HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-10-8
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FIN A L
OCTOBER 8, 2008
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
3:30 P.M.
ROOM 241
1. Call to Order.
2. Work Session: Strategic Planning, in Preparation for Board's October 24 Strategic Planning Retreat.
2a. Discussion: Budget Review Guidance.
3. Recess.
6:00 P.M.
LANE AUDITORIUM
4. Call to Order.
5. Pledge of Allegiance.
6. Moment of Silence.
7. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
8. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
9. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
10. To receive public comments on a proposal recommended by the Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville
Parks and Recreation staffs to plan for the installation of lighting at the Darden Towe Park softball fields. Darden
Towe Park is located off Route 20 North (Stony Point Road) at Elk Drive.
11. PROJECT: SP-2007-01. Four Seasons Learning Center. (SiQns #10&28). PROPOSED: Amend special use
permit to increase maximum number of children in daycare from 40 to 64. No residential units proposed. ZONING
CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PUD Planned Unit Development which allows residential (3-34 units per acre),
mixed with commercial and industrial uses. SECTION: 20.3.2.1, which allows for child care facilities.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential (6-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 1.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No X. LOCATION: 254 Lakeview Drive, at the corner of Four Seasons Dr and Lakeview
Dr. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61 X1, Parcel 5. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
12. PROJECT: SP-2008-020. Airport Office Center. (Signs #40&43). PROPOSED: Special use permit request for
stand alone parking. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: CO - Commercial Office: offices, supporting
commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre); EC Entrance Corridor-
Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development
along routes of tourist access. SECTION: 23.2.2(4) Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12,
5.1.41). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density - residential (3-6 units/acre) and
supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses. ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 32 Parcel 48. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
CONCURRENT PROJECT: SUB20080092.
13. PROJECT: SP-2008-047. Stony Point Fire Department Addition (SiQn #95). PROPOSED: Amend SP-2007-13
to increase size of outbuilding for storage and office uses approved for the expansion of Stony Point Fire Station.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: VR - Village Residential: agriculture, compact residential (0.7 unit!acre);
EC - Entrance Corridor: Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual
impacts of development along routes of tourist access. SECTION: 12.2.2.3, Fire and rescue squad stations
(reference 5.1.09). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit! acre). ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 3827 Stony Point Road (Route 20), 0.2 miles south of intersection of Route 20 and
Route 600. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 48 Parcel 18D. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
14. PROJECT: AFD-200S-004. Free Union Aaricultural and Forestal District. Proposed: Review of the Free
Union Agricultural/Forestal District: Periodic (10-year) review of the Free Union Agricultural/Forestal District, as
required in Section 15.2-4311 of the Code of Virginia. The district includes the properties described as Tax map 7,
parcels 6,7, SA, 9, 9A, 9B, 9B1, 9C; Tax map 16, parcels 4B, 4C, 13A, 13D, 15A, 15A3, 15C, 15E, 15G, 16B, 17,
26, 30B, 36, 37, 3S, 39, 52B1, 52B2, 54; Tax Map 17, parcels S, SB, SC, 17C, 1SH, 20A2, 22, tax map 29, parcel
1 H (part). The district includes a total of 1,401 acres. The area is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive
Plan and the included properties are zoned RA Rural Areas.
15. To consider adoptinQ resolutions supportina National Scenic Bvwav All-American Road desiQnations
(denoted bv "AAR") and supportinQ VirQinia Bvwavs desiQnation (denoted bv "VB") for roads identified
herein: Rt. 20 N (Stony Point Road), from its intersection with Rt. 250 E to the Orange County line (AAR); Rt. 20,
from the intersection of Rt. 20 N along that portion also considered part of Rt. 250 E to the City of Charlottesville
city limits at Free Bridge (AARNB); Rt. 22, from Rt. 250 E to its junction with Rt. 231 (AAR); Rt. 53, from the
Fluvanna County line to its intersection with Rt. 20 (AARNB); Rt. 231, from Rt. 22 to the Louisa County line (AAR);
Rt. 250 E, from Rt. 22 to Rt. 729 (Milton Road) (AARNB); Rt. 729 (Milton Road), from its intersection with Rt. 250
to its intersection with Rt. 53 (AARNB). If these roads are designated All-American Roads by the U.S. Dept. of
Transportation, they will become part of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Corridor from Gettysburg to
Monticello and will be eligible for grant funding to support and enhance them. There are no land use restrictions
placed on lands abutting designated roads other than on the installation of new signs advertising off-site uses and
activities (billboards).
16. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
17. Adjourn to October 22, 200S, 7:00 p.m., Room 241.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
9.1 Approval of Minutes: March 5, March 12 and March 19, 200S.
9.2 2007-0S ACE Applicant Appraisals and Acquisition of Anderson Easement.
9.3 Resolution Endorsing Rail Preservation Application of Buckingham Branch Railroad Company.
9.4 Reconsideration of FY 2009 Appropriation, $130,422.00 (Form #2009025).
9.4a FY 2009 Appropriation, $2,126,026.19 (Form #2009031).
FOR INFORMATION:
9.5 Letter dated September 25, 200S from Brandon D. Kiracofe, Environmental Engineer Senior, to the Honorable
Kenneth Boyd, Chairman, re: Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA 0024945, Lake Monticello STP.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TENTATIVE
OCTOBER 8, 2008
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
3:30 P.M.
ROOM 241
1 . Call to Order.
2. Work Session: Strategic Planning, in Preparation for Board's October 24 Strategic Planning Retreat.
2a. Discussion: Budget Review Guidance.
3. Recess.
6:00 P.M.
LANE AUDITORIUM
4. Call to Order.
5. Pledge of Allegiance.
6. Moment of Silence.
7. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
8. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
9. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
10. To receive public comments on a proposal recommended by the Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville
Parks and Recreation staffs to plan for the installation of lighting at the Darden Towe Park softball fields. Darden
Towe Park is located off Route 20 North (Stony Point Road) at Elk Drive.
11. PROJECT: SP-2007-01. Four Seasons LearninQ Center. (Sians #10&28). PROPOSED: Amend special use
permit to increase maximum number of children in daycare from 40 to 64. No residential units proposed. ZONING
CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PUD Planned Unit Development which allows residential (3-34 units per acre),
mixed with commercial and industrial uses. SECTION: 20.3.2.1, which allows for child care facilities.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential (6-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 1.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No X. LOCATION: 254 Lakeview Drive, at the corner of Four Seasons Dr and Lakeview
Dr. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61 X1, Parcel 5. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
12. PROJECT: SP-2008-020. Airport Office Center. (SiQns #40&43). PROPOSED: Special use permit request for
stand alone parking. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: CO - Commercial Office: offices, supporting
commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre); EC Entrance Corridor-
Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development
along routes of tourist access. SECTION: 23.2.2(4) Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12,
5.1.41). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density - residential (3-6 units/acre) and
supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses. ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 32 Parcel 48. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
CONCURRENT PROJECT: SUB20080092.
13. PROJECT: SP-2008-047. Stony Point Fire Department Addition (Sian #95). PROPOSED: Amend SP-2007-13
to increase size of outbuilding for storage and office uses approved for the expansion of Stony Point Fire Station.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: VR - Village Residential: agriculture, compact residential (0.7 unit/acre);
EC - Entrance Corridor: Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual
impacts of development along routes of tourist access. SECTION: 12.2.2.3, Fire and rescue squad stations
(reference 5.1.09). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre). ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 3827 Stony Point Road (Route 20),0.2 miles south of intersection of Route 20 and
Route 600. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 48 Parcel 18D. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
14. PROJECT: AFD-2008-004. Free Union Aaricultural and Forestal District. Proposed: Review of the Free
Union Agricultural/Forestal District: Periodic (1 O-year) review of the Free Union Agricultural/Forestal District, as
required in Section 15.2-4311 of the Code of Virginia. The district includes the properties described as Tax map 7,
parcels 6,7, SA, 9, 9A, 9B, 9B1, 9C; Tax map 16, parcels 4B, 4C, 13A, 13D, 15A, 15A3, 15C, 15E, 15G, 16B, 17,
26, 30B, 36, 37, 3S, 39, 52B1, 52B2, 54; Tax Map 17, parcels S, SB, SC, 17C, 1SH, 20A2, 22, tax map 29, parcel
1 H (part). The district includes a total of 1,401 acres. The area is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive
Plan and the included properties are zoned RA Rural Areas.
15. To consider adoptina resolutions supportina National Scenic Bvwav All-American Road desiQnations
(denoted bv "AAR") and supportinQ Virainia Bvwavs desianation (denoted bv "VB") for roads identified
herein: Rt. 20 N (Stony Point Road), from its intersection with Rt. 250 E to the Orange County line (AAR); Rt. 20,
from the intersection of Rt. 20 N along that portion also considered part of Rt. 250 E to the City of Charlottesville
city limits at Free Bridge (AARNB); Rt. 22, from Rt. 250 E to its junction with Rt. 231 (AAR); Rt. 53, from the
Fluvanna County line to its intersection with Rt. 20 (AARNB); Rt. 231, from Rt. 22 to the Louisa County line (AAR);
Rt. 250 E, from Rt. 22 to Rt. 729 (Milton Road) (AARNB); Rt. 729 (Milton Road), from its intersection with Rt. 250
to its intersection with Rt. 53 (AARNB). If these roads are designated All-American Roads by the U.S. Dept. of
Transportation, they will become part of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Corridor from Gettysburg to
Monticello and will be eligible for grant funding to support and enhance them. There are no land use restrictions
placed on lands abutting designated roads other than on the installation of new signs advertising off-site uses and
activities (billboards).
16. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
17. Adjourn to October 24, 200S, 9:00 a.m., at the Department of Forestry.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
9.1 Approval of Minutes: March 5, March 12 and March 19, 200S.
9.2 2007-0S ACE Applicant Appraisals and Acquisition of Anderson Easement.
9.3 Resolution Endorsing Rail Preservation Application of Buckingham Branch Railroad Company.
9.4 FY 2009 Appropriation, (Form #2009025).
FOR INFORMATION:
9.5 Letter dated September 25, 200S from Brandon D. Kiracofe, Environmental Engineer Senior, to the Honorable
Kenneth Boyd, Chairman, re: Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0024945, Lake Monticello STP.
ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of October 8, 2008
October 13, 2008
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT
1. Call to Order.
. Meeting was called to order at 3:32 p.m. in Room
241 by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd. All BOS
members were present with the exception of Mr.
Dorrier. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry
Davis, Lori Allshouse, Steve Allshouse, and
Meagan Hoy.
Non-Agenda.
. AUTHORIZED, by a vote of 5:0, (Mr. Dorrier
absent) an expedited process to the extent that
staff can advance the Board action date for the
Old Trail Senior Assisted Living Facility.
2. Work Session: Strategic Planning, in Preparation for
the Board's October 24 Strategic Planning Retreat.
. HELD.
2a. Discussion: Budget Review Guidance. County Executive/OMB: Proceed as directed.
. There was a CONSENSUS of the Board to
extend the amendment year CIP proposals for
one additional year or cycle.
3. Recess.
. At 5:13 p.m., the Board took a recess.
4. Call to Order.
. Meeting was called back to order at 6:01 p.m. in
Lane Auditorium by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd. All
BOS members were present with the exception
of Ms. Mallek. Also present were Bob Tucker,
Larry Davis, Wavne Cilimberg and Meaqan Hoy.
7. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
. There were none.
8. From the Public: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
. Liz Palmer asked the Board to consider raising
their own compensation to ensure a strong
candidate pool for future Board elections.
9.2 2007-08 ACE Applicant Appraisals and Acquisition of David Benish/Ches Goodall: Proceed as
Anderson Easement. approved.
. APPROVED the seven (7) appraisals by Pape
and Company for applications from the year FY
2007-08 applicant pool, and APPROVED the
purchase of an ACE easement on the Anderson
oroperty.
9.3 Resolution Endorsing Rail Preservation Application of Clerk: Forward signed resolution to Gale
Buckingham Branch Railroad Company. Wilson, Buckingham Branch Railroad.
. ADOPTED attached resolution. (Attachment 1)
9.4 Reconsideration of FY 2009 Appropriation, Clerk: Forward signed appropriation form to
$130,422.00 (Form #2009025). Finance and appropriate individuals.
. APPROVED budget amendment in the amount of
$130,422.00 and APPROVED FY 2008
Appropriation #2008025.
9.4a FY 2009 Appropriation, $2,126,026.19 (Form Clerk: Forward signed appropriation form to
#2009031 ). Finance and appropriate individuals.
. APPROVED budget amendment in the
amount of $2,126,026.19 and APPROVED
FY 2008 Appropriation #2008031 .
10. To receive public comments on a proposal
recommended bv Albemarle County and the City
of Charlottesville Parks and Recreation staffs to
plan for the installation of liahtina at the Darden
Towe Park softball fields.
. HELD, but took no action.
11. PROJECT: SP-2007-01. Four Seasons Learnina
Center.
. DENIED SP-2007-01, by a vote of 4:1 (Boyd)
(Mallek absent).
12. PROJECT: SP-2008-020. Airport Office Center.
. APPROVED SP-2008-020, by a vote of 5:0
(Mallek absent), as recommended by staff for
stand alone parking in accordance with Section
18-4.12.11.
13. PROJECT: SP-2008-047. Stony Point Fire Clerk: Set out condition of approval.
Department Addition. (Attachment 2)
. APPROVED, by a vote of 5:0 (Mallek absent),
subject to the one condition recommended by
staff.
14. PROJECT: AFD-2008-004. Free Union Clerk: Forward copy of adopted ordinance to
Aaricultural and Forestal District. Planning and County Attorney's office.
. ADOPTED, by a vote of 5:0 (Mallek absent), the (Attachment 3)
attached ordinance.
15. To consider adoptina resolutions supportina Clerk: Forward copy of signed resolutions to
National Scenic Bvwav All-American Road David Benish and County Attorney's office.
desiQnations (denoted bv "AAR") and supportina David Benish: Forward resolutions to
VirQinia Bvwavs desiQnation (denoted bv "VB") appropriate individuals.
for roads. (Attachment 4 and 5)
. ADOPTED, by a vote of 5:0 (Mallek absent), the
attached Resolutions supporting a Virginia Byway
designation for Route 53, Route 729 and portions
of Route 20 and Route 250 and an All-American
Road designation for Routes 20, 22, 53, 231,729
and portions of Route 20 and Route 250 in
Albemarle County.
16. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Sally Thomas:
. Board Members will receive a questionnaire from
the Rivanna Reservoir Task Force. Encouraged
them to fill out and forward the survey.
Ken Boyd:
. He and Mr. Slutzky will represent the Board at a
CAAR luncheon on Thursdav, October 9, 2008.
17. Adjourn.
. At 9:31 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to
October 22,2008,7:00 p.m., Room 241.
/mrh
Attachment 1 - Resolution Endorsing Rail Preservation Application of Buckingham Branch Railroad
Company
Attachment 2 - Planning Conditions of approval
Attachment 3 - Ordinance No. 08-3(3). AFD-2008-004. Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District
Attachment 4 & 5 - Resolutions supporting National Scenic Byway All-American Road designations
(denoted by "AAR") and supporting Virginia Byways designation (denoted by "VB") for
roads
2
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION ENDORSING
RAIL PRESERVATION APPLICATION OF
BUCICINGHAM BRANCH RAILROAD COMPANY
WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad desires to file an application with the Virginia
Department of Rail and Public Transportation for funding assistance for the projects; and
WHEREAS, Buckingham Branch Railroad has identified projects that are estimated to cost
$13,200,000; and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly, through enactment of the Rail Preservation Program,
provides for funding for certain improvements and procurement of railways in the Commonwealth of
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad is an important element of the County of Albemarle
transportation system; and
WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad is instrumental in the economic development of the
area, and provides relief to the highway system by transporting freight, and provides an alternate means
of transportation of commodities; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle supports the project and the retention of the rail service;
and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has established procedures for all
allocation and distribution of the finds provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors does hereby
request the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation to give priority consideration to the
projects proposed by the Buckingham Branch Railroad.
3
Attachment 2
SP-2008-047. Stony Point Fire Department Addition
1. The size and location of the fire station and related improvements on the property shall be in
general accord with the conceptual plan entitled "Conceptual Plan SP 2007-13," prepared by
Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc., dated 3/22/07, revised by the applicant and received
9/3/08, provided that the outbuilding identified as the "Proposed Change" to the originally
identified "Proposed 26' x 46' Outbuilding" shall be no more than two thousand (2,000) square
feet in size.
4
Attachment 3
ORDINANCE NO. 08-3(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, is hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3-213 Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District
Chapter 3. Agricultural and Forestal Districts
Article II. Districts of Statewide Significance
Division 2. Districts
Sec. 3-213 Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 7, parcels 6, 7, 8A, 9, 9A, 9B, 9B1, 9C; Tax map 16, parcels 4B, 4C, 13A,
13D, 15A, 15A3, 15E, 15G, 16B, 17,26, 30B, 36, 52B1, 52B2, 54; Tax Map 17, parcels 8B, 8C, 17C,
18H, 20A2, 22, tax map 29, parcel 1 H (part). This district, created on September 21, 1988 for not more
than 10 years and last reviewed on October 8, 2008, shall be next reviewed prior to October 8, 2018.
(Code 1988, ~ 2.1-4(m); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98; Ord. 08-3(3), 10-8-08)
5
Attachment 4
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING VIRGINIA BYWAY DESIGNATION
FOR ROUTES 729, 53 AND PORTIONS OF ROUTE 20 AND ROUTE 250
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Virginia Department
of Transportation have determined that Route 729 (Milton Road) from its intersection with Route 250 to its
intersection with Route 53, Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway) from the Fluvanna County line to its
intersection with Route 20, the portion of Route 20 that is also part of Route 250 East from the
intersection of Route 20 and Route 250 East to the City of Charlottesville city limits at Free Bridge, and
the portion of Route 250 from the intersection of Route 22 to the intersection of Route 729 (Milton Road)
qualify for designation as Virginia Byways; and
WHEREAS, each of these routes have relatively high aesthetic or cultural value, leading to or
within areas of historical or natural significance; and
WHEREAS, the designation of a Virginia Byway offers opportunities for tourism and economic
benefits to localities; and
WHEREAS, the designation of a Virginia Byway does not affect land use controls and road
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the land along Route 729 and Route 53 is zoned Rural Areas and is designated as
Rural Areas in the County's Comprehensive Plan and the portion of Route 20 identified herein is zoned
for commercial uses; and
WHEREAS, the Rural Areas zoning does not allow for dense residential or commercial
development and allows for uses such as agriculture, forestry and detached single family dwellings and
the commercial zoned areas will not be adversely impacted by the designation; and
WHEREAS, the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership has expressed its support for the
designation of these routes as Virginia Byways.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle c.ounty,
Virginia, hereby supports the designation of Route 729 (Milton Road) from its intersection with Route 250
to its intersection with Route 53, Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway) from the Fluvanna County line to
its intersection with Route 20, the portion of Route 20 that is also part of Route 250 East from the
intersection of Route 20 and Route 250 East to the City of Charlottesville city limits at Free Bridge, and
the portion of Route 250 from the intersection of Route 22 to the intersection of Route 729 (Milton Road)
as Virginia Byways; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County requests that
the Commonwealth Transportation Board take all necessary actions to effect a designation of these
routes as Virginia Byways.
6
Attachment 5
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S FEDERAL
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION "ALL-AMERICAN ROAD" DESIGNATION
FOR ROUTES 20, 22, 53, 231, 250 AND 729
WHEREAS, the United States Congress approved legislation in May 2008 to create The Journey
Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area; and
WHEREAS, this legislation creates a National Heritage Area corridor that includes Routes 20, 22,
53, 231, 250 and 729 from Thomas Jefferson's Monticello in Charlottesville north to Gettysburg,
Pennsylvania; and
WHEREAS, designation of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground as a National Heritage Area, and
Route 20 North (Stony Point Road) from its intersection with Route 250 East to the Orange County line, the
portion of Route 20 that is also part of Route 250 East from the intersection of Route 20 and Route 250 East
to the City of Charlottesville city limits at Free Bridge, Route 22 from Route 250 East to its junction with
Route 231, Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway) from the Fluvanna County line to its intersection with
Route 20, Route 231 from Route 22 to the Louisa County line, the portion of Route 250 East from the
intersection of Route 22 to the intersection of Route 729 (Milton Road) and Route 729 (Milton Road), from its
intersection with Route 250 East to its intersection with Route 53, as All-American Roads within the National
Scenic Byways Program, will help support the four-state public/private partnership that has been developed
to promote and celebrate the historical and cultural resources along the route; and
WHEREAS, designation of the County as a National Heritage Area and Routes 20, 22,53,231,250
and 729 as All-American Roads will make federal funds available to government entities located along this
corridor for the purposes of developing tourism, preservation and enhancement of historical sites and
battlefields; and
WHEREAS, designation of the County as a National Heritage Area and Routes 20,22,53,231,250
and 729 as All-American Roads is consistent with the principles, goals and objectives of the County's
Comprehensive Plan to protect the County's natural, cultural, historic, and scenic resources; and
WHEREAS, the designation of the portion of Route 20 that is also part of Route 250 East from the
intersection of Route 20 and Route 250 East to the City of Charlottesville city limits at Free Bridge, Route 53
(Thomas Jefferson Parkway) from the Fluvanna County line to its intersection with Route 20, the portion of
Route 250 East from the intersection of Route 22 to the intersection of Route 729 (Milton Road), and Route
729 (Milton Road) from its intersection with Route 250 East to its intersection with Route 53, as All-American
Roads is contingent upon them being designated as Virginia Byways by the Virginia Commonwealth
Transportation Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
supports the designation of Route 20 North (Stony Point Road) from its intersection with Route 250 East to
the Orange County line, the portion of Route 20 that is also part of Route 250 East from the intersection of
Route 20 and Route 250 East to the City of Charlottesville city limits at Free Bridge, Route 22 from Route
250 East to its junction with Route 231, Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway) from the Fluvanna County
line to its intersection with Route 20, Route 231 from Route 22 to the Louisa County line, the portion of
Route 250 East from the intersection of Route 22 to the intersection of Route 729 (Milton Road) and Route
729 (Milton Road), from its intersection with Route 250 East to its intersection with Route 53, as AII-
American Roads within the National Scenic Byways Program.
7
Today's Work Session
To prepare for the Strategic Planning Retreat on
October 24th
1) 2008 Strategic Plan Progress Report
2) 2008 Community Profile - County data and trends
3) 2008 Citizen Survey Results
4) Wrap Up - Materials for Board Retreat
1
County's Strategic Plan Framework
. Four Year timeframe
. Vision Statement - Desired Future
. Mission Statement - Primary role/purpose
. County Values
. Five Goals
. Ten Strategic Objectives
- Specific
- Measurable
- Identified Outcomes
- Include Timelines
.
dfif~;:;';;'^
~~b~~
D
E
P
L
o
y
,.
t.
~
.J
A
D
J
U
S
T
2
How do we measure success?
. Performance Indicators (data)
- How did we do against the "Key Performance Indicators?"
. Staff Insights
- What activities and actions have we completed?
- What opportunities and challenges lie ahead?
. Accomplishments
- What were our noted accomplishments?
- What should be highlighted?
. Organizational Results
- Does the Strategic Plan drive the County's resources?
- Does the Plan provoking thought, creativity and internal review?
- Does the Plan guide staff efforts?
Strategic Plan Objectives
3
Strategic Plan
Report Card
· Objectives in which the County is making
progress, however, frozen positions and
economic challenges may hinder progress in
future .
· Objectives that could be considered "complete"
or "near-complete" as the Strategic Objective
Statement is worded .
· Objectives facing significant challenges .
Strategic Planning Objectives
progress while facing challenges
4
By 2010, increase acres in Conservation
Easements and qualifying park land by 30,000
'1!i',
2 year total = 14,740 (meeting 99.6%
of 2 year goal)
74,622 acres in
Conservation Easements and
"Qualifying" park land
ACE and other
Permanent9- Protected Areas
~ Parks &. Recreation Areas
. ACE
Conservation Easements
o Magisterial Districts
Trails
. BoatAccess
Strategic Plan Objectives that could be
considered "completed" or nearly so
Housing
Conservation
Easements
7.!t'~,,~, f!{1I~"> \
"'~ "j"" :' ~ ~ .J"w. ,:
~u...':f \"<_Il.l
5
Alignment of Strategic Plan to
Five Year Financial Plan
~
~.~
5Ye r
Finan ial
Pia
y Budget Process
-+ Citizen involvement-+
Strategic Plan Objectives
facinQicfiigpificant challenges
6
Goa/ 4 : Develop Policies and Infrastructure to Meet Growing Needs
TRANSPORTATION
By 2010, expand regional transit opportunities, accelerate the completion of
Meadow Creek Parkway, 2 local and 2 regional projects
Progress
Challenges
Transit - increased transit fundina to
expand transit service in the Countv
VDOT funding significantly
reduced
Retonal Transportation Authoritv County
an City collaborative
Schedule delayed from original
goal for Jarmans Gap and
Georgetown Road
Meadowcreek Parkwav: Funding in place,
Right of way acquisition is complete.
Jarmans Ga~ and Georaetown Road -
funding in p ace, efforts proceeding
Challenged to obtain enabling
legislation from General
Assembly for alternative
funding sources
Eastern Connector: Alternatives evaluated,
County received8resentation this month -
forwarded to MP
Southern Parkwav:
Completion of alignment projected for 2012
"surrogate" roads approved with private
development - will assist in this area
Need to prioritize funding in the
CIP Transportation
Improvement Program
By 2010, Complete Master Plans for all the County
Development Areas
Schedule Delayed
Master Plan Initial Revised/Proposed
Pantops ADOPTED FY 06/07 FY 07/08
Places 29 FY 07/08 FY 08/09
Rivanna FY 07108 FY 08/09
Southern Urban Area FY 08/09 TBD
Croze! - review FY 09/10 FY 09/10
Challenges
Frozen positions in Community Development
Implementation after Master Plans are
approved
7
Strategic Plan Objectives
Summary
Strategic Plan
At half way pOint - one more annual budget cycle
Facing Challenging Times
- $4 million + decrease in revenues in current budget - next year's budget
facing serious financial challenges as well
- County has -30 frozen positions - many in key strategic areas
Drives resources
- Informs the Five Year Financial Planning Process
- $2 Million Grants and Donations
Demonstrates importance of partnerships
- Over 50 agencies/organizations partner with the County to achieve results
Flexible - annual renewal cycle
Serves as a communication tool - guides employees efforts
8
''l!;;~
'{tAk:r
Strategic Planning
Plays an Important Role in Organization
~ W~~~~~ce"
Leadership ~rshiP ~ Results
Triad ~
\ "Citizen Process
Focus Management
Data, Analysis, & Knowledge Management
9
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Board Strategic Plan Work Session
AGENDA DATE:
October 8, 2008
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work Session in Preparation for Board's October 24
Strategic Planning Retreat
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Elliott, and Davis, and
Ms. L. Allshouse
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: No ~
REVIEWED BY: I
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
BACKGROUND:
Since 2001, the Board of Supervisors has provided a leadership role in the County's strategic planning effort. The
Board adopted the County's current FY07- FY10 Strategic Plan in July 2006 and directed staff to continue its focus on
enhancing the County's quality of life, protecting its natural resources, managing growth, developing infrastructure, and
creating a long-range, comprehensive funding strategy.
Each fall, the Board holds a retreat to either begin a new strategic planning cycle or to make adjustments to the
current plan. At these retreats, the Board reviews annual performance, new data, emerging trends, citizen priorities
and provides guidance to staff. The Board also recommends changes to the Plan to address emerging trends and
challenges. Board discussions at the fall retreats serve to inform and guide the long-range and annual operating
budget processes that commence shortly thereafter.
At the fall 2006 and 2007 retreats, the Board provided additional guidance to staff on comprehensive long-range
funding, master planning, and transportation objectives. During the 2007 Retreat, the Board reviewed and discussed
emerging public safety challenges facing the County. As a result of these discussions, the Board incorporated a public
safety objective into the current plan in June 2008.
In an effort to continuously improve the strategic planning process, staff met with the Board Chair and Vice Chair to
discuss the County's planning efforts and to identify potential topics for the 2008 Retreat, which is scheduled for
October 24. The Chair and Vice Chair suggested that this year the Board should review its strategic planning priorities,
discuss emerging trends and the financial challenges facing the County. Further, the Board should determine whether
to continue to pursue all identified priorities, make adjustments in time lines and/or levels of performance, and/or
pursue alternative strategic options. Since there is much to discuss this year, the Chair and Vice Chair recommended
staff hold two sessions this fall.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
The Board's Strategic Plan Work Session and the Annual Retreat
DISCUSSION:
To ensure the Board has ample time for discussion at the Retreat, staff will hold a work session on October 8 to
present information on past performance, changing data and trends, and the 2008 Citizen Survey results.
At this work session, Lori Allshouse, Manager of Strategic Planning and Performance, will present highlights from the
County's annual Strategic Plan progress report, Dr. Thomas Guterbock, Director of the UVA Center for Survey
Research, will present the results of the 2008 Citizen Survey, and Steve Allshouse, Coordinator of Research and
Analysis, will highlight emerging trends included in the 2008 Community Profile. Additional information will be provided
to the Board during the work session for their review prior to the Strategic Planning Retreat on October 24th.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The Strategic Plan provides direction for the County's annual budget and the Five-Year Financial Plan processes.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This work session is intended to help the Board increase its understanding of the County's performance, citizen
expectations and emerging trends, and to provide the Board a notebook of materials to be used in preparation for the
October 24th Strategic Planning Retreat. No action is required.
~"
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
CSR
Center for Survey Research. University of Virginia
A U~IT OF THE WELDO;'>! COOPER CENTER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE
Presentation
October 8, 2008
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
Authors
Thomas M. Guterbock
Director
Robin Bebel
Assistant Director
Abdoulaye Diop
Senior Research Analyst
Young-II Kim
Research Analyst
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
2
UVA Center for Survey Research
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
Survey Goals
. Determine residents' opinions about quality of
life in Albemarle County
. Evaluate the importance of a number of
County services
. Obtain citizen input regarding resource
allocation
. Determine residents' level of satisfaction with
County services
. Measure opinion about the way in which the
County is managing growth
. Measure change on key indicators
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
3
Survey Features
. CAT! (computer-assisted telephone interviewing)
. 767 completed interviews
. New sample design includes cellphones
. Margin of error +/- 3.8%
. Some questions comparable to past surveys
· 1994, 2002, 2004, and 2006
. Field Period: August 20 - September 14 2008
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
4
UVA Center for Survey Research
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
New Questions in 2008
· Satisfaction with the helpfulness of County
employees
· Spend local taxes on transportation
· List item - Regulating outdoor lighting
· Coordinated residential and business
development
· Recycling
· Emergency service - 911
· Affordable housing
· Quality of education in Albemarle County
· Landline/cellphone service
Center for SUNey Research
University of Virginia
5
Question Wording Experiments
. How important is it to . ..
Devote resources vs. Spend tax dollars
· Public transportation vs. public bus or van
· Historic places vs. historic places not already
protected
· Ensure safety for walkers vs. provide safe places
to
· Fair property tax assessment vs. tax based on the
value of property
Center for SUNey Research
University of Virginia
6
UVA Center for Survey Research
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
Bringing cellphones in
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
Landline Respondents Under the Age of 35
30%
25%
J!l
c
"
-g 20%
o
"-
In
"
~ 15%
'i
'0
'E 10%
"
l::!
"
0..
5%
0%
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
UVA Center for Survey Research
1994
18.6%
18.8% 16.2%
2002
2004
2006
Year
10/8/2008
8
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
Sampling - how it was done
. Landline RDD (random digit dialing)
· Comparable to method in prior years
· N = 278
. Directory-listed sample
· N = 334
. Cel/phone RDD
· N = 155
· Cellphones weighted to 40% of sample (8.4%
cellphone only)
. Final weighting by ownership, race,
gender (as in prior years)
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia 9
All Respondents Under the Age of 35
including cell phone completions
30%
~
I
21.5% I
I
l
~.6% _16.8% __ 16.2% ~
I
I
-------1
I
I
25%
!l
c
..
-g 20%
o
Q.
'"
..
~ 15%
;;:
o
C 10%
..
l:!
..
l>.
5%
---------~
i
I
0%
1994
2002
2004
2006
2008
Year
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
10
UVA Center for Survey Research
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
Quality of Life in Albemarle
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
On a lO-point Scale...
Where would you rate Albemarle County as a place to live?
. Seventy-three percent gave the county
an "8" or better
. Fourteen percent gave the county a
"10"
. The mean rating is 8.01
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
12
UVA Center for Survey Research
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
Rating The Quality of Life
10
9
8
7 7.92 8.10 7.96 8.04 8.01
6
5
4
3
2
1
1994 2002 2004 2006 2008
"Not significantly different from 1994, 2002, or 2004 or 2006
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia 13
Reasons to move to Albemarle County
Take a job here 27.6
Had family here 11.6
Cost of housing 8.0
Physical beauty of landscape 5.7
Quality of the schools 4.6
Convenient commute 4.1
Overall quality of life 3.9
Attend college or university 3.3
Culture, arts, things to do 2.2
Retirement 2.0
Asked of those residing in Albemarle 2 years or less,
Other category is excluded.
UVA Center for Survey Research
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
Features that would be most
important if they decided to move
Convenient to urban amenities 15.0
Quality public schools 11.5
Ease of transportation networks 7.6
Rural life style 7.4
Physical beauty of landscape 6.4
Low crime areas 5.3
Convenient to work 4.8
Cost of housing 4.4
Access to emergency services 3.1
Overall quality of life 2.9
Asked of those residing at current address more than 2 years
Other category is excluded.
mportance Rankings
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
UVA Center for Survey Research
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
Importance of Services
. Asked to rate list of County services
. 2006 wording preserved
· how important do you think it is for the
County to devote resources to ...
. Desire to test more specific language
. V2 of respondents given new option
· how important do you think it is for the
County to spend tax dollars on ...
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
17
Importance Ratings
. Respondents rated each service as
"very important," "somewhat
important," or "not at all important"
. Following slides show the percentage
of respondents rating each service as
"very important"
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
18
UVA Center for Survey Research
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
Thought Mostlmportant...
comparing results of 2 forms of question
Devote resources... Spend tax dollars...
to provide quality education to 99.0% to provide quality education to 95.3%
school children school children
to ensure that your property tax is
provide police protection 90.8% based on a fair tax assessment of 88.7%
the value of your property
provide emergency rescue 90.5% provide fire protection 87.5%
seNices
provide fire protection 89.7% protect water resources 86.9%
protect water resources 88.8% provide pOlice protection 86.8%
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
~ % who say 'very important' ~
19
Importance Findings
. Education tops the list, either way
. Rescue services and water resources
also there, but in different order
. When tax dollars are mentioned,
then a fair assessment of property
tax becomes more important
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
20
UVA Center for Survey Research
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
Thought LeastImportant...
comparing results of 2 forms of question
Devote resources... Spend tax dollars...
to promote tourism in our area 31.5% to support cultural and 25.6%
entertainment opportunities
to support cultural and 33.5% to promote tourism in our area 28.4%
entertainment opportunities
to regulate outdoor lighting to 37.6% to regulate outdoor lighting to 31.0%
reduce light pollution and glare reduce light pollution and glare
to preserve historic buildings not 39.3% to preserve historic buildings 36.6%
protected by private groups
to provide learning opportunities 45.2% to preserve historic buildings not 37.7%
for adults protected by private groups
to preserve historic buildings 51.8% to provide support for people in 50.0%
financial need
Center for SUNey Research
University of Virginia
I % who say 'very important' I
21
Findings: low importance
. Many low-importance items were
similarly rated, either way we asked
the question
. New question about glare in the
night sky ranked 3rd from the bottom
. Preservation of historic buildings did
not rank high, even with split ballot
within the importance split
Center for SUNey Research
University of Virginia
22
UVA Center for Survey Research
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
Satisfaction With Services
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
Overall Satisfaction with
County Services
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
UVA Center for Survey Research
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
5.40/0
Very
Dissatisfied
1.80/0
Very
Satisfied
38.80/0
Somewhat
Satisfied
54.0%
Percent Satisfied: 92.80/0
24
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
Overall Satisfaction with
County Services
100%
80%
40%
20%
0%
1994
2002
2004
2008
2006
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
. Not significantly different from
2002, 2004,2006
. Significantly greater than 1994
25
Of 38 Satisfaction Items
. 35 items had satisfaction levels
of 600/0 or better
. 26 items had satisfaction levels
of 750/0 or better
. Results based on combined
very and somewhat satisfied
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
26
UVA Center for Survey Research
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
Satisfaction was highest for...
