stadium Road Extension was talked about as a possibility and nothing beyond that was ever consulted
with the University. They will need to have some consultation before there is any forward movement on
that.
Mr. Morris asked if there were any questions for Mr. Benish.
Ms. Joseph said that it did not change anything with public water and sewer. She did not know if in the
light of what they know now in what is going on with the Service Authority and whether that should be
amended at this point in time.
Mr. Benish said that it might be a good idea even if it is only a general reference to ensure that utility
infrastructure is at adequate capacity and available for the proposed use. In other sections of the Comp
Plan it is actually addressed in our utility section. But, it is probably something worth mentioning here.
His understanding is that the Authority has not completed their assessment of their Rivanna Service
Authority's infrastructure. That will be forthcoming very soon. They have not completed the entire study,
Ms. Joseph noted that this just references small internal system upgrades, They don't know if that is true
anymore or not.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 13,2007 3
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES FOR CPA-2005-009, SOUTHERN URBAN AREA B STUDY AND
GRANGER TRACT CPA
Mr. Benish said that they do know that the Moore's Creek interceptor line is a pretty old line. Therefore,
he would not be surprised if there were some infrastructure improvements necessary. He was not sure
what the capacity issues are. But, at least age and infiltration are issues in that line.
Ms. Joseph complimented Mr. Benish for his fine work on the staff report since it was very easy to follow.
Mr. Benish noted that Neighborhood Service is capitalized. From the previous work session they may
recall that implies a more Village or smaller scale than a larger Commercial Service Grocery scale, but
clearly a very small scale.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited applicant
comment. There being none, he invited general public comment.
Bruce Claw, resident of Redfields, pointed out that they had just recently found out that this has an impact
on their community. They did not understand based on previous public notices that there was a proposed
change to the intensity of use of Sunset Avenue Extended and repurposing it as a connector rather than a
local road. There are a few people present tonight, but many people are unaware of it. Those that are
aware have schedule conflicts and will not be appearing this evening. The road is already fairly heavily
used. Recent developments at the Woodlands, Eagle's Landing and Jefferson Ridge have created a
moderately hazardous traffic situation along the existing road near the stop sign near the stop sign at Old
Lynchburg Road. In a safety sense the road is already at capacity. Therefore, he discouraged the
Commission from acting until they have taken a closer look at the traffic from both from the capacity level
and the safety of the road. With respect to the Granger tract generally he was a bit curious why this was
being acted upon now rather than being incorporated into the Comp Plan revision, which would be
expected in 1 to 2 years in any case. He encouraged the Commission to provide an opportunity for
interested parties in Redfields and the local neighborhoods to become aware and to make their own
individual comments.
Cathy Cassidy, resident of Redfields, said that she just became aware of this. She added that the road is
definitely unsafe right now. Exiting Redfields there is a hill to the left where one cannot see approaching
traffic. There is a very high volume of traffic, particularly with the addition of Eagle's Landing and
Jefferson Ridge. Those are generally students that drive too fast while talking on cell phones. It is very
unsafe. It is much safer to enter Redfields at night when one can see headlights coming up over that
ridge. The kind of additional traffic they are proposing putting on the road with this, which would feed
from Biscuit Run and Route 20, would make this a more dangerous traffic situation. With the proposal the
Fontaine Avenue/Fontaine Connector could even take traffic all the way from Route 20 in Scottsville. It is
a huge volume of traffic on a very under sized road. It would not be wise to entertain this kind of
connector until that road can definitely be funded to be widened and upgraded to be graded down so that
the site lines are better. Second, she did not see why there was any benefit to the County to put in more
office space on the Granger Tract as opposed to more mixed use space. It does not make any sense to
drag people to offices there versus housing them there. The housing makes more sense in that location
and to provide the services for communities like Redfields, Mosby Mountain, Biscuit Run, Woodlands,
Eagle's Run and Jefferson Place. They have no real places to buy anything or get a bottle of milk. It
would be great to have that type of services there.
Sandy Lambert, resident of Redfields, said that he was actually coming here trying to figure out how he
could like what is being proposed. He thought that the County has spent a lot of time and effort planning
transportation needs. He did not want to be a detriment to that. The issues were now coming out. If it
were a high density use they would have a number of people living towards the University who possibly
might not come by Redfields if they were employed towards the University. If it goes to an office use then
they now have destinations generating the number of trips that Mr. Benish mentioned earlier. So they just
need to understand what that really means. Right now it means that everybody is going this way past
their subdivision in the morning and coming back this way at night. With Biscuit Run and offices on this
site there is going to be traffic towards their subdivision both in the morning and at night. There are some
road improvements needed. The bigger concern is that there is not enough money. So quite frequently
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 13,2007 4
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES FOR CPA-2005-009, SOUTHERN URBAN AREA B STUDY AND
GRANGER TRACT CPA
they don't get everything that they should get. The report says that basically Granger should not be
developed without the road improvements being made. The improvements from Granger towards Fifth
Street might never occur. It has taken the County 30 years to build the Meadowbrook Parkway. He
questioned how long it would take to build the Southern Parkway. This road is probably peanuts to those
major roads.
Ricky Patterson, a UVA worker at McCormick ObseNatory, raised the issue of the impact of the
development once they put in these new roads in this area what. The County has been their best friend in
terms of enforcing the lighting ordinance. Since this is a 3 party agreement area he just wanted to raise
the concerns that are not always listened to by the University concerning the lighting impact. The
Fontaine Research Park is probably the worse inhabitant in that area. If things go forward he encouraged
everyone to continue to strictly enforce the lighting ordinance that the County has so graciously put into
action.
Frank Cox, representative for the New Era Properties, said that they have the primary interest in the
Granger application. He asked to bring a couple of things to light counter to a couple of things that the
speakers have said. The Area B Study has been going on for several decades. There have been basic
iterations of it. But, this particular one has been in the mill for the last 3 years. The Comprehensive Plan
Amendment that they submitted for the Granger Property was submitted some 20 months ago. They
believe that the language that has been brought forth for the Office SeNice Mixed Use is appropriate. He
thought that in light of the fact that the owner contrary to one of the slides that said that the owner has not
consented or agreed to a residential component. Their documents provided in the past certainly have
represented that this is truly going to be a mixed use project. The Area B Study is complex and there are
a lot of institutional issues that are involved, as well as political ones. The one issue that he thinks is fairly
clear is that the staff's recommendation for the change in the land use designation for Granger. Given the
fact that the applicant has certain contractual matters to deal with along with the fact that the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment really only gives them the footing from which to depart with a number
of other studies, not the least are some fairly complex studies related to finalizing the appropriate design
for the Fontaine/Sunset Connector they would certainly encourage the Commission to act tonight at least
on the designation for the Granger property.
There being no further comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the
Commission.
Mr. Craddock asked Mr. Benish if he had gotten any response from the City about opening the Sunset
Avenue Bridge.
Mr. Benish replied that was not likely to happen. In the Study City staff recognizes that one day when
they have a more integrated system there may be a value some day to come back and reopen and make
connections because those connections may actually improve the conditions on the other side where the
connections are not made. But, at this point in time that is probably a ways down the road. The City is
not interested in opening the Sunset Avenue Bridge even with the construction of this roadway and
certainly not without the construction.
Mr. Craddock asked about the interconnectivity to Stribling. They had talked about the changes of a road
was probably null, but what about a bicycle path.
Mr. Benish replied that he had heard interest from residents in that area for pedestrian connections. He
did not perceive the pedestrian and bicycle connections as problematic, but a vehicular connection would
be similar to Sunset. There is a real concern about Stribling being connected to the Fontaine/Sunset
Connnector Road at this time.
Mr. Benish noted that there were two typos that should be changed as followed.
1 . On page 13 in the third to the last hyphen, consider transit, bicycle and pedestrian
recommendations should actually not be in there. It is in the next hyphen added to the old
existing language. Therefore, it is just redundant.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 13,2007 5
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES FOR CPA-2005-009, SOUTHERN URBAN AREA B STUDY AND
GRANGER TRACT CPA
2. The last hypen on that page should say to provide transit service to Fontaine Avenue Corridor,
including the Fontaine Research Park.
Mr. Cannon asked if staff has a response to several comments made about the Sunset Avenue
Connector and the prospect that would bring additional traffic on a road that may be at or near capacity
now and presenting dangerous conditions. Will the connector change the conditions on that road such
that crowding or those dangers will be alleviated.
Mr. Benish replied that that the existing condition of that roadway is probably not going to be adequate for
a significant increase. When they evaluate the transportation system for significant increase in
development that road is really under designed right now. It is probably going to need some level of
upgrading. Staff tried to reflect that both in neighborhoods profiles, but if they are still on page 13 the
reference about midway up is to construct Fontaine/Sunset Avenue connector road as recommended in
the Southern Urban Area B Study, specifically Alternative IV, and improve the existing alignment of
Sunset Avenue from the new connector road to Fifth Street. It is really intended that really completes
what would be that new road system to bring that road up to a standard that would carry the traffic on it.
Under its existing condition, they project out through by right development out to 2025 there will be
additional traffic on that roadway regardless of whether the connector road is made or not. As
development occurs on that undeveloped land it certainly could increase it. But, the connection to other
roadways also allows for the traffic to distribute better. So the 2025 projected increases are actually
balanced and improved a little bit with that interconnection.
Mr. Cannon said that in the recommendations for the Granger tract staff states that any rezoning or
development of the site should be timed with the construction of recommended planned improvements to
the road network, which provide an adequate level of service to support development in this area. He
assumed that the intent of that is to say that any development of this site consistent with the amended
Comprehensive Plan should they adopt or recommend the amendments. Any development of the site
would be contingent upon the availability of the immediate prospect of that additional capacity.
Mr. Kamptner noted that would have to be tied to the rezoning.
Mr. Cannon asked to make sure that intent is clear in the way they framed the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment.
Mr. Benish said that if it is not clear to other people, then it is not clear enough.
Mr. Cannon noted that it was clear to him, but he just wanted to make sure it was clear.
Mr. Benish said that by reference to the other road improvements in the area that the primary road
improvements that they see are the connector road, the upgrade of Fontaine/Sunset and dealing with the
issue of capacity on Fontaine Avenue, which right now functions between a level of Service E and F or
will at certain points in time in the future.
Mr. Kamptner asked if that could be written into the Comprehensive Plan specifying the roads that are
part of the network that are the triggers and also the level of service that they are seeking. If a zoning
decision is every based upon the adequacy of the road network they will want the Comprehensive Plan to
be a specific objective as possible.
Mr. Benish replied yes, that he thought that they could probably do that more specifically in those land
use recommendation areas as opposed to embedded in all of the other sections. His one concern is that
as they are observing with the Biscuit Run study that there may be other improvements that are
necessary beyond what they might be able to identify. Once they look in more depth at a traffic model at a
rezoning scale there may be other things that could cause impediments. But, as long as they are
comfortable identifying at the minimum what those expectations are.
Mr, Cannon noted that they don't have the benefit of a provision like this in the Comprehensive Plan for
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 13,2007 6
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES FOR CPA-2005-009, SOUTHERN URBAN AREA B STUDY AND
GRANGER TRACT CPA
Biscuit Run. That would at least give them some bench mark from which to work.
Mr. Morris asked if there were other questions or concerns.
Ms. Joseph noted that there was something in here on page 12 on water quality impacts. Staff says that
it should be an important consideration and then that measures should be put in place to not only
minimize stream impacts, but also improve the current condition. She asked staff if they could take that
and then make the leap to thinking that would require someone to use infiltration or LID or something that
would be a little bit better.
Mr. Benish replied yes, that he thought that they could. Actually one of the things that they were trying to
address was stream bank erosion and restoration of the stream banks. That is part of what they were
trying to get at and maybe they should be more direct about that. He felt that language allows us to use
other innovative approaches.
Mr. Edgerton said that staff had done a great job. He thought that staff had captured all of the comments
that had been made in previous work sessions.
Mr. Benish noted that what he had heard that the Commission would want in addition, whether they act
tonight and direct staff to make those changes before the Board, or come back to then would be to
provide greater specificity for those trigger roads and capacities within both Fontaine Research Park and
the Granger proposal. There would be a specific reference to water and sewer utility with the same sort
of infrastructure measure for capacity. He asked if there were any other changes.
Ms. Monteith said that staff needs to amending the language around Stadium Road Extended and/or
consulting with the University. She added that some of the Commissioners may not be aware that there
has been a discussion with the City about a new fire house being placed along such a road. That would
remove the need for the planned fire house that is currently proposed close to Ivy and Route 250, In that
discussion the general connection would be that if there were a road to go there that it would connect with
Ray C. Hunt Drive, which is the road that currently goes into Fontaine Park. She just wanted to
preference that has been the discussion that has been out there.
Mr. Benish said that to summarize that would be to delete those references at this point of time and then
they wi/I engage with the PACC group again and inform the Board of the direction on that.
Mr. Strucko said that those details become very important. If there is going to be a Fontaine/Sunset
Connector, where would it connect to Fontaine. Would it be through the research park or around the
research park? They talked about this point in their last session about the various options shown on
Attachment D. All but one goes through the research park. He assumed that the research park has to be
on board with this concept.
Ms. Monteith said that the agreed upon alignment was 4, which is the one that generally aligns with what
is Stribling now. Therefore, it goes outside of the research park and not through it.
Mr. Strucko replied that was correct because that was not Ray C. Hunt Drive.
Ms. Monteith said that is correct. The University has discussed the idea of a connection, which they
always proposed as a transit pedestrian bike connection and not as a vehicular connection. The
connection was to go from Stadium Road to Ray C. Hunt Drive.
Mr. Strucko asked if that was in existence now.
Ms. Monteith replied that it was a pedestrian bike path now, but it does not accommodate the UTS Transit
Service, which is the University's Bus Service.
Mr. Strucko noted that the SunseUFontaine connector is pretty vital. His concern is how it will happen. If it
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 13,2007 7
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES FOR CPA-2005-009, SOUTHERN URBAN AREA B STUDY AND
GRANGER TRACT CPA
is not going to go through Ray C. Hunt Drive then it will connect with Fontaine several feet several feet
down the road from Ray C. Hunt Drive. He was not sure what kind of traffic impact that would have.
Mr. Edgerton said that Mr. Strucko was worried about two connections to Fontaine Road so close
together and then the additional congestion that would occur. There was some discussion about trying to
channel it through the edge of Fontaine Office Park and then bring it out on the same entrance. That
would really jam things up in the Fontaine Park a little more.
Mr. Strucko felt that Fontaine Research Park currently housing over 2,000 employees. That is a
conservative estimate. There is only one way in and one way out, which is Ray C. Hunt Drive. There is
no connection to the Fontaine Research Park to the back end.
Mr. Benish noted that staff had included a recommendation in the Fontaine Research Park that called for
additional accesses to the Fontaine Research Park.
Mr. Edgerton said that Alternative 4 shows it going along the edge of it.
Mr. Strucko agreed that it showed it not connecting with it. That is his point. With 2,000 employees all
coming in roughly at the same time and leaving at the same time are going onto Fontaine Avenue and
Ray C. Hunt Drive. The SunseUFontaine connector that skirts the research park connects only sever~1
hundred feet to the east of that, which would exasperate traffic on Fontaine Avenue.
Ms. Monteith noted that Mr. Benish was saying something else.
Mr. Benish said that they would have the Ray C. Hunt entrance and also the entrance to what would be
the connector road. Staff has put language in referencing that issue to ensure that with the expansion of
the Fontaine Research Park that additional entrances into the Fontaine Research Park will be constructed
so that there is more than one way in and one way out. The Sunset Connector is really not seen as an
entrance in or out. It would be another public road that would provide the opportunity for that access.
That is in staff's language.
Mr. Edgerton noted that the map on page 43 of Attachment D shows Alternative IV going to the southeast
of Fontaine Park. He asked if the red portion part of Fontaine Park.
Mr. Benish replied yes, that it was. The area in red he was referring to is actually the bank that is actually
past the parking lot. Alternative IV is shown at the edge of the parking lot. So it is not right next to the
buildings, but next to the eastern most area of the parking lot. Then the topography drops off and the
area is really going down to Stribling Avenue. Technically it is on property that the University Foundation
owns, but it is not part of the built part of the University.
Mr. Strucko asked that they be careful with the depictions. He was glad to see that was explicitly stated
that there should be additional connection to the research park.
Mr. Benish noted that Alternative IV was to the east of the built environment.
Mr. Strucko said that the existing gravel road is not connected at all with Fontaine Research Park. It does
not touch the parking lot at all. It is graded wall below the parking lot. So there is no connection if that is
an alternative under consideration. That is the one that he would object to. He said that there has to be
clear depiction that there is an alternative entrance point not connected to Fontaine Avenue at all into the
Research Park, which would be the SunseUFontaine connector. Adding another employment center that
connects immediately to it only 100' or so down the road from Ray C, Hunt Drive, it would just make a bad
situation worse.
Motion: Ms. Joseph moved, Mr. Edgerton seconded, to approve CPA 2005-009, Southern Urban Area B
Study amendment and CPA 2005-005, Granger Tract CPA as staff recommends in Attachments A, Band
C of the staff report subject to the changes that the Planning Commission suggested.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 13,2007 8
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES FOR CPA-2005-009, SOUTHERN URBAN AREA B STUDY AND
GRANGER TRACT CPA
1. Remove the reference to Stadium Road connection.
2. Provide more clarification on water and sewer.
3. Provide for the specific road improvements that are the minimum necessary for the timing and the
capacity expectations. (Staff will work with the County Attorney's Office on the language to make
sure that it does what they intend it to do.)
4. Make the two corrections as noted by staff regarding a redundant sentence and the addition of
transit.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Zobrist was absent.)
Mr. Morris stated that CPA 2005-009, Southern Urban Area B Study amendment and CPA 2005-005,
Granger Tract CPA, would go before the Board of Supervisors on June 13, 2007 with a recommendation
for approval.
Mr. Benish pointed out that staff was not sure of the Board date due to schedule conflicts, but staff is
trying to find the date that it can go. There will also be a work session earlier than the public hearing.
Staff is trying to schedule that for May.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 13,2007 9
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES FOR CPA-2005-009, SOUTHERN URBAN AREA B STUDY AND
GRANGER TRACT CPA
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, one of the key purposes of the family subdivision regulations is to promote the
cohesiveness of the family; and
WHEREAS, the Rural Areas Plan (the "Plan") was adopted by the Board of Supervisors as
part of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan on March 2, 2005, and it states that one way to
discourage the transfer of lots created by a family subdivision to someone who is not a member of the
immediate family is to increase the period the parcel to be subdivided must be owned by the family
member before it may be subdivided, and to increase the period each family subdivision lot must be
owned by the grantee of a lot created by a family subdivision before it may be transferred to someone
who is not a member of the immediate family; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County Code ~ 14-212 requires that the grantee of a lot created by a
family subdivision not transfer the lot to someone who is not a member of the immediate family for two
years from the date of recordation of the plat; and
WHEREAS, in order to better promote the purposes of the family subdivision regulations and
to discourage their abuse, it is desired to amend the Subdivi,sion Ordinance to establish a period by
which a landowner must own a parcel before it may be subdivided by family subdivision, to extend the
period prohibiting the transfer of a lot created by family subdivision to someone who is not a member
of the immediate family beyond the current two-year period, and to adopt such other regulations to
assure that these requirements are satisfied.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good land development practices, the Board of Supervisors hereby
adopts a resolution of intent to amend Albemarle County Code ~ 14-212 and any other regulations of
the Subdivision Ordinance deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on
the subdivision text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation
to the Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
*****
I, Ella W. Carey, 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 six to zero, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Ma 7.
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms, Thomas
Mr. Wyant
Ave Nav
y
y
y
y
y
y
isors
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the purposes of Section 4.2, Critical Slopes, of the Zoning Ordinance are to direct
development away from critical slopes to more suitable terrain in order to protect and conserve critical
slopes, public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas, and to reduce soil erosion, sedimentation,
water pollution and septic disposal problems associated with the disturbance of critical slopes; and
WHEREAS, Section 4.2 establishes minimum requirements for the location of improvements
and delineates several exemptions, including an exemption in Section 4.2.6 for accessways
(driveways and roads) where no reasonable alternative location or alignment exists; and
WHEREAS, Section 4.2.5 allows modifications and waivers to be granted from the critical
slopes requirements under prescribed circumstances, subject to reasonable conditions designed to
mitigate the adverse impacts otherwise resulting from the disturbance of critical slopes; and
WHEREAS, in order to better achieve the purposes of Section 4.2, it is desired to allow the
disturbance of critical slopes to establish an accessway only if the landowner obtains a modification or
waiver, with reasonable conditions, rather than an exemption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby
adopts a resolution of intent to amend Section 4 and any other regulations of the Zoning Ordinance as
described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on
the zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
.....
I, Ella W. Carey, 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 six to ~, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Ma 2 7.
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Domer
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
Ave Nav
y
y
y
y
y
y
ors
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, although the Zoning Ordinance requires safe and convenient access for
developments subject to a site plan (Section 32) and parking lots (Section 4.12), and the Subdivision
Ordinance imposes minimum design standards for public and private streets to allow safe travel, there
are no such minimum standards for driveways to residences in the Rural Areas zoning district; and
WHEREAS, in order to better protect the public safety, it is desired to require that driveways in
the Rural Areas zoning district be designed and constructed to assure that fire and rescue vehicles
can safely access a residence.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby
adopts a resolution of intent to amend Section 4 and any other regulations of the Zoning Ordinance as
described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on
the zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
*****
I, Ella W. Carey, 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 six to zero, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Ma 2
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Domer
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
Ave Nav
X
y
X
Y
y
y
-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Rural Areas Resource Protection
AGENDA DATE:
May 2,2007
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST:
Rural Areas Resource Protection Issues Summary
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACTCS):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham,
Cilimberg, Benish; Ms. McDowell
ATTACHMENTS: YES
LEGAL REVIEW: YES
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Following the Mountain Overlay District (MOD) Committee's presentation of their proposal, the Board of Supervisors and
Planning Commission held two public input meetings and three work sessions to discuss issues related to those
recommendations (See Attachments A & B). As a result of the public input received, the Board requested that staff present
an alternative proposal that would apply some provisions of the MOD Committee's proposal to the entire Rural Areas. That
alternative proposal was discussed with the Board at December 13th and January 10th work sessions (Attachments C & D).
At the conclusion of the January 10th work session, the Board directed staff to prepare a summary of the Board's
preference with respect to a proposal. This work session is to verify the Board's position, allowing ordinance amendments
in support of that position to move forward.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Protect the County's Natural Resources
Goal 4, Effectively Manage the County's Growth and Development.
DISCUSSION:
This discussion will present a summary of staff's understanding of each element with respect to the proposal. The term
"Rural Areas Resource Protection" was suggested to replace Mountain Overlay District, recognizing the proposal now
encompasses the entire Rural Areas. The Board also directed staff to add the extension of ownership requirements of
family divisions, as an issue to include in the review. Therefore, the discussion has been expanded to include all of the
Rural Areas land use designation and Family Divisions.
1. Critical Slopes - The Board agreed to reduce the impact on natural resources from Rural Areas development by
removing the exemption for access ways (roads and driveways) across critical slopes. Waivers, as described below,
would be available to prevent property owners from being denied reasonable use of their property. This provision would
be implemented by amending 94.2. of the Zoning Ordinance to remove the access ways exemption from critical slope
requirements. Staff believes the administrative burden of this provision can be minimal for the County and applicants by
providing digital maps depicting critical slopes in the Rural Areas. This mapping has already been prepared and made
available to the public using the GIS Web.
2. Stream Buffers - The Board agreed to reduce the impact on natural resources from Rural Areas development by
providing uniform stream buffer standards throughout the entire Rural Areas and expanded buffers in the MOD. This
would be accomplished by having stream buffers that extend 100' on each side of all streams within the Rural Areas
and 200' on each side of all streams in the MOD. Rural Areas property within the Water Supply Areas already have all
stream protected by 100' buffers. Thus, this change would simply apply the same standard to all Rural Areas property
outside of the MOD and provide an expanded stream buffer in the MOD. The Board expressed interest in hearing from
Stream Watch or others on the potential benefit of this buffer standard or even greater buffers. John Murphy, Director of
Stream Watch, and Ridge Schuyler, Director of The Nature Conservancy Piedmont Program and a contributor to the
Rivanna River Commission, have expressed support of the proposed buffer regulations (Attachments E and F). This
provision would be implemented by amending 917-301,917-302, and 917-317 of the Water Protection Ordinance. Staff
believes this change would reduce the administrative burden by applying the same standard to all Rural Areas property.
AGENDA TITLE:
Rural Areas Resource Protection
Page 2
3. Safe and Convenient Access - To assure public safety, the Board agreed that safe and convenient access, as
currently required by the Zoning Ordinance, would include assuring fire and rescue vehicles could safely access the
residence. As a requirement for safe and convenient access already exists in the Zoning Ordinance, this simply requires
an affirmation by the Board that this access requirement should include emergency vehicles and staff can rely on
Fire/Rescue to define what they believe is needed with their vehicles.
4. Erosion and Sediment Control- To assure the three provisions described above were enforced, the Board agreed
that Erosion and Sediment Control plans, rather than Agreements in Lieu of a Plan, would be required for all new single
family houses in the Rural Areas. This plan would allow staff to verify that critical slopes and stream buffers are not
being disturbed, as well as assuring the driveway is properly designed. Staff believes this provision could require
applicants to spend upwards of an additional $1,000 per new house for preparation of plans and an increased permit
fee. This change would require an additional Erosion Control Inspector/Reviewer to manage the increased workload.
5. Waivers and/or Modifications - The ability to waive or modify the above requirements would be necessary for
circumstances where no alternatives are available for a reasonable use of the property. To simplify the administration
of this process, the Board agreed that waivers or modifications could be granted through a staff administered process,
with appeals to the Planning Commission. This process was part of the original MOD Committee's recommendation.
6. Family Divisions - While outside of the original MOD recommendation, the Board asked that this be brought back for
review. The length of ownership (both before and after family division) was an issue discussed with the RA clustering
and phasing initiatives, as family divisions would have been exempted from those regulations. Staff believes the Board
consensus supported ownership for 5 years before and after the family division. The Commonwealth of Virginia has
enabled localities to require family ownership of parcels 15 years before and after the division.
7. MOD recommendations not being pursued - The Board agreed not to further consider the recommendations
related to height of buildings related to the ridgeline and clustering with Rural Preservation Development.
8. MOD recommendations pursued outside of ordinance changes - Through its Strategic Plan, the Board has an
objective of adding at least 30,000 acres in conservation easements or qualified parkland and agreed to increase the
budget for the Acquisition of Conservation Easements program.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff does not anticipate this proposal would impact property assessments, but some Rural Areas property may become
more difficult to subdivide. Staff has determined the primary fiscal impact of this proposal would be associated with the
required Erosion and Sediment Control plan and the need for an additional Erosion and Sediment Control Inspector / Plan
Reviewer to support this change. That position would have a first year expense of approximately $78,000 and subsequent
year expenses of approximately $58,000. That cost could be offset by additional fees. By switching from Agreements in
Lieu of a Plan to Erosion and Sediment Control Plans, the current fees would increase by approximately $29,000
(assuming an average of 290 new houses per year in the Rural Areas). The Erosion Control Permit fee for a single family
house would need to be raised from the current $130 to $205 for the new position to be fully supported by fees. It should
be noted that the currently used Agreements in Lieu of a Plan requires a fee of only $30 while staff estimates the
administrative cost of this permit is several times higher than the fee. Thus, this fee change could eliminate some General
Tax support for administration of the Erosion and Sediment Control Program.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors review the discussion summary and, if no changes to the direction are
required, adopt the attached Resolutions of Intent for the Zoning and Subdivision text amendments that will allow staff to
bring forward the ordinance amendments. The amendments to the Water Protection Ordinance do not require a Resolution
of Intent.