. Fire protection 95.50/0
. Provide needed public facilities 93.90/0
. Ensure safety in business areas 93.80/0
. Library services 93.70/0
. Promote tourism in our area 93.60/0
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia 27
Satisfaction was lowest for...
. Provide recycling services 52.20/0
. Promote affordable housing 56.50/0
. Provide fair property tax assessments
58.40/0
. Manage growth in the County 60.80/0
. Make it easy to get around by public
transportation 61.60/0
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia 28
UVA Center for Survey Research
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
Satisfaction changes from 2006
. TWO significant decreases in satisfaction
rankings from 2006 to 2008
. Provide emergency rescue services
(96.80/0 ---? 92.5%)
. providing fair property tax
assessments* (70.20/0 ---? 58.4%)
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
* Decrease not significant without cell phones
29
What Went Up?
. Significant increases in 4 items
. protect and preserve County's rural
character
. protect natural resources and
environment*
. make it easy to get around by car
. ensure safety in business areas*
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
* Increase not significant without cell phones
30
UVA Center for Survey Research
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
Comparison of Importance
and Satisfaction
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
Comparison of Importance and
Satisfaction
"Devote resources"
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
UVA Center for Survey Research
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
Items showing a gap between
ratings of importance and satisfaction
How important do you think it is for the County to devote resources to ...
Then, how satisfied are you with County government's efforts to ...
importance satisfaction
score rank Service % rank
2.99 1 to provide quality education to school children 84.8% 15
2.86 5 protect water resources 75.6% 25
2.79 7 to provide fair property tax assessments 58.4% 32
2.74 10 to provide services to disadvantaged people 76.4% 24
2.71 13 to provide recycling services 52.2% 34
2.71 14 maintain QOL dealing with growth and develop 74.6% 26
2.65 19 manage growth in the county 60.8% 31
Items showing higher satisfaction than importance
How important do you think it is for the County to devote resources to ...
Then, how satisfied are you with County government's efforts to ...
importance satisfaction
score rank Service % rank
2.58 24 provide library services 93.7% 4
2.36 30 to provide learning opportunities for adults 90.5% 10
2.35 31 to preserve historic buildings (combined) 91.1% 9
2.15 32 to support cultural and entertainment opportunities 87.6% 13
2.13 33 to regulate outdoor lighting to reduce light pollution 78.1% 20
and glare
2.09 34 to promote tourism in our area 93.6% 5
UVA Center for Survey Research
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
Comparison of Importance and
Satisfaction
"Spend tax dollars"
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
Similar results
with addition of safety in business areas
importance satisfaction
score rank Service % rank
2.95 1 to provide quality education to school children 84.8% 15
2.85 2 protect water resources 75.6% 25
2.85 3 to provide fair property tax assessments 58.4% 32
2.72 8 to provide services to disadvantaged people 76.4% 24
2.54 22 ensure safety in business areas 93.8% 3
2.52 23 provide library services 93.7% 4
2.23 31 to preserve historic buildings (combined) 91.1% 9
2.11 32 to promote tourism in our area 93.6% 5
UVA Center for Survey Research
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
Satisfaction with Contact with
the County
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
Contact with County
. During the past 12 months, 38.00/0
of respondents contacted the
County government
. Most frequently contacted
departments were:
o Police
o Finance
o Planning and Community Development
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
38
UVA Center for Survey Research
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
Satisfaction with Contact
. 79.0 % of residents said they were
satisfied with the County efforts to keep
them informed about county
government programs and services
. No real change from the 78.50/0 reported in
2006.
. 72.70/0 were satisfied overall with their
experience contacting the County.
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
39
Views of Government Spending
on Transportation
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
UVA Center for Survey Research
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
Spend more local tax money on roads?
Strongly
oppose
9.40/0
Somewhat
oppose
20.3%
Strongly
Favor
27.7%
Somewhat
favor
42.6%
70.3% in favor
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
41
Spend more for bike paths and sidewalks?
Strongly
oppose
13.60/0
Somewhat
oppose
19.9%
Strongly
Favor
33.1%
Somewhat
favor
33.4%
66.5% in favor
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
UVA Center for Survey Research
42
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
Willing to pay taxes to fund transportation?
Yes
48.80/0
No
39.9%
Yes, but
depends
9.40/0
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
58.2% say Yes
43
Choose one . . .
Some people have mentioned the following four things
as most important for the County government to do at this time.
Please tell me which one of these four would be the
most important priority to you.
25%
23.2% 22.8%
-
18.1% 16.8%
- -
- -
- -
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Protect natural Increase the Lower taxes
resources number of jobs
Slow down
population
growth
. . . and 19% said "other"
UVA Center for Survey Research
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
Summary
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
The Survey Said...
. Residents remain very satisfied with
the quality of life in Albemarle County
. Ratings of most County services
remain high
. Cost and effort of cell phone contact
yields increased representativeness
. Wording experiments highlight some
differences, confirm other responses
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
46
UVA Center for Survey Research
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
. Some significant gaps between
perceived importance and
satisfaction with services
· These show areas to work on
. Education, safety and water top the
list of priorities
. Some support for local transportation
initiatives
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
47
A full report on the this year's survey is
scheduled for release in December 2008.
For further information please contact:
Thomas M. Guterbock
Director, Center for Survey Research
434-243-5223
TomG@virginia.edu
www.virginia.edu/surveys
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
48
UVA Center for Survey Research
10/8/2008
Albemarle Citizen Survey 2008
.
WF.LDON COOPER
CENTER FOR PUBUC SERVICl
41'," 1J1I"~"IilJ oj'Virgini.,
UVA Center for Survey Research
10/8/2008
Albemarle County
2008 Citizen Survey
CSR
cell!bt'(ifhtil ' .
20;veul'S
1988:'11'0'08
{TNTFR fl'IR Sl'RVFY RFSF.\Rl'l J
2008 Albemarle County Community Profile
Steven A. Allshouse
Coordinator of Research and Analysis
October 8, 2008
Data in the Community Profile is Organized by the
Five Strategic Goals of the County:
1. Enhance the Quality of Life;
2. Protect Natural Resources;
3. Develop Policies and Infrastructure to Address
Growing Needs;
4. Effectively Manage Growth and Development; and
5. Fund Future Needs.
1
Overview of Interesting Data Findings
· Albemarle continues to be an attractive place to live,
as demonstrated clearly by migration-driven population
growth numbers;
· Albemarle's economy has been exceptionally strong in
the past several years, particularly in terms of
employment growth and the unemployment rate;
· The County does face some unfortunate trends, e.g., a
run-up in the unemployment rate, an increased crime
rate, and an increase in food stamp assistance;
Overview (Cant.)
· The County's high cost of housing is a challenge, but
the situation might not be as bad as is often thought;
· Albemarle's growth management policies do not
appear to have significantly reduced new development
in the Rural Areas in the past several years; and
· The County faces serious economic and fiscal
challenges in light of recent deterioration in the local
economy and the U.S. and Virginia macroeconomic
environment.
2
Demographic Profile
95,000
93,000
91,000
89,000
c 87,000
.2
OJ 85,000
"5
Q.
0 83,000
l1.
81,000
79,000
77,000
75,000
Albemarle County Population (1997-2007)
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Year
2003
2005
2006 2007
2004
3
90%
S 80%
0
1-,:
O~ 70%
~ e
';"Cl
.. '" 60%
'" 0
0;:;
;;.!!
E ::l
CIa. 50%
.- 0
:ea..
1ii
z 40%
Net Migration's Share of Albemarle County's Annual
Population Growth (1997-2006)
30%
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
Economic/Business Profile
4
60,000
50,000
III 40,000
.0
~
~ 30,000
..
'0
~ 20,000
10,000
Total Number of Jobs in Albemarle County Continue to Rise
---------l
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Total Number of Jobs in Albemarle County
The number of jobs in Albemarle County has steadily risen since 1997 with a slight decrease in 2001.
Since 1997, the numberof jobs filled in Albemane County has grown by 53% or about 17,500 jobs.
60.000
50.000
.. 40,000
,Q
0
..,
'0
~
" 30.000
,Q
E
"
z
0;
"0 20,000
...
10.000
The Total Number of Jobs in Albemarle County in 2002 and 2007
50,405
40,078
69%
31%
32%
68%
2007
2002
Note: Year 2002 bar includes an estimated 600 NGIC jobs. In
2002 the VEC erroneously listed NGIC jobs as being in the City
of Charlottesville.
Year
5
Net Number of New Jobs Created in Albemarle County between 2002 and 2007
12,000
10,000
8,000
~
.a
~
~
Z
0 6,000
.
.a
~
Z
'al
z
4,000
2,000
10,327
25%
75%
Note: Public sector figure includes an estimated net increase of 26 NGIC jobs. In 2002, the VEC erroneously
assigned NGIC employment numbers to Char1ottesville.
Total Number of Jobs in the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
by Locality, 1997-2007
61.000
51.000 -:-:--:
41,000 =----- ... L ~- :
.. .L
'"
0
.., 31.000
'0
..
21.000
11.000
. . . . . . . I . . .
1,000
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
__Albemarle ___ Charlottesville Fluvanna ___Greene __ Nelson
6
Since 2006, the Majority of Jobs in the Charlottesville MSA Have
Been Located in Albemarle County
54%
52%
50%
..
.g 48%
..,
~ 46%
....
~ 44%
'"
42%
40%
38%
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Albemarle's Annual Unemployment Rate Is Lower than the
Average of its Peer Counties, Virginia, and
the United States
7.0%
6.0%
~ 5.0%
10
'"
c: 4.0%
~
,.,
0 3.0%
Q.
~
c 2.0%
::J
1.0%
0.0%
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
~A1bemarle County -____-PeerCtyAvg ----*"-Virginia U.S.
7
7.0%
6.0%
.. 5.0%
1;j
~
1:: 4.0%
..
E
'"
0 3.0%
Ii
E
..
c 2.0%
::J
1.0%
Albemarle County's Monthly Unemployment Rate Has
Jumped Substantially Since July 2007
~~~
0.0%
~ ~ - ~ - ~ ~ - - ~ - ~ ~
2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008
_Albemarle ___ Peer Cty. -.- Virginia U.S.
Workforce Profile
8
Albemarle Net Job Creation & Wages, 2002-07
Net New Avg. Weekly
Employment Sector Jobs Wage '07
Educational Svcs. St. Govt. 2,443 $1.045
ProffTech $erv 1,313 $997
Health Care 1,259 $903
Management of Cos. 326 $1,460
Manufacturing 149 $1,075
Public Adm. Local Govt. 144 $867
Financellnsurance 71 $1,265
Trade-Wholesale 43 $1,006
Total 5.748
% of Grand Total 53.5%
Employment Sector
Net New Avg. Weekly
Jobs Wage '07
Trade-Retail
Accommodation/Food
AdminlWaste Ser
Construction
Arts/Enter/Rec
Transportation
Educ. Svcs. Local Govt.
Educational 5er
Other Services
1,622 $519
1,156 $300
751 $496
569 $758
342 $374
277 $625
190 $702
84 $545
9 $750
Total
5,000
% of Grand Total
46.5%
Grand Total
10,748
Note: Table does not include estimated 26 net
new NGIC jobs.
Housing Profile
9
The Median Sales Price of Dwelling Units in Albemarle County
Peaked in 2006 and Declined in 2007
$330,000
$310,000
$290,000
CI>
.!:! $270,000
It
Ul $250,000
CI>
ii
I/) $230,000
l:
.!!!
... $210,000
CI>
:;
$190,000
$170,000
$150,000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Year
Albemarle County Has the Least Affordable For-Sale Housing
Stock in the Charlottesville MSA, but a Substantial
Proportion is within the "Affordable" Range
c: 35%
:;~ 30%
G>'"
.... N
UlN
:J~ 25%
Ul G>
G>"C
E c: 20%
0::1
:I: ...
~~ 15%
co co
filII) 10%
.....J
~:!E 5%
... G>
0:5
~ 0%
0
Albemarle Charlottesville
Fluvanna
Greene
Nelson
Jurisdiction
10
Public Safety Profile
Crime Rate per 100,000 Residents Increased between
2004 and 2007
C> 2,466 2,429 2.543 2,495
C>
C>
ci
C>
~
~
~
.l!l
'"
0::
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
11
Families and Children Profile
1.800
Families Receiving Food Stamp Assistance in
Albemarle County (1998.2008)
1.800
1,400
1.200
1,000
600
400
200
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
12
Development Profile
Residential Building Permits Issued in Development Areas, as
a % of Total Building Permits Issued (2000-07)
85%
80%
"C 75%
"
::l
.!l
$ 70%
.~
"
0. 65%
'"
c:
:2 60%
':;
lD
OJ
~ 55%
'5
~ 50%
45%
40%
2000 2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Year
13
Conclusions
· Albemarle continues to be an attractive place to live, as
evidenced by the relatively high percentage of population
growth that is attributable to net migration;
· Albemarle's economy has been strong in the past
several years, especially in terms of job growth and low
unemployment;
· The County's economy, however, faces challenges now
resulting from the weak housing market and the current
U.S. and Virginia macroeconomic environment;
Conclusions (Cont.)
· The County's financial situation the past several years
has been quite solid but, because of current economic
challenges, Albemarle's finances will deteriorate in the
foreseeable future.
· Albemarle's financial situation will require creative
approaches to address ongoing issues such as public
safety, social services, and growth management.
14
Questions?
15
Memorandum
DATE:
Members, Board of Supervisors
Ella W. Jordan, CMC, CI~\O----
October 1, 2008
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Reading List for October 8, 2008
March 5,2008
March 12, 2008 (A1N)
March 19, 2008
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
Ms. Mallek
NOTE: Please remember to pull your minutes at the meeting, if they are not read.
Thanks.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Approval of 2007-08 ACE Applicant Appraisals and
Acquisition of Anderson Easement
AGENDA DATE:
October 8,2008
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of seven appraisals from Round 8
(FY 2007-08) and purchase of Anderson easement
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Herrick, Cilimberg, Benish,
and Goodall
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
(
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
On May 7,2008, the Board of Supervisors approved the Acquisition of Conservation Easement (ACE) Committee's
request to have seven (7) properties appraised from the Round 8 (FY 2007-08) applicant pool. These included the
Anderson, Garnett, Hudson (Michael), Dutnell, Riddervold, Hudson (Fred), and Thurman properties - the top seven
ranked properties from this class (see Attachment "A"). Based on estimated easement values for this class at the
time, the ACE Committee believed funding was sufficient to purchase most of the easements. The Committee
recommends that, even if current funding were insufficient to purchase all of the easements, it was prudent to obtain
appraisals on more properties than funding would allow in the likely event that one or more higher ranking applicants
chose not to submit an offer after receiving their appraisals as part of the County's invitation to offer to sell.
The Board of Supervisors must designate the easements to be purchased, as provided under section A.1-111 (A),
which states in part: "From the list of applications received under section A.1-11 O(D), the board of supervisors shall
designate the initial pool of parcels identified for conservation easements to be purchased. The size of the pool shall
be based upon the funds available for easement purchases in the current fiscal year and the purchase price of each
conservation easement in the pool established under section A.1-111 (B)."
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2.1 - "Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character"
Goal 2.2 - "Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources"
Objective 2.1: By June 30, 2010, increase the total combined acreage in permanent conservation easements and
qualifying public parkland by 30,000 acres (50%) using public and private means.
In order for the County to reach this objective, 7,500 acres per year would have to be placed into easements between
2006 and 2010. In the first two years (2006 and 2007), 14,064 acres were protected, just short of the target for that
period. If funding were available for acquisition of all nine (9) eligible properties from the FY 2007-08 class (see
Attachment "A"), 1,310 acres could be placed under easement. The seven (7) appraised properties from the FY 2007-
08 class total 1 ,151 acres.
DISCUSSION:
All seven (7) appraisals were completed in early September and submitted to the Appraisal Review Committee, which
unanimously approved all appraisals (see Attachment "B"). The ACE Committee then met on September 8 to
determine which easements to recommend for purchase. For FY 2007-08, funding of $1 ,627,000 was appropriated to
the ACE program and there are no unencumbered funds carried over from the previous year. Though some grant
money may be awarded to supplement County funding, no grant funding has been secured at this point. Thus, the
total amount of funds available in FY 2007-08 for easement acquisitions is anticipated to be $1,627,000.
AGENDA TITLE: Approval of 2007-08 ACE Applicant Appraisals and Acquisition of Anderson Easement
October 8, 2008
Page 2
The ACE Committee recommends the purchase of the Anderson easement, the top ranked applicant from the FY
2007-08 class. Since the appraised value of this easement is $735,000, funds are more than adequate to cover its
purchase.
In the meantime, the second highest ranked applicants (Garnett) are still assessing their situation and have not
provided the necessary tax returns to determine adjustments to the purchase price based on the grantors' income.
Until this issue is resolved, the ACE Committee recommends delaying action on Garnett and other lower ranked
properties for one month. In the event that the Garnett family decides not to proceed, the current budget would allow
the County to purchase most or all of the remaining properties in this class, including Hudson (Michael), Dutnell,
Riddervold, Hudson (Fred) and Thurman. The ACE Committee intends to provide the Board a subsequent
recommendation on the additional properties for easement acquisitions in November.
Acquisition of the Anderson easement would provide the following resource protection:
. protection of 248 acres of farm and forestland
. elimination of 11 development lots
. 5,973 feet of state road frontage (on SR 717 & SR 708)
. 2,462 feet of riparian buffer on the Hardware River and 5,824 feet on the South Fork of the Hardware River
. the smooth sweet shrub, a natural heritage resource was found within % mile of property
. lies in the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District
. 5,369 feet of common boundary with other protected lands (Davey easement)
. 179 acres of "prime" farm and forestland
. property has significant tourism value
BUDGET IMPACT:
Funding for the purchase of this conservation easement comes from the CIP-Planning-Conservation budget (line-item
9010-81010-580409) and the CIP-Tourism-Conservation budget (line-item #9010-72030-580416), a budget previously
approved by the Board to fund ACE properties with "tourism value." The Anderson property qualifies for the use of
tourism funds because it lies in the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The following recommendations are provided for action by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors:
1) Approve the seven (7) appraisals by Pape and Company for applications from the year FY 2007-08 applicant pool (see
Attachment "B").
2) Approve the purchase of an ACE easement on the Anderson property (see Attachment "C").
ATTACHMENTS
A - Rankinq Order of ACE Applicants for Round 8 - FY 2007-08
B - Easement Values and Acquisition Costs for Round 8 - FY 2007-08
C - ACE Resolution Acceptinq Offer to Sell Anderson Easement to County
Appraised Properties Attachment "A"
Rankin!! Order of ACE Applicants from Round 8 (FY 2007-08)
(20 points are needed to qualify for ACE Funding)
Applicant Tax Map Acres Points Tourism Eligibility
Anderson, Margaret TM 101, Parcel 60 247.800 acres 53.89 points yes eligible
(Carters Bridge)
Garnett, Mercer TM 44, Parcel 4J 21.500 acres 31.59 points no eligible
(Earlysville) TM 44. Parcel4K 50.000 acres
Total 71.500 acres
Hudson, Michael TM 100, Parcell 217.140 acres 31.41 points yes eligible
(North Garden)
Riddervold, Leif TM 118, Parcell 270.487 acres 30.09 points yes eligible
(Covesville)
Dutnell, Peter TM 99, Parcel36C 89.883 acres 29.38 points yes eligible
(North Garden) TM 99. Parcel 38 62.998 acres
Total 152.881 acres
Hudson, Fred TM 29, Parcel 61 83.022 acres 27.76 points no eligible
(Free Union)
Thurman, Thelma TM 94, Parcel 20A 108.400 acres 25.36 points no eligible
(Milton)
Rives, Barclay TM 65, Parcel 93A1 3.811 acres 24.58 points yes eligible
(Cismont) TM 65, Parcel 94 3.000 acres
TM 65, Parcel 94 "A" 1.250 acres
TM 65, Parcel 94 "B" 15.950 acres
TM 65, Parcel 95 4.872 acres
TM 65, Parcel 95A 3.978 acres
TM 65. Parcel 121 38.840 acres
Total 71. 701 acres
Rushia, Ed & Chris TM 39, Parcel27 86.700 acres 22.43 points yes eligible
(Crozet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roberston, Anna Lee TM 94, Parcel 20 106.400 acres 19.67 points no ineligible
(Milton)
Barksdale, John TM 100, Parcel 34 153.010 acres 18.89 points no ineligible
(North Garden)
Fallon, Marcia TM 119, Parcel 5 78.957 acres 17.30 points yes ineligible
(Schuyler) TM 119, Parcel5A 5.992 acres
TM 119. Parcel6A 15.500 acres
Total 100.449 acres
Ford, Barbara TM 6, Parcel 21 40.000 acres 15.68 points yes ineligible
(Brown's Cove)
Cornwell, Oden TM 134, Parcel 7 A 80.000 acres 12.72 points no ineligible
(Howardsville)
Number of New Applications:
Number of Re-emolled Applications:
Number of Eligible Applications:
10 Applications
4 Applications
9 Applications
1,230.279 acres
498.171 acres
1,309.631 acres
Note: Tourism value is determined by the presence of specific elements from the ranking evaluation criteria
making certain properties eligible for funding from the transient lodging tax. The specific criteria include the
following: contains historic resources or lies in a historic district; lies in the primary Monticello viewshed; adjoins
a Virginia scenic highway, byway or entrance corridor; lies on a state scenic river; provides mountaintop
protection
Attachment "8"
Value of ACE Easements for Round 8 - FY 2007-08
Applicant
Anderson, Margaret
(Carters Bridge)
Total Value
$2,973,360
Easement Value
$ 735,000
ACE Pavment*
$ 735,000 (100%)
Garnett, Mercer
(Ear1ysville)
$2,000,000
$ 928,000
$ 696,000 (75%?)
Hudson, Michael
(North Garden)
$2,175,000
$ 620,000
$ 582,800 (94%)
Riddervold, Leif
(Covesville)
$ 800,000
$ 40,000
$ 35,200 (88%)
Dutnell, Peter
(North Garden)
$1,070,000
$ 118,000
$ 118,000 (100%)
Hudson, Fred
(Free Union)
$1,121,000
$ 58,000
$ 2,320 (4%)
Thurman, Thelma
(Milton)
$1,150,000
$ 225,000
$ 225,000 (100%)
Total Easement Value
Total Acquisition Cost
$2,724,000
$2,394,320 (88%)
* In parenthesis next to ACE Payment is the percent (%) of total easement value. This is
the amount, expressed as a percentage, that ACE would actually pay for the easement after
making adjustments from the income grid. For landowners making less than $55,000/year in
adjusted gross income, the County pays 100% of easement value. For those making more than
$55,000/year, the County pays an "adjusted" value that is less than 100% of easement value.
Attachment C
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFER TO SELL
A CONSERVATION EASEMENT UNDER THE ACE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the County has received an offer to sell a conservation easement under the
ACE Program from the owner(s) of the following property:
Margaret Anderson
TM 101, Parcel 60 (247.800 acres)
and;
WHEREAS, the owner(s) offered to sell a conservation easement on the property
described above to the County for a fixed purchase price, subject to terms and conditions set
forth in the proposed deed of easement enclosed with the County's invitation to offer to sell,
subject to any further revisions deemed necessary by the County Attorney and agreed to by the
owner.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby
accepts the offer to sell a conservation easement for the property described above, and authorizes
the County Executive to execute all documents necessary for completing the acquisitions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
County Attorney to send copies of this resolution to the owner(s) of the property identified
herein, or the appropriate contact person.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by 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
Mrs. Mallek
Kenneth C. Boyd
Rivanna
COUNTYOFALBE~E
Office of Board of Supervisors
40 1 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
Lindsay G. Domer, Ir.
Scottsville
David L. Sluizky
Rio
Ann H. Mallek
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
November 7, 2008
Mr. Steve Powell
Buckingham Branch Railroad
1043 Main Street
Dillwyn, VA 23936
Re: Resolution - Rail Preservation Application of Buckingham Branch Railroad
Company
Dear Mr. Powell
At its meeting on October 8, 2008, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted
the attached resolution endorsing the rail preservation application of Buckingham Branch
Railroad Company.
Sincerely, r
9-fI L ~~'--
-t;d;w. Jordan, Clerk
Jewc
Attachment
RESOLUTION ENDORSING
RAIL PRESERVATION APPLICATION OF
BUCKINGHAM BRANCH RAILROAD COMPANY
WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad desires to file an application with
the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation for funding assistance for the
projects; and
WHEREAS, Buckingham Branch Railroad has identified projects that are
estimated to cost $13,200,000; and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly, through enactment of the Rail Preservation
Program, provides for funding for certain improvements and procurement of railways in
the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad is an important element of the
County of Albemarle transportation system; and
WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad is instrumental in the economic
development of the area, and provides relief to the highway system by transporting
freight, and provides an alternate means of transportation of commodities; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle supports the project and the retention of the
rail service; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has established
procedures for all allocation and distribution of the finds provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County of Albemarle Board of
Supervisors does hereby request the Virginia Department of Rail and Public
Transportation to give priority consideration to the projects proposed by the Buckingham
Branch Railroad; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be spread upon the
minutes of the October 8,2008 meeting and sent to Buckingham Branch Railroad.
ADOPTED: October 8. 2008
:i4((LU1~>~
Clerk
ILRc,~
Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
RECEIVED
SEP': D 2008
County of Albemarle
('-ounty Executive's OffIcE'
Buckingham Branch Railroad Company
650 C&O Flats
Staunton, Virginia 24401
540-887-8145
September 26, 2008
Robert Tucker
Albermarle County
40 I McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Mr. Tucker,
I would like to thank Albermarle County for supporting Buckingham Branch Railroad's request for the previous
resolution (January, 2008) supporting us in our infrastructure improvement program.
We have found it necessary to adjust the work that we are performing in Albermarle County due to priority issues.
In light of this change, we are requesting that the County of Albermarle pass an updated resolution for us to submit
to the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation for this change. The VDRPT has approved these
changes in our program and supports our request for making these changes.
A description of the work that we are requesting funds for is attached with this letter. This application is part of a
project that affects more than one county. Hence, the total project amount may be distributed over one or more
counties. You will also note that these projects may be multi-year projects and not single year projects.
If you have additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at our Staunton office or Mr. Steve
Powell at our main office in Dillwyn, V A at 434-983-3300. Our main office address is:
Buckingham Branch Railroad
POBox 336
1043 Main Street
Dillwyn, VA 23936
A sample resolution is included and should be sent to Mr. Steve Powell at the above address.
~:J/DY~
.Gale Wilson
General Manager
R & A Division
Buckingham Branch Railroad
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
RAIL PRESERVATION PROGRAM
APPLICATION
Application Date: February 12,2007
Applicant: Buckingham Branch Railroad Company
Contact Person: Steven C. Powell
Telephone Number: (434) 983-330
Richmond & Alleghany Division - Washington and North Mountain Subdivisions
.
Project Description: Tie Replacement CA160 to CA276
This is a six-year project to replace approximately 116,000 ties (1,000
ties/mile), add appropriate ballast (approximately 1,000 tons/mile) and
surface over 116 miles of track. This project will help stabilize the
roadbed and tie condition to allow this portion of track to continue to
operate at Class III standards for both passenger and freight trains. The
project will include main line ties, switch ties, OTM, ballast, surfacing,
and disposal of old materials.
Note: All miles from CA160 to CA276 will be done. Priorities for which
mileposts will be done first will be determined as the project progresses.
Localities: Gor~onsville, Louisa, Albemarle, Charlottesville, Nelson,
Augus~ Waynesboro, Staunton, Rockbridge, Bath, Alleghany
Estimated Cost: 2007: $2,200,000
2008: $2,200,000
2009: $2,200,000
2010: $2,200,000
2011: $2,200,000
2012: $2,200,000
Total Project: $13,200,000
Estimated Annual Number of Carloads for 2007:
Amtrak'5 Cardinal - 312 tri ps/yr
CSXT's Revenue empties - 265,000
BB's local freight - 5,300 (only counting cars on these
Subdivisions)
Estimated Number of People Employed or Retained: 60
Expected Starting and Finishing Dates: July 2007 thru July 2013
Local Match: 35%
RESOLUTION ENDORSING
RAIL PRESERVATION APPLICATION OF
BUC~NGHAMBRANCH~ROADCO~ANY
WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad desires to file an application with the
Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation for funding assistance for the projects;
and
WHEREAS, Buckingham Branch Railroad has identified projects that are estimated to
cost $13,200,000; and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly, through enactment of the Rail Preservation Program,
provides for funding for certain improvements and procurement of railways in the
Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad is an important element of the County of
Albemarle transportation system; and
WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad is instrumental in the economic
development of the area, and provides relief to the highway system by transporting freight, and
provides an alternate means of transportation of commodities; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle supports the project and the retention of the rail
service; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has established procedures for all
allocation and distribution of the funds provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County of Albemarle Board of
Supervisors does hereby request the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation to
give priority consideration to the projects proposed by the Buckingham Branch Railroad.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be spread upon the minutes
of the (date) meeting and sent to Buckingham Branch Railroad.
ADOPTED:
(date)
Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Clerk
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2009025
EXPLANATION: Appropriate funds for 2 Community Development positions that had previously been
frozen and are now funded through fees
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 34050 110000 Regular Salaries J 1 47,168.00
1 1000 34050 210000 FICA J 1 3,608.35
1 1000 34050 221000 VRS J 1 6,386.54
1 1000 34050 241000 Life Insurance J 1 471.68
1 1000 34050 231000 Health Insurance J 1 6,523.00
1 1000 34050 232000 Dental Insurance J 1 238.00
1 1000 34050 270000 Worker's Compensation J 1 740.54
1 1000 81022 110000 Regular Salaries J 1 47,834.00
1 1000 81022 210000 FICA J 1 3,659.30
1 1000 81022 221000 VRS J 1 6,476.72
1 1000 81022 241000 Life Insurance J 1 478.34
1 1000 81022 231000 Health Insurance J 1 6,523.00
1 1000 81022 232000 Dental Insurance J 1 238.00
1 1000 81022 270000 Worker's Compensation J 1 76.53
2 1000 13000 130324 Erosion Control Permits J 2 65,136.00
2 1000 13000 130308 Building Permit Fees J 2 65,286.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 130,422.00
0701 Appropriation 130,422.00
TOTAL 260,844.00 130,422.00 130,422.00
PREPARED BY:
BD. OF SUPV APPROVAL:
ACCT. APPROVAL:
ENTERED BY:
Laura Vinzant
Ella W. Jordan
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
9/10/2008
10/8/2008
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I AGENDA TITLE:
FY2009 Appropriation
AGENDA DATE:
October 8,2008
SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST:
Approval of Appropriation #2009031, reappropriating
capital funds for the Acquisition of Conservation
Easement program
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
REVIEWED BY:
~
STAFF CO NT ACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Wiggans
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
BACKGROUND:
The Code of Virginia 9 15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to
be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment
which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by
first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section
applies to all County funds, Le., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of this requested FY 2009 appropriation is $2,126,026.19. A budget amendment public hearing is not
required because the cumulative appropriations will not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5. Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County's growing needs
DISCUSSION:
The County of Albemarle has prepared a grant application to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services' Office of Farmland Preservation for their Preservation of Development Rights Program. If awarded, this
grant will provide funds to supplement the County's Acquisition of Conservation Easement Program. The required
grant documentation, which includes a certification of available matching funds for the program, is due to be signed
and returned to the Office of Farmland Preservation by October 17, 2008.
As a result of additional staff review, the reappropriation request of uncompleted General Government capital projects,
which is typically brought to the Board for consideration in October, was removed from the October 1st agenda. In
order to accurately reflect the County's current local funding for the ACE Program, including the unexpended balance
in the program from June 30, 2008, a reappropriation of the unexpended funds, in the amount of $2,126,026.19, is
requested. This will enable the certification of matching funds to reflect the reappropriated balance in addition to the
current FY 2009 balance.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the approval of FY 2009 Appropriation #2009031 totaling $2,126,026.19.
ATTACHMENTS
Appropriation #2009031
COU NTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2009031
EXPLANATION:
Reappropriation of Capital Improvement Funds for ACE Program
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9010 72030 580416 Tourism - ACE J 1 456,679.83
1 9010 81010 580409 Planning - ACE J 1 1,669,346.36
!
2 9010 51000 510100 Appropriation - Fund Balance J 2 2,126,026.19
9010 0501 Est. Revenue 2,126,026.19
0701 Appropriation 2,126,026.19
TOTAL 4,252,052.38 2,126,026.19 2,126,026.19
PREPARED BY:
BD. OF SUPV APPROVAL:
ACCT. APPROVAL:
ENTERED BY:
Brenda Neitz
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
10/3/2008
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
APP#
DATE
BATCH#
2009031
EXPLANATION:
Reappropriation of Capita/Improvement Funds for ACE Program
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9010 72030 580416 Tourism - ACE J 1 456,679.83
1 9010 81010 580409 Planning - ACE J 1 1,669,346.36
2 9010 51000 510100 Appropriation - Fund Balance J 2 2,126,026.19
9010 0501 Est. Revenue 2,126,026.19
0701 Appropriation 2,126,026.19
TOTAL 4,252,052.38 2,126,026.19 2,126,026.19
PREPARED BY:
BD. OF SUPV APPROVAL:
ACCT. APPROVAL:
ENTERED BY:
Brenda Neitz
Ella W. Jordan
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
1 0/3/2008
10/8/2008
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
L. Preston Bryant, Jr.
Secretary of Natural Resources
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIlY
VALLEY REGIONAL OFFICE
4411 Early Road, P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801
(540) 574-7800 Fax (540) 574-7878
www.deq.virginia.gov
David K. Paylor
Director
Amy Thatcher Owens
Regional Director
September 25, 2008
Kenneth Boyd, Chairman
Albemarle Co. Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, V A 22902-4596
Re: Reissuance ofVPDES Permit No. V A0024945, Lake Monticello STP
Dear Mr. Boyd:
In accordance with the Code of Virginia, Section 62.1-44.15:01, this is to provide you
with a copy of a public notice regarding the referenced proposed permit action. Public notice of
this proposed permit action is also being published in a local newspaper, which will establish a
30-day public comment period for this proposed action. If you wish to comment or if you have
any questions regarding this proposed permit, please contact me at the above address or phone
number or at bdkiracofe@deq.virginia.gov within the next 30 days.
Sincerely,
tJ d~
Brandon D. Kiracofe
Environmental Engineer Senior
Enclosure
cc: Permit Processing File
Public Notice - Environmental Permit
PURPOSE OF NOTICE: To seek public comment on a draft permit from the Department of
Environmental Quality that will allow the continued release of treated wastewater into a water
body in Fluvanna County, Virginia.
First Public Notice Issue Date: (to be supplied by newspaper)
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: 30 days following first public notice issue date
PERMIT NAME AND NUMBER: Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit-
Wastewater (Permit No. VA0024945) issued by DEQ, under the authority of the State Water
Control Board
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: Aqua Virginia, Inc., 2414 Granite Ridge Road,
Rockville, Virginia 23146
NAME AND ADDRESS OF FACILITY: Lake Monticello STP, 3086 South Boston is Palmyra,
Virginia 22963.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Aqua Virginia, Inc. has applied for reissuance of the referenced
permit. The applicant proposes to release treated sewage wastewater at a rate of 0.995 million
gallons per day into Rivanna River in Fluvanna County in the Lower Rivanna River/Ballinger
Creek watershed. A watershed is the land area drained by a river and its incoming streams. The
permit will limit the following pollutants to amounts that protect water quality: organic matter,
solids, chlorine, bacteria, ammonia, total kjeldahl nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, pH, and nutrients.
Sludge from the treatment process will be dried and hauled to the Old Dominion Landfill in
Richmond, Virginia for disposal.
This facility is subject to the requirements of 9 VAC 25-820 and has registered for coverage under
the General VPDES Watershed Permit Regulation for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus
Discharges and Nutrient Trading in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed in Virginia.
HOW TO COMMENT: DEQ accepts comments bye-mail, fax or postal mail. All comments must
be in writing and be received by DEQ during the comment period. Written comments must
include: 1) The names, mailing addresses and telephone numbers of the person commenting and
of all people represented by the citizen. 2) If a public hearing is requested, the reason for holding
a hearing, including associated concerns. 3) A brief, informal statement regarding the extent of
the interest of the person commenting, including how the operation of the facility or activity affects
the citizen. DEQ may hold a public hearing, including another comment period, if public response
is significant and there are substantial, disputed issues relevant to the proposed permit. The
public may review the draft permit and application at the DEQ office named below.
CONTACT FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS, DOCUMENT REQUESTS AND ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION:
Name Brandon Kiracofe
Address Valley Regional Office, 4411 Early Road, P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, Virginia, 22801
Phone (540) 574-7892 E-mail: bdkiracofe@deq.virginia.gov Fax: (540) 574-7878
Darden Towe Softball Field
Lighting
"To light or not to light:
that is the question?"
How did we get here?
. In 2004 & 2005 the City and County both
conducted recreation needs assessments
which revealed a pressing need for indoor
recreation.
. In response this past January the County
entered into a partnership with the City in
support of the construction of a YMCA in
Mcintire Park.
1
Reasons to light Darden Towe:
. City league softball uses no amplified sound
system and games would not extend beyond
10 pm.
. City league softball draws few spectators
after 8 pm. Less than 100 people I 80 cars.
Lighting Efficiency:
. Capital and on going operating costs are
much less for lighting existing facilities as
opposed to building and maintaining new
park areas.
5
Lighting Technology:
-- - ~
~,...~ ~
-- -
--r-
J .'
-..,-.;J,
L1
.t . ""'-
. - -<f'"' ~ :.
'oJ~' .
. .
..(-';.':-' '. .
.~ ',..
~:~.J.t""
7
Comparison of current park impact:
. Saturday Morning: March - November
9am - Noon 502 cars, turnover every hour
Noon - 3pm 250 cars
3pm till Dark 100 cars
. Sundays: Average 250 until4pm. Then 75-
100 until dark.
. Weekdays Average 100-125 5pm-6pm, then
75-80 near dark.
In order to minimize negative impact
staff recommends:
. Lighting for recreational league play only.
. No lighting on Friday and Saturday nights.
. No lighting from Nov. 1 through March 21.
. Looking at full cutoff fixture system vs.
shielded aimable system.
9
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Darden Towe Softball Lighting
AGENDA DATE:
October 8,2008
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider County approval to allow
future lighting of Towe Park softball fields.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, and Mullaney
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
~
,
BACKGROUND:
On May 19, 2008, City Council adopted a new master plan for Mcintire Park which defined the exact boundaries for
the YMCA lease area and the desired redevelopment of the remaining park land in that area of McIntire Park. The
proposed location of the YMCA and the associated parking encroaches upon the two existing lighted softball fields.
The remaining softball field area is proposed to be converted to a rectangular athletic field to serve City and County
residents. In order to maintain the current level of service for softball, City and County staff have recommended that
the three softball fields at Darden Towe Park be lighted. In addition, the City plans to light the Charlottesville High
School softball field in the spring of 2009.
The 2007 Darden Towe Park Agreement between the City and the County (Attachment A) requires the mutual
agreement of both jurisdictions to light any competitive sport or other recreation facility at this park. This matter was
referred to the Darden Towe Park Committee ("Committee") for a recommendation and a Committee meeting was
held on May 29, 2008. The Committee recommended that the Board and Council each set this item for public hearing
in order to receive input from the public prior to taking action. At its July 2, 2008 meeting, the Board approved
scheduling this item for public hearing.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Citizens.
Goal 2: Develop Policies and Infrastructure Improvements to Address the County's Growing Needs.
DISCUSSION:
There are three softball fields at Darden Towe Park which are presently not lighted. Staff recommends that the Board
of Supervisors approves the lighting of these fields for the following reasons:
· Darden Towe Park is in the Pantops Development Area.
· It is the only publicly owned regional recreational sports complex in the area and serves residents of
Charlottesville, Albemarle County and surrounding counties.
· Lighted facilities are typically provided in regional parks.
· The long standing City League Softball Program has 160 teams and 2400 participants from the City (20%),
the County (46%), and other localities (34%), and would have to be reduced by 40 - 50% if the additional
playing time is not made possible. This would impact approximately 240 City residents and 552 County
residents.
· No existing alternative space is available for the program.
· Lighting the fields is the most efficient way to provide additional playing time.
· Lighting technology, the natural terrain and the large buffer of park land around the fields will allow lighting
with a minimal impact to surrounding properties.
· City League Softball uses no amplified sound system and games would not extend beyond 10:00pm.
· City League Softball draws few spectators after 8:00pm and by 9:00pm less than 100 people are expected to
be in the park.
AGENDA TITLE: Darden Towe Softball Lighting
October 8, 2008
Page 2
Staff recognizes that lighting of the facilities at Darden Towe Park has been a concern of park neighbors since the City
and County entered into an agreement to establish the park in 1986. (Attachment B) When the park was being
planned in the mid 1980's, it represented the first park of its kind in Albemarle County with multiple facilities for field
sports such as soccer, lacrosse, and softball. Nearby residents were very concerned about the potential negative
impacts of this new park and in response to these concerns the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors strongly
opposed lighting of the athletic facilities. As requested by the Board, the minutes of the February 5, 1986 Board of
Supervisors meeting (Attachment C), which included a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment for
what is now Darden Towe Park, are attached.
Staff believes that the adverse impact of reducing the City League Softball Program by 792 City and County
participants if the lighting is not approved exceeds any negative impact of lighting the fields. To minimize negative
impact, staff recommends that the lighting be used only for recreational league play and that no lighting be allowed on
Friday or Saturday nights. Staff further recommends that no lighting be allowed from November 1 through March 21,
except as necessary to accommodate weather related make up games for the fall City League Softball Program. In
addition, staff is investigating a "full cut-off' lighting system which is gaining popularity on the west coast but has yet to
be used in the eastern United States. If determined to be feasible, this system may allow lighting of the softball fields
while meeting the intent of the Outdoor Lighting provision of the County's Zoning Ordinance better than traditional
"shielded aimable" lighting systems.
Staff has prepared a Resolution for the Board's consideration (Attachment D) to allow the lighting contingent on
approval by the City and the approval of an acceptable funding and lighting plan.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The total cost estimate for lighting the softball fields is approximately $550,000 while the annual operating cost is
estimated to be $5,250. Capital and operating costs are divided between the City and County based on the relative
population of the two localities. Participation from other localities would be requested and other fund raising strategies
considered if the Board and Council approve the lighting of the fields. There is no budget impact at this time. Future
project implementation will depend on the development of an acceptable funding and lighting plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution to approve the lighting of the
softball fields at Darden Towe Park.
ATTACHMENTS
A - 2007 Darden Towe Park Aqreement
B - 1986 Darden Towe Park Aqreement
C - 1986-02-05 Minutes
D - Resolution - Darden Towe Park Softball Liqhtinq
',I'
Attachment A
DARDEN TOWEPARKAGREEMENT
This Agreement, dated this 10 Y1v day of ::JUn6 ,2007, 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 \I\Iill 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 total operating budget. 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.
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.
1
I'
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 Gonveyed 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
conyeyance 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
occ.ur 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 June 4,2007, and the Board of Supervisors has
authorized its Chairman to sign it by resolution adopted June 6,2007.
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Attest:
~~
Cle f Council
By J)~Wn~
Mayor
CQUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Attest:
By Ch~n~~o&~
3
,11...-'<..1 v' /" c. /'-' .
...... I......... .
~ .1 " n i : "..J. \"'\17
);lll.1 \\>,
l_j~)~~ i',
i ' ; .' ! (,'.' \ I
.../ . "" ! { ; I
'. .., c...1
ATTACHMENT B
AGREEMENT FOR THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT AND
OPERATION OF THE CITY-COUNTY PARK
This Agreement is between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
(hereina~ter called .County">, acting through its Board 0%
Supervisors, and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE (hereina%ter called
'City'), acting through its City Council:
SECTION I.
PURPOSE.
The City o~ Charlottesville and Albemarle County have
executed a contract dated October 17, 1985 xor an option to
purchase jointly certain real property in the County xrom the
estate o~ Mary Mahanes.
The purpose o~ this agreement is to
authorize the exercise 0% that option and to provide a ~8ir and
equitable allocation o~ responsibility between the two localities
~or the development, operation and maintenance ox the property as
a park and recreation area, as described in the Joint City-County
Park Report and Recommendation dated February ~O, 1986 attached
to and incorporated by re~erence in this agreement Chereina%ter
called "Joint Report.),
In addition, the City and County through
this agreement agree in principle to purchase 0% the adjacent
property belonging to Snow's Garden Center, Inc.
SECTION II.
PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT,
The development o~ 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, children's playground,
sOItbel1 Iields,Iour mu~tipurpose Iields, canoe deck, volleyball
courts, restroom/concession bUilding, eight tennis courts,
maintenance building, multipurpose hard surIace courts and the
necessary utilities (see details OI phasing in the Joint Report).
The initial development (Phase I) will begin by the late spring oI
1986, and be completed Ior use by the spring o~ 1988. The two
later phases o~ development (Phase II and Phase III) vill OCcur
approximately each three years t~erea~ter. Phase I 01 the
development shall include 3 sOItbal1 ~ields.
SECTION III. APPROPRIATIONS.
The total budget ~or this project, including the cost oz land
acquisition, planning, engineering and three phases oz
development, is estimated at $2,885,580. Development oz Phases I,
II and III will be Iinanced according to the .Project Phase-
schedule on page 4 o~ the Joint Report. Upon the execution oz
this agreement, the City and the County will each appropriate its
respective share o~ the estimated costs oz land acquisition and
engineering and planning. All expenditures subsequent to the
current ~iscal year, whether capital outlay or operating cost, are
contingent upon appropriation o~ ~unds by each governing body in
the year oz expenditure, and Iailure to appropriate shall not be
deemed a breach 01 this agreement.
SECTION IV.
ALLOCATION OF COSTS.
All land .acquisition, planning and engineering, site
improvement, equipment and contingency costs ~or Phase I o~ the
-2-
development shall be divided equally between th~ City and the
County. The operating costs during the fiscal years 1988 and 1989
shell also be divided equally between the two localities.
Beginning in fiscal year 1990, operating costs will be allocated
eccor~ing 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 Joint
Report. The population figures to be used for determining capital
expenditures vithin any fiscal year shall be the same population
figures used in determining the distribution of funds 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 Ior park purpOses shall be incorporated into
the original park in undivided interest.
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~roceeds rE'cejv~d ~or such cionveyance shall'be divid~d bet~eeri
th~ localities on the basis of the cumulative capital investments
of esch locality in the entirety of the park property.
Neither
the City nor the County shall make such a conveyance o~ its
interest without consent oI the other party.
SECTION VI.
SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE.
A Supervisory Committee is hereby establiShed, consisting ox
the County Executive (or designee>, City Manager (or designee>,
Director ox Parks and Recreation Irom the City, and the Director
of Parks and Recreation from the County. The Committee vill
perform the following functions:
(1) Review the annual operating budget request ~or 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 xor the
operation of the joint park.
(S) Resolve any operating dixficulties or disputes.
-4-
~;t;.CTLQN V] J . Mil] NTENA NeE AND OPER A T1 ONS.
The County shall pe responsible for the general maintenance,
supe)'vision and security of the parlL Persons employed .for such
pur'pOEeE' ",'ill bE County eIT.ployees.
The City viII be responsible
ior th~ operatjo~ and supervision oi the softball programs. The
use and operation of any other facilities in the park shall be the
responsibility of the County. While the operations and
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 set 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-
SECTIOI~ IX.
REVENUE GEN~RATI0N.
A detailed revi~w oi th~ potential revenues from the park i8
8ho\.'[")
on pages 13-24oithe Join~Report.
'. ..' - .' .. ,-. . . . .':. . . ',. : -. .. :.. : ..,'... '.'; ~ .
'. .... .' . "'. .~'. .
'.. pi;'" ";.'
sr:crl._~i!~):. HM:JNC:. Of' THE P^f,r:.
Upon approval of this agreement by the City and County, the
joint committee 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 end Council the best
alternatives for consideration.
SECTION XI.
APPROVAL Or AGREEMENT AND EXERCISE Or 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 Manager and County Executive shall
give notice to the optionors of the property that the option is
being exercised.
SECTION XII.
AMENDMENT Or AGREEMENT.
This agreement can be amended with the mutual consent of the
City Council and the County Board of Supervisors.
SECTION XIII.
BREACH Or AGREEMENT.
If either party 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.
ln th~ E'vent remedial action has not been taken
within the 66 d~y peri6d. the aggrieved p~rt~ ~h~ll be entitled tG
t=;("ekepE.'cii:i,c: .pc:<riormance oi thE' agl~eement in the circuit. Court o:f
th~ City or County.
. '.. . "
11: V'JTfiL::5 ""'H2J.I:CIF thE el1:)' Council haE authorized thE" Mc.)'or
tc; E:~G'1. thl~ c:[~c" [Ir.: (,\ b)' d rE'r;:ulutior, adopted February --11., j~Ea:,.
it by resolution adopt~d February R. 1985.
and the Board oi S~perv{Bors has authorized'its Chairman to sign
CITY F CHARLOTTESVILLE
Attest.:
~Cn-
Clerk of Council
By'
Mayor
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
By,-,j~ CcJL
Clerk of the Board
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
-7-
--
ATTACHMENT C
275
February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
The public hearing was opened. With no one present representing the applicant, the
petition was deferred until later in the meeting.
Agenda Item No.9. SP-85-86. Vincent L. Jones. To allow home for the developmentally
disabled on 2.310 acre parcel zoned RA. Entrance to property located about 1,500 feet east of
Rt. 29 via Rt. 712 and Rt. 760. Tax Map 87, Parcel 35C1. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on January 21 and January 28, 1986.)
Mr. Fisher read the following letter dated February 5, 1986, from Mr. Vincent L. Jones:
r,
"The purpose of this letter is to notify the Board of Supervisors
that I have withdrawn my special use permit at this time to house 20
developmentally disabled persons. I was informed by Mr. Horne of the
Planning Department that by right under a single family dwelling I
could house five developmentally disabled persons, and that is my
plan."
[:
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to allow withdrawal of SP-85-86 by
the applicant without prejudice. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. CPA-85-6. Urban District Park. To amend
show approximately 100 acres of land located west of Route 20 North
with extensive Rivanna River frontage, from low density residential
This amendment is to reflect park usage for this area. (Advertised
January 21 and January 28, 1986.)
the Comprehensive Plan to I
and north of Elk Drive 'I
to public use-recreational.
in the Daily Progress on
I
I
,
Mr. Horne presented the staff report:
"Request to amend County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002, Map 9: Land
Use Plan, with respect to a park consisting of approximately 100
acres. This proposed park is located west of Route 20 North, north
of Route 1421 (Elk Drive) and bordered on the west by the Rivanna
River. The Comprehensive Plan currently recommends low density
residential development (1 to 4 dwelling units an acre) for this
area. A change in land use from residential to public use-
recreational is being requested. Tax Map 62, parcel 23; Tax
Map 78, parcell, Rivanna Magisterial District.
,
HISTORY
May 1985
June 1985
~.
AugUst 1985
The Athletic Needs Study was completed in May 1985.
This study was prepared jointly by the City and County
Park Department staffs to explore the potential for
the development of a City/County softball complex.
The study was initiated by the Charlottesville City
Council during their review of redevelopment plans for
McIntire Park which questioned the long-term viability
of lighted softball fields at McIntire Park. The
Athletic Needs Study recommended the construction of a
four-field, lighted softball complex and related
facilities at a site on Elk Drive (Mahanes property).
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, after
reviewing the above Athletic Needs Study, directed
the County Planning staff to re-evaluate the nineteen
sites examined in the study and their relationship to
factors such as Comprehensive Plan recommendations,
growth area impacts, transportation needs and other
recreational needs, etc. Staff was directed to reduce
the list to approximately five sites considered most
suitable for a variety of recreational uses.
The Department's review of Athletic Needs StUdy was
presented to the Albemarle county Board of Supervisors
on August 14, 1985. At that time, the Board of
Supervisors accepted the report's recommendation th~t
.,-.-.~,---------,--_.-._~-_..----~--~.. ---.....--.-- .,..--
----'-'--------~~~..----------~~._---'-_.~----_.~-~-.._-----
. , 276
February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
January 15,
1986
estimates of plans for the park. The consultant's
study concluded that the site could make a major
contribution towards meeting active and passive
recreation needs of the area and recommended that the
Board of Supervisors and City Council purchase this
property.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a
resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan's recommendation concerning the use
of the "Mahanes" 100 acre site. The request is for a
change in land use from low density residential to
public use-recreational. The Board of Supervisors
directed staff to schedule Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors review of the Comprehensive Plan
amendment as quickly as possible since the City-County
option to purchase the Mahanes site expires on
February 17, 1986.
-
"
I '
DESCRIPTION OF SITE
i .
u
The site for which an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is being
requested contains a total of 110.57 acres and consists of two tax
parcels. The property is located west of Route 20 North and north of
Elk Drive with extensive Rivanna River frontage. It is located in
Neighborhood 3 of the Comprehensive Plan and within the Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Elk Drive and Route 20 from 250 East currently provide access to the
site. Route 20 between Route 33 in Barboursville and Route 250 East
carries 2,115 vehicle trips per day. The Virginia Department of
Highways & Transportation considers this road to be tolerable. Elk
Drive (State Route 1421) carries 495 vehicle trips per day. Given
the number of vehicle trips and the narrow width of this road the
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation considers this road
to be non-tolerable.
There has also been recently some discussion of a Rio Road - Route 20
North connector road. This roadway, if ever constructed, could pass
through the southern end of the proposed park, either paralleling or
following the alignment of Elk Drive to intersect with Route 20 North
(The map in the consultant's report is not necessarily a correct
indication of the future road alignment). This area is presently a
utility corridor and is not critical in staff's opinion to development
of a park in this area.
o
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS SITE ANALYSES
As noted under the history section of this staff report there have
been a variety of recreational site analyses. Originally the studies
were largely focused on analyzing needs for additional softball
fields. However, the 'Athletic Needs Study Review' undertaken by the
County Department of Planning and Community Development required
staff to review over twenty potential locations in Albemarle County
for multi-purpose recreational development. Since the original
study, 'Athletic Needs Study', had identified a need for a 100 acre
site to accommodate both softball fields and other facilities, only
approximately 100 acre sites were also evaluated by County staff.
The staff then, after detailed analysis of all twenty sites, recom-
mended four locations (in priority order): (1) Elk Drive (Mahanes),
(2) Biscuit Run, (3) Hollymead, (4) Milton Airstrip. The 'Athletic
Needs Study Review' concluded that:
Due to the very desirable qualities of the Elk Drive (Mahanes)
property, and the scarcity of undeveloped land within the urban
area suitable for park development, staff recommends that the
Board of Supervisors obtain an option to purchase the property.
It is recommended that this proposed park contain areas for
field sports and other facilities. Specifics of site develop-
ment should be contingent upon a comprehensive analysis of
recreation needs.
J
"''he nev+- co+-en 1"'\Y'\,..,o +-1'\0 M2ill"~'P"\~~ ~.;.......... .....,...._ ........._....____.::1_..::1 1-...... _.J..._.l::..I::. _ _ _
277
February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
rl
!
urban district park and did not necessarily reflect any recommended
or adopted park plan. The present action being requested is for an
amendment to the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan in order to
reflect a park land use for this area, not a particular park plan.
The consultant's study did, for general informational purposes,
establish very preliminary cost estimates. These estimates are (on
file) for general information and do not reflect any adopted plan.
It is important to note, however, that one advantage of the Mahanes
site is that recreational development of the site could be phased in
over several fiscal years.
The consultant's report forwarded the following conclusions regarding
the site's feasibility as a park:
Assets
[,
The site has the capability to meet much of the existing active
recreational demand of the area. It could meet the City's need to
relieve the pressure on softball facilities at McIntire and Rives
Park.
The site has natural resources (particularly the river frontage) of
great value for passive recreation.
This site is close to the City and centrally located within the
County.
The location integrates well with both the County's and the City's
park systems.
The site is served by water, sewer and power.
The generally open land and deep soil make the site suitable for
grading.
Liabilities
Access to the site from Route 250 (including Free Bridge), Elk Drive
and Route 20 will add traffic to an already congested area, until
improvements are made to those facilities.
r-
It will be difficult to accommodate the Albemarle County Fair and
other temporary events on this site along with the intended recrea-
tional facilities.
Night lighting of this facility would have an impact on several
surrounding properties in the City and County.
The site has limited capacity to meet the long-term future demand for
softball league and tournament play.
COMPLIANCE WITH ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1982-2002
The Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan generally supports park and
recreational improvements in Chapter 14: Community Facilities/
Utilities Plan. The Plan states that generally community facilities
serve one primary goal - that of providing for physical, cultural and
safety needs of the community. Parks are One of these necessary
community facilities. Because facilities are generally expensive to
provide, it is especially important to recognize demand early, so
that costs may be planned well in advance. The Community Facilities
section of the Comprehensive Plan also presents some programming
guidelines. Of relevance to this present Comprehensive Plan amend-
ment is the following recommendations:
[.
t
Establishment of cooperative agreements between the City and
County for scheduling of athletic leagues with common member-
ship.
Mutual support of regional athletic leagues offers the best
opportunity for City-County cooperation in the area of Parks
and Recreation.
278
February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The staff recommends that the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan
1982-2002 be amended as follows: .
Amend Map 6: Community Facilities, to show the new park location
(page 93).
Amend the text of page 96 to describe the new park and its future
utilization plans.
Amend the text of page 247 to describe the new park in Chapter 14:
Community Facilities and Utilities Plan.
-
I
i
Amend Map 9: Urban Land Use Plan to show a change from the recom-
mended land use from low density residential development (1 - 4
dwelling units per acre) to public use-recreational.
The recommendation is based on the staff's finding that this park and
location are generally in compliance with the Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002.
,
l.....
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 4, 1986, unanimously
recommended approval of CPA-85-6 for a proposed urban district park. At the meeting, the
Commission expressed a number of concerns although the concerns are in no way to be construed
as opposition to the park. The concerns are as follows:
"1. The Commission felt that every effort should be made to restrict
access to the park from the southern end of Elk Drive in order
to avoid a dangerous situation at the intersection of Elk Drive
and 250 East near Free Bridge.
2. The Commission emphatically preferred that the park site be
developed as a multi-use park and not be dominated by any
particular type of facility or activity.
3. The Commission also expressed a strong desire to be involved in
the early master planning process for the park in order to be
able to comment on the general design and mix of facilities to
be located at the park.
In addition to the above concerns, Mr. Wilkerson expressed concern as
to the need for the completion of all needed school facilities in the
county prior to allocation of money for development of the park. The
above concerns should not be construed by the Board of Supervisors as
opposition to the park, but show the desire of the Commission to be
involved in the decision-making process as to the master plan for the
park prior to being presented with a finished master planning document."
o
At 8:00 P.M., the Chairman called a recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:05 P.M.
Mr. Tucker said, in October, the City and County governments jointly recommended that an
option be obtained on the Mahanes tract and to move forward with a feasibility study on the
project. Consultants were hired and a feasibility report prepared which included three
! proposed conceptual plans for the project.
A committee of the staff worked with the consultants to arrive at the best way to utilize
the property for a family-oriented park and not focus primary on a sports facility. The three
conceptual plans available are Program I for an intensively developed park, Program II for a
balanced approach with active and passive recreation, and Program III for the least intensively
I developed and designed plan. Access proposed for all three programs is off Elk Drive.
Concern has been expressed about the portion of Elk Drive that connects directly to Rt. 250
I East. The issue of whether or not the State road (route) should be closed will be dealt with
at the time of the master plan.
Program I is for an intensively developed park to include six lighted ballfields, twelve
tennis courts, seven multi-purpose fields, picnic shelters and areas, and two ponds for
passive-type use.
!-"l
LJ
Program II is a balanced approach with active and passive recreation. This plan proposes
\~~~:'~Il.l~g~~e~u~()ftb~~~L~~:l~~,,:~~h~~eIlIl.~lic?~rts! f~ur mult~-purpose fields and more
279
February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
rl
l i
purchase price of the property and is to be phased over a nine year period in three basic
phases. Phase I will encompass all of the grading needed for the site, parking facilities and
roads. A dam to create one of the lakes is proposed. Also proposed for Phase I are four
picnic shelters and sporadically located picnic areas, concession stands, restrooms, foot
trails, a maintenance building and three softball fields. A fourth softball field is proposed
in Phase II. In addition, four multi-purpose fields are proposed in Phase I. Mr. Tucker also
noted that a utility line would have to be relocated because of the location of one of the
softball fields. If an agreement is reached for purchase of the property, it would be approx-
imately five years before work would begin on Phase II. Phase II is proposed to include the
remaining park roads, additional parking spaces needed for the fourth softball field, additio-
nal picnic shelters and picnic areas, a canoe dock on the river, volleyball courts, additional
foot trails, additional children playgrounds and four tennis courts. Phase III, approximately
three years beyond Phase II in the eighth or ninth year of the program, would conclude develop
ment of the park.
r
r
r
r
Mr. Fisher said he and Mrs. Cooke have served on the joint committee since November
attempting to arrive at an agreement that would best serve the needs of both jurisdictions.
The goal has not been to make this facility exclusively a softball complex, but a facility for
families and people with various recreational interests. Mr. Fisher commented that one of the
proposed softball fields in Program II has been eliminated. The field would be under high
voltage wires and it would cost a great deal of money to remove the wires and develop the
field. For security purposes at both parks, a proposed foot bridge to cross the river to Pen
Park has been eliminated. An agreement has not been arrived at on the number of softball
fields in each phase. The County's position is there should be three fields in Phase I and
one field in the Phase II. The City has not agreed to that proposal.
Mr. Bowie said he has had two meetings with the residents of the Key West area.
concern expressed is future location of the Albemarle County Fair. A second concern
is that there be no night lighting. The third concern is softball. As indicated in
report, this site will not meet the future softball needs, but he wants to emphasize
park will not become the future softball center of the area.
One
expressed
the
that this
The public hearing was opened.
r
!
Mr. Roger Flynt, President of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Tennis Patrons, addressed the
Board. Approximately one-third of the audience is a member of the organization. Tennis is a
sport of little investment, little supervision and low costs. People of all ages are involved
all year round. The tennis players strongly support this complex as it is a way to get the
kids off the streets, make real estate more attractive and bring businesses to the community.
In addition, it is great that the County and City are getting together. This community is in
a tennis boom. Five hundred new kids are involved in tennis each year and the area is out of
courts. The needs are current. The proposed plan does not include courts for four to five
years which will greatly hamper the tennis program for youth activities. The Tennis Patrons
would like for the tennis courts to be included in Phase I. Cost versus usage would be
minimum. There are people within this organization willing to prepare tennis court site
plans, architectural plans, specifications and cost proposals at no cost to the County.
Mr. Roland Moore, a resident on the east side of the proposed site, next addressed the
Board. He owns approximately 75 acres. He would like to know where the bowling alley is
proposed. If a complex is to serve all types of sports, a bowling alley should not be elimi-
nated. This park is estimated to add 500 vehicles trips per day on Free Bridge and Rt. 250.
He invites Board members to come between 4:00 and 6:00 P.M. to see the present traffic conges-
tion. If 100 houses were built on this property at $100,000 each, it would be an additional
$10,000,000 in property that could be taxed. If a park is built on this property, all that
revenue will be lost. In addition, he believes that the character of the neighborhood will be
changed and there will be additional requests for things that appear to be comparable to a
park.
Mr. Jack Vermillion, owner of Franklin, historical property that overlooks the proposed
site, addressed the Board. He first read a letter (on file) from himself and his wife express
ing their feelings on the proposed site, dated November 11, 1985. In light of the consultant'
report and conversations in meetings with Mr. Bowie, he presented a letter dated February 5
further clarifying their feelings:
"This letter is intended to further clarify our position as adjoining
property owners to the proposed park.
I,
After having studied the report and three proposals prepared for Albemarle
County and the City of Charlottesville by the consulting firm of Rieley
and Associates, we support Proposal #2 which suggests a moderate use park
with no lighted facilities.
We ~ould li~e.t? take this oPP?rtun~ty to commend Mr. Rieley for his
__,._... _I:: ...._........__ __..:Ii _____.,..L....~__ ___..L....1- ..L....'-_ _....:JI...!_~~~_~__
280
February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Ms. Marie F. Reel, President of Key West-Cedar Hills Association, addressed the Board.
Ms. Reel said 104 letters representing 179 signatures (on file) addressed to Board dated
January 22, were presented to the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 1. The
Association's position has changed slightly, but the community is in support of the proposed
park. Ms. Reel then read the following statement from the Association, dated January 31, 1986:
"We further urge that if the Mahanes site is acquired, that it be used for
multi-purpose, daytime activities with a permanent injunction against
night lighting for any sport or other activities."
Ms. Reel said everyone has made promises, inCluding Mayor Buck, that there will be no
lights, but the wording "at the present time" keeps slipping in. Can a permanent commitment
be placed either on page 96 of the Comprehensive Plan or in the deed that any request for
lighting would require a public hearing. Mr. Fisher said an attempt is being made to include
in the agreement language that there shall be no lighting except for that required for safety
and security.
l
'--
Mrs. Barbara Lape, Director of the Mid-Atlantic Tennis Association Junior Tournament,
addressed the Board. This event brings about 100 children and parents to Charlottesville for
a week. The biggest problem is lack of space. She requested as many tennis courts as possi-
ble be included.in the initial stage of construction for the new park.
i
......
Mr. Ken Lape, a resident of Southern Albemarle, addressed the Board. The residents of
Southern Albemarle do not have a problem with tennis courts being full, as there are no courts
nor is there a public swimming area. He is against this park if it in anyway deters the
Board's dedication to executing a public swimming area and recreation facilities in southern
Albemarle. He does not think the youngsters in Esmont, Scottsville and Covesville will use
this park. Mr. Fisher said the problem in southern Albemarle is finding a site. The staff is
still working on a site location with a timetable for the end of June.
Mr. Pete Craddock, representing the Stone Robinson PTO, addressed the Board. The PTO
recognizes the need for this sports complex. However, the PTO would like to emphasize that
the upgrading of the schools, especially Stone Robinson, should be placed ahead of the actual
construction and grading of this project. The school needs are more pressing and pertinent
than the need for a sports complex. Mr. Fisher asked that the public refrain from calling
I this a sports complex as it is a park.
, Mr. Glenn Branham, owner of property on Elk Drive, addressed the Board. He feels that
the City is attempting to make this park a sports complex. Considering how poorly run the
City softball program is, the city is trying to push something onto the County. In addition,
the City receives little revenue from the program. If the project is approved, he would ask
that the entrance not be on any part of Elk Drive, but on Rt. 20. The park will have a major
impact on traffic on Route 250 East at Pantops Mountain. He would also like to invite the
Board to travel to Pantops on a Saturday morning or a Friday afternoon and look at the
situation.
o
Mr. Leo Clawson next addressed the Board. He is retired and moved to Charlottesville
four years ago. He also is a former town commissioner from Bonneville County, Idaho. One of
the greatest experiences in his eight years as town commissioner was supporting a joint
City/County park which is very similar to this design. The parking and multi-use of the
proposal fits in with everything he would solely desire in a park. He is here to offer his
full support. He showed the Board a trophy he received from the Eastern Idaho Bar Association
for the citizen who did the most in the community in that year and for his support of the
City/County park.
Ms. Pauline Carter, a resident of Ashcroft, addressed the Board. Her main concern is
that it looks like the east side of the County is getting a park, whereas the west side is
getting a new school. She would rather receive the school. The schools that the east side
children attend are not up to par with the rest of the County. She also would prefer that
$1.4 million go into a school as opposed to a park. The future holds her sons attending Stone
Robinson, which is overcrowded; Burley Middle School, which is not air-conditioned and needs
renovating; and .Albemarle High School, which is overcrowded and needs work. The kids on the
west side will have the newest elementary school and already has the newest middle school and
I high school. It is distressing to get a new park. When it comes to priorities for her chil-
dren, the schools are more important than a park. Her second concern is with the traffic on
Free Bridge and she is not thrilled with the prospect of what this park is going to do to the
traffic.
Mr. John Dorrier, owner of property adjoining the proposed park, said he would like to
thank everyone for their attitude regarding the park. He commended Mr. Bowie for bringing
information to the residents. It appears that everyone shares the concern about having a park
with no lights. He thinks the park is needed for the community and is something that can be
used by older residents. He feels that any dealings with the City should be "in stone" if
'"""I
: 1
U
February 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
281
r,
I !
l
Mr. Fisher asked what issues regarding the proposaa park are scheduled for February 12.
Mr. Agnor said other issues entail the consummation of the agreement with the City including
details such as costs, revenues and overall plans for the operation of the facility if the
property is purchased. The purchase option expires on February 17.
Mr. Fisher requested the staff to provide on February 12, an outline indicating whether
projects proposed by the School Facilities Committee can be undertaken and if funding for the
Southern Regional Park 'can be retained in the Capital Improvements Program. He would also
like to know how those projects fit into the three proposed phases of the park. Mr. Fisher
said Board members are also concerned about school projects knowing that improvements are
necessary.
Mr. Way asked the timing of Phase I of the proposed park. Mr. Fisher said the park is
proposed to open in the Spring of 1988. The design phase should begin in the Spring of 1986,
possible construction to ~egin in the Fall and major grading in the next 12 to 15 months.
r:
Mr. Bowie said it is easy to work with constituents such as these and he appreciates the
two-way exchange. He has stated continually that the schools must be funded before develop-
ment of this park. It appears to him that all of the concerns expressed by citizens have been
addressed. With regard to comments made about traffic, if houses were built on this property
instead of the park, they would still generate considerable traffic. Also housing would cause
a major impact on Stone Robinson School. There is no acceptable agreement at the present
time. He will not turn this into a complex for anyone sport. He hopes that questions
concerning revenue, user fees, etc., will be ironed out soon. When it is time to begin Phase
II, another look must be taken at all of the County's needs.
Mr. Bowie said he has a problem with voting for a Comprehensive Plan amendment tonight
when there is no agreement or capital improvements program budgeting. Mr. Fisher suggested
that action on the Comprehensive Plan amendment be deferred until February 12. At that time,
the Board will review the agreement, the plans, funding and then make a decision. Mr. Bowie
said he does not see how it can be done any other way, and then offered motion to defer action
on CPA-85-6 until February 12. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not think anyone can guarantee the citizens that there will
never be lights. He recommended to members of the the negotiating committee that the agree-
ment include a provision which would allow for a public hearing if lights are ever considered.
It also needs to be written out that neither side can undertake improvements without the
consent of the other. He personally does not want lighting or four softball fields, but he
also feels that the park is necessary for a County that is growing as quickly as Albemarle and
he supports the concept.
(At 9:00 P.M., the Chairman called a recess.
The meeting reconvened at 9:10 P.M.)
II
I
II
!I
I,
i'
,I
I!
i
(Deferred from earlier in I
I
!
!
i
I
I
r
Mr. Fisher asked the Board for direction on the how many softball fields it feels should
be in Phase I. The Joint Committee's position is for three fields in Phase I and a fourth
field in Phase II. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to swap two softball fields for eight
tennis courts. More people can use tennis courts in a 24-hour period than can use softball
fields. Mr. Bowie said he would like to see at a maximum two softball fields in Phase I and
one softball field in Phase II.