ATTACHMENTS
A Mountain Overlay District Chronology
B Mountain Overlay District Committee proposal
C Executive Summary. December 13. 2006
D Executive Summary. January 10. 2007
E Letter. Stream Watch. John Murphy. dated March 28. 2007
F Memorandum. Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District. Alyson SappinQton. Auqust 10. 2000
G1 Resolution of Intent-Critical Slopes
G2 Resolution of Intent-Safe and Convenient Access
G3 Resolution of Intent-Family Subdivisions
ATTACHMENT A
MOUNTAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT CHRONOLOGY
1971: Mountain protection efforts began with the adoption of the County's first Comprehensive Plan that described
the mountains as "conseNation areas." The provisions of the proposed Mountain Overlay District are based
on concerns described in that Plan and successive Comprehensive Plans.
1980: Steps were taken to protect mountains through regulation when the Rural Areas zoning district and the critical
slopes provisions were adopted. The critical slopes provision currently requires a "building site" (minimum
30,00 square feet less than 25% slope, critical slopes, for the location of the dwelling and septic system).
Driveways are not regulated on critical slopes.
1992: The Open Space and Critical Resources Plan, adopted by the Board of SupeNisors as part of the
Comprehensive Plan, recommended a mountain protection ordinance and first defined mountains by contour
elevations.
1995: The Board of SupeNisors appointed a twelve member Mountain Protection Committee to study mountain
protection measures and to make a recommendation regarding an ordinance.
1996:
1996-
1998:
The Committee's final report, the Proposed Mountain Protection Plan dated August 1, 1996, recommended
that the Board adopt an ordinance to protect water quality, reseNoir capacity, soil conseNation, forest
resources, plant and animal habitat, and scenic values with their associated impact to the economy, tourism,
and public safety. The Board of SupeNisors received the report on September 4, 1996, and directed the
Planning Commission to hold sessions on a proposed ordinance as recommended by the Committee. The
Planning Commission held three sessions that fall, leading to the resolution of intent adopted on October 15,
1996. Staff was directed to prepare ordinance language.
Following work sessions and a final public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval
unanimously (6-0) of all three amendments (Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 98-01, Zoning Text
Amendment ZTA 98-05, Zoning Map Amendment ZMA 98-10).
1998: The Board approved The Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Mountain Protection Plan). The Zoning Text
Amendment and the Zoning Map Amendment were tabled; thus, action on these amendments was deferred.
2002: The Board of SupeNisors determined that they would reconsider the Zoning Text Amendment, as revised by the
Board in 1998, and the Zoning Map Amendment.
2003: Open House Informational Meetings held.
2003: The Board of SupeNisors determined that a new Committee should be appointed to consider the proposed
Ordinance when the Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan work was further along. The Board appointed a twelve-
member Mountain Overlay District Committee and one liaison from the Board of SupeNisors.
2004-
2006:
2006:
2007:
Mountain Overlay District Committee met over two years before arriving at a consensus on a proposal to
protect mountain resources. The Committee arrived at consensus only after long, arduous debates, and
extensive research that included visits from outside experts. They strived to achieve a balance between
individual property rights, retaining property values, and protecting finite natural resources.
May 10, the MOD Committee presented its proposal to the Board
August 1 and 3, Public Input meetings held at Burley Elementary School
September 13, the Board held a work session to further discuss the MOD proposal
December 13, the Board held a work session to discuss the MOD proposal and directed staff to return with
information pertaining to expanding the MOD proposal into the RA.
January 10, the Board generally indicated that it would not approve establishing a Mountain Overlay District,
but instead it wanted additional information regarding provisions in the MOD proposal that could be utilized in
the entire RA; provisions for a policy change for requiring an E &S Plan instead of an Agreement was directed
to be placed on a future agenda.
Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources - April 17, 2006 SUBMITTED.doc
ATTACHMENT B
Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources
by
The Mountain Overlay District (MOD) Committee
On June 4, 2003, the Board of Supervisors appointed a Mountain Overlay District Committee.
The Board asked the Committee to craft "an acceptable and effective ordinance to protect
mountain resources and implement the Mountain Protection Plan" (a section of the
Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1998).1 The Committee's diverse membership was also asked
to use a consensus process.2 The Committee worked for two years, from April 2004 through
April 2006. AI/12 of the Committee's members supporl this proposal. 3
The Mountain Overlay District (MOD) Committee recommends a three-part program to protect the
economic, cultural, and natural resources of Albemarle County's mountains. The recommended
program includes: a mountain ordinance focused on protecting the MOD environment; principles
that would mandate and govern Rural Cluster Subdivisions in the mountains; and public
acquisition of interests in land. Each of these elements is outlined below.
The program, as a whole, is designed to get development off critical slopes and out of stream
buffer areas and to protect habitats and watersheds, scenic and historic resources, and
agricultural and forestal uses of the mountains. It is also designed to conserve properties and
their values both within and outside the MOD. Several aspects of this proposal, such as
enhanced protection for critical slopes, might also be appropriate for general application in the
County's Rural Areas, Because the Committee's charge related to the MOD, however, we have
not included broader applications in our proposal.
A. Outline of a Mountain Overlay District Ordinance
1. Findings
a. Ensuring public safety is of particular concern in Albemarle's mountains, In a few clearly
defined areas, unstable mountain slopes are a clear threat to life and property, as
evidenced by past debris flows. More generally, difficult access can make successful fire
and rescue operations problematic in the mountains.
b. The mountains of the County are almost entirely in forest cover with the remaining acres
in orchards and pasture. They support a viable forest and agricultural industry that is
important to the County's economic well-being. Mountain areas provide critical services
in collecting, storing, filtering and releasing water for human consumption and other uses
at lower elevations. Maintaining forest cover and protecting headwaters and stream
buffers in the mountains are necessary for adequate quantity and quality of water. The
mountain forests (like all forests) also protect air quality and help stabilize climate.
c. Mountain landowners have important interests in maintaining the use, enjoyment and
economic value of their land. Landowners, businesses and citizens throughout the
County have important economic and quality-of-Iife interests in preserving the natural,
historic and scenic qualities of the mountains. These economic interests include a
substantial tourism industry.
d. Mountain areas are a system of slopes that extend for greater distances and may be
considerably steeper than slopes at lower elevations. Disturbance of steep slopes in
these areas is of particular concern because of the presence of more erodible soils than
in other areas and the length of the grade on such slopes.
1 "Mountain Overlay District" memorandum from Joan McDowell to the Mountain Overlay District
Committee, March 16, 2004.
2 Ibid. and "Mountain Overlay District Committee Meeting Notes," AprilS, 2004.
3 A 13th member, Katie Hobbs, moved to Georgia in late 2005.
Page 1 of 5 Pages
Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources - April 17, 2006 SUBMITTED.doc
A TT ACHMENT B
e. The mountain areas support native biological diversity and offer prime habitat for hunting
and wildlife observation. Declines in diversity are threatened by fragmentation of habitat
- the dividing of large areas into smaller parcels - and the resulting disruption of forest
cover.
f. The mountains provide an important and unique aesthetic and cultural resource. The
relatively pristine, wooded character of the County's high elevations - the blue backdrop
of the mountains - defines much of the character of Albemarle County and has served as
an inspiration and cultural landmark for residents since colonial times.
2. Purposes of Ordinance
Based on these findings, the Committee proposes an ordinance to achieve the following
purposes in mountain areas:
a. Protect public safety
b. Protect headwater streams, water quantity and quality, and public drinking water
reservoir capacity
c. Reduce impacts of development on native biological diversity (natural heritage)
d. Preserve properties and their values both within and outside the MOD
e. Protect agricultural and forestal soils and uses
f. Protect scenic qualities and cultural and other historical resources
3. Definitions
a. Mountain Ordinance District (MOD). The ordinance would use the same lower
boundary lines for the MOD as the proposed 1998 ordinance. It would apply to parcels
that lie wholly or partially within those boundary lines.
b. Ridge Area. A "ridge area" within the MOD would be defined as within 100 vertical feet
or 250 horizontal feet of a crest, whichever is more restrictive.4
4. Terms of the MOD Ordinance
a. Critical Slopes
No residential construction or related road or driveway construction, except for the improvement
of a road or driveway that existed on the date of the ordinance, would be permitted on critical
slopes. This ban on construction would not apply to roads built for forestry, agricultural, and
horticultural purposes.s Neither would this ban apply to lots of record created on or before
December 10,1980, in order to establish the first single family residence, provided there is no
alternative building site and no alternative route for the road.
Any roads built on critical slopes for forestry, agricultural, or horticultural purposes after the date
of the ordinance would not be convertible to residential use after the date of the ordinance. This
limitation would not apply to lots of record created on or before December 10, 1980, in order to
establish the first single family residence, provided there is no alternative building site and no
alternative route for the road.
b. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
4 Virginia Code ~ 15.2-2295.1 defines "crest" to mean "the uppermost line of a mountain or chain of
mountains from which the land falls away on at least two sides to a lower elevation or elevations."
5 See Albemarle County Code ~ 18-4.2.1 (definition of "building site").
Page 2 of 5 Pages
Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources - April 17, 2006 SUBMITIED.doc
A TT ACHMENT B
Land disturbing activities exceeding 2500 square feet will require an effective erosion and
sediment control plan explicitly designed to address erosion control and water infiltration for the
long term. Guidelines for drafting these plans should encourage flexible and innovative
approaches.
c. Stream Buffers
No residential construction would be permitted within 200 feet of an intermittent or perennial
stream or river or other body of water shown on a U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangle
topographic map. No hard-surface or impermeable surface roads, including gravel on compacted
base, or driveways would be permitted in this area except by special use permit.
When disturbance is necessary to cross streams to access a portion of the property as set forth
above (or as otherwise allowed in the MOD), best management practices would be imposed.
Development in a stream buffer mal be authorized in the following circumstances, provided that
a mitigation plan? is submitted to, and approved, by the program authority:
· On a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the construction
and maintenance of a driveway or roadway, and the program authority determines that
the stream buffer would prohibit reasonable access to a portion of the lot which is
necessary for the owner to have a reasonable use of the lot; or
· On a lot of record created on or before December 10, 1980, if the stream buffer would
result in the loss of a building site, and there are no other available building sites outside
the stream buffer on the lot, or to allow redevelopment as permitted in the underlying
zoning district.8
d. Heiaht Restrictions
No building within the ridge area would be permitted to exceed 35 feet in height or to exceed the
height of an adjacent crest, whichever is more restrictive.9
e. Safe Access
Building sites within the MOD will not be approved unless the applicant can demonstrate that fire
and rescue vehicles will be able to safely access the site.
f. Waiver or Modification
An administrative waiver or modification from one or more of these requirements would be
available. Such waiver or modification could be granted only upon a finding that alternatives
proposed by the developer would advance each of the purposes of the ordinance to an equivalent
or greater degree than strict application of these requirements.1o In making this determination,
the appropriate body-the Program Authority or the Planning Commission-would take into
account the effects of the developer's overall plan for the property (including residential
construction and related road or driveway construction or road or driveway improvement), and if a
6 Albemarle County Code S 17-321 provides that the activities "may" be authorized by the program
authority, but the authority does not have to permit the activities in all cases.
7 The mitigation plan mandated by Albemarle County Code S 17-322(C)(2) requires, among other things,
that the activity be located so that it is the least disruptive to the functions of the stream buffer.
S See Albemarle County Code S 17-321.
9 It is the Committee's intention that "adjacent" refers to a crest on which a residential dwelling could be
constructed.
]0 Compare with Albemarle County Code SS 18-4.2.5 and 18-5.1(a).
Page 3 of 5 Pages
.
Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources - April 17, 2006 SUBMITTED.doc
ATTACHMENT B
waiver were issued, it would include any conditions on development necessary to protect the
purposes of the ordinance.
A variance would be available in cases of undue hardship under existing regulations.11
Application of the Ordinance may result in inability to use all division rights 12 that have been
allocated to properties in the MOD - that is, because of measures in the Ordinance, parcels may
not be able to be developed as extensively as they would without these measures. Property
owners would have the ability to moderate the effect of these measures through waivers and
modifications.
B. Guidelines for Incorporation into a Future Rural Cluster Subdivision Ordinance for the
MOD
For Rural Preservation Developments (RPDs) in the MOD, rural preservation parcels (RPPs) will
include any ridge area in the RPD or as much of it as feasible consistent with utilization of all
development rights otherwise available to the parcel. The RPP will retain a development right.
The RPP will be configured and conditioned to minimize adverse impacts on hydrology,
biodiversity, aesthetics, cultural and other historical resources, agricultural and forestal soils and
uses, public safety, and to preserve property values within and outside the MOD.
Development lots outside the RPP will be configured and conditioned to minimize impacts on
13
these same resources and property values.
Construction in RPDs in the MOD will also be subject to the generic requirements in the MOD
Ordinance, as above.
C. Additional Protection for Mountain Resources
The County's Comprehensive Plan makes specific provision for acquisition of property interests,
such as purchase of development rights (PDR), to protect the mountains. The Committee
proposes expanded efforts within the MOD to:
· Promote conservation easements
· Promote riparian buffer easements
· Encourage voluntary reduction of development potential
More specifically, beyond the ordinance and clustering proposed in this document, the Committee
believes the Board of Supervisors must develop innovative and flexible approaches to protecting
Albemarle's mountains. It has generated the following list of ideas, although it is not endorsing
any single one. The list is certainly not intended to be exhaustive; rather, the Committee
encourages the Board to think creatively.
· Grant complete or partial tax-exemption to any real estate placed in a permanent
"riparian buffer" easement, even if the landowner chooses to impose stream buffers that
are wider than those recommended in the Stream Buffers section of this proposal.14
11
See Albemarle County Code S 18-34.2.
12 The term "division rights" includes "development rights."
13 See Mountain Design Standards, Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Plan, which is a component of
the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, pp. 116-117; Strategies, Rural Areas Plan, which is a
component of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, pp. 37-38; and Memorandum to Planning
Commission from Stephen P. Waller (May 24,2005) (Ragged Mountain Farm RPD).