Roll was then called and the motion passed by the fOllowing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No.8.
the meeting.)
ZMA-85-32.
James D. and Alice H. Shisler.
r'
The public hearing was opened. Mr. James Shisler, the applicant, addressed the Board.
Mr. Shisler said the property is currently used as apartments and a dance school facility.
The nature of the neighborhood has changed so much that it is becoming more difficult to rent
the property to good tenants. The proffers include relocation of mailboxes and correction of
sight distance problems. The Post Office agreed to allow the mailboxes to be installed near
to Greenfield Court and construction of curb, gutter and sidewalk changes have begun for the
relocation. Mr. Fisher asked if the entrance from Rio Road will be closed permanently. Mr.
Shisler said yes. Mr. Fisher asked what uses are contemplated for the property. Mr. Shisler
said things like an insurance agency, auditor, or small retail facility.
With no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Cooke said this application is in her district and she is familiar with the property.
She has no problem with this request. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to approve ZMA-85-32
Attachment D
RESOLUTION TO ALLOW LIGHTING
OF DARDEN TOWE PARK SOFfBALL FIELDS
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City Council has adopted a new master plan for McIntire Park
which eliminates two existing lighted softball fields; and
WHEREAS, there are three unlighted softball fields at Darden Towe Park; and
WHEREAS, Darden Towe Park is owned by both the County of Albemarle and the City of
Charlottesville; and
WHEREAS, County and City staff have recommended to the Darden Towe Park Committee that
lighting of the three softball fields be allowed in order to maintain the current level of service for softball;
and
WHEREAS, the 2007 Darden Towe Park Agreement requires the mutual agreement of the County
and City before lighting any competitive sport or recreation facility in the Park; and
WHEREAS, the Darden Towe Park Committee recommended that the Board of Supervisors and
City Council each set this item for public hearing in order to receive input from the public prior to taking
action; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this matter on
Ocrober8,2008;and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors finds that lighting of the softball fields at
Darden Towe Park will benefit the community; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will only consider a lighting plan to be
acceptable that is in accord with the Outdoor Lighting provisions of the County's Zoning Ordinance and
that is as energy efficient as possible; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will only consider an
operating/programming plan to be acceptable that restricts the use of lighting to recreational league play on
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Sunday evenings before lOpm, unless exempted on a per
case basis by unanimous approval of the Darden Towe Park Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will only consider an
operating/programming plan to be acceptable that restricts the use of lighting from November 1 through
March 21, except as necessary to accommodate weather related make up games for the fall City League
Softball Program.
NOW, mEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby expresses its approval of lighting the softball fields at Darden Towe Park, contingent upon approval
by the City of Charlottesville and the approval of an acceptable lighting and funding plan.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of to
as recorded below, at a meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye ~
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Domer
Ms. Mallek
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
SP 07-01
Four Seasons Learning Center
Four Seasons Drive and Lakeview
Drive
1
Proposal
Increase the number of children from 40 to
64 at Four Seasons Learning Center
Issues
· Neighborhood concern - Employees parking on-
street creates conflicts along Lakeview Dr.
· Safety concern - Entrance to facility is very close
to intersection of Lakeview and Four Seasons
Dr.; sight distance barely meets requirements
· Any addition to facility will increase traffic and
parking needs
· Client concern - Families using day care fear
increased rates if enrollment numbers can not
Increase
2
Background
· June 24, 2008 PC Hearing - traffic study
postponed decision
· August 19, 2008 PC decision
· PC recommendation of approval with
changed conditions from staff report:
-- 50 students instead of 64 requested
by the applicant
-- All staff park on-site
Recommendation
Staff has recommended denial of the
request.
Planning Commission recommends
approval of the request with conditions.
Staff has modified Condition #6 to further
reflect the Commission's intent.
3
Conditions #1 - #6 below apply to the
nursery/day care center:
1. The building, parking and access shall be as shown (with
noted dimensions) on the "Plat Showing As-Built Survey
Parcel A-Patio House Section Four Seasons Learning Center
254 Lakeview Drive" by David C. Blankenbaker, L.S., dated
July 21, 2008."
2. There shall be submitted, no later than sixty (60) days after
the date of approval of this special use permit, an as-built site
plan which meets the requirements of Zoning Ordinance
Section 32.6 Final Site Plan Content, except for those items
waived by the Agent as not applicable. The as-built site plan
shall meet all of the requirements of Section 32.6 and be
approved by the County's site plan agent prior to occupancy
of the nursery/day care center by more than forty (40)
children.
Conditions continued
3. The number of children occupying the nursery/day care
center shall not exceed fifty (50) or the number approved
by the Department of Social Services, whichever is less, at
any time.
4. A twenty foot buffer shall be maintained between the
property and TMP 61X1-AA-B.
5. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care
center and a residential use is prohibited.
6. All employees of the day care center, including owners
and directors, shall park on-site. Employee parking
spaces shall be limited to no more than eight (8) and
signage shall be provided on-site which designates
employee spaces.
4
Conditions #7 - #9 below apply to the use of the
facility as offices:
7. The maximum number of employees shall be ten (10).
8. A twenty foot buffer shall be maintained between the
property and TMP 61X1-AA-B.
9. The concurrent use of the property for an office and a
residential use is prohibited.
Conditions #10 & to any use of the
property:
10. The concurrent u e of the property f r a nursery/day care
center and an office use is prohibited.
11. The small evergreen tree on the Four Seasons Drive
frontage at the corner of the parking shall be relocated
toward the building, as recommended by VDOT, a
sufficient distance to prevent future line-of-sight problems.
5
,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP 07-01 Four Seasons Learning Center
AGENDA DATE:
October 8, 2008
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Increase enrollment from 40 children to 64
children at 254 Lakeview Drive on TMP, 061X-
00-00-00500
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Echols
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On August 19, 2008, the Planning Commission held a second public hearing on the Four Seasons Learning
Center proposal to increase enrollment. Although staff did not recommend approval as requested by the
applicant, the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions recommended by staff
modified to include one limiting the enrollment to 50 (the applicant requested 64) and one requiring that all
staff park on-site in the parking lot. The recommended conditions are in the Action Letter (Attachment 1 A).
Staff notes that the applicant's attorney disputes that the Planning Commission recommended approval
with the 11 conditions. He believes that the Commission only recommended the enrollment limitation and
the condition for staff parking on-site.
The major concerns of the neighborhood expressed at the Planning Commission meeting were increased
traffic and on-street parking by staff at the day care. The major concerns of the parents of children who
attend the center expressed at the meeting related to higher child care fees if the applicants were not
allowed to expand the facility to bring in more children. The discussions are found in the draft minutes of
the Commission's meeting (Attachment 2A).
DISCUSSION:
Since the Commission's public hearing, the applicant has provided an updated traffic study using actual
traffic counts at the site (Attachment 3A). With this information, the County Engineer has accepted the
traffic study as adequate and affirmed that all levels of service are met and no VDOT improvements are
required. It should be noted that two diagrams in the report which identify existing and proposed conditions
suggest that the traffic on Lakeview Drive will approximately double as a result of the increase in enrollment
to 64 students. (The applicant did not provide analysis on the impact of an increase in enrollment to 50
students as recommended by the Planning Commission.) Although persons may agree or disagree on
traffic numbers, ultimately, whatever traffic increase may occur will most directly impact Lakeview Drive and
its intersection with Four Seasons Drive. For residents of Lakeview the current traffic situation is
problematic, so any increase will only worsen the situation in their view. After applicant and public
comment, the Planning Commission concluded that an increase of 10 students was an acceptable level of
traffic increase on these streets.
If the Board accepts the Planning Commission's recommendation, including conditions for a limitation to 50
students and that all parking spaces for staff members be provided on-site, the County's parking
requirements can be met provided that there are no more than eight (8) total staff. There are nine (9)
spaces in the current parking lot which will accommodate up to eight (8) staff and at least one (1) student
drop-off and pick-up space. The rest of the student drop-off and pick.up parking can be provided with the
four (4) spaces available on the street. However, if the facility were to have 64 children as requested by the
applicant and more than seven (7) employees, there would be no additional parking on-site and a shared-
parking arrangement would be needed.
,
Staff does note that the County does not have the means to readily enforce the condition that employees-
only park in the lot on-site. Enforcement would be limited to signage in the lot that would restrict up to eight
(8) spaces for employee-use only. If employees were to park on the street as occurs now, the County could
not take action against the facility since there are no restrictions on who can and cannot park on a public
street.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommended that there be no increase in enrollment at the day care facility due to the impact of
increased traffic to Lakeview Drive. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the special use permit
for a lesser number than requested by the applicant, inclusive of conditions #1 - #6 and #8 - #12 below. Staff
has added condition #7 to further reflect the Planning Commission's intent and recommends it be included
should the Board of Supervisors choose to approve this special use permit.
Conditions #1 - #7 below apply to the nursery/day care center:
1. The building, parking and access shall be as shown (with noted dimensions) on the "Plat Showing As-
Built Survey Parcel A-Patio House Section Four Seasons Learning Center 254 Lakeview Drive" by
David C. Blankenbaker, L.S., dated July 21, 2008."
2. There shall be submitted, no later than sixty (60) days after the date of approval of this special use
permit, an as-built site plan which meets the requirements of Zoning Ordinance Section 32.6 Final Site
Plan Content, except for those items waived by the Agent as not applicable. The as-built site plan shall
meet all of the requirements of Section 32.6 and be approved by the County's site plan agent prior to
occupancy of the nursery/day care center by more than forty (40) children.
3. The number of children occupying the nursery/day care center shall not exceed fifty (50) orthe number
approved by the Department of Social Services, whichever is less, at any time.
4. A twenty foot buffer shall be maintained between the property and TMP 61X1-AA-B.
5. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and a residential use is prohibited.
6. All employees of the day care center, including owners and directors, shall park on-site and signag~
shall be provided onsite which designates employee spaces.
7. The maximum number of employees, including owners and directors, on-site during hours of operation
shall be limited to 8 and signage shall be provided onsite which designates employee spaces.
Conditions #8 - #10 below apply to the use of the facility as offices:
8. The maximum number of employees shall be ten (10).
9. A twenty foot buffer shall be maintained between the property and TMP 61X1-AA-B.
10. The concurrent use of the property for an office and a residential use is prohibited.
Conditions #11 & #12 below apply to any use of the property:
11. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and an office use is prohibited.
12. The small evergreen tree on the Four Seasons Drive frontage at the corner of the parking shall be
relocated toward the building, as recommended by VDOT, a sufficient distance to preventfuture line-of-
sight problems.
ATTACHMENTS:
ATTACHMENT 1A:
ATTACHMENT 2A:
ATTACHMENT 3A:
Action Letter from Planning Commission for August 19, 2008
Draft Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting for August 19, 2008
Plat Showing As-Built Survey parcel A-Patio House Section Four Seasons Learning
Center 254 Lakeview Drive, Albemarle County, July 21, 2008
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Fax (434) 972-4012
Phone (434) 296-5832
September 19, 2008
Barbara Kalemba-Sliwinski or Krzysztof Sliwinski
3516 Doctors Crossing
Charlottesville VA 22901
RE: SP2007-00001 Four Seasons Learning Center Amendment (Signs # 10 & 28)
Tax Map 61X1, ParcelS
Dear Mrs, Sliwinski:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 19,2008, recommended approval
of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors, by a vote of 7:0.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
Conditions #1 - #5 below apply to the nursery/day care center:
1, The building, parking and access shall be as shown (with noted dimensions) on the "Plat Showing
As-Built Survey Parcel A-Patio House Section Four Seasons Learning Center 254 Lakeview
Drive" by David C. Blankenbaker, L.S., dated July 21,2008,
2. There shall be submitted, no later than sixty (60) days after the date of approval of this special
use permit, an as-built site plan which meets the requirements of Zoning Ordinance Section 32.6
Final Site Plan Content, except for those items waived by the Agent as not applicable. The as-
built site plan shall meet all of the requirements of Section 32,6 and be approved by the County's
site plan agent prior to occupancy of the nursery/day care center by more than forty (40) children,
3, The number of children occupying the nursery/day care center shall not exceed fifty (50) or the
number approved by the Department of Social Services, whichever is less, at any time.
4. A twenty foot buffer shall be maintained between the property and TMP 61X1-AA-B,
5. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and a residential use is
prohibited.
6. All employees of the day care center shall park on-site,
Conditions #7 _ #9 below apply to the use of the facility as offices:
7. The maximum number of employees shall be ten (10).
8, A twenty foot buffer shall be maintained between the property and TMP 61X1-AA-B,
9. 9The concurrent use of the property for an office and a residential use is prohibited.
Conditions #10 & #11 below apply to any use of the property:
10, The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and an office use is prohibited,
11, The small evergreen tree on the Four Seasons Drive frontage at the corner of the parking shall be
relocated toward the building, as recommended by VDOT, a sufficient distance to prevent future
line-of-sight problems.
Attachment.A
.THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES AND REGULA IIUNS Uf- I Ht
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, BOARD OF LAND SURVEYORS, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 01, 2007.
I PERfoRMED A FIELD RUN PHYSICAL SURVEY OF THE PROPERlY SHOWN HEREON ON JUNE
30, 2008, AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, THE TITLE LINES AND WALLS
OF THE BUILDING ARE AS SHOWN. A CURRENT TITLE REPORT WAS FURNISHED. AS SHOWN
ON F.E.M.A. FLOOD RATE INSURANCE MAPS, THIS PROPERlY APPEARS TO LIE IN ZONE "c"
AND DOES NOT LIE IN ZONE '~" (100 YEAR FLOOD HAZARD). OTHER THAN AS SHOWN,
EASEMENTS; RESTRICTIONS AND MA TTERS PERTAINING TO ZONING MA Y EX/ST BUT EITHER
WERE NOT VISIBLE OR OTHERWISE WERE NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THIS SURVEY. THIS
SURVEY HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR AND IS CERTIFIED TO KRZYSZTOF & BARBARA SLIWINSKI.
DECLARA TlON IS MADE ONL Y TO PURCHASER OF THE SURVEY AND HIS OR HER LENDERS.
THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TRANSFERABLE TO ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONS OR SUBSEQUENT
OWNERS.
DEED AND PROPERlY INFORMA TlON
TAX MAP PARCEL 61X1 - 5
-OWNER: KRZYSZTOF SLIWINSKI &
BARBARA KALEMBA -SLIWINSKI
DEED B/S: INSTj 980018490
DB 485 P 121 (PLAT)
ZONING: PUD
RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS:
DB 596 P 20 VA TEL. CO., INC.
DB 485 P 122 ELECTlC EASEMENT
DB 281 P 361 VA. TEL. & TEL. co.
DB 212 P 317 VA. PUBLIC SERVICE Co.
DB 278 P 283 VA. ELE. & PO. CO.
LEG END C1
-0-- IRF IRON ROD FOUND 6= 15'57'51"
IJ WM WATER METER R-,~40.0000
- x - [...:: 1ff),4~91 '
FENCE CH= 149. ~:r/ 29'
. EVERGREEN TREE CB= N 05'57'29" E
(~ SHRUB
9 PARKING SPACES, WHEEL
BLOClf~ PAINT STRiPES (lYP.)
'0 jIi""30 6(}
C2
6= 97"49'18"
R= 3(),QO'
L~ 51.22' .
CH= 4b.L:L'
CB= N 6T51'04" E
'F....,....'..,.'....I.~.I,.
..:t:iJ
$l::'AL,r=- rN rElit
CONCRETE
MAGNETIC EDGE OF 7R
MERIDIAN PAVEMENT / ,_,
2007 "t
EMPLOYEE
PARKING SIGNS
, ~ /
J
- [i5 /
l ~ /
~~
I
Y ~:"t I~
Q~ I~
~~
, I~
, ~~ I~
I
~~ I
;fd
bJ2( Is:
, I~
I ,
I ~ I Cj t3
~ I as
I I WM'
, ll: ,
I ~: \
I C1 ~
~-
-.; fr"ll AI) \
-..J. \
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2007-01 Four Seasons Staff: Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Learning Center
Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
June 24, 2008 TBD
Owners: Krzystzof and Barbara Sliwinski Applicant: Krzystzof and Barbara Sliwinski
Acreage: 0.35 acres Special Use Permit for: Request for
expansion of child care facility in accordance
with Section 20.3.2.1 of the Zoning ordinance
TMP: 061 X-00-00-00500 Conditions: Yes
Location: At the corner of Four Seasons Drive and
Lakeview Drive in the Four Seasons development
Existing Zoning and By-right use: PUD - Magisterial District: Rivanna
residential (3 - 34 units per acre), mixed with
commercial and industrial uses. By special use
permit, this facility may have up to 40 students.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban DA (Development Area): X
Density Residential- residential (6-34 units/acre) RA (Rural Area):
and supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools, commercial, office and service uses.
Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable:
1. There is a need for child care facilities in 1. Additional traffic from the 24 students
Albemarle County. will have a negative impact on the
2. The addition of 24 students and associated neighborhood due to the increase in
parking requirements can be accommodated vehicles and opportunities for conflict,
on-site or adjacent to the site. especially in the morning when children
are being dropped off.
2. The enlarged day car enrollment will
create a use that is out of scale with
this part of the Four Seasons
development.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends disapproval.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP
APRIL 22, 2008
SP2007 -01 Four Seasons Learnina Center
Applicant's Proposal: Krzystzof and Barbara Sliwinski are requesting an amendment to their
existing special use permit for a day care facility at the corner of Four Seasons Drive and
Lakeview Drive. Their existing special use permit allows 40 children; they would like to have 24
additional children for a total of 64 children. Attachment A shows their most recently approved
site plan waiver and letter of revision for the facility.
Petition:
PROJECT: Four Seasons Learning Center
PROPOSED: Amend special use permit to increase maximum number of children in daycare from
40 to 64. No residential units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PUD Planned Unit Development which allows
residential (3 - 34 units per acre), mixed with commercial and industrial uses
SECTION: 20.3.2.1, which allows for child care facilities
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential (6-34 units/acre) in
Neighborhood 1.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes No X
LOCATION: 254 Lakeview Drive
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61 X1, Parcel 5 ,-...
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(See Attachment B.)
Character of the Area: The area surrounding the facility is residential with townhouses,
apartments, single-family detached and single family attached units. A recreational facility
(ACAC) is nearby. The day care center is located at the corner of Four Seasons Drive and
Lakeview Drive. Lakeview Drive is a cul-de-sac approximately 400 feet in length.
Plannina and Zonina Historv: The Four Seasons development was approved in 1969 as a
conditional use permit in an A-1 Agricultural District. County appraisal records indicate the
building in which the day care facility is located was constructed in 1968. A conditional use permit
was granted for an office in that building in 1969. In 1974, the office use was vacated and a
special use permit was requested for the day care facility (SP 412). It was granted with several
conditions including a maximum capacity of 32 children. Office uses were still allowed under the
special use permit.
Since that time, several changes have been approved by SP and by SOP. A brief history follows:
· SP 89-023 Amendment of SP 412 to reduce the setback of the sign
· SOP 00-72 -- changes to circulation approved on site plan
· Letter of Revision to site plan approved December 5, 2000
2
. SP 02-06 Amendment to allow for 40 children
. SDP 06-55 - changes proposed to address as-built conditions
. VI02004-167 - Notice of zoning violation for failure to build in accordance with
approved site plan
. VI02007-156 - Notice of zoning violation for failure to comply with special use
permit conditions
. AP 07-02 - Appeal of notices of violation/decision of Zoning Administrator. BZA
upheld decision of Zoning Administrator
. Appeal of decision by Zoning Administrator appealed to Circuit Court; decision dated
September 24, 2007 for Applicant to abate the zoning violation; civil penalties
assessed until conformity was achieved
. December 2007 - Conformity achieved
Attachment C contains the staff report, minutes of the Planning Commission meeting and
approved conditions for SP 02-06.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Urban Density Residential in
Neighborhood 1. Because no changes are proposed to the site, the project has not been
assessed for conformity with the Neighborhood Model. There are no environmental features on
the site which should be preserved, according to the Open Space Plan.
.
Details of the Proposal: The applicants have requested an increase in students to help meet
demand of families in the community who need day care for their children. No building additions
are proposed and the facility can accommodate the 64 children, according to the licensing division
of the Department of Social Services.
The site, with the additional children, requires 13 parking spaces (1 space per 10 children plus 1
space per employee). Nine spaces are accommodated on-site. The applicant has requested
that the additional parking be allowed on-street. The Zoning Administrator has determined that
there are 4 spaces adjacent to the facility on Lakeview Drive which can be used to provide
required parking. The site meets requirements of the zoning ordinance for the expansion and the
Zoning Administrator will allow 4 on-street parking spaces to be used.
STAFF COMMENT:
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,
In evaluating whether a use will be a detriment to adjacent properties, the intensity of the use and
other impacts are evaluated. Comments and concerns of neighboring properties are also
considered. One measure of the intensity of the use in relation to nearby and adjoining properties
is the traffic impact and the biggest complaint from neighbors on Lakeview Drive has to do with
traffic. Based on the number of students proposed for the day care facility, the
3
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Traffic Generation Manual, ih Edition there are 200
trips generated by the current facility. An additional 120 trips from the 24 additional students
would yield 320 trips per day. Calculated with 190 trips from the existing residential uses, there
will be a traffic increase from 51 % to 63% of the traffic on Lakeview Drive.
The second biggest complaint from the neighbors has to do with on-street parking. In order to
keep the parking lot available for parents picking up and dropping off their children, employees
often park on the street in front of the houses on Lakeview Drive. Occasionally, parking on-street
results in blocked entrances to driveways. From time-to-time employees must be asked to move
their cars away from the driveways. Also, residents use on-street parking at times.
In the County's designated development areas, on-street parking is expected and encouraged,
especially near "centers". A distinction which could be made in this setting is the fact that the
street is a cul-de-sac, rather than a through-street. On-street parking is encouraged more often in
a "grid network" situation than on cul-de-sacs. It should be noted, however, that the streets in the
Four Seasons development are public streets. Even though property owners often consider the
area on the street in front of their house as belonging to their lot, the spaces are available for
public parking if allowed by VDOT. Joel DeNunzio with VDOT has said that the spaces are
available for parking and that on-street parking is not restricted at this location (See Attachment
D.)
Noise is the only other possible impact from this use. The noise of children playing outside is
expected with this type of use. No complaints have been received regarding noise.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The Four Seasons development is a PUD - planned unit development -- which was originally
developed in the 1960's. It has a mixture of uses and dwelling types. The day care facility is
located on a corner across Four Seasons Drive from the Four Seasons Apartments. At this
location, it acts as a transition between the higher density of the apartments and the lower density
of the detached units on Lakeview Drive. Increasing the intensity of the day care use at this
location by 24 students and associated traffic will likely affect the character of a portion of the
district, specifically Lakeview Drive as a single-family residential street, although it would not have
much effect on the apartments across the street.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The purpose and intent of the PUD is to provide for a mixture of uses and housing types.
Commercial uses are intended to be limited to a scale appropriate to the support of the residential
uses within the PUD. Of course, as with most non-residential uses including religious institutions,
users of the facility come from beyond the geographic boundaries of the development. In this
case, the assessment is whether the scale is appropriate to the district.
When this day care facility was first permitted, it was limited to 32 children. There were two
employee/owners and the facility was smaller. Over the last 6 years, it has grown to 40 children
and the building has been expanded. The issue in this case is whether the scale is appropriate to
4
rest of the development. Staff believes that the scale of the operation at 40 students is the upper
end of what should be allowed. Expanding the use to allow for 24 additional children will create a
use that is out of scale with neighborhood due to the traffic impacts, discussed below.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Residential uses are the primary uses allowed by-right in the district. Day care facilities are
considered supporting uses to residential uses in all residential districts.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Supplementary regulations from Section 5 of the zoning ordinance require conformity with
licensure requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services and periodic inspections by
the Fire Official. Because of concerns for the safety of children these types of facilities are
inspected regularly by the Fire Official. Their records indicate the last inspection was in
December of 2007.
Staff has also been in touch with the Virginia Department of Social Services and ascertained that
the size of the facility would support up to 79 children, based on the requirement of 25 square feet
of area per child. Although the law recently changed to require 35 square feet per child, this
facility is grandfathered because the building addition allowed under SP 2002- 06 was completed
before July 1, 2008. If Four Seasons Learning Center were just starting out after July 1, 2008, it
would only be allowed 51 students.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Traffic is the biggest concern that exists for an expansion of this use at the corner of Four
Seasons Drive and Lakeview Drive. With the expansion, staff expects another 120 vehicle trips
per day (inclusive of both staff and parent trips). As indicated earlier, expansion of this use will
make it a larger traffic generator than the rest of the uses combined on Lakeview Drive. This is of
most concern during the mornings when traffic leaving Lakeview Drive is mixing with parents
dropping off children at the child care facility. Added to this are neighborhood concerns about
poor sight distance at the corner of Four Seasons Drive and Lakeview Drive.
One resident said this, "Ingress and egress is so close to the comer that it is treacherous to all
vehicles traveling along Four Seasons Drive and especially to those who turn into Lakeview Drive
from the Commonwealth Drive side. The right turn into Lakeview is "blind" to those vehicles
existing the day care parking lot (and vice-versa) and I have seen dozens of close calls there."
VDOT has indicated (see Attachment D) that there is adequate sight distance at the corner of
Lakeview and Four Seasons Drive. The perception of residents is different.
Another traffic issue relates to driver behavior around day care facilities. Oftentimes parents are
in a hurry to drop their children off and are not always cognizant of the fact that the facility is in a
residential neighborhood. All of these factors in combination suggest that increasing the number
of children at this location is not advisable.
5
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. There is a need for child care facilities in Albemarle County.
2. The addition of 24 students and associated parking requirements can be accommodated
on-site or adjacent to the site.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. Additional traffic from the 24 students will have a negative impact on the neighborhood due
to the increase in vehicles and opportunities for conflict, especially in the morning when
children are being dropped off.
2. The enlarged day car enrollment will create a use that is out of scale with this part of the
Four Seasons development.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Although residents along Lakeview Drive may disagree, staff believes that the current facility
operates adequately within the neighborhood. With 24 additional students and the traffic patterns
and volumes already existing on Lakeview Drive staff believes that the facility will exceed an
acceptable limit and change the character of a portion of the Four Seasons PUD. For that reason
staff recommends denial of the request.
However, if the Planning Commission wishes to recommend approval, staff recommends that
previous conditions be carried through with reference to the letter of revision approved in 2000:
1. This permit is approved for an office OR nursery school and day-care center. The
conditions below apply to the nursery/day-care center.
a. Development of the site shall be in general conformity with the Minor Site Plan
Amendment approved July 18, 2000 by the Department of Planning and Community
Development and later approved by Letter of Revision dated December 5, 2000. If
modifications are made to the site, a twenty-foot buffer shall be provided and retained
between the property and Lot B shown on the Minor Site Plan Amendment approved
July 18, 2000 and later approved by Letter of Revision dated December 5, 2000 by the
Department of Planning and Community Development.
b. The maximum number of children shall not exceed 64 at any given time or the number
approved by the Department of Social Services, whichever is less.
c. An outdoor play area with equipment shall be provided and maintained by the applicant.
The play area shall be fenced with a chain link fence.
d. The fence across the front of the property shall be a barrier fence, 4 % feet high, set
back 25 feet from the property line. The fencing on the other three sides of the property
is to be chain link.
6
e. No certificate of occupancy for BP 2000-01520 (one-story addition with finished
basement) and no zoning clearance for any increase in the number of children more
than the 32 allowed under SP 74-412 shall be provided prior to completion of i.)
construction of the building addition, and ii.) parking lot approved in the Minor Site Plan
Amendment approved July 18, 2000 and later approved by Letter of Revision dated
December 5, 2000 by the Department of Planning and Community Development
f. No residential use of the property shall be allowed without abandonment of the special
use permit.
1. If the building is to be used for an office, the following conditions shall apply:
a. The maximum number of employees shall be ten employees.
b. A twenty-foot buffer shall be provided and retained between the property and Lot B
shown on the Minor Site Plan Amendment approved July 18, 2000 and later approved
by Letter of Revision dated December 5, 2000 by the Department of Planning and
Community Development.
c. No residential use of the property shall be allowed without abandonment of the special
use permit.
2. No sign shall be located less than five feet from the right-of-way of Four Seasons Drive. It
shall be placed in the general location depicted on the Minor Site Plan Amendment approved
July 18, 2000 and later approved by Letter of Revision dated December 5, 2000 by the
Department of Planning and Community Development. It shall be single-faced and not exceed
eight square feet. Materials, color, and lettering shall be consistent with the photograph
initialed RSK and dated May 17, 1989, in the file of SP 89-23. Any replacement sign shall be
of materials, color, and lettering compatible to the Four Seasons Patio Homes sign, as
approved by the Zoning Administrator.
If the Board approves this special use permit, staff also recommends that the Board require the
applicant to provide a site plan that reflects as-built conditions to better assist staff and the
applicants. The approved site plan waiver is difficult to read and some improvements are not
accurately shown. In addition, the prior site plan will not suffice because this Special Permit
allows additional students and therefore requires additional parking which needs to be shown on
an approved site plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
A -- Site Plan Waiver/Amendment (July 18, 2000) and Letter of Revision for the facility (dated
December 5, 2000)
B -- Location Map
C -- Staff report, Planning Commission minutes and approved conditions for SP 02-06
o -- VDOT comments
E -- ACSA comments
7
~
~
t'age 1 01 -'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - S823 Ext. 3385
Fax (804) <;72 - 4035
i
December 5, 2000
Sliwinski, Krzysztof and Barbara
c/o Four Seasons Learning Center
20 Lake View Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SDP 00-072 Four Seasons Learning Center Minor Amendment
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sliwinski:
This letter is in response to your request to increase the size of the approved addition to the above
mentioned development. According to information received from the Department of Building Code
and Zoning Services there will be no increase in the number of students enrolled in the school, so the
proposed changes will not result in an increase to the required number of parking spaces. Therefore,
the Department of Planning and Community Development has reviewed and approved your request
as a "Letter of Revision" to the approved final site plan [SDP 00-072 Four Seasons Learning Center
Minor Amendment].
Please accept this letter as final approval for your request. This is viewed as your first "Letter of
Revision", and all construction must be performed in accordance \vith information submitted with
the building permit for this project. You are allowed a total of three (3) letters of revision before all
changes to the plan are required to be submitted in the form of a minor site plan amendment.
Please update your records with a copy of this letter. The Planning Department \vill fOf\vard a copy
of this approval letter to the Department of Building Code and Zoning Services.
Please contact the Department of Building Code and Zoning Services for further information
regarding any permits and related inspections that will be required for this project.
If you should have :my further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
.fi,~' V'~
Stephen B. Waller
Planner
Attachments: Building Permit and Sketch Plan
Copy: SDP 00-072
John Grady; Manager of Zoning Permit Review
John Shepherd, ~lanager of Zoning Administration
Attachment A q
THIS IS Tf' CERTIFY THAT ON DCCC:/I--1t:fc.^~ C:C:, /::?O~> . I SUHV~YU) nu", I'IlUI'UHY ~~lUWN UN
T:iIS HAl AND THAT THE TITLE LINES I<. 'ALlS OF THE BUilDINGS ARE SHOWNOft.N--- c
~/-,;z /(j/ _ . d )
(?~O/~~~TY /0' NOT /N THe #UD AI4-Jc.t:f!:2tJIU1!lL_
'7cr/A/cO /00 YR. ;C-C:OOO zo;ve: ."'fR7'/-,/UR J~ EDUPf.ROS C,c.,.5:
C~f!T/,-c/C/?TE ..--va, //70
~~~y/ce t./T/L./T/cS ~ ~Re ONOE^,G~OVNq.
R ~ I SPAcE PER /() (t-lILDIZEr\j - 4 SPACE. S PER
I S~jAtE 'Pt p" I Ef'r') Pl.tJ'-( Ee - 4 SPA c€ IS Lf
lor ~ L- 'PAR 1I~ It',j G SPA C t: ~ - q
SET0A~ FPvOt'Y) FOUR JEAJ.(}{\/~
s-i/€Jft-CJ( FR-OrI} LlfrEIIJEw
!(() CfOL!)REN
C"-l'}oLf) '-IE 15
I
DR - 10
- ,251-----
----
---
eW DRiVe
I.., A /<. c. V / ,. vJ( Oil:3 W a V" :3i'~
,"i)
,f-
(50'
R€iA1tJII'JG
lIf\q... 0\-[1'
La t(J:h Ot')
of
SlS"l
"
~
~ ~ <0
"l '
"<:) "-
\) ~
. 'J
~.
\\
~
r<--
0<:;.--
'~
'~ ,
~~
'-
C'/:,
~
~ ~
~ ~
~-:- - - ----
00 ---
~ 0
~ ,.... .t=.-
VI--J NER IDEVELOPER.. : ~
\Y1R.p'>~Q.A't KR2<f~2.fOF ~
sliW\t.,}~K\
~S,~ D<JC:IOR.~ tRoSSIN.$._. _ _
---------------
(~-
CJ--
---'0~
, '-:J
I..J' ,,--,-
~d ,t/h~
~ (u-hYl~A ot p/a.r1nl'1"3
7~?i )00_
Da+e.
.e.. s :
-
'\ 'I~ S;\-e y\Cv'l\ \~ SuY.1~C} -tv +Me c.or1~-hOY1S o~ S?-Li\2 s SP-B~.2.:
\{ ~;('SJ A1eo w. \\ 't:e & 11/-# 2 ) Of ~"2 \ A OJ 9 (C'9Ok bc.s~ ~3<?+,l)er
V,'~ ~(:me o.n6 Oo0\c\e Seal
^JrO()3 lAb y" SI'aYl W,"II be 3& If Y 2LJ II (R.:5 - q)
.:--.:J~ "~ {/ . .
i~~~~ 1
I \fIlAr! r
F\(a f'f\"P \ e
'Ex>~ ~~~c~s Of' Lo.."ev:'t'w Pl:ve w,'\\ bt"o<=as4-a.n~d C&-qA CoV1stlvc+rOl'
No NeAJ..J \;~-t:-n.3 c s ~o?oSed
A:(("ws n ro. IL. \
o (,rjj D+~m€-1j-\ W;\\t,eYC\.;f\-\ed wh:k
..
f-OL-){.. .~,~ -e/~SO'(\S Lcxwn:Y9 Ce-n+c.f"
-' '~ (V-J (,..I (0 I ';i I Po. { (f \ 5
Do),e', 5u(\e 21o, 2000
Attachment A 10
<2..hp.-\" I oC /
I
...
I
~
f
f
8
I !
J j ~
I" I
..I
.
.
o
.~
~~ ~
~~ ~
'" 0 _
C3i:<<!~
II~
"
-----lz
00
o
O.
N
~
~
c
~
~
~,}/
j 5
f I 1 1
I D I I ~fj
o
~
t>i.t:
.... ~ 2';+.,
/ ... J?:WJ ~:I?~ ~-f. 4.'<(. . (C;. ,.
~,!,",,",' Ji!"~ ~oiiI''Ot,l
,,!...~ "'J, Ilnfi ''';~i
~,,., ".' !It. .'Otk .
::;lJo!J'. "..\t~ till
",. r:l~
~',
.{,~Cl
~i.-.
'F~~" 'Ot
\.~~ /
Ri,!
d:-~
ti). A~
+:1 ~,
&~ j?~.J1
'?J .'~t
4r'
I
l..~j
(f'"
~$1"if>
~t7'"
:M~
,;"1':>
t~i~:;
tc~'"
,~>.:+
1R'lf:!;"= 4Q't4f;::1
GfLU)hi ~""'"
MF.4 t4!
iffj)-
{;~;t:,
~~
~ ~~l>
BI
~
~
co
,.,:+:1;S1
P.P4~
~~1
t:~
J.
t
0.
.
I
~
.
~
i;
2
.
0.
Attachment B J J
.~.~
.....~_..,.,.~
~o~t!l
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
40 J McIntire Road, Room 218
Char]ottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 40]2
July 11, 2002
Barbara & Krzysztok Kalemba-Sliwinski
3516 Doctors Crossing
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP-2002-006 Four Seasons Learning Center; Tax Map 61X1, Parcel 5
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kalemba-Sliwinski:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on July 3, 2002, unanimously approved the
above-noted request. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1, This permit is approved for an office or a nursery school and daycare center; provided, however,
both uses shall not exist simultaneously.
2, If the building is to be used for a nursery school and daycare center, the following conditions shall
apply:
a. Development of the site shall be in general conformity with the Minor Site Plan
Amendment approved July 18, 2000 by the Department of Planning and Community
Development. If modifications are made to the site, a twenty (20)-foot buffer shall be
provided and retained between the property and Lot B shown on the Minor Site Plan
Amendment approved July 18, 2000 by the Department of Planning and Community
Development;
b. The maximum number of children shall not exceed forty (40) at any given time or the
number approved by the Department of Social Services, whichever is less;
c, An outdoor play area with equipment shall be provided and maintained by the applicant.
The play area shall be fenced with a chain link fence;
d, The fence across the front of the property shall be a barrier fence, four and one-half (4 ~)
feet high, set back twenty-five (25) feet from the property line. The fencing on the other
three (3) sides of the property is to be chain link;
e. No certificate of occupancy for BP 2000-01520 (one [1 ]-story addition with finished
basement) and no zoning clearance for any increase in the number of children more than
the thirty-two (32) allowed under SP 74-412 shall be provided prior to completion of: i)
construction of the building addition, and ii) parking lot approved in the Minor Site Plan
Amendment approved July 18, 2000 by the Department of Planning and Community
Development; and
f. No residential use of the property shall be allowed without abandonment of the special
use permit.
3. If the building is to be used for an office, the following conditions shall apply:
a, The maximum number of employees shall be ten (10) employees;
b. A twenty (20)-foot buffer shall be provided and retained between the property and Lot B
shown on the Minor Site Plan Amendment approved July 18, 2000 by the Department of
Planning and Community Development; and
c. No residential use of the property shall be allowed without abandonment of the special
use permit.
Attachment C J t
Page 2
July 11, 2002
4, No sign shall be located less than five (5) feet from the right-of-way of Four Seasons Drive. It
shall be placed in the genera/location depicted on the Minor Site Plan Amendment approved July
18, 2000 by the Department of Planning and Community Development. It shall be single-faced
and not exceed eight (8) square feet. Materials, color, and lettering shall be consistent with the
photograph initialed RSK and dated May 17, 1989, in the file of SP 89-23. Any replacement sign
shall be of materials, color, and lettering compatible to the Four Seasons Patio Homes sign, as
approved by the Zoning Administrator.
In the event that the use, structure or activity for which this special use permit is issued shall not be
commenced within twenty-four (24) months after the issuance of such permit, the same shall be deemed
abandoned and the authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminate. For purposes of this section,
the term "commenced" shall be construed to include the commencement of construction of any structure
necessary to the use of such permit within two (2) years from the date of the issuance.
Before beginning this use, you must obtain a zoning clearance from the Zoning Department. Before the
Zoning Department will issue a clearance, you must comply with the conditions in this letter. For further
information, please call Jan Sprinkle at 296-5832.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
VWC/jcf
Cc: Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Tex Weaver
Steve Allshouse
Matt Grimes, VDOT
Attachment C 13
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: SP 02-006 Four Seasons Learning
Center Special Use Permit Amendment
ITEM
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to amend a special use permit to increase the
number of children from 32 to 40 at the Four Seasons
Learning Center. The property, described as Tax Map
61X1 Parcel 5, contains 0.35 acres, and is located in
the Rio Magisterial District on at 254 Lakeview Drive at
the intersection of Lakeview Drive and Four Seasons
Drive. The property is zoned PUD Planned Unit
Development. The Comprehensive Plan designates this
property as Urban Density Residential in Neighborhood
1. (See Attachments A & B.)
STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. Echols
PC AGENDA DATE:
NUMBERS:
June 4, 2002
BOS AGENDA DATE:
June 19, 2002
ACTION:
Recommend approval of
Special use permit with
Conditions.
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND: On August 27, 1974, the Board of Supervisors approved the original special use permit (SP
74-412). The allowable sign area was changed with SP 89-023 on March 22, 2989. Several site plans and
site plan amendments have been approved over the last 28 years. A complete history of the activities at the
,ite is included as Attachment C. The conditions of approval for the 1974 & 1989 special use permits are
included as Attachment D. At present the applicants are finishing construction of a building addition. They
would like to add 8 children to the maximum number of children approved for the Learning Center.
DISCUSSION: Staff has reviewed the request and the existing approved minor site plan amendment
(Attachment E). The minor amendment recently approved allowed for a building addition and enlarged parking
area. Construction began in August of 2000. Once construction is finished, the facility and site will
accommodate the additional 8 children and the required parking. The Special Use Permit amendment is to
increase the maximum number of children to 40 from 32.
Only one problem exists with the current use; however, it can easily be rectified. At present, the construction
activities on-site are interfering with the ease in which children are picked up and dropped off. Spaces in the
parking lot are not always available for use. Several residents near the facility have expressed concerns with
traffic backups and turning movements when parents drop off children, especially during the peak morning
period. Concern has also been expressed with the amount of time involved in completing construction and the
possibility of the addition of a dwelling unit or units to the facility. The nearby resident concerned with
residential use of the structure is worried about the level of activity on the site because the development is
already so dense. When all construction is completed and the parking lot is fully functional, the traffic
problems should disappear. The PUD approval for Four Seasons limits the number of residential units in the
development; so, the addition of a dwelling unit to the facility or conversion of the facility to residential units or
other uses would require an amendment to the zoning.
All staff reviewers have recommended approval of the increased numbers of children. The Building Inspector
has indicated that the facility will meet building code requirements. No impact on roads, utilities, adjoining
)roperties, or schools is expected with the proposal. No adverse impact is expected for the neighborhood,
provided the parking lot is completed prior to allowing the additional children in the facility.
Attachment C Jt!
.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the same general conditions approved with SP 74-412 and 89-
023 be approved with this request with three exceptions. These exceptions are that the maximum number of
children may increase from 32 to 40 children, no certificate of occupancy shall be given until both the building
and parking lot are completed, and no residential use of the property is to be allowed without abandoning the
special use permits. The recommended conditions are:
1. This permit is approved for an office OR nursery school and day-care center. The conditions below apply
to the nursery/day-care center.
a. Development of the site shall be in general conformity with the Minor Site Plan Amendment
approved July 18, 2000 by the Department of Planning and Community Development. If
modifications are made to the site, a twenty-foot buffer shall be provided and retained between the
property and Lot B shown on the Minor Site Plan Amendment approved July 18, 2000 by the
Department of Planning and Community Development.
b. The maximum number of children shall not exceed 40 at any given time or the number approved by
the Department of Social Services, whichever is less.
c. An outdoor play area with equipment shall be provided and maintained by the applicant. The play
area shall be fenced with a chain link fence.
d. The fence across the front of the property shall be a barrier fence, 4 ~ feet high, set back 25 feet
from the property line. The fencing on the other three sides of the property is to be chain link.
e. No certificate of occupancy for BP 2000-01520 (one-story addition with finished basement) and no
zoning clearance for any increase in the number of children more than the 32 allowed under SP 74-
412 shall be provided prior to completion of L) construction of the building addition, and iL) parking
lot approved in the Minor Site Plan Amendment approved July 18, 2000 by the Department of
Planning and Community Development
f. No residential use of the property shall be allowed without abandonment of the special use permit.
2. If the building is to be used for an office, the following conditions shall apply:
a. The maximum number of employees shall be ten employees.
b. A twenty-foot buffer shall be provided and retained between the property and Lot B shown on the
Minor Site Plan Amendment approved July 18, 2000 by the Department of Planning and
Community Development.
c. No residential use of the property shall be allowed without abandonment of the special use permit.
3. No sign shall be located less than five feet from the right-of-way of Four Seasons Drive. It shall be placed
in the general location depicted on the Minor Site Plan Amendment approved July 18, 2000 by the
Department of Planning and Community Development. It shall be single-faced and not exceed eight
square feet. Materials, color, and lettering shall be consistent with the photograph initialed RSK and dated
May 17,1989, in the file of SP 89-23. Any replacement sign shall be of materials, color, and lettering
compatible to the Four Seasons Patio Homes sign, as approved by the Zoning Administrator.
"","",.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Location Map
Attachment B - Property Map
Attachment C - History of Site
Attachment D - Conditions of Approval of Previous Special Use Permits
Attachment E - Approved Minor Site Plan Amendment
2
Attachment C ) 5
ATTACHMENT A
LJ
/~
tf)
Z
0:: ao::-/
::J tf)/ 0
) 0<:(
//? W
- cu...
tf)
('~
''v).' -/ ..--
"
( \
\)
/
-0 I
(; N ~
Cl)0 ,
SI ~.
~~
.~
Cl)0 U c
<COO OJ
~. 1:l
^ SI:WlCl'V 3 u,:j00 d CJl
Cl)N~ H c
0:;1...-4 o. 0
1/ U CJl
co
II ~~ Q)
II ~. CJl
~ ...
::l
Ii ~ .2
' N . EL
II I
11 ~
Ii W
Ii ~
II 0
II
Attachment C J (j ~
l_ __ ___
. 'I) J
~- - --
,L:.,LuCIVIHi\Lt.. l.-UU/\J I Y
FOUR SEASCI\IS
SECTION 61XI
(coavo mlOdle IIno)
'WESTPARK PLAZA CONDOS'
61XI- 28 1-12
0,8, 92 5 pQ.3/2
SECTION 61X2
(betow mlddlehne)
RIO [,;STRICT
!CALC .. n:l r
~')Q .aoo
':;00 300
,
SEC
A TT ACHMENT B
j
I
,j
:1
'J
/
______J
Attachment C 17 L/-
A TT ACHMENT C
~
.C1J.~ ~_'I~:J t,~i
~
~...."."'-'1"""'~ ,.~
2'!:.A .,':::/1' .~
';CrCh:}' :::. ~;1 .j:~'l
~
~
\TO';(,~ ,'I~~. ?~1
~
tftflld=i7'ii~l
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~~
061 X 1-00-00-00500
061 X 1--00-00-00500
061 X 1-00-00-00500
061 X 1-00-00-00500
061X1-00-00-00500
A P2001 005
SP-198~-023
V A2000002
CLE-1983-549
CLE-1985-565
J
07/17/2001 Sliwinski, Barbra Krzysztof
03/22/1989 MOTHERS CARE OF VA, IN
OS/23/1983
02/07/2000 Sliwinski, Krzysztof and Barbara
Shirley Searson (Cricketh
06/19/1985
Joselito Cruz
061 X 1-00-00-00500
061 X 1-00-00-00500
VA-1981-052
S P2002006
07/31/1981
02/22/2002
Louise C Palmer
Kalembai Sliwiski Barbara or Krzysztof
061 X 1-00-00-00500
SDP2000072
06/12/2000
Sliwinski, Krzysztof and Barbara
061 X 1-00-00-00500
061 X 1-00-00-00500
061 X 1-00-00-00500
CLE-1998-175
ZMA2000002
S-2000-133
12/01/1998
02/24/2000
06/16/2000
Barbara Kalemba Four Seasons Learning (
Sliwinski, Krzysztof and Barbara
Chris Slwinski Four Seasons Learning Cen
061 X 1-00-00-00500
VIO-2000-084
05/30/2000
Four Seasons Learning Center
061 X 1-00-00-00500
CLE-1986-548
06/18/1986
Mary Jane Costor etal
061 X 1-00-00-00500
SP-1974-412
08/27/1974
WOOD LAKE CORPORATION
061 X 1-00-00-00500
V A-1989-027
03/17/1989
Mother's Care of Virginia
061 X 1-00-00-00500
SDP2001058
06/01/2001
Sliwinski, Barbra Krzysztof
061 X 1-00-00-00500
SDP2002004
01/14/2002
Kalembai Sliwiski Barbara or Krzysztof
061 X 1-00-00-00500
VIO-1989-024
02/15/1989
Mother's Care of Virginia
.
Attachment c let s-
~_"'",w,....,.. ,""'",....'"~~ '~._..._""'~, ,~.....~. ~..: ~.-."._.~.. c;,-
([p'.' ~-
5- -".':~.>.I';'~.""
o :."::"'. ~',.' :-
,c.(,.... ._~....,1j
\~:~~~~Xili~:"
-~ ..
-
ATTACH,MENT Q
JOHN L. HUMr~flEY
COUfllY HAlmcn
Pl:::11ninh Dcpr.rtl1lcnt
Itll E/\ST HIGH STra:r:T
CHARLOTl'CSVILLE. VIHGIN/^ 22901
kOnEnT W. TUCKER. JR.
"S~IST "'/1 COU/:TY PlANNEn
A. nUTl1 t.ll1.L[
ZONING ^Dt.\INIS 1 flA 1
October 28, 1974
MARY JOY SCAl
SrNI;Jn PlMWlA
Re: noa~d of Supervisors Action
Woodlake Corporation
c/o Daley .Craig
400 Feut Seasons Drive
Charlottesville.. Va.
;-
Dear Sir:
This :IS to inform you that on
October 23, 1974
d u r 1n1.: t 11 ere G u I arm c c t J II r. 0 f tJ I C A 11 e 11l:l r J e Co u 11 t Y
BODr:d of SupcrvJsorf;) your ;ippljeation for SP-.Lil2
wa~; approved with the follo\.~i.::~f? conditions: 1) f.dministrat:ivc ...'~.Er::-oval
of J?ite plan: 2) ~rov:ision ~(: be made foy a chi)~~!7C'n! s pl<,JL,0.:i~:~ith
~qui~IPnt; 3) th~=-pl:.~ <lr~~LE_~o be f~:!lC(~d, The fence ;}cro~:~; the front
of the property .~l1..0]1 be a bar!ier-.!~D_ce, II!;;' hj~~h, _~~~cI~ 25 ~_from
f~TOJ~t;.llLlin(', The 'fc'1lcil}g on_th~U:hf.'r !:hr,:::::._sides of tJ~~J:'Toperty
, c..k\\J~
' is .-t<L}2g_~hain ])nkj 4) Enrollment limited to a m~x~muE: "Of 3~:p~~[;ons-
fit <lE.Y_~me tim~~)__L1im:LL~! one sig~ on the property with a nl<lximum
areLQ,L.J:..9ur Sffi!llJ:_ feet.
Office of Planning and Zoning
~y Nary K. Frazier
NOTE: This pennit was approved for an office Q.ll nursery school.:md day--care center,
The above conditions .::Jpply to the nursery ScllOol/day-care center. If the builtling
is, at a later date, used for an office, tIle folJ.owing conditions will apply.
1) Administrative approval of site plan; 2) Limit off ice personnel to ten employees;
3) Limit of one sign on property. Sign to have a maximulli [lrea of four-square feet.
i:t;';~;.;;:.:IC,,""-:,=~"7-:;--
Attachment c A "
,
(------
ATTACHMENT 0
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
May 24, 1989
Mothers Care of Virginia, Inc
20 Lakeview Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
ATTN: Mary Jane Coster
RE: SP-89-23 Mothers Care of Virginia, Inc
Dear Mrs. Coster:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on
May 17, 1989, approved the above-noted request to amend
Condition #5 of SP-412 as it relates to signs. Property,
located in the southern portion of the intersection of Four
Seasons Drive and Lakeview Drive in the Four Seasons PUD.
Tax Map 61X1, ParcelS. Charlottesville Magisterial
District. The Board approved this request subject to the
addition of condition No.6 to SP-412 as follows:
6 .
Sign setback may be reduce to not less than five feet
from the right-of-way of Four Seasons Drive to be
located as generally depicted in Attachment D of
SP-89-23 MOTHERS CARE OF VIRGINIA, INC~ Such sign
shall be single faced and not exceed eight square feet
and shall be consistent with the photograph initialed
RSK and dated May 17, 1989, in the file of SP-89-23.
Any replacement sign shall be of materials, color, and
lettering compatible to the Four Seasons Patio Homes
sign, as approved by the Zoning Administrator.
if
Attachment C 1>> 7
ATTACHMENT 0
--,.. . '-~._-'-_'-""""'_',-;';"-_' _"~..;,-",,_'~,,".t-o:._,, ".-.,"",,-;po,;~-
u,_;__j-.,,,-)~...,,'''=_''_;''''''~~'-
,,,."'.' ~,_.~~~". "","--""",,7C"="<~'.-..
Mothers Care of Virginia, Inc
Page 2
May 24, 1989
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
~
Ronald S. Keeler
Chief of Planning
RSK/jcw
cc: Kathy Dodson
.
Attachment C ~
8;
nlls IS TO CERTIFY TlfAT ON fJCCc/145e/< 2:2, /.:::',."Jc:.; . I SLJIlVlYFIJ THE I'IlUI'I
T.1I9 fIAT AND THAT TIlE TITLE LINES AND WALLS OF THE BLJILDIWiS ^nE SItOWtl HEIlEOfI ATTACHMENT E
. /!-;71,L,(/? "II, ')
,?R.o/,,'O>CRTY /S /VO T /N THe' /N/D _'_-L-J{{JJc.....J..cf2tJ;Zf4{1L__
DcrlA/cD /00 YR, r-C:OOD ZO/VL~', ,'i'N7/,/,:j,\' F cDJUf/<:'DS C ",5:
ce:;,-~"r/t'J::(/L_".,--?7c /(,./0 // .70
5'
""!{Iee' UTIL.-/T/cJ A,-f:c
JPl\cE PEP, It) (t-lllDIZE1'J
I <;\-ACE -pCP I E(Y)PLO'fEE
IO\f~L "i>AI<V\11G SfAC(<:.l q
S~TY?7A01<- FR.,()rY) FOUR JEI!J(}rv::,
~fl0{tCJ< j=PfJrY) LI/KEljlEw
I
DR. - 10
~' .,.z 51------------'---------------'------
0" --.----~
L/;VOc^,G/f"OG0VO.
4 sPAcE-'S vER
LI S pf1 cE'S L(
!(O (jIlLI)R.Lf\J
E- r1lP UJ t{ C::;;
~
"
~
///
_/
/
,."J )
l(t
(50
F-?E j f\ I tJ! '-j (~
'lflL\., JI, ll'
L.ow.-hO(\
of
S\~n ..--
"
~)
... ~
~
~) ,
'-: Q
~)
t,
13
~)
<D
f.-.
\)
\j
"
.._._ t-:_-~/~,
"---........
~ ,~ - '- --;, ,^ , .'.
~ "'. 0 <' ,
, ", "',>';--~';; }~ct:-
"- 0, ~ ___
u.(:, --"'-' 00 ' '-
-91..J> '.,-........ -
0-1.--:: --------.. '-
'-f' ----...--------. ....;::~~;; - --~--
----.
''-----..
~ ~
~ ~
<J
;,.p //..;.-
.~
'----------.
--,
(~"o
~5\b DOCTOQ~ c.ROSSING-
CilI'll<\,,()nfS,/tI.lt, 1/1\- 2:'fjDt -.
,'('"
~r-:)
~----.........~
.~-..--
~ ~------
------
,.'~/"'~;--0'~"C';L v......~.;C';.."E/~- \....rh/C.>..---l-///\./G'
Tf\y ml\f' cpl-fl ?ARCEc 5 ZONlt...l(;, P1Ji71f2.1o
rot//? SE/lSON5 f'QOPOSGO\J~L ()I1~C~RE
LeClrn;hj Ce-..ry,\cR.
. 30 -' A.!..LlcA--fA/f'LE CtJUNT/-; V/'/f"G"/N/4 DCC. C:c, /::J8C,
',IS\'SR\A:\ tJl'::i\Q\c,,\ 1)1\'\0: J\)I~E:. :Vo ~OOO
B. AUBREY HUFFMAN & ASSOCIATES, LTD. I
CIVIL ENGINEERING ' lMJD SURVEYING LAND PLANNllm
CHAnLon ESVILLE. VlnGINIA
L5'CAt.. C' ,
Rio
;....;.:.;.~""~~
~?~~~L.~pf L.
r
Attachment C-~ V
;,Jncvh.J~ 61oC\'-
ATTACHMENT E
. .
I
W+e.
re.. s :
-
1 '\ ~ S; \e \?\ OvY\ \' ~ SUk1t'C.}- -tv -me C-or1~ i-; Or") S o~ S? - ~ \ 2 sSP - 6<1. 2.:)
':ca;rf) Arro W.\\ ~ &" /#21 or *zlA 0<39<<9Ok -base: iz,j<"rl1er
It).. -~/\ 1/(: ffi-e 0- no c\00\o\ e Se cuI
Ai ( OYl C\ \ A 1/1 Y II W J I 1-,...., ()
~~r; ~~ SifY1 ,. vv 3& If Y2~ 1/ R.5-Q
(j-= 0
I ~~~~~r
~ W~Y! r
E'fO'N\?\e
~~ ~-\,-~c~ S 0(\ Let '!'ev:-ec,U Pi: 'Ie w: \\ bt' oC::a. s+a.r'\~d C(:r qA CoVlSWcJc-I;Ot')
No NeA.A.J \;~~n.3 l S 7co?oSed
A:((cws n '"B \(.. \
o 0.( .rJ,j 0+ ~men-\ \,LJ: \\ be ?o,:,(\-\eJ wh:k
-=Fou{ SCQSoY\s L~n;'(1) Ce-n+e.f"
JO--'/ MAp folJiI Porce \ 5"
1)::0k: 5u(\e 2~, 2000
Attachment C ~ 3
Q "'D~ '1 /)C 'J
SP-02-006. Four Seasons Learnina Center (Sian # 26 & 27) - Request to amend an existing
special use permit to allow a total of 40 children at the existing daycare facility in accordance with
Section 20.3.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for child care facilities. The property, described
as' Tax Map 61 X1, Parcel 5, contains 0.35 acres and is located in the Rio Magisterial District at 254
Lakeview Drive at the intersection of Lakeview Drive and Four Seasons Drive. The property is zoned
PUD Planned Unit Development. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density
Residential in Neighborhood 1.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report. (See the attached copy of the staff report.) She stated that the
applicants have been restricted to thirty-two children at the facility. The current owners of the facility
and the applicants would like to increase that number from thirty-two to forty. The special use permit
application was reviewed in light of that particular request. By and large, staff has no problem with
recommending approval on the increase of the number of children with a few exceptions. There has
been some construction activities going on there for quite some time which makes it difficult for the
parents to be able to park in the parking lot. Staff has heard from several of the residents in the
neighborhood about traffic backing up because of the parking lot situation. Staff's recommendation
for approval is contingent on the completion of all of the construction activity so that the parking lot
will be available for the children. Also, the construction will be complete. There were previous
special use permit conditions which have been modified slightly to make them work under our current
language. The special use permit was previously approved for both a day care center and for an
office, which remains as a condition for approval. The last condition has to do with conversion of this
facility to a residence. The residents in the neighborhood are concerned about increasing the density
of the development due to the constricted parking area. The residents have asked that we restrict it
from becoming a duplex or a residence. If it changes to a residence, then the special use permit will
Albemarle County Planning Commission Minutes
June 4, 2002
DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED JUNE 18
Page 2
Attachment c z.Ll
go away for that particular property for the day care center. It would be one or the other use, but not
a combination of both.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the condition language makes it clear that the permit is an either or
proposition, but not both. . After reading the staff report and the conditions, he understood the
condition, but was concerned that in the future that the condition could be misconstrued. He asked
Mr. Kamptner if he had anything that parallels this situation.
Mr. Kamptner noted that in reviewing the condition, it makes sense.
Mr. Loewenstein suggested that Mr. Kamptner think further about how to clarify the condition.
Ms. Echols suggested that condition number one, the first sentence, be a stand-alone condition.
Condition number 2 would stated that the conditions below apply to the nursery/daycare center.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that in a sense that would help. He suggested putting in a phrase at the end
of the first sentence that says "but not both." Since there were no further questions for staff, he
opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.
SPEAKER FOR REQUEST:
Krzysztof Sliwinski, owner of the property, stated that they had owned the business since December
1998. He pointed out when they purchased the property that it was zoned commercial and
residential, R-6 & PUD. He noted that he did not understand when the R-6 went away and stayed
PUD. He stated that he did not know why the zoning kept going back and forth. He noted that the
property was zoned R-6 when they signed the contract to purchase the property. He noted that is
wife, Barbara Kalemba-Sliwinski, was present.
Mr. Loewenstein asked that the record note that there was a concern about the wording of the
condition that they are mutually exclusive uses. He suggested that it state that it is either for an office
or a nursery, but not both. He asked that Mr. Kamptner work on the condition to incorporate his
suggestion.
Mr. Finley asked what the property was currently being used for?
Ms. Echols stated that it was a daycare center.
Mr. Loewenstein asked for further discussion. There being none, he closed the public hearing and
placed the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Rieley moved for approval of SP-02-006, Four Seasons Learning Center, with staffs
recommended conditions as amended.
Ms. Hopper seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of SP-02-006, Four Seasons Learning Center
subject to the following conditions:
1. This permit is approved for an office or a nursery school and daycare center; provided, however,
both uses shall not exist simultaneously.
2. If the building is to be used for a nursery school and daycare center, the following conditions shall
apply:
a. Development of the site shall be in general conformity with the Minor Site Plan Amendment
approved July 18, 2000 by the Department of Planning and Community Development. If
Albemarle County Planning Commission Minutes
June 4, 2002
DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED JUNE 18
Page 3
Attachment Cp
modifications are made to the site, a twenty-foot buffer shall be provided and retained
between the property and Lot B shown on the Minor Site Plan Amendment approved July 18,
2000 by the Department of Planning and Community Development.
b. The maximum number of children shall not exceed 40 at any given time or the number
approved by the Department of Social Services, whichever is less.
c. An outdoor play area with equipment shall be provided and maintained by the applicant. The
play area shall be fenced with a chain link fence.
d. The fence across the front of the property shall be a barrier fence, 4 % feet high, set back 25
feet from the property line. The fencing on the other three sides of the property is to be chain
link.
e. No certificate of occupancy for BP 2000-01520 (one-story addition with finished basement)
and no zoning clearance for any increase in the number of children more than the 32 allowed
under SP 74-412 shall be provided prior to completion of i.) construction of the building
addition, and ii.) parking lot approved in the Minor Site Plan Amendment approved July 18,
2000 by the Department of Planning and Community Development
f. No residential use of the property shall be allowed without abandonment of the special use
permit.
3. If the building is to be used for an office, the following conditions shall apply:
a. The maximum number of employees shall be ten employees.
b. A twenty-foot buffer shall be provided and retained between the property and Lot B shown on
the Minor Site Plan Amendment approved July 18, 2000 by the Department of Planning and
Community Development.
c. No residential use of the property shall be allowed without abandonment of the special use
permit.
4. No sign shall be located less than five feet from the right-of-way of Four Seasons Drive. It shall
be placed in the general location depicted on the Minor Site Plan Amendment approved July 18,
2000 by the Department of Planning and Community Development. It shall be single-faced and
not exceed eight square feet. Materials, color, and lettering shall be consistent with the
photograph initialed RSK and dated May 17, 1989, in the file of SP 89-23. Any replacement sign
shall be of materials, color, and lettering compatible to the Four Seasons Patio Homes sign, as
approved by the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that the Board would hear the special use permit on June 19th.k
Attachment C 25
sight line at intersection Four Seasons and Lakewview Rt.1456 and Rt.1458
Page I of 1
Elaine Echols
From: Baber, Charles T. [Charles.Baber@VDOTVirginia.gov]
Sent: Thursday, June 05,2008 12:05 PM
To: Elaine Echols
Cc: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Subject: sight line at intersection Four Seasons and Lakewview Rt.1456 and Rt.1458
This is to advise that the right out sight is 410' and at 25 MPH the required amount would be 280' and the left out
is 280' which is the required amount also be advised that there is a tree that was just planted in this area that
should be relocated as it will soon be at a height that will restrict the sight line in the very near future, this if
required by Albemarle co. as a part of the original site plan this could be moved approximately 8' to prevent future
safety problems any additional questions please advise thanks.
6/17/2008
Attachment D Ztp
Page 1 of2
Elaine Echols
From: Denunzio, Joel D" P,E. [JoeLDenunzio@VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, May 19, 200811:01 AM
To: Elaine Echols
Subject: RE: Four Seasons Learning Center Amendment to SP-2002-06
Sorry, it should read "at no time will be acceptable". Four Seasons Drive is a shoulder design and parking along
that road is not permitted,
Thanks,
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434-293-0011 Ext. 120
joel, denu nzio@vdot.virginia,gov
From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org]
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 10:43 AM
To: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Subject: RE: Four Seasons Learning Center Amendment to SP-2002-06
Hi --
I don't understand what you wrote that is in red below, Could you explain?
Thanks.
Elaine
From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E. [mailto:Joel.Denunzio@VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 10:23 AM
To: Elaine Echols
Subject: Four Seasons Learning Center Amendment to SP-2002-06
Elaine,
I received The Four Seasons Learning Center Amendment to SP-2002-06 and have reviewed it. My only
comment is that parking along Four Seasons Drive at not time will be acceptable and as long as the parking on
Lakeview is acceptable to the county, I have no additional comments,
If you have any questions, please let me know,
Thanks,
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434-293-0011 Ext. 120
joel. denu nzio@vdot,virginia.gov
5/22/2008
Attachment D t 1
Page 20f2
From: Elaine Echols [mailto:EECHOLS@albemarle.org]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 20085:22 PM
To: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Subject: Four Seasons Learning Center
Hi Joel,
I sent you some info on Four Seasons Learning Center on-street parking a few weeks ago. Did you get it? I
would like comments as soon as you can get them.
Thanks.
Elaine
Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Principal Planner
Department of Community Development
Albemarle County, VA
434-296-5823 x 3252
eechols@albemarle.org
5/22/2008
Attachment D Z<i
TO: Elaine Echols, Planner
FROM: Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
DATE: February 26,2007
RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: Four Seasons Learninq Center
(TM 61X1, Parcel 5)
SP-2007 -00001
The below checked items apply to this site:
X 1.
X
X 2.
X 3.
X4.
5.
X 6.
This site plan is within the ACSA's jurisdictional area for:
A. Water and sewer;
B. Water only;
C. Water only to existing structure;
D. Limited service.
A -L inch water line is located approximately 35' distant.
Fire flow from nearest public hydrant, located 150' distant from this site
plan, is 2159 gpm:!: at 20 psi residual.
An ~ inch sewer line is located approximately ~ distant.
An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed.
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 water and sewer plans are required for ACSA's review and
approval prior to granting tentative approval.
Final site plan may/may not be signed.
RWSA approval for water and/or sewer connections.
11.
12.
Comments: Backflow prevention is required. Provide plumbinq fixture
count to size meter.
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
09 540 Four Seasons Learning Center Site Plan 02026-07
Attachment E -1t
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP 07-01 Four Seasons Learning Center
AGENDA DATE:
August 19,2008
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Increase enrollment from 40 children to 64
children at 254 Lakeview Drive on TMP 061X-
00-00-00500
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Echols
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On June 24, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Four Seasons Learning Center
request for an increase in 24 children at their facility located at 254 Lakeview Drive. At the meeting, the
applicant provided a traffic study for the Planning Commission's review which they had not previously been
provided to staff. After some discussion, the applicant requested deferral of the public hearing until staff
was able to review the traffic study. The staff report and minutes of that meeting are contained in
Attachments 1 and 2, respectively. There were also questions concerning the number of parking spaces
needed for the facility and provided by the applicant.
.>ISCUSSION:
The traffic study provided by the applicant is included as Attachment 2. After reviewing the applicant's
traffic study, the County Engineer concluded that the applicant and staff had performed different kinds of
analysis. Staff's analysis was based on vehicle trips per day while the applicant's analysis was performed
on peak hour trips. The County Engineer's comments are below:
The traffic generation report by Raina Rosado for Four Seasons Learning Center has been reviewed. / agree
with the conclusion that the traffic generated during the peak hour will be around 52 trip ends. It is also correct
that this does not pass the thresholds for a traffic study, as set by the VDOT 527 regulations.
The conclusion that transportation on Four Seasons Drive and Lakeview Drive will not be significantly affected
is not as easy to agree with. Below I briefly summarize each road situation:
Four Seasons Drive has a traffic count of 4100 average daily trips according to the latest VDOT counts from
2007. This translates to about 200 trips in each direction during the peak hour. The entering turning
movements for the daycare (52) make about 26% of opposing volume. If the homes on Lakeview Drive are
added, this rises to above 30%. While this appears to fall just below the VDOT thresholds for a left turn lane
volume warrant requirement, I would not say it is insignificant.
Lakeview Drive is a small cul-de-sac with 19 homes, plus the daycare. It generates about 19 trips on the road
during the peak hour (AM or PM, assumed 10%). The daycare generates about 104 (two times the number of
trip ends, for a car comes in, and goes out, passing by twice for one trip end.). Thus, the daycare generates
about 5 times the traffic that this small cul-de-sac might otherwise experience.
I have attached a recent aerial photo of the site. (See Attachment 3.) The frontage is confusing due to
Improvements made by the applicant, and on-street parking issues. If this application is approved, it is my
recommendation that curbing be installed to establish the edge and the turning taper, with parking prohibited in
this area.
As an aside, the numbers presented in the previous report might have been a bit high, as the particular ITE
table referenced is based on the number of employees, rather than the number of students, which is what the
above numbers are based on. It is also comparing apples and oranges, as the staff report talked about daily
totals or averages, and the applicant's study uses peak hour only. It is important to distinguish clearly between
average daily traffic and peak hour traffic, and also between trip ends, and trips. Putting numbers aside for a
moment, the general conclusions are that this use is rather large for the small neighborhood. It will be noticed
on Four Seasons Drive, but does not appear to meet VDOT warrants for improvements.
Using the County Engineer's analysis, the additional 24 students represent a 46% increase in peak hour traffic.
The recommendation for curbing deals with Four Seasons Drive where VDOT has prohibited parking in any
case.
Another outstanding issue at the Commission meeting had to do with parking requirements. The number of
required parking spaces was not clear because it was unclear how many staff members would be working
at the facility. The applicant has indicated that there will be 6 employees at the facility, which translates into
a total parking requirement of 13 spaces. The Zoning Division has confirmed that 13 spaces are available
either on-site or on-street next to the property on Lakeview Drive.
Also, since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has asked staff to verify its assertion that, if
this were a new facility, only 51 students would be allowed. In reviewing the staff's calculations, it appears
that the infant room was left out of the calculations. Staff now believes that, if the Four Seasons Learning
Center were a new facility, it would be allowed 58 students, not 51 students. Although staff has attempted
to verify this conclusion several times with the Verona office of Virginia Department of Social Services, they
have not provided the information. A letter from Social Services is in Attachment 4. Staff has received
several letters from parents who have children in the day care facility who support the expansion. They are
provided in Attachment 5.
Staff continues to believe that the primary issue involved with this special use permit is scale and impact. In
addition to traffic impacts, the scale issue stands out even more because of the intensity of the use and the
location on a neighborhood street. It is even more apparent when one looks at the child care facilities that
have been approved in the development areas since 1980.
,~~"
There have been nine "stand alone" child care facilities (not located in a church) approved in the
development areas since 1980. Of these nine, three have been approved on neighborhood streets. Two of
the facilities using neighborhood streets were approved in the Four Seasons development. They are the
Charlottesville Day School is on Four Seasons Drive and the Four Seasons Learning Center. The third
facility is on Barclay Place off of Hydraulic Road. The remaining 6 facilities have been approved on primary
streets.
The facilities range in intensity (measured in students per acre) from less than 7 students per acre to a
maximum of 115 students per acre. Four Seasons Learning Center has the equivalent of 114 students per
acre. As such, it is at the high end of the spectrum. With the additional 24 students it would have the
equivalent of 182 students per acre which is greater than any other facility, with one exception.
In 1987, SP 87-24 was approved for 325 children on 1.395 acres which translates into an equivalent
intensity of 233 students per acre. The special use permit for the facility for 325 students expired and the
facility kept its approval for only 75 students. It was the same facility described above on Barclay Place off
of Hydraulic Road. The distinction between this facility and Four Seasons Drive has to do with its setting.