Page 4 of 5 Pages
Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources - April 17, 2006 SUBMITTED.doc
ATTACHMENTB
· Change the ACE Program's criteria to evaluate properties and allocate the currently
available and potentially new funding resources as follows:
o Mountain value: Modify the ACE ranking to add a category for land located
inside the MOD.
o Scenic value: Modify the ACE ranking to add a category for scenic lands.
· Lease scenic rights. Develop a Scenic Land-Lease Program that would pay a fair price
to landowners for very long (30-99 years) scenic leases on the highest ridge spines.
· Develop a Watershed Protection Fund. Work with the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority and the Albemarle County Service Authority to develop a user fee that would be
earmarked-as supplemental ACE funding-for the MOD sections of the watershed that
feed the local public water supply system.
· Abate all property taxes on the Ridge Areas within the MOD as long as they remain
undeveloped. If conversion occurs later, a rollback of all abated taxes would be levied,
with interest at 10% on accrued rollback balances compounded annually.
· Develop a transfer of development rights (TDR) ordinance (using recent enabling
legislation) whereby development rights within the MOD may be sold and transferred to
parcels wholly outside the MOD.15
Enactment of one or more of these approaches would not be designed to compensate
landowners for the impact of the proposed ordinance. Instead, they would create additional
protections for the MOD beyond what may be accomplished by regulation.
It is the Committee's desire to avoid adverse impacts on the viability of the ACE program as well
as on any other similar program or regulatory provision in the County.
14 S 58.1-3666. Wetlands and riparian buffers. Wetlands, as defined herein, that are subject to a perpetual
easement permitting inundation by water, and riparian buffers, as defined herein, that are subject to a
perpetual easement permitting inundation by water, are hereby declared to be a separate class of property
and shall constitute a classification for local taxation separate from other classifications of real property.
The governing body of any county, city or town may, by ordinance, exempt or partially exempt such
property from local taxation. "Riparian buffer" means an area of trees, shrubs or other vegetation, subject
to a perpetual easement permitting inundation by water, that is (i) at least thirty-five feet in width, (ii)
adjacent to a body of water, and (iii) managed to maintain the integrity of stream channels and shorelines
and reduce the effects of upland sources of pollution by trapping, filtering, and converting sediments,
nutrients, and other chemicals. "Wetlands" means an area that is inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency or duration sufficient to support, and that under normal conditions does
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, and that is subject
to a perpetual easement permitting inundation by water. (1998, c. 516.)
15 Approved by the Governor-Chapter 573 (effective 7/1/06). Transfer of development rights. Allows
localities to provide for the transfer of development rights from a parcel of property located in the locality
to another parcel of property located elsewhere in the locality.
Page 5 of 5 Pages
Attachment C
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Mountain Overlay District and Rural Areas Resource
Protection Work Session
AGENDA DATE:
December 13, 2006
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Protection of Albemarle's Rural Areas Resources
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACnS):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Cilimberg,
Benish, McDowell
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
BACKGROUND:
On September 13, 2006, the Board of Supervisors held a work session to discuss the Mountain Overlay District (MOD)
Committee's recommendations for a three-part program to "protect the economic, cultural, and natural resources of
Albemarle County's mountains." The Committee's report advised, "several aspects of the proposal, such as enhanced
protection for critical slopes, might be appropriate for general application in the County's Rural Areas." The Board directed
staff to investigate extending the protection measures recommended in the MOD framework to the rest of the Rural Areas
and to schedule a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to review this report. A copy of the proposed MOD
framework is attached as reference (Attachment A). The Board did not vote on the Mountain Overlay District Resolution of
Intent.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2: Protect the County's natural resources.
DISCUSSION:
The Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources recommended by the MOD Committee consists of
what the Committee referred to as a "three-legged stool." This three-part program includes: a) a mountain ordinance
framework that focuses on protection of the MOD environment; b) principles that would mandate and govern Rural Cluster
Subdivisions; and (c) public acquisition of interests in land. The Committee stressed that all three "legs" would provide the
comprehensive approach needed for protecting the lands in the Mountain Overlay District (Attachment A).
As the Board requested, this work session is to review an assessment of applying the MOD recommendations throughout
the Rural Areas. Staff's analysis of applying the MOD recommendations throughout the Rural Areas is available in
Attachment B. The format for this review includes the actual MOD framework quoted from the individual components,
applicable comprehensive plan policies, existing ordinance regulations. and a question/answer segment to discuss some of
the issues.
BUDGET IMPACT:
When the Board has determined the direction regarding each of these regulations, staff will prepare a budget impact
analysis. It is anticipated that additional staff resources would be required to process, inspect, and enforce many of
these additional regulations. If the Board elects to do so, those additional costs may be recovered in permit fees.
Additionally, it is anticipated that providing accurate surveys and detailed plans, as well as any additional permit fees,
would increase upfront costs to builders. It is anticipated that all of the builder's costs would be passed on to the
future homebuyers. While economic theory suggests these increased costs would constrain development activity in
the Rural Areas, staff cannot speculate on whether the additional costs would have an appreciable effect on the rate of
Rural Areas development.
Attachment C
AGENDA TITLE:
Mountain Overlay District and Rural Areas Resource Protection Work Session
December 13, 2006
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The purpose of this work session is to provide an opportunity for the Board and Planning Commission to give staff
direction. Based on direction given at this work session, staff would develop both a Resolution of Intent and
ordinance amendments to comply with the Board's direction. To be able to proceed with that effort, staff needs
answers to the following questions:
1. Does the Board wish to proceed with any of the MOD Committee recommendations (Attachment B -
Part A) and, if so, does the Board wish to limit all of these to a Mountain Overlay District or to expand
this to include the entire Rural Areas? If the changes were applied to all Rural Areas property in the
same manner, the need to create a Mountain Overlay District is eliminated while creation of the district
would be important if any provisions were to be limited to that district.
2. If the Board decides to proceed with any of the proposed changes, which changes would they like
brought forward? To assist the Board, the following list describes the possible changes discussed and
provides staff's position.
a. Critical Slopes. Staff believes applying the critical slopes provision over the entire Rural Areas
would be effective at reducing development impacts and protecting natural resources. Staff
believes this would provide some, but not all, of the natural resource protection anticipated with the
previously considered subdivision phasing and clustering provisions. Staff believes limiting this
provision to the MOD would also provide a benefit, but a much smaller one and would increase the
complexity of plan reviews by creating two separate standards rather than simplifying with one
standard. It should be recognized that this provision can reduce the ability of some properties to
exercise all of their development rights, but would provide for at least one dwelling on the property
as it currently exists. If applied to the entire Rural Areas rather than the MOD, the number of
properties potentially affected would significantly increase.
b. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Staff believes there is not sufficient benefit for reducing the
disturbance area to 2,500 square feet for all building permits, as building permits for new Rural
Areas' dwellings all fall within the current 10,000 square foot area threshold. Reducing the area to
2,500 square feet would expand coverage to construction such as additions to houses and
garages, which staff considers to have much smaller impacts. If there is interest in pursuing the
critical slopes provisions and/or verifying safe access, staff will need to stop allowing use of
Agreements in-lieu of a Plan and require complete E&S Plans, which include existing topography
and all proposed grading. Ending use of Agreements in-lieu of a Plan does not require any
ordinance changes but will significantly increase the amount of work staff must do in both permit
review and inspections. It would also increase the cost to applicants for building permits in the
Rural Areas.
c. Stream Buffers. Staff has previously indicated a 200' buffer width can be justified in the MOD,
based on the increased sensitivity of those areas. Staff does not believe water resource protection
can justify a 200' stream buffer for the entire Rural Areas. Staff believes including stream buffers
for intermittent streams throughout the Rural Areas, as is currently done in the Water Supply Areas,
is a justifiable protection of natural resources and consistent with the County's Strategic Plan Goal
for enhanced protection of water resources. Including intermittent streams throughout the entire
Rural Areas would potentially impact the ability of property owners to exercise all of their
development rights, but provisions already in the Water Protection Ordinance allow at least some
reasonable use of the property.
d. Building Heights. Staff believes protection of ridges and crests provides benefit within the MOD, but
there is little benefit in applying this to the entire Rural Areas. Within the MOD, it should be noted
that the benefit of limiting building height with respect to the ridgeline has been challenged as
having unanticipated impacts, such as encouraging building on the slope near the ridge, which
potentially increases both the natural resource impact and visibility. Staff does not believe that
Attachment C
AGENDA TITLE:
Mountain Overlay District and Rural Areas Resource Protection Work Session
December 13, 2006
Page 3
application of building height restrictions in relation to ridgelines should be applied to the remainder
of the Rural Areas.
e. Safe Access. Staff believes this provision is already in the Zoning Ordinance, but the ordinance is
not specific on what is required and difficult to enforce without seeing grading that demonstrates the
requirement is being satisfied. As discussed with E&S Plans, assuring compliance with this
provision would require the County to stop allowing Agreements in-lieu of a Plan for new dwellings
in the Rural Areas. It should also be noted the Fire/Rescue Department has indicated that safe
access is an issue throughout the County. Based on this, staff believes this must be uniformly
applied across the entire Rural Areas.
f. Waivers and Modifications. Waivers, modifications or variances are available in the Zoning
Ordinance. The MOD framework provides clarification of the intent and offers administrative
waivers, under certain conditions. To simplify process and assure consistent application, staff
believes waivers and modifications should be kept administrative whenever possible and limited to
that needed to allow at least some reasonable use of the property.
g. Guidelines for Cluster Subdivision Ordinance. The existing regulations apply to both the MOD and
the Rural Areas. Staff does not believe that the existing ordinance needs modification.
h. Additional Protection for Mountain Resources. Staff believes additional protection measures for the
Rural Areas can be explored, but completion of the current efforts should take priority over starting
any new effort.
ATTACHMENTS
A-Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources
B- Staff analysis of applying the MOD recommendations throughout the Rural Areas
C-Discussion Points - Expanding the proposed MOD Stream Buffer provisions Countywide
D-Zoning Ordinance Sections 4.2.5 Waivers and 4.2.6 Exemptions
Attachment D
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Mountain Overlay District
Rural Areas Resource Protection
Joint Work Session
AGENDA DATE:
January 10, 2007 Joint Work Session
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Mountain Overlay District Proposal for Protection of
Albemarle County's Mountain Resources
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACTCS):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Cilimberg,
Benish, McDowell
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL REVIEW: YES
BACKGROUND:
At its joint work session on December 13, 2006 with the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors continued its
discussion begun at the work session on September 13, 2006, pertaining to the Mountain Overlay District (MOD)
Committee's Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources (Attachment A). The Board discussion
focused on the MOD Proposal in order to obtain a sense of the willingness of the Board and Commission to move forward
on each of the MOD provisions. The Board also decided that it would take up the possibility of extending certain MOD
provisions to the remainder of the Rural Areas after it concluded its discussion on the application of the provisions within
the Mountain Protection Areas. Following the discussion, the Board requested that staff schedule another work session to
provide a two-hour time period for the Board to conclude its discussion.
The Board reached general consensus to move forward with revised ordinance provisions for the following:
1. Critical Slopes (restrictions for roads and driveways across critical slopes)
2. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (require a Plan instead of an Agreement in-lieu, in order to obtain a grading
plan)
3. Stream Buffers (200' wide stream buffers, in order to protect steam head waters)
4. Safe Access (ensure that safe access is provided to buildings)
Some Board members did want it understood that while they were agreeing to move forward, they were not committing to
vote favorably for any particular provisions as they had not yet seen the particular details.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goals 4: Effectively Manage the County's Growth and Development.
Objective 4.2: By June 30, 2010, increase the protection of the County's rural areas by implementing the key
strategies of the Rural Area Plan.
DISCUSSION:
The remaining provisions of the MOD proposal to be discussed on January 10 are as follows:
1. Height Restrictions (building heights below the crests of ridges)
2. Waiver or Modification (waivers available, if the purposes of the ordinance can be met; administrative or Planning
Commission decisions should be discussed)
3. Guidelines for Incorporation into a Future Rural Cluster Subdivision Ordinance for the MOD (existing Rural
Preservation Development standards would be applicable to the MOD)
Attachment D
AGENDA TITLE:
Mountain Overlay District
Rural Areas Resource Protection
Joint Work Session
January 10, 2007
Page 2
4. Additional Protection for Mountain Resources (conservation easements, property tax adjustments, Transfer of
Development Rights)
Also, if time permits, the Board will discuss the implications for extending certain MOD regulations throughout the
remainder of the Rural Areas. The December 13th Board Executive Summary (Attachment B) provides information
regarding extending the MOD provisions into the remainder of the Rural Areas.
A Power Point presentation to illustrate the progression of a subdivision through the application process will be given by
staff at the beginning of the work session in order to clarify some of the issues raised at both the September 13 and the
December 13 work sessions.
BUDGET IMPACT:
After the Board has completed its review noted above and provided direction, staff will prepare a budget impact analysis to
accompany the proposed ordinance amendments as they are deliberated. It is anticipated that additional staff resources
would be required to process, inspect, and enforce many of these additional regulations. If the Board elects to do so, those
additional costs may be recovered in permit fees. Additionally, it is anticipated that providing accurate surveys and detailed
plans, as well as any additional permit fees, would increase upfront costs to builders. It is anticipated that all of the
builders' costs would be passed on to the future homebuyers. While economic theory suggests these increased costs
would constrain development activity in the Rural Areas, staff cannot speculate on whether the additional costs would have
an appreciable effect on the rate of Rural Areas development.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
On September 13, 2006, staff recommended that the Board adopt a Resolution of Intent for the Mountain Overlay District
based on the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan and the recommendation of the MOD Committee (Attachment
C). Staff continues to support proceeding with Mountain Overlay District provisions and recommends that the Board
complete review of the provisions of the MOD proposal. Furthermore, staff requests that the Board consider extending
certain MOD regulations throughout the Rural Area as discussed in the December 13th Executive Summary (Attachment
B). Based on direction given at the January 10,2007, work session, staff will develop the necessary Resolutions of Intent
that comply with the Board's direction and bring those to the Board for adoption at a subsequent meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
A Mountain Overlay District Committee recommended Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's
Mountain Resources
B Executive Summary, Board of Supervisor's December 13, 2006, Joint Work Session with the Planning
Commission
C Resolution of Intent for the Mountain Overlay District
Attachment E
..s~Watch
P.O. Box 181
Ivy, VA 22945
www.streamwatch.org
(4::\4\ 92::\-Rfl42
April 5, 2007
Joan McDowell
Albemarle County Planning Department
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Community
Partners
Dear Ms. McDowell,
Fluvanna County
It is my understanding that Albemarle is seeking advice from
StreamWatch regarding stream buffering. StreamWatch is a partnership of the
entities listed in the margin, and our mission is to provide data and information
about local stream conditions and the factors driving those conditions.
StreamWatch does not typically give management recommendations. However,
when the science is clear, and if all StreamWatch partners are in agreement, we
can participate in management discussions upon request. This is such a case.
Albemarle County
The Nature Conservancy
Rivanna
Conservation Society
Director
StreamWatch has not performed a study of buffer effectiveness in
Albemarle, and we do not believe such a study is needed in order for the County
to make a well-informed decision about improving buffer protection. Buffering is
perhaps the most intensively scrutinized aspect of stream management. Literally
hundreds of peer-reviewed studies document the importance and effectiveness
of buffers. Though this letter is not a comprehensive academic-style review of
the literature, I, a number of StreamWatch technical advisors, and a number of
StreamWatch steering committee members are sufficiently familiar with the
literature to give us strong confidence in the comments that follow. The
statements we make in this letter are supported by several representative
papers and publications, including the Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook and
an exhaustive review of buffer studies conducted by the University of Georgia's
Institute of Ecology. (Please see the list of references below).
Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority
Thomas Jefferson
Planning District
Commission
Thomas Jefferson
Soil and Water
Conservation District
John Murphy
Proaram Manaaer
A buffer, as you know, is a vegetated strip alongside the stream. The
streamside zone, also called the riparian zone, exercises very strong controls
over stream conditions. Our region's natural vegetative condition is forest.
Riparian forests serve to stabilize stream banks, control stream temperature,
supply food (tree leaves) to aquatic organisms, facilitate reproduction for aquatic
organisms that need forest habitat to complete their lifecycles, and filter runoff.
Since local stream ecosystems are by nature"geared" to forested riparian zones,
streams inevitably degrade when the forest is removed.
Rose Brown
We base our recommendations on the assumption that Albemarle's goal
is to protect water quality and stream health throughout the County. We use the
term water quality to refer to the physiochemical quality of stream water, where
"better water" means water that carries fewer human-generated toxic, nutrient,
and sediment pollutants and is less burdened by human-caused temperature
increase than "poorer water." We use the term stream health to refer to the
ecological robustness of the stream, where "better health" connotes better water
quality, better habitat, and richer biological diversity than "poorer health". Water
Attachment E
quality and stream health are interdependent. For instance, streams with poor biological diversity
almost invariably have poor water quality.
Our recommendations are as follows:
1) Extend buffer protection to intermittent streams throuqhout the County. (Presently, intermittent
streams are protected only in drinking water supply areas).
The protection of intermittent streams confers enormous water quality and stream health
benefits to the entire stream system-not simply the intermittent streams themselves. Intermittent
streams constitute the majority of stream miles in the stream network. Research shows that during
stormflow, these streams can contribute large volumes of sediment and other pollutants to the
system. Generally, the goal of good water quality and stream health cannot be met if intermittent
streams are unprotected.
Most research indicates that a 100-foot buffer on either side of the stream is usually
sufficient for water quality and stream health protection in non-hilly areas.
2) Increase buffer widths on slopinq land. and in hillv and mountainous areas. As slope and runoff
water velocity increase, buffer widths need to be increased. Formulae are available for calculating
ideal buffer widths on sloping land. Minimally, a 200-foot buffer may provide an acceptable level of
protection in most hilly settings, but on very steep land, buffers may need to be extended beyond
200 feet. Much research suggests that the target width of the buffer should not include land with
greater than 25 percent slope. In other words, steeply sloping land does not provide buffering
service, and these steep slopes should be subtracted when calculating the functioning width of the
buffer.
3) Promote livestock exclusion. When given direct access to the riparian corridor, cattle and other
livestock profoundly affect water quality and stream health. They do this by:
a) consuming buffer vegetation (thus diminishing the vegetation's effectiveness as a
pollution filter).
b) destabilizing stream banks, leading to erosion and sediment pollution.
c) wallowing in the stream and damaging stream habitat.
d) introducing excessive nutrient pollution by defecating in and near streams.
Livestock can undo most of the gains achieved by buffers, and a strategy that does not exclude
livestock from the buffer will fail to meet many stream protection objectives.
4) Promote native forest in the buffer. Currently, a large portion of buffers in Albemarle is
unforested, even in water supply areas. Grass buffers can help protect water quality by filtering
runoff. But the natural condition of the Albemarle landscape is forest, and local stream ecosystems
are adapted to this forested condition. Thus, buffers composed of native forest are essential for
achieving overall stream health. Riparian forests maintain stream health by:
a) stabilizing stream banks with tree roots, thereby reducing erosion and associated
sediment loading.
b) supplying essential food (i.e. the leaves of deciduous trees) for invertebrates. These
invertebrates, in turn, support fish and other higher organisms.
c) serving as essential habitat for the aquatic invertebrates that need forested terrestrial
habitat to complete their life cycles. Again, higher organisms depend on these
invertebrates.
d) providing complex habitat for fish and other organisms in the form of woody debris
(fallen trunks and limbs).
e) maintaining stream water temperature within the natural range of variation to which
native organisms are evolutionarily adapted.
2
Attachment E
Buffers are not bullet-proof. Water quality and stream health are functions of conditions
throughout the entirety of a stream's watershed, and are also profoundly affected by flow alteration
(e.g. impoundments and withdrawals for water supply; high stormflows caused by impervious
surfaces). Effective watershed management incorporates many tools. Buffering is essential among
these, and though buffers cannot solve all problems in all settings, the great majority of Albemarle
streams would benefit tremendously if protected with a continuous, adequately-sized buffer of
intact native forest.
On behalf of the StreamWatch partnership, I thank you for inviting these comments.
Sincerely,
rL '7)~!J
John Murphy, Director
StreamWatch
List of References:
Allan, JD, Erickson, DL and Fay, J. 1997. The Influence of Catchment Land Use on Stream
Integrity Across Multiple Spatial Scales. Freshwater Biology 37: 149-161.
Correll, DL. 2003. Vegetated Stream Riparian Zones: Their Effects on Stream Nutrients,
Sediments, and Toxic Substances. An annotated and indexed bibliography of the world literature,
including buffer strips and interactions with hyporheic zones and floodplains. Thirteenth Edition,
April 2003.
Correll, DL. 2005. Principles of Planning and Establishment of Buffer Zones. Ecological
Engineering. 24(5): 433-439.
Wenger, S. 1999. A Review of the Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extent, and
Vegetation. Revised Version, March 5, 1999. Office of Public Service & Outreach, Institute of
Ecology, University of Georgia.
Palone, RS, Todd, AH (editors). 1997. Chesapeake Bay riparian handbook: a guide for
establishing and maintaining riparian forest buffers. Revised June 1998. USDA Forest Service.
NA-TP-02-97. Radnor, PA.
Schueler, TR. 2003. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems. Center for Watershed
Protection. Ellicott City, MD.
3
Attachment F
Thomas Jefferson Water Resources Advisory Committee
A technical advisory committee under the joint sponsorship of the
Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District and Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
Patrick Calvert (Chair), Charlottesville
Bruce Dotson, Albemarle
Edgar Imhoff, Albemarle
Michael Lawson, Fluvanna
William Norris, Charlottesville
Andy Wilson, Fluvanna
Nick Evans, TJSWCD
Nancy O'Brien, TJPDC
Alyson Sappington, TJSWCD
Nancy Damon, TJPDC
Sediment Sources and Mitigation Strategies,
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Watershed:
Analysis and Recommendations
June 5, 2001
This report was assembled in response to a request for technical assistance from the Albemarle
County Engineering Department dated August 10, 2000 (attached).
Backaround
The South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (SFRR) is an instream reservoir furnishing a substantial
portion of the raw water supply to the Charlottesville and Albemarle County, Virginia Urban
Service area. The rapid rate of sedimentation of this reservoir is prompting water planners to
search for ways to secure a reliable future water supply. Present water demand is expected to
exceed the safe yield of the water supply system by the year 2002. By the year 2050, the
forecasted demand of a projected population of 110,000 will be twice what existing facilities
could supply during critical periods of drought. A key factor in this mismatch in water
supply/demand is the steady loss of capacity in SFRR, which is losing usable storage at the rate
of 1.4% per year due to deposition of sediment on the bottom of the reservoir.
The declining capacity of the reservoir due to sedimentation has long been recognized. For
many years, Albemarle County has restricted residential and industrial development within the
reservoir watershed so as to minimize runoff of sediment and other pollutants. At the same
time, the County has worked in partnership with the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water
Conservation District and the Virginia Department of Forestry to promote agricultural and
forestry practices within the watershed that minimize pollutant runoff. It is not clear to what
extent these efforts have reduced the rate at which sediment has accumulated in the reservoir,
but all indications are that sedimentation continues to be a significant problem.
Water supply planners (VHB, 2000; 2001) are presently studying a variety of alternatives
with which to meet the projected future water demand. Among these are alternatives that would
restore SFRR's capacity, by dredging and removing sediment from the reservoir, and/or by
installing a 4- or 8-foot bladder on top of the SFRR dam to raise the pool and create new "top
storage." Other alternatives such as constructing a new reservoir on Buck Mountain Creek,
and pumping recycled waste water from the Moores Creek treatment plant to the upper
Mechums River, are contingent upon continued use of existing or expanded intakes and
treatment facilities at the SFRR dam. It seems clear that whatever course of action is ultimately
chosen in the water supply planning process, SFRR will continue to be an integral component of
the supply system for the foreseeable future, and there will be an ongoing need to deal with the
sedimentation issue.
Previous Work: What Is Known About Sedimentation of the Reservoir?
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (SFRR) is an elongate, shallow body of water, completed
in 1966 to receive runoff from a watershed area of 261 square miles. With an area of less than
one square mile, the reservoir is very small relative to the size of the watershed that drains into
it. Five distinct sub-watersheds are recognized. Ranked by land size and mean streamflow,
these are: Mechums River, Moormans River, Buck Mountain Creek, Ivy Creek, and lands
riparian to SFRR. In terms of the estimated sediment load each contributes to SFRR, however,
the rank of the subwatersheds shifts to the following: Mechums, Moormans, Ivy Creek, and a
virtual tie between riparian lands and Buck Mountain Creek.
Over the years since the reservoir was constructed, as concern has mounted about
decline in usable capacity, several studies and bathymetric surveys have been conducted to
investigate the origin, transport to, and deposition of sediment within the reservoir (Glasbey,
1981; Black and Veatch, 1994; Sobeck, 1999). Although the results of the various studies and
surveys differ quantitatively, there is general agreement that the rate of sediment yield is higher
from pastureland than from forest, and higher from developed areas, for example, Ivy Creek,
than from either of these. Glaspey (1981) and Black and Veatch (1994) derived similar results
for predicted sediment yield, and the predicted yields correlate fairly well with bathymetric
measurements of sediment thickness on the bottom of SFRR. Sobeck, (1999) applies a
sediment transport model and concludes that common annual peak flows in the Mechums
River-and not rare and major storm events, scour out and transport sand particles already
resident in geologic formations in the bed and banks of river, contributing half the overall
sediment load to the SFRR.
While the previous studies provide a basis for beginning to understand the
sedimentation problem, in some respects they raise as many questions as they answer. Further
geologic investigations are essential, for example, to clarify Sobeck's (1999) conclusions, to the
extent that his modeling and analysis did not consider the role of silt-and clay-size sediment.
According to Glaspey (1981), clay is the dominant sediment in SFRR. The research of Hjulstrom
(1939) demonstrated that erosion of clay requires the kind of energy which great storms
generate.
Importantly, all investigators report a paucity of information on stream flow and sediment
transport at exceptionally high flows, e.g., during the several hurricanes which have visited the
area since 1966. This is critical, for lacking actual measurements at the upper end of rating
curves, the correlation of watershed sediment yield to sediment deposited in the reservoir has
been obtained largely by extrapolation from other watersheds and by drawing rating curves to
obtain a "best fit." None of the previous studies have included mineralogical and petrologic
analyses that could trace reservoir sediment to geologic sources in the watershed. Further, a
search of files, reports and publications reveals no determination of trapping efficiency of the
SFRR, and it appears that currently available data are insufficient to enable this to be readily
determined.
Sianificance of Adeauate Information In Water Supply Plannina:
The feasibility of reducing the sedimentation of SFRR, through either engineering or
non structural means, rests on identifying the sources of sediment. What part is derived from
overland flow? If significant in amount, is the overland contribution attributable to a particular
geologic formation, or land use/management practice? What part of the sediment in SFRR
derives as wash load or bank cuttings from floodplains?
If mineralogical analyses prove, as Sobeck asserts, that sand already resident in the
Mechums streambed is the major contributor of sediment to SFRR, planners might focus more
on engineering solutions, such as sediment traps in-channel.
If the investigation indicates that a high volume of sand and silt is being scoured from the
floodplain, it would be appropriate to focus remediation on land use, land management and soil
conservation practices within the floodplain. It is noteworthy that the Mechums River flows
through well-developed floodplain scroll along an 8-mile reach extending from near Batesville
downstream to just east of Lake Albemarle, and this appears to be the locus of considerable
stream bank erosion and sloughing. Confirmation of severe bank cutting would lend support to
bank stabilization measures.