Barclay Place provides access to a multi-unit development and is a short distance off of Hydraulic. Four
Seasons Learning Center is within a mixed single-family and multi-family development on a street which
has all single-family residences. No other special use permit has been approved in a similar setting with the
intensity proposed.
Staff notes that there are no children per acre standards in the zoning ordinance or in state regulations.
Staff just uses this information as a measure of intensity of the existing and proposed use.
z~
, .
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff sympathizes strongly with parents who need affordable, reliable child care and believes that Four Seasons
. .earning Center provides these things now. However, staff continues to believe that the traffic associated with
.L4 additional students along with the traffic patterns and volumes already existing on Lakeview Drive will be in
excess of an acceptable limit. Staff thinks that both the traffic and proposed intensity of the use will change the
character of this part of the Four Seasons PUD. For these reasons, staff believes the current restriction of 40
students is an acceptable limit for the facility and recommends denial of the request.
If the Commission, however, wishes to recommend approval of the request, staff recommends that this special
use permit be approved for an office OR nursery school and day care center with the following conditions:
Conditions #1 - #5 below apply to the nursery/day care center:
1. The building, parking and access shall be as shown (with noted dimensions) on the "Plat
Showing As-Built Survey Parcel A-Patio House Section Four Seasons Learning Center 254
Lakeview Drive" by David C. Blankenbaker, L.S., dated July 21,2008.
2. There shall be submitted, no later than sixty (60) days after the date of approval of this special
use permit, an as-built site plan which meets the requirements of Zoning Ordinance Section 32.6
Final Site Plan Content, except for those items waived by the Agent as not applicable. The as-
built site plan shall meet all of the requirements of Section 32.6 and be approved by the County's
site plan agent prior to occupancy of the nursery/day care center by more than forty (40)
children.
3. The number of children occupying the nursery/day care center shall not exceed sixty-four (64) or
the number approved by the Department of Social Services, whichever is less, at any time.
4. A twenty foot buffer shall be maintained between the property and TMP 61X1-AA-B.
5. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and a residential use is
prohibited.
Conditions #6 - #8 below apply to the use of the facility as offices:
6. The maximum number of employees shall be ten (10).
7. A twenty foot buffer shall be maintained between the property and TMP 61X1-AA-B.
8. The concurrent use of the property for an office and a residential use is prohibited.
Conditions #9 & #10 below apply to any use of the property:
9. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and an office use is prohibited.
10. The small evergreen tree on the Four Seasons Drive frontage at the corner of the parking shall
be relocated toward the building, as recommended by VDOT, a sufficient distance to prevent
future line-of-sight problems.
Should the Planning Commission recommend approval, these conditions may need additional "wordsmithing"
between the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors' meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
ATTACHMENT 1:
ATTACHMENT 2:
ATTACHMENT 3:
ATTACHMENT 4:
ATTACHMENT 5:
ATTACHMENT 6:
ATTACHMENT 7:
June 24, 2008 Staff Report
Planning Commission Minutes
Traffic Study by Hurt and Proffitt dated 6-16-08
Orthophotography showing Four Seasons Learning Center
Letter from Social Services Licensing Division dated July 29, 2008
Letters from parents
Child Care Special Use Permits from 1980
3
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2007-01 Four Seasons I Staff: Elaine K. Echols, AICP
I
Learning Center i
Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
June .24, .2008 TBD
,
Owners: Krzystzof and Barbara Sliwinski Applicant: Krzystzof and Barbara Sliwinski l
i
,
Acreage: 0.35 acres Special Use Permit for: Request for I
I
expansion of child care facility in accordance ,
I
with Section 20.3.2.1 of the Zoning ordinance I
i
TMP: 061 X-00-00-00500 Conditions: Yes i
I
!
!
Location: At the corner of Four Seasons Drive and I
i
I
Lakeview Drive in the Four Seasons development I
i
i Existing Zoning and By-right use: PUD - Magisterial District: Rivanna
residential (3 - 34 units per acre), mixed with
commercial and industrial uses. By special use
permit, this facility may have up to 40 students.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban DA (Development Area): X !
i
Density Residential - residential (6-34 units/acre) RA (Rural Area):
and supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools, commercial, office and service uses.
!I' Factors Favorable:
! 1. There is a need for child care facilities in
Albemarle County.
2. The addition of 24 students and associated
parking requirements can be accommodated
on-site or adjacent to the site.
I Factors Unfavorable:
1. Additional traffic from the 24 students
will have a negative impact on the
neighborhood due to the increase in
vehicles and opportunities for conflict,
especially in the morning when children
are being dropped off.
2. The enlarged day car enrollment will
create a use that is out of scale with
this part ofthe Four Seasons
develo ment.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends disC!EEroval.
Lf
ATTACHMENT 1
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AIOP
APRIL 22, 2008
SP2007 -01 Four Seasons Learning Center
Applicant's Proposal: Krzystzof and Barbara Sliwinski are requesting an amendment to their
existing special use permit for a day care facility at the corner of Four Seasons Drive and
Lakeview Drive. Their existing special use permit allows 40 children; they would like to have 24
additional children for a total of 64 children. Attachment A shows their most recently approved
site plan waiver and letter of revision for the facility.
Petition:
PROJECT: Four Seasons Learning Center
PROPOSED: Amend special use permit to increase maximum number of children in daycare from
40 to 64. No residential units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PUD Planned Unit Development which allows
residential (3 - 34 units per acre), mixed with commercial and industrial uses
SECTION: 20.3.2.1, which allows for child care facilities
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential (6-34 units/acre) in
Neighborhood 1.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes_No X
LOCATION: 254 Lakeview Drive
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61 X1, Parcel 5
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(See Attachment B.)
Character of the Area: The area surrounding the facility is residential with townhouses,
apartments, single-family detached and single family attached units. A recreational facility
(ACAC) is nearby. The day care center is located at the corner of Four Seasons Drive and
Lakeview Drive. Lakeview Drive is a cul-de-sac approximately 400 feet in length.
Planning and Zoning History: The Four Seasons development was approved in 1969 as a
conditional use permit in an A-1 Agricultural District. County appraisal records indicate the
building in which the day care facility is located was constructed in 1968. A conditional use permit
was granted for an office in that building in 1969. In 1974, the office use was vacated and a
special use permit was requested for the day care facility (SP 412). It was granted with several
conditions including a maximum capacity of 32 children. Office uses were still allowed under the
special use permit.
Since that time, several changes have been approved by SP and by SOP. A brief history follows:
. SP 89-023 Amendment of SP 412 to reduce the setback of the sign
. SOP 00-72 -- changes to circulation approved on site plan
. Letter of Revision to site plan approved December 5, 2000
2
5'
· SP 02-06 Amendment to allow for 40 children
· SOP 06-55 - changes proposed to address as-built conditions
· VI02004-167 - Notice of zoning violation for failure to build in accordance with
approved site plan
· VI02007 -156 - Notice of zoning violation for failure to comply with special use
permit conditions
· AP 07-02 - Appeal of notices of violation/decision of Zoning Administrator. BZA
upheld decision of Zoning Administrator
· Appeal of decision by Zoning Administrator appealed to Circuit Court; decision dated
September 24,2007 for Applicant to abate the zoning violation; civil penalties
assessed until conformity was achieved
· December 2007 - Conformity achieved
Attachment C contains the staff report, minutes of the Planning Commission meeting and
approved conditions for SP 02-06.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Urban Density Residential in
Neighborhood 1. Because no changes are proposed to the site, the project has not been
assessed for conformity with the Neighborhood Model. There are no environmental features on
the site which should be preserved, according to the Open Space Plan.
Details of the Proposal: The applicants have requested an increase in students to help meet
demand of families in the community who need day care for their children. No building additions
are proposed and the facility can accommodate the 64 children, according to the licensing division
of the Department of Social Services.
The site, with the additional children, requires 13 parking spaces (1 space per 10 children plus 1
space per employee). Nine spaces are accommodated on-site. The applicant has requested
that the additional parking be allowed on-street. The Zoning Administrator has determined that
there are 4 spaces adjacent to the facility on Lakeview Drive which can be used to provide
required parking. The site meets requirements of the zoning ordinance for the expansion and the
Zoning Administrator will allow 4 on-street parking spaces to be used.
STAFF COMMENT:
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,
In evaluating whether a use will be a detriment to adjacent properties, the intensity of the use and
other impacts are evaluated. Comments and concerns of neighboring properties are also
considered. One measure of the intensity of the use in relation to nearby and adjoining properties
is the traffic impact and the biggest complaint from neighbors on Lakeview Drive has to do with
traffic. Based on the number of students proposed for the day care facility, the
3
(;
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Traffic Generation Manual, ih Edition there are 200
trips generated by the current facility. An additional 120 trips from the 24 additional students
would yield 320 trips per day. Calculated with 190 trips from the existing residential uses, there
will be a traffic increase from 51 % to 63% of the traffic on lakeview Drive.
The second biggest complaint from the neighbors has to do with on-street parking. In order to
keep the parking lot available for parents picking up and dropping off their children, employees
often park on the street in front of the houses on lakeview Drive. Occasionally, parking on-street
results in blocked entrances to driveways. From time-to-time employees must be asked to move
their cars away from the driveways. Also, residents use on-street parking at times.
In the County's designated development areas, on-street parking is expected and encouraged,
especially near "centers". A distinction which could be made in this setting is the fact that the
street is a cul-de-sac, rather than a through-street. On-street parking is encouraged more often in
a "grid network" situation than on cul-de-sacs. It should be noted, however, that the streets in the
Four Seasons development are public streets. Even though property owners often consider the
area on the street in front of their house as belonging to their lot, the spaces are available for
public parking if allowed by VDOT. Joel DeNunzio with VDOT has said that the spaces are
available for parking and that on-street parking is not restricted at this location (See Attachment
D.)
Noise is the only other possible impact from this use. The noise of children playing outside is
expected with this type of use. No complaints have been received regarding noise.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The Four Seasons development is a PUD - planned unit development -- which was originally
developed in the 1960's. It has a mixture of uses and dwelling types. The day care facility is
located on a corner across Four Seasons Drive from the Four Seasons Apartments. At this
location, it acts as a transition between the higher density of the apartments and the lower density
of the detached units on lakeview Drive. Increasing the intensity of the day care use at this
location by 24 students and associated traffic will likely affect the character of a portion of the
district, specifically lakeview Drive as a single-family residential street, although it would not have
much effect on the apartments across the street.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The purpose and intent of the PUD is to provide for a mixture of uses and housing types.
Commercial uses are intended to be limited to a scale appropriate to the support of the residential
uses within the PUD. Of course, as with most non-residential uses including religious institutions,
users of the facility come from beyond the geographic boundaries of the development. In this
case, the assessment is whether the scale is appropriate to the district.
When this day care facility was first permitted, it was limited to 32 children. There were two
employee/owners and the facility was smaller. Over the last 6 years, it has grown to 40 children
and the building has been expanded. The issue in this case is whether the scale is appropriate to
4
1
rest of the development. Staff believes that the scale of the operation at 40 students is the upper
end of what should be allowed. Expanding the use to allow for 24 additional children will create a
use that is out of scale with neighborhood due to the traffic impacts, discussed below.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Residential uses are the primary uses allowed by-right in the district. Day care facilities are
considered supporting uses to residential uses in all residential districts.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Supplementary regulations from Section 5 of the zoning ordinance require conformity with
licensure requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services and periodic inspections by
the Fire Official. Because of concerns for the safety of children these types of facilities are
inspected regularly by the Fire Official. Their records indicate the last inspection was in
December of 2007.
Staff has also been in touch with the Virginia Department of Social Services and ascertained that
the size of the facility would support up to 79 children, based on the requirement of 25 square feet
of area per child. Although the law recently changed to require 35 square feet per child, this
facility is grandfathered because the building addition allowed under SP 2002- 06 was completed
before July 1, 2008. If Four Seasons Learning Center were just starting out after July 1, 2008, it
would only be allowed 51 students.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Traffic is the biggest concern that exists for an expansion of this use at the corner of Four
Seasons Drive and Lakeview Drive. With the expansion, staff expects another 120 vehicle trips
per day (inclusive of both staff and parent trips). As indicated earlier, expansion of this use will
make it a larger traffic generator than the rest of the uses combined on Lakeview Drive. This is of
most concern during the mornings when traffic leaving Lakeview Drive is mixing with parents
dropping off children at the child care facility. Added to this are neighborhood concerns about
poor sight distance at the corner of Four Seasons Drive and Lakeview Drive.
One resident said this, "Ingress and egress is so close to the corner that it is treacherous to all
vehicles traveling along Four Seasons Drive and especially to those who turn into Lakeview Drive
from the Commonwealth Drive side. The right turn into Lakeview is "blind" to those vehicles
existing the day care parking lot (and vice-versa) and I have seen dozens of close calls there."
VDOT has indicated (see Attachment D) that there is adequate sight distance at the corner of
Lakeviewand Four Seasons Drive. The perception of residents is different.
Another traffic issue relates to driver behavior around day care facilities. Oftentimes parents are
in a hurry to drop their children off and are not always cognizant of the fact that the facility is in a
residential neighborhood. All of these factors in combination suggest that increasing the number
of children at this location is not advisable.
5
1
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. There is a need for child care facilities in Albemarle County.
2. The addition of 24 students and associated parking requirements can be accommodated
on-site or adjacent to the site.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. Additional traffic from the 24 students will have a negative impact on the neighborhood due
to the increase in vehicles and opportunities for conflict, especially in the morning when
children are being dropped off.
2. The enlarged day car enrollment will create a use that is out of scale with this part of the
Four Seasons development.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Although residents along Lakeview Drive may disagree, staff believes that the current facility
operates adequately within the neighborhood. With 24 additional students and the traffic patterns
and volumes already existing on Lakeview Drive staff believes that the facility will exceed an
acceptable limit and change the character of a portion of the Four Seasons PUD. For that reason
staff recommends denial of the request.
However, if the Planning Commission wishes to recommend approval, staff recommends that
previous conditions be carried through with reference to the letter of revision approved in 2000:
1. This permit is approved for an office OR nursery school and day-care center. The
conditions below apply to the nursery/day-care center.
a. Development of the site shall be in general conformity with the Minor Site Plan
Amendment approved July 18, 2000 by the Department of Planning and Community
Development and later approved by Letter of Revision dated December 5,2000. If
modifications are made to the site, a twenty-foot buffer shall be provided and retained
between the property and Lot B shown on the Minor Site Plan Amendment approved
July 18, 2000 and later approved by Letter of Revision dated December 5, 2000 by the
Department of Planning and Community Development.
b. The maximum number of children shall not exceed 64 at any given time or the number
approved by the Department of Social Services, whichever is less.
c. An outdoor play area with equipment shall be provided and maintained by the applicant.
The play area shall be fenced with a chain link fence.
d. The fence across the front of the property shall be a barrier fence, 4 Y2 feet high, set
back 25 feet from the property line. The fencing on the other three sides of the property
is to be chain link.
6
q
e. No certificate of occupancy for BP 2000-01520 (one-story addition with finished
basement) and no zoning clearance for any increase in the number of children more
than the 32 allowed under SP 74-412 shall be provided prior to completion of i.)
construction of the building addition, and ii.) parking lot approved in the Minor Site Plan
Amendment approved July 18, 2000 and later approved by Letter of Revision dated
December 5, 2000 by the Department of Planning and Community Development
f. No residential use of the property shall be allowed without abandonment of the special
use permit.
1. If the building is to be used for an office, the following conditions shall apply:
a. The maximum number of employees shall be ten employees.
b. A twenty-foot buffer shall be provided and retained between the property and Lot B
shown on the Minor Site Plan Amendment approved July 18, 2000 and later approved
by Letter of Revision dated December 5, 2000 by the Department of Planning and
Community Development.
c. No residential use of the property shall be allowed without abandonment of the special
use permit.
2. No sign shall be located less than five feet from the right-of-way of Four Seasons Drive. It
shall be placed in the general location depicted on the Minor Site Plan Amendment approved
July 18, 2000 and later approved by Letter of Revision dated December 5, 2000 by the
Department of Planning and Community Development. It shall be single-faced and not exceed
eight square feet. Materials, color, and lettering shall be consistent with the photograph
initialed RSK and dated May 17, 1989, in the file of SP 89-23. Any replacement sign shall be
of materials, color, and lettering compatible to the Four Seasons Patio Homes sign, as
approved by the Zoning Administrator.
If the Board approves this special use permit, staff also recommends that the Board require the
applicant to provide a site plan that reflects as-built conditions to better assist staff and the
applicants. The approved site plan waiver is difficult to read and some improvements are not
accurately shown. In addition, the prior site plan will not suffice because this Special Permit
allows additional students and therefore requires additional parking which needs to be shown on
an approved site plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
A -- Site Plan Waiver/Amendment (July 18, 2000) and Letter of Revision for the facility (dated
December 5,2000)
B -- Location Map
C -- Staff report, Planning Commission minutes and approved conditions for SP 02-06
D -- VDOT comments
E -- ACSA comments
7
Jo
~
rag\: 1 U! .J
COUNTY OF ALBEMAIU.E
Department of Planning &: Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823 Ext. 3385
Fax (804) 'i72 .4035
f
.
f
December 5,2000
Sliwinski, Krzysztof and Barbara
c/o Four Seasons Learning Center
20 Lake View Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SDP 00-072 Four Seasons Learning Center Minor Amendment
Dear Mr, and \trs, Sliwinski:
This letter is in response to your request to increase the size of the approved addition to the above
mentioned development. According to information received from the Department of Building Code
and Zoning Services there will be no increase in the number of students enrolled in the school, so the
proposed changes will not result in an increase to the required number ofparkmg spaces, Therefore,
the Department of Planning and Community Development has reviewed and approved your request
as a "Letter of Revision" to the approved final site plan [SDP 00-072 Four Seasons Learning Center
Minor Amendment].
Please accept this letter as final approval for your request. This is viewed as your first "Letter of
Revision", and all construction must be performed in accordance \vith information submitted with
the building permit for this project. You are allowed a total of three (3) letters of revision before all
changes to the plan are required to be submitted In the form of a mmor site plan amendment.
Please upd:lte your records \vith a copy of thIS letter. The Planning Department will fOl"\vard aeap>,
of this 3pprov31letter to the Depattment ofBuilJing Code and Zoning Services,
Please contact the Department of Building Code and Zoning Services for further information
regarding any permits and related inspections that will be required for this project.
If you should h:1ve any fJrther questions. pleJ.se do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
hL' .~~
Stephen B, \\ aller
Planner
Attachments: Building Pennit Jnd Sketch Plan
Copy: SDP 00-072
John Grady; Manager of Zoning Permit Review
John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration
II
Attachment A q
Page 1 of 1
Elaine Echols
From: Mark Higgins SNL: 434-951-7629) [MHiggins@snl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 3:43 PM
To: Elaine Echols
Cc: eechols@planningcommission.org
Subject: Four Seasons Daycare
Hi Elaine,
I am writing in reference to Four Seasons Daycare. I have had my son Jordan there since he was just 6 weeks old (he is
4.5 now). The facility and teachers are wonderful and my son loves it there. They have always been accommodating
and continually keep me updated on Jordan's progress. Daycare owners and centers are not huge money makers,
but the love that Barbara (the owner) shows towards children makes it a rich place. There is already a huge shortage in
this town for such facilities, so it is refreshing to me that I have my son in such a nice place. It gives me peace of mind.
I can recommend Four Seasons with great enthusiasm as I find them to be a positive influence in my sons life and to the
Charlottesville community.
Regards,
Mark C. Higgins
SNL Financial-Energy
Phone 434-951-7629
Fax 434-817-5330
P .S. My line is open should you have an additional questions.
7/30/2008
69
Ql}
"'tl
~ ~
r-ga
~ -.
~~
.. e.
O'I~
~C
~
I
t--..l
C
C
';-..l
C
C
.......
~
~
~
El
c
~
t--<
(\)
~
~.
Q
~
~
""l
v'TJ
Cli 0
-< ~
Cli :::s
- 0..
o ~
"d C.
S 0
Cli :::s
:::s U>
.....(1
V::r
~ .....
<<-
(") 0..
e;
Cli
C
0'1
.......
~
I
C
C
I
C
C
I
C
C
IJ}
C
C
t--<
t:l
~
.:
;;.
~
tl
:"l
\/),
""0
I
tv
o
o
W
I
o
'-l
W
o
~
VI
o
o
I
o
o
,
o
o
I
-
-
tv
'TJ
o
-
tv
VI
0:1 i'::l
Cli s.:
~ ~
e;
V
~
\/),
""0
I
-
\0
\0
'-l
,
o
-
VI
\/), \/), \/), \/),
""0 ""0 ""0 ""0
I I I I
""""'" .....................
\0 \0 \0 \0
\0 \0 \0 00
0'\ 00 0 00
I I I I
o 00-
VI 0'\0-
tv O'\-VI
:E
Cli
U>
.....
Cli
a
i'::l
s.:
(JCI
Cli
0:1
~
U>
.....
:::s
Cli
U>
U>
""0
e;
~
~~~~B
2. ;:4. <. g. @
~::s~~::
..... -< U> Cli l
CliCli::;'.:7~
~~<< ,;:..,~
s ~ ~ ~
Cli 0 ..... >
:::s :::s 0 ,~
H- H- ....... "..
(1 ~ Cli ~
o ~ (")
'2l >-t el"
L,~ ~
o (")
a::r
fn 0
..... 0
0..-
Cli
o
VI
0'\
tTl
o
I
o
o
I
o
o
,
o
o
tv
>
o
o
w
tv
o
o
I
o
o
I
o
o
I
o
W
0'\
o
o
o
'-l
0'\
o
o
I
o
o
I
o
o
I
o
-
VI
>
o
-
tv
o
\0
o
~
~
~oac~~~
~~::n~~;:4.
i'::l ~. ::+ tTl ~ ::r
..... :::s ..,.., :>< 0 (1
0.. (JCI r"' ..... .... . >-t
(JCI """" 0.. Cli >-t 0
Cli v':::S U>
v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.
~ 0.. 0.. 0 Jg
S. ~ ~ V
<::::l 0 'TJ >-t
<:; ;:4. o.
Cli ::r" :::s
U> .....
.",.. ~
\/),\/),\/),
""0""0""0
, I
- --
\0\0\0
OOOO'-l
'-lw\O
I I I
000
tv~o
~oooo
\/),(")0:1
::rOCli
e; \/), S
o ::r" .....
:::s ~ :::s
......>-tqs,
000
:::s :::s :::s
Cli ......
U> 0 r
:::s .....
Cli S
U> .....
.....
Cli
0..
""0
~
Cli
>-t
U>
::r
-a'
o
~
0'\
0:1
~
I
o
o
I
o
o
,
o
o
VI
o
o
o
0'\
o
>
-
I
o
o
I
o
o
I
o
tv
'-l
o
o
-
tv
o
.g
U>
c. ~
::::\/),0
~ ""0-<
~. Cli 2..
:::s :><
(JCI "d 8-
\/), ~. >-t
""OCliw
,o..tv
-~VI
\O:::s.....
000..0
"f~S
00..-
~o..~
00 ::;.' <:
~ o. g:
:::s :::s ~
o..e:..o..
\/), 0..
""0 "d .....
~ , e; c.
~ - (") 0
e \0 Cli :::s
..... '-l - ~
;. \O:::s -
~ I Cli"d
.-o-'~
a ~ ~ ~
a,~f3ir
'-l ..... Cli cr'
VISors.
00:1
Cli e;
~ 2-
(JCI ~
~<<
o ""0
~ ~
i'::lCli
0..0
. ;+
o
~
o
,...,.,
\/),
""0
I
-
\0
00
0'\
,
o
VI
-
\/),
""0
,
-
\0
00
-
,
o
w
-
......
o
U>
Cli
-
.....
.....
o
~
0..
\/),
~
U>
~
(1
S
N
(1
::r"
e;
(p'
U>
(0
~
0..
\/),
::r"
~
>-t
o
:::s
r
......
o
:::s
Cli
U>
o
0'\
-
~
o
I
o
o
I
o
-
I
o
o
-
o
o
o
0'\
-
><
-
I
o
o
I
o
o
I
o
o
~
o
o
00
00
o
v '(;' 'TJ
o _0
~ ~ ~
~ cr'>-t
S . ::r \/),
..... 0 Cli
o ~ ~
:::s U> U>
v Cli 0
I ~
~
5 u
~ ~
>
(1
>
rJl
""C
=l:t:
""C
""'l
o
.....
Cli
~
.....
z
~
8
Cli
""C~
~ ~
""'l ~
&~
~
"'0
~
==
Q..
~ =l:t:
:g~
""'l ~
o ~
~ s'
-=
8
~
==
""'l
o
-
i
Cli
==
.....
~
-
-
o
~
Cli
Q..
~
.....
.....
....
8
Cli
o
....
::c
o
~
Q..
~
=-
~
.....
==
~
'"
~
==
.....
""'l
e:
>
'ij
'ij
'""i
o
<:
g.(j
s' :r
.-+ ......
::r-.....
~Q.
~(j
0'=
'ij ~
S ~ >
(D ~
arJ1~
>~ >
~ ~ n
~ n ==
;!; . ..... · a::
g = tpj
(D ..... ~
~~~
~ ~ ......:J
~~
: ~
.-+
~ ~
o...~
as
o ..... .
~ f""I".
S'~
(')
,....
-
,....
.-+
,....
(D
en
Dear Member of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County:
We are seeking to increase the number of children that can be served at our daycare (the
Four Seasons Learning Center) by 24 children (from 40 to 64). Although we consider this a very
modest request (particularly since the State licensing authority would allow us to take up to 79
children), and the original special use permit (SP 412) allowed up to one child per 35 square feet
(which is considerably more than the requested 64) a number of our neighbors have objected to
our request.
There are some very important facts that have not been addressed in the Staff Report and
there are also some serious errors that need to be brought to your attention.
1. There is a critical need for low-cost high-quality daycare in Albemarle County. Our
current prices are considerably less than other comparable licensed
daycare/preschools. Our current prices are: $180 for infants; $155 for toddlers; and
$140 for preschoolers. A survey of four other day-care/preschools in the County 1
shows that the costs are higher across the board. A comparative graph is attached.
With the cost of living getting more difficult every day for middle-class families in
our community, we believe that the low cost service we provide to our young families
is very important. Our request to increase the number of children at our daycare will
allow us to keep our prices low. If we are not allowed to add children we will not be
able to maintain our current prices.
We get several calls each and every day from parents who are looking for day care
and we have to tell them that we have no space for their children. We estimate that
there are approximately 6700 children under the age of five in the
Charlottesville area (Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville).
Currently, there are approximately 3800 licensed daycare/preschool slots
available. While there are certainly many who can afford to stay home with their
children and not every child under the age of five needs a daycare slot, clearly there is
a great need for this service in our community.
2. Impact on the neighborhood. Even though the daycare has been in operation since
1974 and predates the few neighbors who oppose the increase, the main objections to
our request are based upon claims that the increase will adversely impact the
neighborhood. We believe that these claims have been greatly exaggerated and that
any objective person who is familiar with the Four Seasons Drive area around our
daycare knows that the area consists of relatively dense mixed use development - as
opposed to a quiet exclusively residential neighborhood.
a. Four Seasons Drive. Our daycare is situated at the comer of Lakeview Drive
and Four Seasons Drive. With only the rarest of exceptions there are no cars that
come to the daycare that pass through any significant part of Lakeview Drive.
I The four day-care/preschools surveyed are: Foundations Child Development Center; Apple Tree
Academies; Creative Childcare Center; and Old Dominion Day School.
~ ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ N N N N N
-l>o (J'I 0> -J CD to 0 ~ N Ul -l>o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r ." .....
CD 0 - 011
l>> C !/J....:J0l-:J 0
... ... .,.
::J
:; .....
'" ""' CD _0.0.0 -i en
lC en en
0 CD .,.
l>>
CD f/I
::J 0 .....
.... !/J -0 0 ::TO !/J <D ....-0 ~
CD ::J 0
... f/I .,.
)>)>
@:g
c. -
<D <D
3 -i
ro" iil
!/J CD
N
N
en
.,.
cn......:JW"""":::J-:-
UJ-'(1)_a.a...o
Ujr+:Jm--=,-
N
......
en
.,.
000
<D ::T ....
:J=<D
.... 0 Ol
<D Ol <:!:
.... ... <
<D <D
","",(D_o.o.o -i
.....
co
en
.,.
!/J_ 00 ::T 0 !/J <D....-O
.....
~
en
.,.
!/J .... :J Ol -:J -
0 0
Dl a:
'<
UJ 0 '" .., CD - 0. 0. 0 -i
0 0
::T 3
0 5"
Q. <)"
:J !/J -0 0 ::ro !/J <D ....-0
to.)
w
en
.,.
Members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP 2007-001, Four Seasons Learning Center
The Four Seasons Patio House Association represents 133 homes within the Four Seasons
Planned Unit Development. We are writing to ask that you deny the noted request to expand
enrollment for the Four Seasons Learning Center. The reasons are enumerated below.
1. The Learning Center expanded from 32 to 40 children in January 2008 and that small
expansion has resulted in more cars and most recently school buses traveling not just on
Four Seasons Drive, but on Lakeview Dr, a cul-de-sac street that is less than 500 feet long.
2. That expansion has also increased the adversarial attitude between the home-owners on
Lakeview and the owners, employees and clients of the day care.
3. The school buses traveling on Lakeview pick up and deliver ONLY to the day care. All
the other children (from 3 households on Lakeview) must go to Four Seasons Drive to get
on and off County school buses.
4. Sight distance pulling out of Lakeview onto Four Seasons is poor (which is why there is
no parking on Four Seasons Drive abutting the Learning Center parcel) and the additional
traffic causes additional safety issues.
5. There are further safety concerns due to the congestion that occurs directly in front of the
Learning Center which is at the intersection of Four Seasons and Lakeview Drives. (Cars
going in and out, cars parking on the street, opening doors and gathering children on the
street side, etc.)
6. Lakeview Drive serves 19 homes which could generate 190 vehicle trips per day
according to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Generation Manual, ITE. (5
trips out and 5 trips in.)
7. The Learning Center with 40 children and 6 employees and 2 owners! could generate 192
trips per day (per ITE), already 2 trips more than the homes on Lakeview. (2 trips in and 2
trips out.)
8. The Learning Center with 50 children and 8 employees and 2 owners (as recommended by
the Planning Commission) could generate 240 trips per day-50 trips more than the
homes.
9. The Learning Center with 64 children and 10 employees and 2 owners could generate 304
trips per day-114 trips more than the homes! This is more than one and one-halftimes
the vehicular trips created by the residents! This would be totally out of scale with our
residential street.
I The owners are noted separately since they apparently are not included within the number of employees. There are at
least two owners (Chris and Barbara) who drive separate vehicles in and out at different times.
10. At I space per 10 children and the current stated employee rate of 1.5 employees per 10
children plus 2 spaces for the owners (who are normally included as employees), the
parking required by the Zoning Ordinance should be:
12 spaces for 40 children (4 + 6 + 2 = 12);
15 spaces for 50 children (5 + 8 + 2 = 15);
18 spaces for 64 children (6 + 10 + 2 = 18).
Currently, there are only 9 spaces on the site and 4 approved spaces on the street. Note
also that 8 employees and one owner were observed at a state inspection July 30, 2008,
making the actual rate of employees per 10 children go from 1.5 to 2, not including
owners. This rate increases the parking requirements above to 14 spaces for 40 children,
17 spaces for 50 children, and 21 spaces for 64 children.
II. The true number of employees is actually unknown to the County and can vary from
month to month because it is determined by the state on the number of children in various
age groups enrolled.
12. Parking is limited on Lakeview Drive due to the small lots whose 30 to 50 feet frontages
are being utilized by mailboxes and driveways for our residents.
13. Although the Zoning Ordinance allows for on-street parking to meet the County's parking
requirements for a cay care center, there is no exclusivity for any public street parking and
therefore animosity is created among those wanting to park on the street (Le., homes vs.
business.)
14. Lakeview Drive mailboxes have been frequently blocked by Learning Center employees
who either choose not to use the on-site parking or find the on-street parking in front of
the business already in use.
15. A special use permit is to be granted only if it will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property. Having a business that creates more traffic than the homes on the same
block will cause our property values to decrease when compared to other comparable
homes without a business on the block. The increase from 32 to 40 children has already
changed our character and ANY further increase will make it even worse.
16. A special use permit is to be granted only ifit will not change the character of the district.
Increasing the traffic congestion at the intersection of Lakeview and Four Seasons Drives
and completely overwhelming traffic and parking in our neighborhood will change the
character of our district. This is a matter of size, scale and impact. Enrollment of more
than 40 children on that small lot and short residential street is too big.
17. A special use permit is to be granted only ifit will be in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this ordinance and with the uses permitted by right in the district. As a small day
care of 32 children, the business was correctly sized to be in harmony with the district.
There were few, if any, complaints before the current owners purchased this business. For
the last 8 years, zoning has more complaints and had to frequently inspect the site due to
lack of compliance. Any increase in enrollment will also increase the complaints and
require even closer monitoring by County staff for enforcement. There will be no
harmony between the day care and the residential uses within Four Seasons PUD.
In looking at the information available on-line from the Virginia Department of Social Services,
Licensed Child Care, it appears that this facility has more dates of violation inspections and more
violations per inspection than other facilities in Albemarle County.2 In addition, they have
2 One copy of the violation inspection dates and one set of the violations noted on each date for 2006-08 are attached to
this letter. To view these on-line go to: http://www.dss.virginia.gov/facilitv/search/licensed.cgi. In the Facility Name,
type in Four Seasons Learning Center - then select the name from the search results.
2
numerous "second cite" notations which may indicate willful non-compliance. Most shocking is
that the July 30, 2008 inspection noted that two recently hired staff did "not have documentation
in their record of a central registry check." The explanation indicated that the owner thought the
criminal record checks included sex offender record checks. This may indicate that the facility
has never had complete record checks of any employees.
The July '08 inspection also noted that 8 employees and one owner were present. The Planning
Commission and the County Zoning Division staff were told (for parking requirements) that there
are currently only 6 employees. That number should also include the two owners. Ifthe actual
number of employees was considered, the parking required would be even greater as noted in # 10
above. Obviously, the complete truth is not being told. This is one reason why a parking problem
exists.
Some of the state noted violations were related to their lack of compliance with the County's
zoning regulations, including taking 5 years to make their site match their site plan. Five years is
way too long and certainly helps to explain the neighborhood's irritation with the way these
owners manage their site. These owners amended the prior site plan, so they know exactly what a
site plan is. They then proceeded to build a totally different site from the approved plan. The
County staff made the site plan regulations clear and the Learning Center owners chose to ignore
them. The County should have taken action to revoke their special use permit long ago. To grant
them ANY additional enrollment is just rewarding them for bad behavior. Further, there is
no indication that they will abide by any County regulations or imposed conditions.
Although the Learning Center acts like it is trying to be a "good neighbor" they have been
anything but. Their employees have been verbally rude to our Lakeview Drive residents; they
have repeatedly parked in front of mailboxes and they have been less than truthful about the
number of employees, traffic and parking. One further insult is that during their construction,
they removed our Neighborhood Watch sign (which was within the right-of-way in front of their
parcel) and have never had the courtesy to put it back up.
The County staff recommendation to you and the Planning Commission is to deny the
request to increase enrollment. The Planning Commission, after a long, confusing public
hearing, recommended that the enrollment be increased from 40 to 50 children. However, that
number has never been considered by County staff, the owners, the neighborhood, VDOT or any
other reviewing agency-this was simply a number "pulled out of the air" by a PC member.
Although legal, this is not an appropriate method of making an intelligent decision. The
applicant, their attorney, employees and clients clouded pertinent issues related to the physical
location and impact of this business with the general need for reasonably priced day care. These
folks have not been truthful about their student enrollment, number of employees or the fact that
they are guilty of parking in front of mailboxes to the point where the next-door neighbor put up a
large sign asking them not to block the mailbox.