If it is found that major storms mobilize clays, and that clays-not sand and silt, are the
major culprits in sedimentation of SFRR, then remediation might focus on reducing erosion in
upland areas of the Mechums watershed, which are underlain by clay-rich soils. If clays do play
a significant role, it might be appropriate to investigate the feasibility of constructing an outlet in
the SFRR dam to enable sluicing of fine-grained suspended sediment through the reservoir
during and following major floods.
A Model for Further Research:
Accepting the conclusions of earlier workers that the bulk of the sediment load in SFRR comes
from Mechums River and Ivy Creek drainages, further research should address the following
questions:
What proportion of the sediment load in the SFRR is derived by erosion of the wetted perimeter
of the main stem & tributary channels, as opposed to overland sheet erosion & transport across
the riparian zone?
What proportion of the sediment load is derived from main stem as opposed to upper tributary
areas of the watershed?
Of the sediment load derived from within channel erosion, what proportion represents
remobilization of alluvial material bordering the stream channels? What is the role of the
extensive floodplain of the Mechums River in contributing sediment to SFRR? The large
volume of sediment contained in the floodplain-if eroded and transported-would seem to offer
a continuing supply of material for filling SFRR.
Is there a significant contribution of sediment load from erosion of solid bedrock formations in
stream channels or elsewhere, as opposed to erosion of unconsolidated surficial geologic
deposits?
What is the role of extreme weather events in mobilization & transport of sediment in different
parts of the basin system? What proportion of the overall sediment load in SFRR is brought in
during rare extreme events?
Research elements
Geologic mapping:
· Map the distribution of alluvial and other surficial deposits.
· Determine the linear extent of stream channel bordered by alluvial deposits.
· Compile existing mapping of bedrock geologic formations.
Core drilling:
· Obtain representative core samples from soils and saprolite over different
bedrock types, outside of the riparian zone
· Obtain core samples representative of alluvial deposits throughout the Mechums
River basin.
· Obtain core samples from SFRR and from the Lickinghole Creek, Beaver Creek
and Lake Albemarle impoundments.
Erosion susceptibility mapping:
· Using a standard testing methodology, measure erodibility of soil/saprolite
profiles associated with representative geologic, slope and land cover regimes
within the watershed.
· Create erosion susceptibility map on the basis of empirical data on erodibility,
and soils, geology geologic and land cover mapping.
· Compare derived erodibility factors with published indices of erodibility, in order
to develop correlations and allow extrapolation to other areas.
Determine the role of major storm events in sediment transport:
· Measure turbidity, suspended load, and bed load within the SFRR basin during
bank-full weather event(s).
· Data points should include stations in the lower, middle & upper main stem
Mechums River plus second & third order tributaries.
· In addition, measurements should be performed immediately below the SFRR
dam.
Monitoring:
· Establish a network of graduated stakes to be used to directly measure over
time, the erosion rates of stream channels, stream banks, riparian zones, alluvial
flood plains, and basin uplands.
· Monitoring sites should be selected to reflect a representative variety of geology,
slope and land cover.
Analysis:
.
Use mineralogical data from cores to track provenance of sediment, and, in
consideration of erosion susceptibility mapping, delineate areas of the watershed
that are potentially the greatest contributors of mobilized sediment.
Use monitoring data to refine erosion susceptibility mapping, and to evaluate the
effectiveness of sediment mitigation strategies.
Evaluate sediment transport data in order to determine the trapping efficiency of
reservoir. Use this information in determining the utility of installing a sluice at
.
.
the SFRR dam to allow flushing of suspended load during and following major
wet weather events.
Economics of Sediment Containment Strateaies
Ultimately, it is going to be necessary to assess sediment containment strategies in terms of
relative costs and benefits. Planners will need to examine various approaches (riparian buffers,
steam bank stabilization, flood plain management, forebays, etc) , not only within the context of
information produced by the above study, but also in the context of other alternatives that have
been proposed to address future water supply needs. In order to perform such an evaluation, it will
be desirable to attempt cost and benefit analysis of each strategy. Because of the difficulties in
measuring downstream environmental benefits, calculation of traditional benefit/cost ratios and
internal rates of return is not feasible.
One approach that could be used would be to rank and compare the alternative sediment
mitigation strategies on the basis of cubic yard of contained sediment per dollar expenditure. Cubic
yards of sediment can then be converted to gallons of reservoir water gained per dollar
expenditure. Sediment Another factor that weighs into the downstream benefits that accompany
reduced sediment load is the cost of water treatment at the SFRR intake and treatment facility.
Foster and others (1987) found that a
10% reduction in annual gross soil erosion resulted in a 4% reduction in annual water treatment
costs.
Practical Focus of the Proposal:
In order to secure funding, it is important that a research proposal to address the
sedimentation issue have a practical focus aimed at producing usable information in a timely
fashion. The research outlined above could be carried out in concert with field testing of actual
mitigation strategies. For example, sediment contribution rates could be measured for
vegetated riparian buffers of various compositions widths, and for different land covers on
alluvial flood plains. This would provide information of immediate and practical use to land and
water planners and managers. In identifying specific sources of sediment deposited in the
SFRR-and evaluating the relative importance of these various sources, the program will
enable planners to apply land management and conservation measures the most cost effective
manner.
The proposed study has the potential to contribute workable tools with which to manage the
sedimentation problem, both within the SFRR watershed and beyond. Although the study would
focus on a small portion of the Virginia Piedmont, the information developed will have high
transfer value to many other local and regional watersheds. Sedimentation is a prime water
quality concern for the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed and, more broadly, throughout the
Piedmont of the southeastern US.
Framework for carrvina out the proposed research:
The proposed research involves gathering and analyzing technical data having to do with
geology and hydrology, in conjunction with installing and monitoring pilot mitigation practices.
There are activities where considerable technical sophistication will be required, and other
activities that could be carried out by relatively untrained individuals. While some research
elements may produce useful information within a relatively short time period, some activities,
such as erosion monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of sediment mitigation practices,
will need to be carried out over periods of years. Outside funding sources should be sought, but
long term commitment of local resources will be essential in order for the project to succeed.
It seems appropriate that an existing local institutional entity, or partnership of local entities,
serve as umbrella to orchestrate the project. The umbrella organization(s) would secure
funding and manage the project, bringing in technical expertise and manpower as indicated
from local, State and Federal government agencies, private sector consultants, and citizen
groups. Existing institutional entities that could logically provide project oversight include:
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
Albemarle County Engineering Department
Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District.
Biblioaraohv:
Black & Veatch (May, 1994), "Bathymetric Survey and Safe Yield of South Rivanna Reservoir,"
Interim memorandum prepared for Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, Charlottesville, VA
Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook: A guide for Establishing and Maintaining Riparian Forest
Buffers. Eds.: Roxane S. Palone and Albert H. Todd. USDA< Forest Service. May, 1997.
Clary, W. et al.,compilers. 1992 Proceedings--Symposium on Ecology and Management of
Riparian Shrub. (or Ecology and Management of Riparian Shrub Communities Symposium
Proceedings. USDA Forest Service.
Commonwealth of Virginia. 2000. Tributary Strategy: Goals for Nutrient and Sediment Reduction in
the James River. Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources. Richmond, Virginia.
Foster, D. Lynn, and others, 1987. Soil erosion and water treatment costs: Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation, 42(5), p349-352.
Glaspey, RG. (1981), "A Sediment Budget of the South Fork Rivanna River." Unpublished
thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia.
Hjutstrom, F. (1939), "Transportation of detritus by running water," Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol.,
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
rdata oublished in Krumbein. W.C. and Sloss. L.L. (1951). "Stratiaraohv and Sedimentation,"
W.H. Freeman, San Francisco.]
King, Dennis M., et.al. 1997. Setting Priorities for Riparian Buffers: A Practical Framework for
Comparing the Benefits and Costs of Vegetative Buffers. Environment Projection Agency Study.
Lawrence, RR, et. al. Riparian forests as nutrient filters i agricultural watersheds. BioScience
34:374-377.
Makuch, J. 1995. Quick Bibliographies: Nonpoint-Source Pollution Issues. Alternative Farming
Systems Information Center. National Agricultural Library. Beltsville, Maryland. 51p.
Makuch, J. 1995. Quick Bibliographies: Riparian Zones and Filter strips in Agricultural Operations.
Alternative Farming Systems Information Center. National Agricultural Library. Beltsville, Maryland.
44p.
Riparian Forest Buffer Panel Report: Technical Support Document. Riparian Forest Buffer Panel
Technical Team. EPA October 1996.
Schultz, R.C. 1993. Demonstration and evaluation of a sustainable multi-species riparian buffer
strip as a non-point source best management practice. Unpublished Report. forestry Department,
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. 155 p.
Sobeck, R.G., Jr. (1999), "Modeling the Source, Fate, and Transport of Watershed Sediments
with Application to the South Fork Rivanna River." Unpublished thesis, Engineering and Applied
Science, University of Virginia.
Vanasse Hangen Brustin (VHB), Inc. and O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. (Feb, 2000), "Analysis
of Alternatives, Water Supply Project, Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority." Charlottesville, VA
Attachment G 1
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the purposes of Section 4.2, Critical Slopes, of the Zoning Ordinance are to direct
development away from critical slopes to more suitable terrain in order to protect and conserve critical
slopes, public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas, and to reduce soil erosion, sedimentation,
water pollution and septic disposal problems associated with the disturbance of critical slopes; and
WHEREAS, Section 4.2 establishes minimum requirements for the location of improvements
and delineates several exemptions, including an exemption in Section 4.2.6 for accessways (driveways
and roads) where no reasonable alternative location or alignment exists; and
WHEREAS, Section 4.2.5 allows modifications and waivers to be granted from the critical
slopes requirements under prescribed circumstances, subject to reasonable conditions designed to
mitigate the adverse impacts otherwise resulting from the disturbance of critical slopes; and
WHEREAS, in order to better achieve the purposes of Section 4.2, it is desired to allow the
disturbance of critical slopes to establish an accessway only if the landowner obtains a modification or
waiver, with reasonable conditions, rather than an exemption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission
hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Section 4 and any other regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance as described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing
on the zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to
the Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
*****
I, Ella W. Carey, 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
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
Attachment G2
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, although the Zoning Ordinance requires safe and convenient access for
developments subject to a site plan (Section 32) and parking lots (Section 4.12), and the Subdivision
Ordinance imposes minimum design standards for public and private streets to allow safe travel, there
are no such minimum standards for driveways to residences in the Rural Areas zoning district; and
WHEREAS, in order to better protect the public safety, it is desired to require that driveways
in the Rural Areas zoning district be designed and constructed to assure that fire and rescue vehicles
can safely access a residence.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission
hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Section 4 and any other regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance as described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing
on the zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to
the Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
*****
I, Ella W. Carey, 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
Ave Nay
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Domer
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
Attachment G3
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, one of the key purposes of the family subdivision regulations is to promote the
cohesiveness of the family; and
WHEREAS, the Rural Areas Plan (the "Plan") was adopted by the Board of Supervisors as
part of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan on March 2,2005, and it states that one way to
discourage the transfer oflots created by a family subdivision to someone who is not a member of the
immediate family is to increase the period the parcel to be subdivided must be owned by the family
member before it may be subdivided, and to increase the period each family subdivision lot must be
owned by the grantee of a lot created by a family subdivision before it may be transferred to someone
who is not a member of the immediate family; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County Code S 14-212 requires that the grantee ofa lot created by a
family subdivision not transfer the lot to someone who is not a member of the immediate family for
two years from the date of recordation of the plat; and
WHEREAS, in order to better promote the purposes of the family subdivision regulations and
to discourage their abuse, it is desired to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to establish a period by
which a landowner must own a parcel before it may be subdivided by family subdivision, to extend the
period prohibiting the transfer of a lot created by family subdivision to someone who is not a member
of the immediate family beyond the current two-year period, and to adopt such other regulations to
assure that these requirements are satisfied.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good land development practices, the Board of Supervisors hereby
adopts a resolution of intent to amend Albemarle County Code S 14-212 and any other regulations of
the Subdivision Ordinance deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing
on the subdivision text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation
to the Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
*****
I, Ella W. Carey, 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
Mr. Domer
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
J/e...J."-zQUIII
ALBENlARLE COUNTY
To:
Board of Supervisors
From:
Dan Eggleston, Fire Rescue Chief
Date:
April 25, 2007
Subject:
City County Fire Rescue Consolidation Study Overview
Copy:
Bob Tucker, Bryan Elliott, Tom Foley
The Matrix Consulting Group completed the City/County fire rescue consolidation study and published their
final report. Attached you will find the report's executive summary, key findings, and recommendations along
with a CD that contains the complete report. Representatives of the Consulting Group are available to meet
with the Board and discuss the report results if desired.
The most significant findings of the consultant's analysis are listed below:
· Consolidation of the two Departments would offer minimal opportunities to reduce staff levels and
would, in fact, result in an additional expenditure of public funds totaling $515,000 in the first year of
operation of the combined Department due primarily to Matrix's recommendation that the City's
pay/classification and fringe benefit system be utilized by the new organization.
· There are significant differences in employee benefit costs between the City and County that would
require resolution under a consolidated department. If the Departments were to consolidate, the report
recommends the adoption of the higher benefit costs of the City.
· Due to the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the County's successful partnership
with its volunteer firefighting stations would be significantly modified in a combined operation.
Currently, approximately 30 percent of our 440 member volunteer contingent is comprised of existing
City firefighters. Under FLSA, these existing volunteers would have to be paid overtime to continue to
serve at our County stations. This additional overtime expenditure contributes to the additional
investment of public funds noted above.
· The fire station location analysis supports the construction of County Fire Rescue stations in the Ivy
and Pantops areas and the relocation of the Charlottesville fire station # 10 to Route 29 and Fontaine
Avenue.
· With an exception of the planned station for Fontaine and Route 29, the analysis of the current and
proposed fire station locations in the City and the urban development area in the County surrounding
the City did not identify any opportunities for the consolidation of City and County fire stations and the
fire/EMS personnel that staff the stations. The City and County should consider joint construction and
operation of the planned station for Fontaine and Route 29.