There is no guarantee that this day care is either a good or caring facility, nor that they will keep
prices in the reasonable range. Again, please read the attached printout of information from the
state's violation inspections or read the information directly from the web site. Some of the
violations are blatant disregard for the County regulations and some disregard important state
statutes such as background checks for all employees prior to employment.
3
The Four Seasons Learning Center should not be permitted to expand beyond the 40 children
currently allowed. This may be an excellent day care, but as with many small businesses, if they
want to grow, they need to find a new site where their impacts will be able to be absorbed by a
more commercial-type location or at least on a street intended for such use and traffic. Growth at
this particular location will decrease property values for at least 19 homeowners and give us no
alternatives but to lose our most important investment. A quick zip code check on the state web
site indicates that there are 43 licensed day cares in the city-county area. There are also many
licensed "family day home care" which is the most common form of child care especially for
younger children, and, unlicensed homes where no license is required due small numbers of
children at each.
The supporters of the Four Seasons Learning Center have compared their operation and location
to the nearby ACAC property. They complain that the neighborhood does not object to the
various schools that have been permitted in that location. The answer is clear if you observe the
situation: We do not object to day care centers or schools at the ACAC property because they do
not affect our small cul-de-sac in traffic, safety or parking. The ACAC property has its own
driveway into its own private parking lot directly from Four Seasons Drive. None oftheir traffic
passes by our homes nor parks in front of our mailboxes or anywhere in front of our lots. They
are totally self-contained. The T-intersection of Four Seasons and the ACAC parking lot is a
straight stretch of Four Seasons with no blind spots to create safety issues. In addition, there is a
right turn lane from Four Seasons into the property. The left-turning vehicles from Four Seasons
Drive into the ACAC property are clearly visible for at least 500 feet.
Special use permits should be just that: a "special" use that is granted to a particular parcel
after considering the location, traffic, parking, impacts on the surrounding parcels and the
benefits or issues that it may cause. In the original 1974 request, the 32-child day care fit
into the neighborhood and the analysis showed that the neighborhood would not damaged.
The building at the time was smaller and residential in appearance. Only 5 parking places
were required and were provided on the site. Those of us who bought our homes knew what
was there and could see that it was only a small business that would cause minor traffic,
parking and noise impacts. Albemarle County has regulations that allow small businesses in
residential neighborhoods. Albemarle County also has regulations that require these same
small businesses to move to commercial locations when they outgrow the residential areas
where they start. This is the case here. This business should not be allowed to "take over"
the residential neighborhood - it should be required to move to a commercial location where
it will fit and not damage the property values of a long-standing planned community.
All of our households thank you for reading this letter and considering our concerns.
,01
~:don Anderson, President
Four Seasons Patio House Association
4
..
Dear Member of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County:
We are seeking to increase the number of children that can be served at our daycare (the
Four Seasons Learning Center) by 24 children (from 40 to 64). Although we consider this a very
modest request (particularly since the State licensing authority would allow us to take up to 79
children), and the original special use permit (SP 412) allowed up to one child per 35 square feet
(which is considerably more than the requested 64) a number of our neighbors have objected to
our request.
There are some very important facts that have not been addressed in the Staff Report and
there are also some serious errors that need to be brought to your attention.
1. There is a critical need for low-cost high-quality daycare in Albemarle County. Our
current prices are considerably less than other comparable licensed
daycare/preschools. Our current prices are: $180 for infants; $155 for toddlers; and
$140 for preschoolers. A survey of four other day-care/preschools in the Countyl
shows that the costs are higher across the board. A comparative graph is attached.
With the cost of living getting more difficult every day for middle-class families in
our community, we believe that the low cost service we provide to our young families
is very important. Our request to increase the number of children at our daycare will
allow us to keep our prices low. If we are not allowed to add children we will not be
able to maintain our current prices.
We get several calls each and every day from parents who are looking for day care
and we have to tell them that we have no space for their children. We estimate that
there are approximately 6700 children under the age of fIVe in the
Charlottesville area (Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville).
Currently, there are approximately 3800 licensed daycare/preschool slots
available. While there are certainly many who can afford to stay home with their
children and not every child under the age of five needs a daycare slot, clearly there is
a great need for this service in our community.
2. Impact on the neighborhood. Even though the daycare has been in operation since
1974 and predates the few neighbors who oppose the increase, the main objections to
our request are based upon claims that the increase will adversely impact the
neighborhood. We believe that these claims have been greatly exaggerated and that
any objective person who is familiar with the Four Seasons Drive area around our
daycare knows that the area consists of relatively dense mixed use development - as
opposed to a quiet exclusively residential neighborhood.
a. Four Seasons Drive. Our daycare is situated at the comer of Lakeview Drive
and Four Seasons Drive. With only the rarest of exceptions there are no cars that
come to the daycare that pass through any significant part of Lakeview Drive.
I The four day-care/preschools surveyed are: Foundations Child Development Center; Apple Tree
Academies; Creative Childcare Center; and Old Dominion Day School.
..
Cars coming to the daycare turn from Four Seasons and almost immediately turn
into the daycare property. When cars leave they are on Lakeview Drive only at
the very end of the street. Because the issues of traffic impact and parking have
been blown out of proportion previously, we have taken videos showing the
peak hours in the morning drop-off (7 - 9 am) and the afternoon pick-up (3 -
6 pm). As anyone who cares can see, under the current 40 children enrollment,
even during the busiest time, no cars travel down Lakeview Drive past any of the
neighbors that live past the comer of Lakeview and Four Seasons, and there is
never any build-up of cars or lack of parking.
The reality for anyone who is familiar with Four Seasons Drive is that it is not a
neighborhood consisting only of single family dwellings, but rather, the entire
west side of Four Seasons Drive is either commercial or high residential density
or apartment uses. Along the same side (east) of Four Seasons Drive as the
daycare it is only north and for a short distance south of the daycare that there are
single family dwellings. The remainder of the eastern side of Four Seasons drive
has the large ACAC and Charlottesville Day School complex and relatively high
density duplexes. Simply stated this is not one of the many areas of the County
that one thinks of as a mostly rural quiet residential area.
b. Traffic and Parking Impact. Most of the objections that have been voiced
concern the impact of the 24 children increase on parking and traffic. We have
commissioned and provided traffic and parking studies that show that parking is
adequate and the impact on traffic falls below state standards. Nevertheless, we
have seen that the traffic numbers are repeatedly misused and distorted.
To aid understanding of the reality - both of the complaints - and of the potential
impact, we undertook to record an actual day and are providing with this letter a
copy of the peak hours from September 2, 2008. The statement made in the Staff
Report that the current number of children (40) has reached the maximum
intensity of use for the property is simply divorced from the reality. The actual
reality - as shown by the recorded periods - is that there is actually very little
noticeable impact from the current use. Of the five hours recorded, there did not
appear to be a single resident - much less parent of a child at the daycare - who
was caught behind even a single car when seeking to exit onto Four Seasons
Drive. There was simply no significant traffic impact. For the vast majority of
the five hours recorded there was absolutely nothing whatsoever going on with
traffic or parking.
Similarly, as the video demonstrates there were never less than four parking
spaces available on site. The on-street parking abutting the property was not used
at any of the recorded times.
Rather than depicting a chaotic and busy impact on the neighborhood from the
daycare, one viewing the video has an experience much closer to that of watching
grass grow. For most of the five hours depicted there is nothing at all happening.
2
'f
The most that ever happens is that the parking lot may have a total of five cars in
it (out of nine spots) two of which are employee cars.
3. Proposed Conditions. There have been a number of proposed conditions that have
been submitted. Some of them are not reasonable.
a. Condition requiring new site plan. This would require a new site plan which
meets the requirement of Section 32.6. Prior to seeking this increase to 64
children we underwent a lengthy and very costly process to bring the property
into compliance with the existing approved site plan. This process included
hearings before the Board of Zoning Appeals. After these many months and
thousands of dollars we had to expend, we were determined to have brought
the property into compliance with the existing approved site plan. We have
not made any changes to the property. There is no reason to impose a
condition that we submit a new site plan. That would result in an unnecessary
expenditure of thousands of additional dollars less than a year after the County
approved the property as being in conformance with the site plan and when
there have been no physical changes to the property.
b. Condition requiring all staff to park on site. Even though the parking study
showed that there is more than adequate parking, the Planning Commission,
apparently as a concession to the complaining neighbors, imposed a condition
that all staff park on site. Although this may have been viewed as a
reasonable compromise to the neighbors, it is ill advised. The shorter the
distance children are to be transported from their cars to the daycare the safer
it is for them. There is no reasonable justification to have parking spots left
vacant on the street and creating a greater possibility that parents will need to
park on the street and travel a greater distance with their children. Since the
daycare is permitted to use the parking on the street that abuts the property it
seems prudent to put the safety of the children first. As far as those using the
street are concerned, a car is a car, and it doesn't matter who that car belongs
to. 10.01.2008
Sincerely,
Owners Four Seasons Learning Center
Barbara Kalemba-Sliwinski
Krzysztof Sliwinski
3
.
.'T1
11) 0
CD c
3 ~
:r
cccn
011)
11) CD
::s UI
_0
!!: ;
00
~ a:
(/)0
o 0
5"3
Q. :i"
0"
~
U1-~0l-~-
l/l""'lD_o.o.O -l
UI -0 O:TO UI <D....-O
U1-~0l-~-
l/l""'lD_o.o.O -l
UI -0 O:TO UI <D ....-0
.... .... .... .... .... .... N N N N N
~ en m ..... co co 0 .... N c.> ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
....
co
0
.,.
....
0'1
0'1
.,.
....
~
0
.,.
....
CD
co
.,.
....
.....
o
-
....
CD
CD
.,.
....
CD
Co)
.,.
....
.....
0'1
.,.
N
....
0'1
.,.
....
CD
en
-
....
.....
en
.,.
N
N
0'1
.,.
N
Co)
en
.,.
.....,. \.?
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Four Seasons Learning Center
Albemarle County, Virginia
H&P Project No. 20080445
June 16,2008
Revised: September 5, 2008
Submitted By: Raina A. Rosado, P.E.
H U RT'~7ti
~~f,;..PROFFITT
INCORPORATED
ENGINEERING' SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL
MATERIALS TESTING' GEOTECHNICAL' SITE
PLANNING
,...,..
Project #: Name
SP-2007-001 - Four Seasons learning Center Amendment
Parcell d entifi cati pn Tax Map 61X1, Parcels 5
Location At the southeast corner of the intersection of Four Seasons Drive
and lakeview Drive
Zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD-R6)
Owner Krysztof and Barbara Sliwinski
Applicant Four Seasons learning Center
Magisterial District Rio
Proposal Request to increase maximum number of children in daycare from
40 students to 64 students
Date June 16, 2008
Revised: August 5, 2008
Contact Krzysztof Sliwinski
Executive Summary
Hurt & Proffitt, Inc. has conducted this Traffic Analysis report in accordance with the
methodology and standards developed under VDOT's Chapter 527. The purpose
of this report is to determine whether the increase of 24 students at the Four
Seasons learning Center would adversely affect the traffic on lakeview Drive and
Four Seasons Drive. The report will document, analyze and synthesize the findings
of the project to date in terms of the current and historical characteristics of traffic
associated with the existing Four Seasons Leaming Center located off Lakeview
Drive.
To do so, Hurt & Proffitt, Inc. conducted capacity analyses in accordance with the
methodology and standards contained in the 2000 update to the 1998 "Highway
Capacity Manual" published by the Transportation Research Board, using HCS
2000. The results of the analyses indicate that the studied intersection shall
operate within an acceptable condition according VDOT standards of a Level of
Service (LOS) of D or better.
Existing Conditions
The Four Season Learning Center (61X1-5) has an approximately 2900 sqft
buildi.ng which functions as a daycare for children from 6 months to 5 years old.
There are 9 existing on-site parking spaces and 5 off-street parking associated with
this land use.
Four Seasons Learning Center is located on the southeast corner of Four Seasons
Drive (VA Route 1456) and Lakeview Drive (VA Route 1458). Four Seasons Drive
and lakeview Drive are two lane undivided highways. The studied intersection is a
two-way, un-signalized intersection controlled with a stop sign on Lakeview Drive.
Four Seasons Learning Center - Page 1
',0
In the project vicinity, the highway is posted 25 mph. The existing sight distance at
the studied intersection is 280ft. The existing entrance is approximately 50 ft east
of the intersection of Four Seasons Drive and Lakeview Drive.. The project site is
zoned as Planned Unit Development (PUD-R6). Four Seasons Drive and Lakeview
Drive are under the jurisdiction of the Virgir)ia Department of Transportation.
Traffic Counts and Field Observations
Field observations and manual traffic counts were collected at the intersection of
Four Seasons Drive and Lakeview Drive. Turning movement counts were
collected manually at all of the nearby intersections on Tuesday, September 2,
2008. The traffic volumes obtained from these counts were used as the basis for
the analysis presented in this report. The existing (2008) peak hour volumes are
shown in Figure 2. Based on the traffic counts, the peak periods are as follows:
r;
Four Seasons I Lakeview Peak AM Hour- 7:45 AM to 8:45 AM
Peak PM Hour - 5:00 pm to 6:00 PM
Trip Generation
The estimated trips generated for the existing Four Seasons Learning Center was
based on the ITE Trip Generation Handbook ih edition The table below illustrates
the estimated trips for land use "Day Care Center - 565" based on the AM and PM
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 and One Hour
Between 4 and 6 pm according to student population.
Land Use
Da Care - 40 Students
Da Care - 64 Students
PM Peak
34 Tri s
51 Tri s
It should be noted that generally weekday AM and PM peak hour for this land use
typically coincides with the peak hours of the adjacent street traffic.
..
Four Seasons Learning Center - Page 2
"," ,
Photos illustrate the current lane configurations along Four Seasons Drive and
Lakeview Drive:
Four Seasons Drive (1456) & and Lakeview
Drive (1458) Looking South
Along Four Seasons Drive (1456) Looking North
Along Lakeview Drive (1458) Looking West
~--
Four Seasons Leaming Center - Page 3
.(
Existing Level of Service
The Highway Capacity Manual was used to predict the Level of Service (LOS) at
the studied intersection. The methodologies used are described in the 2000
update to the 1998 "Highway Capacity Manual" published by the Transportation'
Research Board.
Four Seasons Road SeQment - "Class II two-lane roads serve scenic and
recreational areas in which vista and environment are meant to be experienced
and enjoyed without traffic interruption or delay. A safe roadway is desired, but
high speed operation is neither expected nor desired. For these reasons, there are
two (2) performance measures to describe service quality for two lane highways:
Percent Time Spent Following and Average Travel Speed. A LOS criterion uses
both these performance measures." (Highway Capacity Manual, HCM2000 Edition)
For these reasons, Percent Time Spent Following is the parameter used to define
the level of service for this existing section of Four Seasons Dr. The ranges of
Percent Time Spent Following used to define levels of service are as follows:
Level of Service Percent Time Spent FollowinQ
A S; 40
B >~.~
C >~-~
D > 70 - 85
E >85
Note: LOS F applies whenever the flow rate exceeds the segment capacity
Four Seasons Drive currently operates at LOS A during the AM peak hour and at A
during the PM peak, both of which are within VDOT standards of 0 or better for
Level of Service. Copies of the calculations are provided in Appendix A.
Table 1
2008 - Existing Condition
Intersection LOS Summary
Peak Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Intersection LTR LTR LTR LTR
Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
Four Seasons AM. A 9.9 B 10.3 A - A -
@ Lakeview PM B 10.2 B 10.7 A -- A --
Trip Generation and Projected Traffic Distribution
The methodology presented in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (7th edition) was
used to estimate the number of trips generated by the additional students from the
Four Seasons Learning Center. This method provides rates to determine the
number of trips during both the AM and PM peak hours. The generated trips were
assigned to the roadway network in accordance with the arrival/departure
Four Seasons Learning Center - Page 4
r'
distributions illustrated in Figures 3 and 4.
2014 Build Traffic Volumes
Figure 5 illustrates the 2008 Build condition traffic volumes, which combine the
2008 Existing condition volumes and the trip generation volumes summarized, see
appendix for calculations. Table 2 summarizes the overall LOS and delays for the
studied intersection in the 2008 Build condition.
When the Existing and Build conditions, are compared the studied intersection
operate at an acceptable level of service. It should be noted that an increase in
delay of 0.4 seconds is expected, however, the studied intersection operates at an
acceptable level of service.
Table 2
2008 - Proposed Condition
Intersection LOS Summary
Peak Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Intersection LTR LTR LTR LTR
Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
Four Seasons AM B 10.3 B 10.7 A -- A --
@ Lakeview PM B 10.6 B 11.1 A -- A --
Recommendation
According to Virginia Department of Transportation - Chapter 527 under a rezoning
condition, a commercial development shall substantially affect transportation on
state controlled highways if it meets or exceeds one or more of the following
criteria:
. A. Within a jurisdiction of a VDOT maintained secondary highway system, if
proposal generates more than 250 vehicle trips per peak hour of the generator
or 2500 vehicle trips per day at the sites connection to a state controlled
highway.
B. Within a local jurisdiction which VDOT does not have maintenance
responsibility, if the proposal generates more than 250 trips per peak hour of
the generator or 2500 vehicle trips per day and whose nearest property line is
within 3000 feet, measured along public roads or streets, of a connection to a
state controlled highway.
Based on the above trip generation calculations, the introduction of 24 students will
not substantially affect transportation on Four Seasons Drive or Lakeview Drive as
this proposal does not meet the threshold set forth by the Virginia Department of
Transportation. Four Seasons Drive and Lakeview Drive will continue to operate
within an acceptable level; no measures are necessary or recommended.
Four Seasons Learning Center - Page 5
.'
,L:-.---..
. I, .!
~~ i
11 L 1
11 L 11L
45-25C1
scc
45-
25D
45-256
;-
ilK"
45,-11U
):i:t
j:!F
\
\
\
45-25C
SCC
/"
/,"-
45-2665
45-
45- 2664
26B3
45-26A2
11T1 f11~11 M 1
11T ~ 11M
.,ti 11M
11N2
11P1 11N11 N1 .:
11P 11N/
gg 11 P 1 //
- 11 8'.'/
// /
" 45-25G1
/'
45-
25A 1 /
-'
/'
//
,/
45-25G
45-25A
>/
-'
45-26
45-23
45-22
,~~(I\:~~'.
.\~'c:(
;:.1.
!,: t
:" ~
n'
t:
~
~.
~
E:
61-8
-
"'
~\r~:;~~ \ l~r~lfiY"j::.
:. f~.,,4;~~ 112.1~1~ ;4'3/ ' ~r;
\'liit'~~~: ~ if? P-~N"-- ...., i ,.,'i'I~
. : '~'A'.~i ;:lll, ; ~ ~ -."Iiii,'! j~l~
61X2-48 ',~iEl!'l!'-' - i 11' 'f ;:,. . ~~
~;~i~;J~ !;::~~~:I:~~! I'; /;~~
". '~I,.!,.r!tt'ol'N:N !:~. i>:~i~~::lo'11 ," ~~...,
: ~~~;~:;.~': a .;~ :Nl,~;~:cotl~.~l . ~ .~~'(;. ~4;~ 'I.:.
;_._._...._-~-:-.:.=;::\' _1e:!~II~.~:~,~:~1 /: ~,~i"......:'~.
~-;-N;P;.'..n III "ID :ltt IOIU'hO'~'IO: . lM :,. /'
;~~~'~l~'~' ~ .------, I ~/
:N ~,~'NiN: ~ I ~;~ '
l!l!~:~.~';;;J. :'1'1''1 'I I '61X2-2
~~-::-::-- ~g:Elgl~1 ~1
._~-;;,~ \ ID ID~ ""/ ;&;ir.:oe.J.\
-~~!!1~;~:~:<.>" I ~~
~~a'\~.~.~ ~. I :r--'
~~y,y,r.,,~~ . -:;-~;;":~iP
~i'" '- ~_t.~ ! !a';;tl.~\
110 ., :~..__ .a,. ._;; ~~ ~..
:. ".:;;';;~H{.-H -
61M--05-4
,/
'. 6),
, ,~':f~\~'a
..t\~ \'1"
"-'''- '.".. ,-;,/
1 M--05-1. "
I '
I I- ..
-'IIDfc;;
. - J ~
. -111 i ::<
jl'-- -I f i {,
i:~lM-04-lO gj ~
[~';=~9, g I j
~.;;' -~ r-r
~~1M-04-8i I !
i~,ti _.__-j l~
i:~1 M--D4-7 . I $
~-~__ -J!
j;"
>'"
i';"
i~ :,
5rTE
~<'
't
.,/.'
.~ --
~,
\'::;:':'.,;,:".~.,:-:
51X2-4D
51 X2-1
\
\
'.
:~~~i'\,",.
\
'.
Scale
10 \60' 240
Albemarle County
Tax Map:
061 X1
(-
L '0-
1//
~;1~
.........--~
uJ
F.et
NOla; This map I. for display pUIpOS.' only
and showI plllcels as 01 12131J2oo7.
Sect MfJp Book Inlfoduc/ion lor nddilional de/ails.
Four Seasons - Westpark Plaza Condos
..c
< 51
Z
~
o
(f)
c';:
o
~ I~' I~II~I
~
:::JO
o "t"""" eN
LL ___ "\":"""r
.'0
Q)
0..
Des
~
~1Ol
---~
[3 ~ j)
---
@] 0 c=)'
~O~
Z? ~ If]
u. cr> Lakeview
GooCU
u
Q)
0..
Ped.
(")
N
~ ~ ce
';/:::::'
~~I]
E E
co Q..
!.DO
~o
.. .,
c:oc.o
I I
E E
co Q..
LD 0
~o
.. ..
t'-LD
CI)
c
o
-+-'
-0
C
o
()
c
-+-'
CI)
><
W
I
N
(])
s...
,~
LL..
1 wo~way ~}op L.OmrOI
.page 1 ot J
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst Raina Rosado Intersection Four Seasons'f'Lakeview Dr.,
AQency/Co. Hurt & Proffitt, Inc Jurisdiction IAlebemarle Countv
Date Performed 9/3/2008 Analysis Year 2008 - AM
Analysis Time Period AM
Proiect Description 20080445 - Four Seasons Earlv Learnina
East/West Street: Four Seasons Dr North/South Street: Lakeview Dr
Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): -
0.25
lVehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T .
R
!Volume (veh/h) 4 123 8 ..
12 110 1
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.83 0.83 0.83
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 4 130 8 14 132 1
Proportion of heavy 2 2
vehicles, PHV -- -- -- --
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Upstream SiQnal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
!Volume (veh/h) 11 0 14 14 0 8
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.69 0.69 0.69
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 14 0 17 20 0 11
Proportion of heavy 2 2 2 2 2 2
vehicles, PHV
Percent grade (%) 0 0
Flared approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Control Delay, Queue LenQth, Level of Service
~pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
rv'olume, v (vph) 4 14 31 31
Capacity, cm (vph) 1452 1446. 760 704
'rv/c ratio 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.04
Queue length (95%) 0.01 0.03 0.13 0.14
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 7.5 9.9 10.3
LOS A A A B
!Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 9.9 10.3
[Approach LOS -- n A B
'I
i
I
HCS2000™
Copyrighl @2003 Univershy or Florida. All Righls Reserved
Version 4, I r
fiJe://C:\Documents and Settings\rar\LocaJ Settings\Temp\1l2k25B.tmp
9/5/2008
1 wo-.way ::itop control
, 0
ragt 1 Ul 1
nNO-WAYSTOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst Raina Rosado Intersection Four Seasons 'l'Lakeview Dr.
~qencv/Co. Hurt & Proffitt, Inc Jurisdiction Alebemarle County
Date Performed 9/3/2008 t\nalvsis Year 2008 - Existino
Analysis Time Period PM
Proiect Description 20080445 - Four Seasons Earlv Learnino
EasVWest Street: Four Seasons Dr North/South Street: Lakeview Dr
Intersection Orientation: East-West StudY Period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
- -~
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 5 185 15 17 143 20
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.88 0.88 0.88
.--
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 5 198 16 19 162 22
Proportion of heavy 2 2
vehicles, PHV -- -- -- --
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Upstream Sional 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 7 0 20 4 0 4
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.67 0.67 0.67
Hourly Flow Rate (vehlh) 8 0 23 5 0 5
Proportion of heavy 2 2 2 2 2 2
vehicles, P HV
Percent grade (%) 0 0
Flared approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Control Delav, Queue LenQth, Level of Service
6.pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
Volume, v (vph) 5 19 31 10
Capacity, em (vph) 1391 1356 724 640
vlc ratio 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.02
Queue length (95%) 0,01 0.04 0.13 0.05
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 7.7 10.2 10.7
LOS A A B B
Approach delay (s/veh) -- - 10.2 10.7
, Approach LOS -- -- B B
HCS1000™
Copyright (!;;) 2003 Univcrsity of Florida. All RighlS Resefl'cd
Vcrsion 4.1 f
file://C:\Documents and Settings\rar\Local Settings\Temp\u2k25E.tmp
9/5/2008
.c
< "E1
Z
~
0
CJ)
c
0 [ID
CJ) ~')
CO
Q) l.n
C/)
~ '0-2..
:J 0
0 CD
l.l..
"0
il CS Q)
0-
j} ~
~
0 y \==J
0
~
(f
u cr> Lakeview
?f2. Ped.
o
""
I~I
"'0
Q)
0...
~ ~~
CJ)
c
o
:+::;
:J
.0
.C
-+-'
CJ)
o
CO
>
.C
~
<(
I
Ct')
Q)
~
:J
LL
"- j
0
CfJ 00
C ~
0
CfJ <(
CO
<D
(f)
l-.
::::J
0
u.. "'0
C]) en
il CS 0... c
0
-+-'
::;
..0
jJ ~ .C
#~ -+-'
en
c..o ~ 0
L.() I'-
Q)
"-
~ ::J
q t
ctl
C])
(f #rnJ 0
~ ~ CD I
~ N ..q-
Q)
s....
11 cP ::;
Lakeview
"'0 LL
(]) Ped.
Cl.
..r::.
< "E1
Z
'. .....
~Ii
.;.:t;i;;:,
.iKt~~~.>
':'\";.'
,'!:,~~ . ..
~. "~'..
'.":~' .'
Day Care Center
(565)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Students
On a: Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m.
Number of Studies: 70
Average Number of Students: 67
Directional Distribution: 53% entering, 47% exiting
Trip Generation per Student
[ Average Rate __'
l 0.80
Standard Deviation
Range of Rates
0.39 1.78
0.92
Data Plot and Equation
150
x
.x:. . . . .~....:,.' .
.................... .
140
..,:.".,:"..;,.,.:,,//,.
. . . .... .
,x.:,.,. .'. >~~~< '
130
, .
, , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,
.. ...... ........
120
110
, . .
..... - -... -.....
. . .
90
, ,
. . .: - - . . ~ . ;. .-:....--:... . - . .: - . . . : - - - .:. . - .
,:...' x
. ., . .
xx... ... .;x;Z,..... ',....
..x 'Xx,/"XxXq, p p'
':. -//- x -" ':x' ..:- - .. -:. -' . -: - . ..:. .' . .:- . . .:. . - -:. . . - .
(/1
"0
c:
ill
.9-
t=
Q)
(3
:c
Q)
>
Q)
OJ
C\'l
Qj
~
11
I-
100
x :
80
. -" - -... -.'
, . '
70- "...'"
60 ," ,. , . . .., '
"j,(. .
- - . - . . - .
. -.....,.................'.... -......
- . . . . - - .
x'~?>< x
" ..' .,...} ~k."xxXj 'x~. ..,.... ....... ........'.... .......,.. ......... .......
30 : x :,' x : : : x: :' .,. .,'
, ,): .
'x" .,x::. .. >\.
.X .. x
'. x.
50
, '
. . . . . . . . . .
, ' .
... . - - -. -......
. ' .
20
10
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
x = Number of Students
X Actual Data Points
- Fitted Curve
-- - - - - Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: T = O.73(X) + 5.24
R2 = 0.70
Trip Generation, 7th Edition
1045
Institute of Transportation Engineers
...
Day Care Center
(565)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Students
On a: Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m.
Number of Studies: 71
. Average Number of Students: 69
Directional Distribution: 47% entering, 53% exiting
-.--------
Trip Generation per Student
Average Rate
0.82
Range of Rates
Standard Deviation
0.95
0.24
1.72
Data Plot and Equation
,x
190
. . '
,................................... .
180
. . .' .'
................................. .
, . . . . . . .
170 -
....... ",.. ," ,', ",.. .',.... -........... ,'... ..... .,....,....... ",..
160
. .' ,...",
......................................................... .
. " .....
150
. ..,.. ",..
, ,
."........... ...
, '
140 - . . , , ' ' . . , '
. .,... ..,..."..........-
....... .....:.. x :",,>'Ekc'<:...
. . ".
en
"0
C
UJ
.9-
f'=
Cll
u
:c
Cll
>
Cll
Cl
Cll
Qi
~
II
f-
130
. . ' .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
120
. "
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
, '
........ .
110
,..... ".., ...., ....
. .:'X.......,.. ,."
, . ' . . . i" .'
" ....:...:... ..... .,... .... ..,.,1.......'...;... ..... .',..... .........
),( ,,X' :
, ".' . ';( , . ':' . , , : . . . , .x' ':' ' , ':. ';,'~' , , .,. ...'".,...".,,',. ,"
, X ,x' ' X'"
80 ."", , ,. , , .'. ' , .', . , .', , , ' , ,l<(. : . . ,,":l<. ~~" ,
. ' ' : x: : :/'
.:....:x...:....:.x...~...;.~.,;~". ..;.;,.. ."
. ^ x"""'>::",."
: ~ :x/' .x '
60 "" ":' X 'x'~' :"~ ':'~'>" . x"'''' " ,', ' .. .. . ." ...", ,,,,,.,,,,.
50 ."" . " .:" <~" : .. t . ~':x" .:.. ..;. ,,;. " : " . :-- x;..
40 - ,. , ~. ' '~~'f/,~; . ~ X~,...:,.,:...~". ': . , ':. . ":. , . .: . . ' :'. ':' . ':' . . ':. ' . ':' . .
, ; X ~. ' .>s: .X " . " . , ' ' , . . ' " , . .:' . . -:. ' <- ' , , '.. . , : . . . ':. . , ':' . ' -:' . ' .' , ,
~;..;>:' .'
/;'~; .. ':" ":" " .. . " " ' " . .. .. . ..
10 . . I 'f . I ' I . I ' I' I' I ' I . I ' I ' I . I ' I
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
100
90
, ' '
,...... ....'
, ' .
70
30
20
x = Number 01 Students
X Actual Data Points
- Fined Curve
------ Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)::; 0.87 Ln(X) + 0.32
R2::; 0.61
Trip Generation, 7th Edition
1046
Inslilule 01 Transportation Engineers
, ,.""~~~" I '.
:!.~}~~1!;) .
"'. ,,'.
:;r,s:~'-: '
I:
}i~;.
, ,
, '
, ,
. ......
.........................................................................
., .....
, .
. . .
"'::=:."'"'ij\.~RAr-~(,,< "'c.~,u.0(,!" . ,
':'"1 .:\~r~rr:m:+ .-:c;.,et'f"<:
,G~I"fs,PN.~..TI1.!!~2I.tml~T(ql!'~fjH'-<. .. .
"
. '
: L"J,.,,~~.oL
.(,v.;~~,.
HURT
JOB _,__--DAY~~ - T M FF Ie. c:;, Tu 1::>y'
PROFFITT
INCORPORATED
CALCUI.ATEO BY __~tf DATE 6-L '-I ~._
CHECKED8Y _____ti4/?___._______OATE _f6.-I-/to !-o_~_
...... ._ ,..I__..,...__...._,__".."". ,...'
SHEET NO
Of
ENGINEERING. SURVEYING, lAND OEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL
GEOTECHNICAL ' COt~STRuaION TESTING & INSPEalON
25241 l;anghomll Ro.'ld Ilyro;hllUlg. Virginia 2.1501
43~.a.17.n9(j , 8OO.242"lg06 . Fax. 434.80n'(JM1
\WJW,llalldP.com
SC.ALE
. . . .
.............,................
. . . .
. . , ,
, . ,
, . ,
.,..............................
. . . .
, . .
, . .
, . .
, , .
, , .
, .
, .
,................
.................................1.
.................,...
.........................
, ,
. . . . . . . .
"'"""':"''' "'" ".T.'''''1'''''''T''''.''j''''''''!'''''' T'." ,
.........................
, , ,
. . .
, , ,
, . '
.... ..................
, , .
. . . . . . .
<J,~~'~ <~ (:o""p~.P.t~S..j,,,j.,,,,.j.,,:. , .
~~~~pA1: "",; R6.&~.t~t--'.t..:j..~,~J)r..M ."~,T.~1Gr.l,,, '~r"Q.
,.4>. ,,,.Lr..~..,,9,,',,t3,,~,,~,),,",,t, "~~"~~,,,.,,L."',,l,..
~~:,J~ b 13 t '{d). i t-.t;-, zl,\ i :
""'.;"'"'"'''r:;r~~'''T~'r~l~"'..'.L"'T....''r...'l''.''
""" "'''.:'' r....~.<>'''T''...T'''.''(
......
. ,.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
".............................".......................................... ....................... ...........................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. , . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
l.c~J",..:,s.~9.,~j,""""j",'",)",m"l,,,,: : : : , : , ".i'''' "'j"...".~.."
~'~~::~<T..::T,..,....:...'.;:.,~,',.,&,~,.,',..:::.B,~,..,".>..'.:.:.:.:,'(..~,J:).~,., ,..':.,..~,',:,~.',..=...~:..,.,.,:,.,:,...',".;::,....,.,'.':,..N,'.i,..,..,..,...,",'...,.i..,..I,'..,.,', ~E(~~~Cb~k~;~1)~~::L:
,I:.;) ~ ~->;.\ : ",!..,...!....~.":\4c)..b..,lp,..~T.,j,L.~,(4j.>....d~,,',.~.z.L......
: T~ ~ I. ~ ~ :Wri ~ ~ .:' J~<t>,l:=..,j~,.I.t.,~,~l ':":.."....L....,,
'lIl[i:'[!+..': rr:?~e:
, .
. . ..
. . . . . . . . .
.........................-..........................................................
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . .. ..
. . . . .. ..
. . . . .. ..
. . . . . . . . . .
,.......................,.............................................................,....'
. . . . . . . . . .
.. ..... .
.. .... .
.. .... .
.. .... .
.. .... .
.. .... .
.. .... ..
.....................,........................................ ............... .
. . . . . .. ..
. . . . . .. ..
. . . . . .. ..
.. .... ..
.. .... ..
., ... .
.. ... .
. . . . . . . .. .
.................................. .,......".............. ................
. . . . . . . . .
, , ,
, Ail
e: xP MJ $( c>((J
, ,
, ' ,
. . ,
................."............
, , .
, ' ,
, '
, '
, '
. , ,
, ' '
, ' '
................... .
. . .
.................... ....................
. , .
, , '
.................
. .
. .
. .
. , .
,..................
, , ,
. , .
, , .
. ................
: '.'j'!~ ''''P'''l' ~1.t!,?-,:o,,"~.!,~1. ,+~{~)+Q~l$.~, :
... ;.....,.,j""'".;, ".." f? ,,'hl(,\ .4.r) [.. .~...(I ,: 2>.;1:... J,11[~.~) \.. .:t:r.3.~,.." ,~..."..,
: : : ' : :(: : , : : , : : :
,.,.,:.",.,..!..,...,,;,.,., ,.;..... .,j"~~.:r.~,~l.,i':~r:::r.....i,.,.,...:'......'i""::::r..::::'1'::':::'
, . .
...............................
. . .
, . ,
. . ,
. . . ,
...................................
. . . .
. . . .
, . ,
, . .
, ,
. . . .
. . . .
..................................
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
.. ..
" . .
.. . .
. . . . . . . . . .
.............................................................................................
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . , .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
.............. ................................"........................
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . , .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .. '"
. . . . . . . .
- . . . . . . .
........................................................ ...................
. . . . , . . .