" We will provide the highest quality services to protect and preserve the
lives, property, and environment of our community. "
lIe..lIlI.--S~IfI.
ALBEIIIIARLE COUNTY
· Albemarle County Fire Rescue, Charlottesville Albemarle Rescue Squad, and the City Fire Department
and associated Medical Directors should set up an EMS steering committee by which the agencies can
interact formally. The committee should be responsible for discussing EMS problems, analyzing
operations and developing solutions.
· The City and County should revisit the Fire Services Agreement to reflect existinglfuture
needs of both jurisdictions for mutual aid fire/rescue support prior to the expiration of the
existing agreement in 2010.
" We will provide the highest quality services to protect and preserve the
lives, property, and environment of our community. "
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
From:
Division:
Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Greg Cooley, Roads Engineer
Inspections
April 17, 2007
Board Agenda - May 2, 2007
Road Resolution for Oak Hill and Logan's Run
Date:
Subject:
Attached is the original of Additions Form AM-4.3 for the following roads in Oak Hill and Logan's
Run
Oak Hill
· Maymont Drive (State Route 1291)
· Maymont Court (State Route 1292)
Logan's Run
. Moriah Way (State Route 1053)
We would like to have this included on the Board's May 2,2007 agenda so that a resolution can be
adopted requesting VDoT add these roads into the secondary system of state highways.
If additional information is needed, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Attachments
1U.<.-v'd 3'~~ '01 ~ 1:00
Little IZeswick School
Incorporated
A Therapeutic, Special Education Boarding School for Boys
March 22, 2007
Ms. Ella Carey
Board of Supervisors Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Ms. Carey,
Please consider moving our hearing date to May 9, 2007 as we are in danger of
losing our contractor.
The mistake by our architect, Robert Gariepy, added 500 square feet due to a size
requirement of rooms by our licensing agency not reflected in the original meeting. The
building came in slightly larger than was approved. Delaying our contractor and missing
the spring and summer building environment for a miscalculation should be considered.
It will make a significant difference to this project for the benefit of boys in our
population.
We sincerely appreciate you utmost attentiveness in this matter and look forward
to your considerate response.
Sincerely,
~~..~ C^.LJ'J~~
Robert A. Wilson
President
P.O. Box 24 · Keswick, VA 22947 · (434) 295-0457. Fax: (434) 977-1892 . www.littlekeswickschoo1.nct
Attai'hmf"nt R I
Growth Management
GOAL: Protect and efficiently utilize County resources by:
A. Emphasizing the importance of frotecting the elements that define the Rural Area:
1) Agricultural and forestry resources
2) Forestrv resources
3) Land oreservation
4) Land conservation
5) Water supply resources
6) Natural resources
7) Scenic resources
8) Historical, archaeolol!ical, and cultural resources
9) limited service delivery
Of these, the protection of agricultural and forestry resources is the highest priority.
B. Promoting the Development Areas as the place where a variety ofland uses,
facilities, and services exist and are planned to support the County's future growth,
with emphasis placed on infill development.
Introduction
(As Amended July 10, 2002)
The County's primary growth management goal directs development into designated areas
and conserves the balance of the County for rural areas and resource protection. Resource
protection is the basic theme behind the County's growth management approach. +e Ithis
ongoing theme are added neVi emphases is comolemented bv an emohasis on intelligent use
of Development Areas, public facilities and resources. Thus, planning efforts aim to
channel growth into designated areas to facilitate economical service delivery in those
areas, to promote a sense of neighborhood-style development as the preferred design in
those areas, and to conserve the Rural Areas.
Planning efforts also focus on means to discourage development in the Rural Areas and
support activities consistent with the character of the Rural Areas. This is accomplished
through education, incentives, and voluntary and regulatory measures. .^...gricultural and
forestal resources ha'/e been identified as the most critical County resources and the desired
primary land use in the Rural Area. Such uses play an important and long standing role in
the environment, heritage, and economy of the County. These measures should focus Of!
orotectinl! the "defininl! orincioles" of the Rural Areas listed in the Guidinl! Princioles of
the Rural Areas Plan. Residential develooment is inconsistent with the orotection ofthose
defininl! orincioles and should be orevented where oossible. Limited service deliverv-
orevention of oublic water and sewer connections. and orovision of oublic services at a
1
rural rather than urban scale-is a key volicv for limitin!2: the votential for rural residential
develovment. Where develovment cannot be avoided. its imvacts should be reduced
throu!2:h imvroved desi!m reauirements. Loss of these resources to development is
irreversible and irreplaceable. Maintenance of these resources also provides an opportunity
to conserve and efficiently use other resources such as: (1) water resources ('Nith use of
property conservation techniques); (2) natural, scenic, and historic resources 'Nith the
maintenance of pasture land, farmland, and forested areas; and, (3) fiscal resources by
limiting de'lelopment and lessening the need to provide public services to wide areas of the
County. In the interest of this grovlth management strategy, residential development is
considered a secondary use in the Rural ,\reas.
It is important that this and future Comprehensive Plans make adjustments that can
influence development patterns to better meet the growth management goals. Such
adjustments can include more active County support of Development Areas development,
adjustments to location and/or holding capacity, and additional protective or support
measures for the Rural Areas. This plan emphasizes the County's role in providing
necessary new and amended ordinances, regulations, support services and infrastructure for
development, and more efficient use of Development Areas, including more urban and
pedestrian oriented development styles. It must be recognized that the desired increased
densities in the Development Areas will also require an increased commitment by the
County for public infrastructure improvements.
2
!A.ttachment c I
Community Facilities Plan
(As amended September 1, 2004)
INTRODUCTION
Community facilities provide a location for necessary and desired services for County
residents and are important components in supporting and enhancing the quality oflife in
Albemarle County. The facilities covered within this plan include police, fire and rescue
protection services, schools, libraries, parks and recreation, government administration
services, and solid waste facilities. Highway and transportation facilities and sewer and
water utilities are not covered in this plan. Separate planning processes are already in place
for these facilities.
The provision of community facilities can influence where and when development will
occur; therefore, they are important tools for managing growth. The importance of the
provision of public services and facilities is recognized within the growth rnaBagemeat goal
for the CoUHty in the Facilities Planning section of this Plan::
"Emohasis is olaced on nroviding a level ofoublic service deliverv that will suooort
develooment in. and direct develooment to. designated Develooment Areas. To
accomolish this. service and facilities will be orovided at a much higher level in the
Develooment Areas than in the Rural Areas. Those oersons living in the Rural Areas
should not anticioate levels of oublic service deliverv equal to services nrovided in the
Develooment Areas."
within the growth maoogement goal for the Cotmty:
Protect aBd effieieatly utilize COliBty reSOlli'ces by:
A. ErnphasiziRg the importance of protectiBg the elements that the define the Rlli'al
:Areaf
1) Agrieliltural aBd forestry reSOlli'ees
2) 'Vater supply reSOlli'ees
3) Natw'al reSOlli'ees
1) SeeBie resoW'ees
5) Historie and cultw'al reSOlli'ces
6) Limited ser\'iee deli'ief)' [emphasis added]
B. DesignatiBg De'ielopmeat "^.reas ',yhere a variety efland uses, faeilities, aBd
services are planned to
support the County's futHre grO\\th, with emphasis plaeed on iBfill developmeat.
Community facilities are provided to residents in the County in a number of different ways.
Some facilities/services are provided entirely by the County (schools, police), some are
volunteer stations, while others are a combination of County and volunteer (fire). Some are
regional in scope (libraries), while still others are provided jointly by the County and City
(solid waste disposal facilities). In the case of Parks and Recreation facilities, separate
facilities are provided by the City and County, but are made available for use by all residents
in the entire area, including outlying Counties. Some park facilities are also provided jointly
by the City and County (Darden Towe Park and Ivy Creek Natural Park).
Because of the high cost involved in providing community facilities and the potential
impact to the County's growth pattern, it is important to have a comprehensive and
systematic planning process. This process should promote an efficient provision of
services and facilities that is consistent with current needs and with the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan for future development. This plan will serve as a framework for
community facility development decisions. It will permit a better evaluation of service and
facility performance and needs, and a more objective review of competing demands for
new and expanded facilities so that the resources are used in areas of highest need. It is to
be used to assist agency administrators and elected officials in determining the capital
project needs and priorities, and timing for facility development. It establishes what the
County determines to be the adequate level of service for community facilities. "Level of
service" defines what County residents consider as necessary and desirable. To do this,
service objectives and standards for provision of facilities are established. This Plan is an
element of the County's Comprehensive Plan and, like the Comprehensive Plan, will be
reviewed on a regular basis.
The County's Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the County's role in providing necessary
new and amended ordinances, regulations, support services and infrastructure for
development, and more efficient use of Development Areas, including more urban and
pedestrian oriented development styles. It must be recognized that the desired increase in
density and more urban model for development recommended in the Development Areas
will also require an increased commitment by the County for public infrastructure
improvements and community facilities and services.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: CPA 05-02 Growth Management
Policy Update
AGENDA DATE: 4/10/07
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECTIPROPOSALIREOUEST: Work session on
proposal to amend the Land Use Plan section of the
Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with policies adopted in
the Rural Areas Plan.
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S): Scott Clark
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
Benish, Cilimberg, McDowell
BACKGROUND:
The "Growth Management" section of the Land Use Plan, which was originally adopted in 1996, includes the following
Goal:
GOAL: Protect and efficiently utilize County resources by:
A. Emphasizing the importance of protecting the elements that define the Rural Area:
1) Agricultural and forestry resources
2) water supply resources
3) natural resources
4) scemc resources
5) historic and cultural resources
6) limited service delivery
Of these, the protection of agricultural and forestry resources is the highest priority.
B. Promoting the Development Areas as the place where a variety ofland uses, facilities, and services exist
and are planned to support the County's future growth, with emphasis placed on infill development.
The second paragraph of the introduction to the Growth Management section states:
"Planning efforts also focus on means to discourage development in the Rural Areas and support activities
consistent with the character of the Rural Areas. This is accomplished through education, incentives, and
voluntary and regulatory measures. Agricultural and forestal resources have been identified as the most critical
County resources and the desired primary land use in the Rural Area. Such uses play an important and long
standing role in the environment, heritage, and economy of the County. Loss of these resources to development is
irreversible and irreplaceable. Maintenance of these resources also provides an opportunity to conserve and
efficiently use other resources such as: (1) water resources (with use of property conservation techniques); (2)
natural, scenic, and historic resources with the maintenance of pasture land, farmland, and forested areas; and, (3)
fiscal resources by limiting development and lessening the need to provide public services to wide areas of the
County. In the interest of this growth management strategy, residential development is considered a secondary use
in the Rural Areas."
On March 2,2005, the Board of Supervisors adopted a new Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan that included
"Guiding Principles" establishing policy regarding the features that make up the Rural Areas. The new policy states that
the following features are to be recognized as important "defining principles" of the Rural Areas in policy development:
"i) Agriculture - Protect Albemarle County's agricultural lands as a resource base for its agricultural industries
and for related benefits they contribute towards the County's rural character, scenic quality, natural environment,
and fiscal health.
ii) Forestry resources - Protect Albemarle County's forests as a resource base for its forestry industries and
watershed protection.
iii) Land Preservation - Permanently preserve and protect Albemarle County's rural land as an essential and finite
resource through public ownership or through conservation easements.
iv) Land Conservation - Protect Albemarle County's rural land through planned management of open spaces to
prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect.
v) Water supply resources - Protect the quality and supply of surface water and groundwater resources.
vi) Natural resources - Preserve and manage the Rural Areas' natural resources in order to protect the environment
and conserve resources for future use.
vii) Scenic resources - Preserve the County's rural scenic resources as being essential to the County's character,
economic vitality, and quality of life.
viii) Historical, archeological and cultural resources - Protect the Rural Areas' historic, archeological and cultural
resources."
On July 19,2005, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend the Growth Management section of
the Land Use Plan to make it consistent with the Rural Areas Plan.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal: 2.1
Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character
DISCUSSION:
In order to make the policies in the Land Use Plan and the Rural Areas Plan consistent, the older policies of the Land Use
Plan must be updated. Attachment A is a draft Resolution of Intent that the Commission could adopt as the first step in the
policy update. This new resolution replaces the one adopted on July 19,2005, as staff has found another section of the
Land Use Plan-the Community Facilities section-that also needs to be made consistent with the Rural Areas Plan.
Attachment B is the proposed amendment of the Growth Management section. Attachment C is the proposed amendment
of the Community Facilities section.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution of Intent. The proposed amendment
language will be brought back to the Commission for a public hearing on April 24th.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution of Intent
B. Proposed Amendment of Growth Management section of Land Use Plan
C. Proposed Amendment of Community Facilities section Land Use Plan
Ella Carey
Page 1 of2
From: tuckerhurt@virginialandcompany.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 27,20079:36 AM
To: Ella Carey
Subject: Board/Commission/Committee Application
Date of this
Application:
Board/Commission/
Committee Applied
for:
Board/Commission/
Committee
Affiliation:
Magisterial District:
Applicant Name:
Address:
Home Telephone:
Email Address:
Employer:
Business Address:
Work Telephone:
Occu pation /Title:
Date of Employment:
Years Resident in
Albemarle County:
Previous Residence:
Spouse:
Number of Children:
Education:
Memberships:
Interests:
Reason to Serve:
3/27/2007
Application Information
03/27/2007
Pantops Community Advisory Council
Resident, Business member, land owner representative (Pantops
Townhouses LLC, Albemarle Hotel LLC, Pantops-Lakeridge LLC,
Pantops Giant LLC, etc.)
Rivanna
Tucker Hurt
1055 Weybridge CT
Aprt 202
Charlottesville, VA 22911
(434) 981-8752
tuckerhu rt@virginialandcompany.com
Virginia Land Company
195 Riverbend Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
(434) 979-8181
Project Manager
09/2006
22
No response to this question
No response to this question
No response to this question
University of Virginia, Bachelor of Arts in Math, 2006
none
real estate development
My company has an interest in promoting the prosperity of the Pantops
community as a large land owner. We have been in business on Pantops
How did you Hear
About Vacancy:
SIGNATURE REQUIRED:
Tucker Hurt
DATE SIGNED:
3/27/2007
Page 2 of2
for fifty years and we would like for it to continue to flourish with the help
of our stewardship as a landowner.
Via a March 2007 newsletter.
Ella Carey
Page 1 of2
From: bsb46@earthlink.net
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 11 :38 AM
To: Ella Carey
Subject: Board/Commission/Committee Application
Date of this
Application:
Board/Commission/
Committee Applied
for:
Board/Commission/
Committee
Affiliation:
Magisterial District:
Applicant Name:
Address:
Home Telephone:
Email Address:
Employer:
Business Address:
Work Telephone:
Occupation/Title:
Date of Employment:
Years Resident in
Albemarle County:
Previous Residence:
Spouse:
Number of Children:
Education:
Memberships:
Interests:
Reason to Serve:
4/20/2007
Application Information
04/14/2007
Region Ten Community Services Board
Applying for reappointment to Region Ten CSB
White Hall
Ba rba ra Ba rrett
1220 Red Pine Court
Crozet, VA 22932
(434) 823-1643
bsb46@learthlink.net
18
City of Waynesboro
Lloyd E. Barrett
No response to this question
Some College Credits Valley VoTec Graduate
NA
VA Assoc. of Community SErvice Board Arc of VA Arc of Augusta VA
Office of Protection and Advocacy VA Board for People With Disabilities
Valley CSB
I am asking for reappointment. I have had the honor & pleasure of
How did you Hear
About Vacancy:
SIGNATURE REQUIRED:
Barbara Barrett
DATE SIGNED:
4/20/2007
Page 20f2
serving on this board for the past 6 years and would like to complete my
eligability of 3 more years.
No response to this question
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4012
March 5, 2007
Eric Woolley
The Cox Company
220 East High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP 2006-00113, UV A Research Park, Towncenter Office Buildings (3 & 4) - Final Site
Plan (Tax Map 32 Parcel 6A)
Dear Mr. Woolley:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 20,2007, unanimously approved
the modification of Section 4.17.4 lighting waiver request for SDP-2006-113, UV A Research Park,
Towncenter Office Buildings (3 & 4).
The Planning Commission also unanimously approved the critical slopes waiver request for SDP-2006-113
UV A Research Park, Towncenter Office Buildings (3 & 4).
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,
'---'.'-""-"'"') . .' ""
t ~~ y:---
Patrick Lawre~
Senior Planner
Zoning and Current Development Division
Cc: Todd Marshall
University Of Virginia Foundation
PO Box 400218, Charlottesville, VA 22904
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve Allshouse
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4012
March 5, 2007
Kluge Estate Winery and Vineyard LLC
3414 Ellerslie Dr
Charlottesville V A 22902
RE: SDP 2001-00124, Albemarle Winery - Final Site Plan Extension Request
To Whom It May Concern:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 20,2007, unanimously approved
the above-noted petition.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. A note shall be added to the approved site plan to explain that the applicant is aware that further
approvals are needed by the County for festivals and special events in excess of 150 attendees. The
applicants are willing to comply with any applicable laws.
2. The parking note on the first page of the approved site plan should be corrected to read, "Festivals &
Events: 1 space per 2.5 customers (1,000 per day max.)."
3. The applicant shall provide a plan designating the area of overflow parking that meets staff approval.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
~~~
Summer Frederick
Senior Planning
Zoning & Current Development Division
Cc: Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve Allshouse
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4012
March 5, 2007
Roger Ray and Associates
1717-IB Allied Street
Charlottesville V A 22903
RE: SUB 2007-00005 Clark, Neal- Section 14-404(A) Waiver Request
To Whom It May Concern:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 20,2007, unanimously approved
the above-noted petition.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
\:::r~uL-
Summer Frederick
Senior Planning
Zoning & Current Development Division
Cc: Justin Miller
3244 Monacan Trail Road, North Garden, VA 22959
Clark, Neal W
4270 Clark Rd, Crozet V A 22932
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve Allshouse
..
..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4012
March 5, 2007
Cox, Frank Jr.
220 East High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP 2004-00050, Flow Automotive Volkswagen-Audi- Mazda (Sign #60)
Tax Map 78, Parcel15E
Dear Mr. Cox:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 20,2007, unanimously deferred
the above-noted petition. Therefore, this item has been rescheduled for public hearing as follows:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2007
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - WEDNESDAY, MAY 2,2007
The Albemarle County Planning Commission will meet at 6:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, Second Floor,
County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors meeting begins at 2:00 p.m. You will receive a copy of the staff report and tentative agenda
one week prior to the Planning Commission meeting. YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE
PRESENT AT BOTH OF THESE MEETINGS.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
{}~Jj,~
David B. Benish
Chief of Planning
Planning Division
DBB/aer
Cc: Howie, Gary A
2883 Seminole Trail, Charlottesville, VA 22911
\
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve Allshouse
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434)296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4126
March 15, 2007
Todd Barnett
PO Box 4234
Charlottesville, VA 22905
RE: SP-2006-043 Field School (Signs # 35, 36, 39)
Tax Map Parcels 56A2-0 1- 72 and 72A
Dear Mr. Barnett:
This letter is to notify you that your above-referenced petition has been scheduled for public hearings as
follows:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION,
TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2007
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 2007
The Albemarle County Planning Commission will meet at 6:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, Second Floor,
County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors meeting begins at 2:00 pm. You will receive a copy of the staff report and tentative agenda
one (1) week prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT BOTH OF THESE MEETINGS.
At least fifteen (15) days preceding the commission's public hearing, the Zoning Administrator or
designee shall erect on the property, subject to the above-referenced application(s), a sign (or signs)
indicating the property is to be subject to public hearing and referencing how to obtain additional
information regarding such hearing. The sign shall be erected within ten (10) feet of whatever boundary
line of such land abuts a public road and shall be so placed as to be clearly visible from the road. If more
than one such road abuts the property, then a sign shall be erected in the same manner as above for each
such abutting road. If no public road abuts thereon, then signs shall be erected in the same manner as
above on at least two boundaries of the property abutting land not owned by the applicant. The filing of
the petition or application shall be deemed to grant consent to the Zoning Administrator or desib'11ee to
enter upon the property and to erect the signs.
POLICY
SUBMISSION OF MATERIALS
FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS
It is the Board's preference that a public hearing should not be advertised until all of the
final materials for a zoning application have been received by the County and are available for
public review. To achieve this preference, applicants should provide final plans, final codes of
development, final proffers, and any other documents deemed necessary by the Director of
Community Development, to the County no later than two days prior to the County's deadline for
submitting the public hearing advertisement to the newspaper. Staff will advise applicants of this
date by including it in annual schedules for applications and by providing each applicant a
minimum of two weeks advance notice of the deadline.
If the applicant does not submit the required materials by this date, the public hearing
shall not be advertised unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development that good cause exists for the public hearing to be advertised. If not
advertised, a new public hearing date will be scheduled. If the public hearing is held without
final materials being available for review throughout the advertisement period due to a late
submittal of documents, or because substantial revisions or amendments are made to the
submitted materials after the public hearing has been advertised, it will be the policy of the Board
to either defer action and schedule a second public hearing that provides this opportunity to the
public or to deny the application, unless the Board finds that the deferral would not be in the
public interest or not forward the purposes of this policy.
Final signed proffers shall be submitted to the County no later than nine days prior to the
date of the advertised public hearing. This policy is not intended to prevent changes made in
proffers at the public hearing resulting from comments received from the public or from Board
members at the public hearing.
This Zoning Policy will be included in the Board's Rules of Procedure for adoption each
year, so that the policy can be re-examined annually.
(Adopted 12/07/2005)
Page 1 of 1
Ella Carey
From: Bob Tucker
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 8:58 AM
To: Ella Carey; Meagan Hoy
Subject: Future Agenda items
Ella and Meagan: Mark mentioned a couple of items for the
February agenda that should be ready then. The Fee Study
should be finished and a work session on Pantops Master
Plan.
THANKS, BOB
ROBERT W. TUCKER, JR.
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
401 MCINTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902-4579
VOICE: 434.296.5841
FAX: 434.296.5800
EMAIL: BTUCKER@ALBEMARLE.ORG
WEBSITE: http://www.albemarle.org
12/6/2006
)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 Mcintire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4126
April 3, 2007
Peter Sheeran
Sheeran Architects
226 East High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP 2004-00050, Flow Automotive Companies Sales and Display (Sign #60)
Tax Map 78, Parcels 15E and 15D
Dear Mr. Sheeran:
This letter is to notifY you that your above-referenced petition has been scheduled for public hearings as
follows:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION,
TUESDAY, APRIL 17,2007
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
WEDNESDA Y, MAY 2, 2007
The Albemarle County Planning Commission will meet at 6:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, Second Floor,
County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors meeting begins at 2:00 p.m. You will receive a copy of the staff report and tentative agenda
one (1) week prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT BOTH OF THESE MEETINGS.
At least fifteen (15) days preceding the commission's public hearing, the Zoning Administrator or
designee shall erect on the property, subject to the above-referenced application(s), a sign (or signs)
indicating the property is to be subject to public hearing and referencing how to obtain additional
information regarding such hearing. The sign shall be erected within ten (10) feet of whatever boundary
line of such land abuts a public road and shall be so placed as to be clearly visible from the road. If more
than one such road abuts the property, then a sign shall be erected in the same manner as above for each
such abutting road. If no public road abuts thereon, then signs shall be erected in the same manner as
above on at least two boundaries of the propelty abutting land not owned by the applicant. The filing of
the petition or application shall be deemed to grant consent to the Zoning Administrator or designee to
enter upon the property and to erect the signs.
~
POLICY
SUBMISSION OF MATERIALS
FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS
It is the Board's preference that a public hearing should not be adveliised until all of the
final materials for a zoning application have been received by the County and are available for
public review. To achieve this preference, applicants should provide final plans, final codes of
development, final proffers, and any other documents deemed necessary by the Director of
Community Development, to the County no later than two days prior to the County's deadline for
submitting the public hearing advertisement to the newspaper. Staff will advise applicants of this
date by including it in annual schedules for applications and by providing each applicant a
minimum of two weeks advance notice of the deadline.
If the applicant does not submit the required materials by this date, the public hearing
shall not be advertised unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development that good cause exists for the public hearing to be advertised. If not
advertised, a new public hearing date will be scheduled. If the public hearing is held without
final materials being available for review throughout the advertisement period due to a late
submittal of documents, or because substantial revisions or amendments are made to the
submitted materials after the public hearing has been advertised, it will be the policy of the Board
to either defer action and schedule a second public hearing that provides this opportunity to the
public or to deny the application, unless the Board finds that the deferral would not be in the
public interest or not forward the purposes of this policy.
Final signed proffers shall be submitted to the County no later than nine days prior to the
date of the advertised public hearing. This policy is not intended to prevent changes made in
proffers at the public hearing resulting from comments received from the public or from Board
members at the public hearing.
This Zoning Policy will be included in the Board's Rules of Procedure for adoption each
year, so that the policy can be re-examined annually.
(Adopted 12/07/2005)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 Mcintire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434)296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4126
April 3, 2007
John Grady
2575 Dudley Mountain Road
North Garden, V A 22959
RE: SP 2007-00009, Little Keswick School- Amendment (Signs #101,102)
Tax Map 80, Parcels 110, 11 OA, II OA2, 112, 117 A, 118, 119
Dear Mr. Grady:
This letter is to notify you that your above-referenced petition has been scheduled for public hearings as
follows:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION,
TUESDAY, APRIL 17,2007
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
WEDNESDA Y, MAY 2, 2007
The Albemarle County Planning Commission will meet at 6:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, Second Floor,
County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors meeting begins at 2:00 p.m. You will receive a copy of the staff report and tentative agenda
one (1) week prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT BOTH OF THESE MEETINGS
At least fifteen (15) days preceding the commission's public hearing, the Zoning Administrator or
designee shall erect on the property, subject to the above-referenced application(s), a sign (or signs)
indicating the property is to be subject to public hearing and referencing how to obtain additional
information regarding such hearing. The sign shall be erected within ten (10) feet of whatever boundary
line of such land abuts a public road and shall be so placed as to be clearly visible from the road. If more
than one such road abuts the property, then a sign shall be erected in the same manner as above for each
such abutting road. If no public road abuts thereon, then signs shall be erected in the same manner as
above on at least two boundaries of the property abutting land not owned by the applicant. The filing of
the petition or application shall be deemed to grant consent to the Zoning Administrator or designee to
enter upon the property and to erect the signs.
POLICY
SUBMISSION OF MATERIALS
FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS
It is the Board's preference that a public hearing should not be advertised until all of the
final materials for a zoning application have been received by the County and are available for
public review. To achieve this preference, applicants should provide final plans, final codes of
development, final proffers, and any other documents deemed necessary by the Director of
Community Development, to the County no later than two days prior to the County's deadline for
submitting the public hearing advertisement to the newspaper. Staff will advise applicants of this
date by including it in annual schedules for applications and by providing each applicant a
minimum oftwo weeks advance notice of the deadline.
If the applicant does not submit the required materials by this date, the public hearing
shall not be advertised unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development that good cause exists for the public hearing to be advertised. If not
advertised, a new public hearing date will be scheduled. If the public hearing is held without
final materials being available for review throughout the advertisement period due to a late
submittal of documents, or because substantial revisions or amendments are made to the
submitted materials after the public hearing has been advertised, it will be the policy of the Board
to either defer action and schedule a second public hearing that provides this opportunity to the
public or to deny the application, unless the Board finds that the deferral would not be in the
public interest or not forward the purposes of this policy.
Final signed proffers shall be submitted to the County no later than nine days prior to the
date of the advertised public hearing. This policy is not intended to prevent changes made in
proffers at the public hearing resulting from comments received from the public or from Board
members at the public hearing.
This Zoning Policy will be included in the Board's Rules of Procedure for adoption each
year, so that the policy can be re-examined annually.
(Adopted 12/07/2005)