. . . . . . .
. "
, '.
, . .
................................
. .
, , .
.......,..............
. ' .
. ,
. .
, '
, ,
. .
, ,
. , ,
,.....................
, , ,
, , .
, , '
, .
. . . . .
.............................................,
. . . . .
.. ..
.. ..
., .,
.. ..
., ,
,. ,
, .
..................................
. . . .
.. .
" .
..................
, .
.. ..
.. ..
. . . . . .
.................."...........................,....
, . . . . .
.. '"
.. ..
.. ..
, . . . . . . . . . . . .
................,...............................................................................................
.. .... .
.. .... .
.. .... .
.. "" .
.. . .. .
.. . . . .
.. . .. .
. . . . . . . . . . .
...................................................................................................
. . . . . . . . . , .
. . . . . . . .. .
. . . . . . . .. .
. . . . . . .. .
. . . . .. ...
. . . .. .. ,..
. . . . .. ,..
, . . . . . . . . . , . .
...............................................................,........................... ......................
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .. .....
. .. .....
. .. ... .
.. ... .
... .
.. ,
. . . .
...................................
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. , ,
.......................................
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
.. .
'. ,
. . . . .
...........,....................................
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
......................................................
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
............... ........-. ..............,
. . . . .
, . .
, , .
,. ,
. . . .
....................................
. . . .
. . . .
, . .
....................
. . ,
. . ,
, . ,
. . .
'............. .......... ..........
. . . .
. .
, .
. . . . .
..............................................
. . . . .
. . . . .
. .
. .
: :
.................
, '.
. ..
.. ..
. . . . . . . . . . .
. ..........................................................................'.................,..
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .. ..
. . . . . . .. .,
. . . . . . .. .
. . . . . . .. .
. . . . . . .. .
. . . . . . .. .
. . . . . . . . . .
................,..................................................................,.
. ........
. ........
. ........
. . . ....
. . . ...
. . . ...
. . . ..'
, , ,
. . .
...................,........
. . ,
. . .
, . .
. . . .
...... ......................... .............. ..,.....
. . . .
, , .
, , .
. . .
. , .
. . .
. , .
. . .
........................ ......
. . .
. . .
c5
~
Ql
.;;: co
Ql 0
-" 0
CIl N
...J
0 Cl
III c:
c: Vi
0
III ><
CIl
Ql W
(fJ
~
:::l
0
ll.
o 0 0 N 0 ~ ~ 10 ' . ~
c54: I I 4:
(/)'c7;~ I I-~
c: Ql I I: gj
~'~ I I 3: ~ ;fl. ';J,
Ql..E "'tC"',o"'''"'''I~..:E M~No
U) 'e. ..-,..... N C"') M N M M e ~
!:iLl. 2 I I u. ,2
~ {5. I I (5.
. I I
C C"') NI....l.O "I""" ~I'l"""
I I
I I
! !
00,....00001..-
III I I
~ I I
C;. I I
I I
- 0 "'I'" N -.t Nlo
. 4: I I
0'5 ~ I I
;~:b5 I I
:~ ':E 0 0 010 0 0 0 0
-"'e:::l , I
Bu.i: I I
" I- I I
I
lei";:' 0 ~ -.t IN <0 '" '" I'"
I'. '.'5 I I ., , ij,
I 0:: I I 0::
I:',>:':. I I
o 0 010 0 0 0 (0 :
U) I I.; . ~
I' . al I I I. Ql
I ..0;. I I' 0;.
. I'
. ~,~ ONNj'VNMM,Nj.,::";
I I.~ 'lij
I I ..~~
I I W ~;fl.l6
C1l ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ I~ E. 0 ~ N 0
I I J:2;:
: : I': (5.
'.,
o 0 ~ 10 0 ~ 010 .", ~
".:E! I I:E
1;;';< ~ : : ~
I
"". vi N -.t "'I~ N '" N I'" ':..;" 'vi co
,~ I I f"i
,0;. I I ,,;.'''0;.
" I I
--.t "'I'" "''''NIO
';','4: I I
'o€;3 I I
f~,~ . I I
i~::'E 000'0000'0
,,",0 I I
Bit ~ I ,
I- l l
o 0 010 '" ~ "'1'"
E I I ,g,
~ I I " ii':
t I
I I
I I
I I
~ I I
i= I I
1:: I I
<75 ::!E::!E::!EI~::!E::!E::!EI::!E
<l: <l: <l:1<l: <l: <l: <l:1<l:
g ~ g I~ g ~ ~ I~
" " "I" ici ici ici lici
o 0 0 0 0 0 2.,0
rI)
"0
OJ
0;.
o ~ NIO N N NI-
I I
I I
.1 I
:E!
Cl
0::
15 <; %3
'~',":gf...J
.~;w
:&'l E
(JJ 8 .
;~Ll;,~
to
0 0 0 00 00 0100 ONI N
'" I I '"
"0 "0
OJ I , ,OJ
0;. 0..
I I
-.t ~ 0 NN N~N ~~ N~I ' ., -i{j
ci -= I I 4:
.en Ui OJ I I _..0)
...1 "ff) ....J
C Ql ! l Ql
gs: 5: '" ~~
(11 - i{j 0
OJ E '" N 0 <OOl coo ~I~~ ;~I E N N .
0
C/) e N -.t <"lM "'... e co
:::l I I 2
~Ll. i: Ll.
0 I r s;;
Lc l- I-
I I f-i{j
~ 0 Cl ~O o~ N1.... to 1I'l_1,
~
.E I I ~
s;;
0> I I Cl
i:r I I oc
,
0 0 0 00 0 ~"'Io 0 OOj 0
'" '"
"0 I I "0
OJ' Ql
O. l l 0..
~ 0 ~ ~ NO 0 tOl~ N ~"'I:. f- ;:::-
4: I I 4:
O-:s;; Ql I I ,cQl
0- ...J _...1
:::l .:l
~o , I 0 ;fl.~
o!!1C/) enf- '0 ""
> E 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00' E N N .
Ql 0
~e 2 I I' e 2
~Ll. s;; I I, Ll.s;;
l- I !.... I-
~ ~ 0 '" 00 N "',.... ... ,... "'" ~: 1:-'0
N
:E! I r! :E!
0> Cl
0:: I r 0::
I I
0 0 0 0 00 0 0100 0 01 0
'" I I III
"0 "tJ
Ql I I' .(1)
0.. f ! 0;.
N ~ 0 <"l ON '" "',....N .... ....,: f-;::
c5 ~
= I I:; 4:
Q) (I)'
",- ...1 ~ I' u; ...1
c:'"
0."' (11
IIlW I" W 0 o.!2gs
m E E f- M <0
(I) N .,. (') to N.... ... ~I~~ ~ g)f ~ N .
en e '" N N '" '" '" e ... 0
sLl. :::l I I u. :2
i: I J: s;;
0 l- I-
Ll. I (,:
.... .... N ~ "'0 '" "'I'" '" "<t <0,11 ,f-'O
:E! I ,<.i:N Iii,
,0> I 1;(, i[J)
oc I !;i oc
~ Cl 0 ~ ~~ 00100 ~Nt; <'?
'" ",. "
", I E. "0 ;"
,.Ql ,; '(I) "'.1
,. 0.. I ~ -:1;' ':: Q;'
I
~ ~ N - -<"l N tOl~ _ - ~
4: I fY: 4:
_O,€ (I) 1 l;::~ :c ',Q)
...1 ,1:: ."",
.~ 0 1 .0 ;fl.""
QlZ Z - '0
:s; E 0 0 0 00 00 000 00'" E <ON~
,Ql I I'
~,e 2 e 2
"",Ll. J:: I r Ll. {5.
I- ~ (
I" -~
0 0 0 o~ ~o ol~~ NOI
:E! I I :;:
0> Ol :.,
0:: 1 I 0::
I 1
I I,
I I. 2:-
I I '~ E
(I) I I, 5ci
E 1 I
F (fJ.0
I I '-~
t :::lCD
III ::!E1::!E ::!E ::2::!E1 ~ c!, J::
U5 ::!E::!E::!E::!E
::!E ::!E ~ 0.. a.. 0;. 0;.10;. a.. a. 0..1:.. -" 'R u
0.. 0;. 0;. 0..0"'0 (11
!;;18 ~g~I'. &'l'" _ 0 >
0 ll) 0 It'JO__M ~~ Ill.
0 '" ... .. .. .. ;gIg UiU'ilfilo.. ~it
M ;..; M ..vvv {2<l:
<"l000 2.s~
'"
"0
,Ql
0..
co
.E
Ol
0::
0
III
",
Ql
0..
-;::
~
.c;Ql
, _...1
:::I
o
en
E
o '
~:::l
u.;-
,c
'I-
~~~
'ONNo
't
~
o
N
't
.;;:!
€~
.',0
Z =N~~
E oNNc:i
,e :::l
Ll.~
F
-co
2:-
(11
E E
5 ,oi
~~
:lClO
o ,
;~ ~
(11.1'- 0 >
Ql n;~~IU.
a.. - I
r=.<.tflo..
0
~
'>
Cl>
"" oo:t
'"
-' ...
"0 0
c: N
'" I
c5 :E
Ul ':;
c: CO
0
Ul
'"
Cl>
en
5
0
L1.
(ii.....;.
c:'s
,01.'0
~;i
~
:g!"iii,...,... 0 0
"- .... IJ') It) 0" 0)
S.~....OMMNd
.E".
~~.~
y- 10'0
cn~~
'VNci
Q)
E
"
g
c:
'E
~
in
C1l
s=
C>
:c
<t
"i
E
"
a
>
5
o
s=
""
'"
~
II
(;
ti
'"
Ull!.
c: ~
'" "
~~
.~~
o..tf
II II
~~
0.0.
'ii_
:~':~
].:;-
I---
'ii_
~~,r:;:~'~
]; -J.- v ~ N d
f
"
a
>
c:
'E
'"
':
in
Cl>
.s=
'"
:c
<t
I
"
a
>
~
:J
o
,J:
""
'"
C1l
C.
II
(;
ti
'"
UlLJ..
c: ~
'" "
.~~
Cl>""
"0 '"
Cl> Cl>
0..0.
II II
Ulu.
ijl::r:
0.0.
'..
III
~c
0.
III
]0
0.
"0 -I-
...: c:
C g~ '"
I~:~~ ..J
.~~ ~
...:ll:E I---
~.e
" .LJ..
:0
U.
~~,~
NNci
2~
~~
I---
~<O
.~ N
0::
III
110
0..
I---
~.='D .~"O"
C+4C: ..J~
~g g
~U)LlI---
~,S€
.~ ,.J~:o , .2
:7..~ z '~ 0
:::1-'--
/I...".~ ~
:0::
;1;~g
NO
..
r,
;;
c:
Ql
Ol
Ql
-'
"01---
.C
C, '5 01::
;g;:~ ~ j <t
,Ill,::: IJJI-'--
,md:'
tJ)':.e
'.~:Ll.
O.
U.
~~
....~
'...
I-'--
~'"
ji:~
III
]0
c..
I--
." '01:: N
o-~,~ ;g j N
,.~g :5
.!!! :.UI 'Ll ~
~':~~ ~:' ,.:,~ 0
.....
..:.-
,"
..s=
::2 ~
,0::
" .',:
,:,.; ,:
",',:.:: ..
!
le;\
(.:,,' -
0' 01::",
:~:;~ 'E j N .,
:o:\ll 5 0 0
,lQ " .c _ _ .... ;F. "!
;(1) ..st) : ~ N -0
~:.~ ~ ':'i~ ~ .'
;r~,." ~ ':
III
alo
[l;
....
~'" : .~ ~
;:,y ,
..... ."
.''-:' ..
",>:: , i
'11I
;.,' "C 0
:c>> ,.
.:. .': ,0..
~I-
"
.. ."0 ~ <t I..
c€ 'c j ~
,~ .05
.!!! Z :c _I- N ;F. g
~ES NN'o
~ 0 :~ ='
~.U:~ .co
....
-I-
1:
]co
"
E
g ~..
:I:E~
~s~ ~
~en~-I~e>
,:,;!!l J:!E
{:.<.-aer:..
! "tJ)
."g 0
0..
1---
...::
C~g
:cn''t;] ..J w
.e,.C'O :s
.~.;~ ].--- a"#. ~
~ o's 1ij - N ~
:;U:~ ~~ :.':
~' '....~
:.
,""':""
jo
..' .,ji:N
..,
III
.~~ 0
'0..
c--1-
c,c'Cc: ~....
1::. -l
i~ 0 is 0
.!!! Z .0:--1_ co;F. '"
.~ E:5 N 0
~ 0:) :::J
jU:~ ",=0
....
'--
1:
]<t
0::
~
in
g>
-'
E
S~ ci
~E8
'is';; '5
ell ~ I n)
ll.rnO 0>
'R ~15 :c u...
LO~I.it;F.it
~
0
(f)
c
0
(fJ ~~
cu ~
<D
Cf) ~ C0
I. \
i._ '--_..)
:J 0
o. ~ r(J1)
LL ~ .
...- L1 -0
Q)
il CS D..
.[~ ~ j) '\b ~I~I
~
@] 0 y ~ o~
G ~ If N~
co N ~
11 LP Lakeview
'"0
Q)
0.. Ped.
C'J \@
N
~ \ \
~ rl
G ~G
co ,@
~ i'1J
.c:
<"E1
Z
E E
" co 0..
LOO
~O
.. ..
COc.o
I I
E E
co 0..
LOO
"'i"0
.. ..
I'-L()
c
o
:t:
"'0
C
o
U
-0
Q)
CJ')
o
o
s-..
D..
I
LO
Cl)
s-..
:J
LL
Two-; Way Stop Control
, .
page 1 01 1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst Raina Rosado Intersection Four Seasons "/Lakeview Dr.
AQency/Co. Hurt & Proffitt, Inc Jurisdiction IAlebemarle Countv
Date Performed 9/3/2008 Analysis Year 2008 - Build
o.nalysis Time Period 4M
Proiect Description 20080445 - Four Seasons Earlv Leamino
East/West Street: Four Seasons Dr North/South Street: Lakeview Dr
Study Period (hrs : ' ,
Intersection Orientation: East-West 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 4 123 19 29 110 1
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 . 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 4 136 21 32 122 1
Proportion of heavy 2 2
Ivehicles, PHV -- -- -- --
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR' LTR
Upstream SiQnal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 . 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
volume (veh/h) 22 0 27 14 0 8
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 24 0 30 15 0 8
Proportion of heavy 2 2 2 2 2 2
vehicles, PHV
Percent grade (%) 0 0
Flared approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Confiquration LTR LTR
Control Delav, Queue LenClth, Level of Service
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
Volume, v (vph) 4 32 54 23
Capacity, cm (vph) 1464 1423 731 656
v/c ratio 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.04
Queue length (95%) 0.01 0.07 0.24 0.11
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 7.6 10.3 10.7
LOS A A B B
Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 10,3 10.7
Approach, LOS -- -- B B
HCS2DOO™
Copyright <0 2003 University or Florida. All Rillllls Reserved
Version 4.1 r
fiJe://C:\Documents and Settings\rar\Local Settings\Temp:u2k261.tmp
9/5/2008
Two-Way Stop Control
) It__
Page 1 of2
TWO-WA Y STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
~nalyst Raina Rosado Intersection Four Seasons 'j'Lakeview
Dr.
lA.aency/Co. Hurt & Proffitt, Inc lurisdiction Alebemar/e County
Date Performed 9/3/2008 nalvsis Year 2008 - Build
~nalysis Time Period PM
Project Description 20080445 - Four Seasons Early Learnina
EasUWest Street: Four Seasons Or North/South Street: Lakeview Or ..
Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs : 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Maior Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 5 185 26 30 143 20
Peak-hour factor., PHF 0.93 0.93 ..,#
0.93 0.88 0,88 0.88
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 5 198 27 34 162 22
Proportion of heavy 2 2
vehicles, PHV -- -- -- -
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Upstream Slanal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 14 0 40 4 0 4
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.67 0.67 0.67
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 16 0 47 5 0 5
Proportion of heavy 2 2 2 2 2 2
vehicles, PHV
Percent grade (%) 0 0
Flared approach ,N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Control Delav, Queue Length, Level of Service
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
Volume, v (vph) 5 34 63 10
Capacity, cm (vph) 1391 1344 706 596
vie ratio , 0:00 0.03 0.09 0.02
Queue length (95%) 0.01 0.08 0.29 0.05
Control Delay (s/veh) : 7.Q 7.7 10.6 11.1
II;:
LOS A A B B
Approach delay (s/veh) ~ ." . -:.!(i" . 10.6 11.1
Approach LOS -- n B B
I
1__file:IIC:\DOCUments and Settings\rar\Local Settjngs\Temp\u2k264. tmp
9/5/2008
_I
Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company Addition
SP 2008-47
A special use permit
amendment to increase the
size of the outbuilding
previously approved by SP
2007-13 from 26' by 46'
(1,196 square feet) to 30' by
60' (1,800 square feet)
;t:;.
.--
1--
.--
. The outbuilding would be
used for general purposes
including an exercise room,
storage, and a restroom
I=-
--
fib..............'........
Wi'
Stony Point
Volunteer Fire Company
. SPVFC has purchased a larger
building for less than the cost
(per square foot) of the smaller
building approved with SP
2007-13
. Larger building would not be in
"general accord" with the
approved concept plan
referenced in SP 2007-13
. Outbuilding would be located in
the same area as approved with
SP2007-13 - in the rear ofthe
property
1
Summary
· Staff has not identified any factors
unfavorable to this application.
· Staff has identified the following factor
favorable to this application:
· The existing facility meets an important public-
safety need. The new outbuilding would help
the fire company meet space needs without
creating new impacts on the surroundings.
Staff and PC Recommendation
Approval with the following condition as modified by staff
since the Planning Commission's action:
· The size and location of the fire station and
related improvements on the property shall be in
general accord with the conceptual plan entitled
"Conceptual Plan SP 2007-13," prepared by
Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc., dated
3/22/07, revised by the applicant and received
9/3/08, provided that the outbuilding identified
as the "Proposed Change" to the originally
identified "Proposed 26' x 46' Outbuilding"
shall be no more than 2,000 square feet in size.
2
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2008-47 Stony Point Fire Staff: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner
Department Addition
Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
October 7, 2008 October 8, 2008
Owner/s: Stony Point Volunteer Fire Applicant: Stony Point Volunteer Fire
Company
Acreage: 8.02 Special Use Permit: 12.2.2.3, Fire and
rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09)
TMP: Tax Map 48 Parcel 18D Existing Zoning and By-right use: VR-
Location: 3827 Stony Point Road (Route Village Residential: agriculture, compact
20), 0.2 miles south of intersection of Route residential (0.7 unit/acre); EC - Entrance
20 and Route 600. Corridor: Overlay to protect properties of
historic, architectural or cultural significance
from visual impacts of development along
routes of tourist access
Magisterial District: Rivanna Conditions: Yes
RA: Rural Areas Requested # of Dwelling Units: n/a
Proposal: Expand existing fire station by Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural
adding outbuilding for storage and office Area 2: Rural Areas - preserve and protect
uses. agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural,
historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5
unit/ acre)
Character of Property: Approximately 1.2 Use of Surrounding Properties: Small and
acres of the property are occupied by the fire large-lot residential. Stony Point Elementary
station, an asphalt parking area and a clearing School is adjacent to the northeast.
to the rear of the station. The remainder of the
property, to the east of the fire station, is
wooded.
Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable:
1. The existing facility meets an No unfavorable factors
important public-safety need. The
larger new outbuilding would help the
fire company meet space needs
without creating new impacts on the
surroundings.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit, with one
condition.
Petition:
PROPOSED: Expand existing fire station by adding outbuilding for storage and office uses.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: VR - Village Residential: agriculture, compact residential
(0.7 unit/acre); EC - Entrance Corridor: Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural
significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access
SECTION: 12.2.2.3, Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 3827 Stony Point Road (Route 20), 0.2 miles south of intersection of Route 20 and Route
600.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 48 Parcel18D
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
Character of the Area:
Stony Point is a crossroads village. Historic aerial photos indicate that the village was very small
(with only a school and a few dwellings) and surrounded almost entirely by farm and forest land
through the 1970s. Since the 1980s, many nearby properties have been converted to small- and
large-lot residential development.
Specifics of the Proposal:
The Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company (SPVFC) currently is staffed with 3 fire-rescue personnel
during the day shift and 3 to 6 on the night shift. SP 2007-13 brought SPVFC into conformance with the
zoning ordinance, as well as allowed a new outbuilding for storage/exercise room to be located to the
rear of the fire station. The following condition approved with SP 2007-13 specified that the
improvements would be "in general accord" with the concept plan submitted with the application. The
concept plan depicted a 26' x 46' (1,196 square feet) outbuilding.
1. The fire station's improvements and the scale and location of the improvements shall be
developed in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled "Conceptual Plan SP-2007-
00013," prepared by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor Inc., and dated 3/22/07.
Subsequent to the approval ofSP 2007-13, the SPVFC was able to acquire a larger building for less
capital than the smaller structure. The SPVFD has asked that they be allowed an approximately 30' by
60' (1,800 square feet) outbuilding. The outbuilding would be located to the rear of the fire station, in
the same location approved with the previous special use permit. As the difference in building size
exceeded what the Zoning Division believed to be consistent with "general accord," it was determined
that the larger outbuilding would not comply with the condition of approval and that an amendment of
the special use permit would be necessary.
In order to provide additional flexibility, staff is recommending the following changes to the condition
should this amendment be approved:
1. The Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company's The fire station's improyements and the scale and
outbuilding shall be no more than 2,000 square feet and the location of the improvements
outbuilding shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled "Conceptual
SP200800047 Stony Point Fire
PC Oct 7,2008
2
Plan SP 2007-13," prepared by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor Inc., dated 3/22107, revised
by the applicant and received 9/3/08.
Plannin!! and Zonin!! Historv:
SP2007-13 -- The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 12, 2007,
unanimously recommended approval and on August 1, 2007, the Board of Supervisors unanimously
approved the application with the condition as recommended by the Planning Commission.
On September 3, 2008, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to expedite the application process
for SP 2008-47.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan:
The Fire and Rescue Services section of the Community Facilities Plan recognizes the Stony Point
fire station as one of the facilities that "safeguard the community against the damaging effects of
fire, and in some cases, provide emergency medical (EMS) first response services."
The Comprehensive Plan states that higher service levels and lower response times should be
available in the Development Areas. However, Service Objective 2 of the Fire and Rescue Services
section establishes that there is an expected service level to be provided in the Rural Areas. The
Stony Point fire station is an existing facility that helps to provide that appropriate level of service.
Service Objective 3 states that the County should "Construct fire and rescue stations at strategic
locations throughout the County to help achieve desired response times to all emergency calls and
increase the level of service." Although this is an existing station, the planned expansion would
help increase the level of service by providing the fire company with more space to accommodate
their activities.
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits providedfor in this ordinance may be issued upon afinding by the
Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
The larger outbuilding will not change the character or overall impacts of the use. The new building
would be located immediately adjacent to the existing fire station and would not be any closer to
adjacent dwellings.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The increase in size of the outbuilding is not expected to change the character of the district.
The fire station is located on an Entrance Corridor. However, the new building is not expected to be
visible from the Entrance Corridor and will not have an impact on it.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
This fire station use is in harmony with a purpose of the Zoning Ordinance:
1.4.4 To facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation,
SP200800047 Stony Point Fire
PC Oct 7,2008
3
civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests,
playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements;
with uses permitted by right in the district,
This fire station use provides a public service for the residential and agricultural use permitted by
right in the VR Village Residential district.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
5.1.09 FIRE, AMBULANCE, RESCUE SQUAD STATION (VOLUNTEER)
Each fire, ambulance or rescue squad station (volunteer) shall be subject to the following:
a. Any such use seeking public funding shall be reviewed by the commission in accordance with
section 31.2.5. Specifically, the commission shall find that the proposed service area is not already
adequately served by another such facility. In addition, the commission shall consider: growth
potential for the area; relationship to centers of population and to high-value property
concentrations; and access to and adequacy of public roads in the area for such use. The
commission may request recommendation from the Albemarle County fire official and other
appropriate agencies in its review;
This proposal is to allow a larger storage building for the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Department
than approved with SP2007 -13, providing additional, useable space on the interior of the existing
fire station.
It does not adversely affect the finding required above in 5.1.09(a) that has already been met by the
existence of a fire station in this location..
b. Subordinate uses and fund-raising activities such as bingo, raffles and auctions may be
conducted outdoors during daylight hours and shall be conducted in an enclosed building at
all other times. (Amended 6-14-00; 10-3-01)
This section only establishes standards for potential future uses of the site. The fire company has
not expressed intent to host these activities as part of this application.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Virginia Department of Transportation has not offered any additional comment concerning the
proposed larger outbuilding.
The Virginia Department of Health has stated that the facility would need an improved septic field
if any new personnel were to be added to the site. However, this larger outbuilding would not
increase staffing levels.
If the fire station expands in the future, it will need to amend this special use permit amendment. At
that time, VDOT, VDH, and any other concerned agencies could review the expansion and
recommend any needed improvements.
SP200800047 Stony Point Fire
PC Oct 7, 2008
4
This use supports public health and safety by providing facilities for fire and rescue personnel to
serve residents of the northeast portion of the County.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The existing facility meets an important public-safety need. The new outbuilding would
help the fire company meet space needs without creating new impacts on the surroundings.
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 2007-00013 under the following condition:
1. The Stony Point Volunteer Fire Department's The fire station's impro'lements and the scale and
outbuilding shall be no more than 2,000 square feet and the location of the impro','ements
outbuilding shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled "Conceptual
Plan SP 2007-13," prepared by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor Inc., dated 3/22/07, revised
by the applicant and received 9/3/08.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Conceptual Plan for SP 2007-00013, received 9/3/08
SP200800047 Stony Point Fire
PC Oct 7, 2008
5
e:(
I-
Z
w
:!:
::I:
()
e:(
l-
I-
e:(
~ 5:g....
~ ~;~~
01l!.0Q.
j ~~g~~
- ~;t~~~
~ ~rig~~
g! ~~i:f
~ ~~O~a:
o ~;~g~
~ ~~~i1)3
z lM~~~g
r~
t; 09
.........:0
~~~~
oPx~
o::G!.o<
~5t~
0"<::-
~~@g
~~g~o
~~~~~
~~~~:
2z20Q
~s:~S
~~~g~
;j 1~
u::gQ,
0"'''-
<,0
---lD~a.
:;{::.. f2
EN~
~T~
..<
SNOIS,^3~
ON
vi .. f;:
~~ ~R:ZOZ
--J~~ ~~~~~g
i~:~~i9~i~~
~uw~8o::~~~B~
[jj<j!: 5' <<II( 5
C;;:;Ci~5g&,,~1o!
~i!5~~~31~15~~l>l
(:j~g~~g~~~~~
CCU1f<clij!1ll: '"
~~~I"ffi~::~iil~!f
I"~F<i! 'l;JOlg"
in g:~~'1i~~i'!$gi
III "jw OIlJ",R"~flQ,
I- a:~:ci80Ul0W~g;<
~ g~~gil!~~"i~~
.;:; ~Z~~G:(Htn~ts~~
u ",gw"'ffi I"" ''''
~ ~l:J;;~~<i ~~~~:i
~ e;", I!'::>!lj <90~~
u ~llii~geg:~~~~~
w
.J
III -'
~
<
~
lri
~
~
tl
~
~
al~!:J
~5CO
~sg
~~~
OJ ':/
i@"
<~bi
!lion;;:;
"":I:
~:I:;i
I( ::E
~g;
~~~
)-4W=:l
"I"'''
~
ij;
~
r
~
!;l
~.~ =:so
",:;;115
<::>'"
~g~
U~~Vl
"'1i1~6
!:lQ,"'"
~~ffi~
~",Q,ffi
~o,,"
~,.~~
@a*~
~
b2
~~
"
1l'1
-'ij
~~
'l'~
;~
d~
~~
, ,
~~
~
Sl~
::g
2;;
~~
. ,
~~
"'~
8
~
w
o
<
'"
'"
iJi
z
u::
b
. ..
~ ,
!,z
~.
ci:::
~~
0. I
~~
H
'" ..
5l~
b~
I,
~!
~~
lii~
a
~~
0)
~
!j
001
:dJ
01):
~
~.;:::
. e ~
!~~
jf~ l!
~~R
6. "
!<B
14-
;~
~i
Nil
T;r
%",
~:::
~~
~f
~i ~
0)
8
~ v; ~.,
o ~l..J .LiJCI~ .
Q,~Q,ci:l =~jE~/n~
~~~~8~~~gg~O
i!',,~~~i!'~gfl"'''~
~~ ~o~a::~tla..~U)
WWi~~'"~ion~i5dffi
Cl "'~w<';:d i!5~ i::-
N -I'~ ua:fj:r:
~O~g~lIi~-<,,~:z~
:::!~ -"'~5;;:I:~w;;i
.1;(~~<a.. ~!:m~~
-ln~ws~~<c~tj~
~ ~~;;G~t;jll:~n'i!
t;"'<;!;1" ~z~"li!~
~~~;ff~~~fj~B
g- ~w -z~iS <~
","'"j~"'~~ou~zg
O~2oli:~J:~-I~-
~Gc~<i~Ul8!:i...~~
I!'~a;!~~~~~~~o
~813;1;~il!~iJi:;1~~i5
oj
'7,A";---
~~
~~ln
...<
>-~"
~<i
ffi~~
~i!5~
lrlF:W...J
'>1<3;;<
J9ZD;
c 0",
~~i~
:jmow
<~~~
~:!~:;;I
~3i!5g
"'F
~<~~
t;;;:;"'fl
<{5UQ:'
i"'~a
8~~il!
,.;
"
"
o
HI
<
~~
~~
EijE'
~;:~
l'5\j~
;t~tn
uc'"
~@i
d <w
w;;:;!:!
~~~
g:~~
~-c
:r.ez
III "~
~~:;!
<Gig
I!'~~
~w~
u;;<
i w
~~j;~
~LiJ@5j;
~~~g
~iJi~!;i
i5~:r~
~~~~
~i!5~i3
Ei~~f1l
-1000
<3~31g
~Q,~g
d~b~ (fj
bl~5i b
0"'iD8 z
&~!Q"', .J
g:;;:;o~~ ~
~dg:~ ~
III
l!l
\
AS (J3>lJ3HJ
nOOO-LOOZ-dS
ueld len~da~uo~
..
.,;
AS 'l4\'~Q
),8 03N91S3a
03lON sv 31VOS
~
c
F'
<~
10
!lJ::?
lIfb fil
gS! ~
s~ ~
~~! ~
;;;~~
~Uli5
~~~.
<J;<
~~~
~filg
~~;
u-'
~~~
.,.
I.IV!i_............
",
~J
'"
'"
!'Ii
'"
z
Si
w
'"
>-
CD
l-
S
~
U
~
~
:;1,
\i~
0.8
=1,,-
<0
-'
oj
-- '.
~
~
10
~
z
o
i=
o
III
en
::!E
w
I-
en
>-
en
z
~
a
i1
~
z
o
~
w
en
::;;;
~
en
>-
en
z
~
a
'" ..
~ ;;;8
~ ;~
i ~~
. Nil
~ :i:i
f ~lii
~ III iii
~ ~ ~~
I on I I
5 i ~ ~
,; t:I ';1
~ ;! it
8
~
cC;;-
~ffi
g~
<>-
Q,~
~~
8"
~
III
ffi
H
'" I,
C >
"''''
b
~i
" ,
~~
~
e",
~ '.
J
- ,
I~
~e
,:
R!:
'"
..
I
~~
Ig~
:: I I
~H
0) 8
~
.~
,"/Wlq";tOp LOOl: 'Z:O Jdl(
IfINI~,M
...
31~1f1'13811f
0:
W
CD
'"
::> U.
Z 0
B
ili
lN3l1\JHfifd30 3tJl:J
tJ331NnlO^ lNIOd ANOiS
I'-- cif.D
o zO
~' r-&l
<~ f,ln
"'ag
a R:;::
:$ Cl
i(i). ~8
~ Hi! ~
1:: f( "1
:i UJg
5 ~::llii
Ul <c Iil
Ul u c
i ~
Q.
Z
o
F
<(
'"
'"
~
;!;
u
1'i
r>\
o
>- ..,
I>'l 0
> ~
p:; ..
~ -<
Q g
z Cl
j~~
313M
8~j
~~>
~-<&l
l:Q~~t--
CI)~o:;l
<[;i..:l~
;::;;:<QIll..
~~~l
E-uo () "lfI
V .lN3WH~V.l.l V
~
o
en
-OO.r;
u
!I1
~
~
Q
W
>
-
III
U
IU
ra=
I-
Z
w
:&
C-
O
...J
~
W
C
~
Z
::::>>
:E
:&
o
o
~
0:
::>
III
z
i'! :;:
> -'
< lID no..
o~tl~;: ~ 0
~~o.:o.:a.: -
.ai fij I-
~~~;~ t5 9
~~aiaiaj N
OlllOOO
.............
uJ
z
'"
o~
OC
"'~
!;
ti
'"
ci
o
W
'"
u:~
ffi~
~o.
13 3;
~ ~:;h~
a: ~....,
~ ~o.:ti ~
'"
~ ~
~ In
co
c:::l
c:::l
C".I
Cf:)
o
Q..
UJ
en
fij
Z
o
N
-;0.
ili ~
s 9
~
I
i
~ ~ 'f
i < ~~
'" I'g-'<
d !~!I
g i i~ i
I i ~~i~
i ~ ~: 0-;
:. 1~~li1
~n~
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
II
~ ill
~ '"
~ ~
~~:
~ ' J
~h
~~~
~ai
z
o
1=
o
W
III
to-
Z
w
:l!
w
>
~
to-
..J
-c
:r
a.
II)
<C~
;i~
~~
~b
I- %
'"
<
0:
o
lD
W
C
g~&
~~~
u::~~
!;;~o
5 >5
51;;;;
ulig
~~~
..~~
:J ~
~
\,
~.
U
d
n
, Ii b
~ ~
1'.' ~
~~:ll
;:j b I'
i~a;i:-
ie~~
~ 8H;
~ ~p~
<~~~~
~~HI
~~iSg
u~5~~
z
o
r::
o
w
In
...
Z
w
:IE
w
>
0(
a.
w
to-
w
a:
o
z
o
o~
-I'"
-clil
00
~~
I- !i!
!
!
~ 3 4.,
I ;~fi
~ i~~1
~ ~~i~
~ ~!i~
e t~~
~h~
j
~~
~b
Ii
~~
l~
!;!~
.
~
......
",on
00
0.0.
w
~
: ~
~ i
'"
'"
<
III
"'I="
!i,~
0.
"'0
.~i1i
:!:.::..
, .
"'10
...1-
<<
n
5ll
uu
<<
66
~~
..J
~
C
C
~ ::I
:5 [;!
..J g
o ...
m ~
t>r~~
o
... 0.
8@
I;
!i
I'
~
~
'"
~~
..,<D
<Dil
~f
0;<
::l~
~~
lD~
"Ii!
~~
~IH
OH
Z"
l!i~l'i
~~~...~
0-0 3iE
<~ "!l
~::l~~1"
i~~~1
I&J~~~U
~g~~~
i~~~o;
h~n
~~~~~
g~~g~
/il < l'i'
e~~lEh
<"'a;l:o.1i
S~'!'B~~
F"FFuli:li:
f:!
e
i!
~
~tJ z
~~ ~
'<" 0:
"'0: I'
~~ !iJ
0," _
H ~
U ~
~I I
"'I ""'I''''V ", WOH-"IW," 0' """" '"''''I" ., I"'" "~ ""'IOO..V ,~ '''H-<'IW," " ""lIo,do" 'W '~'''I~'''~ "H." '"'""" ,"WOOO, .", "" .",,,., Mdo'dwl '00 '0 ..e.. ',.,cd.,d ... " ",,,. 'OJ .,.", P"' ...d'ed ,,,o.d. .'" '" 'I"' P',".,~ " "'~'" '0 "'W"''"I "' .. '~"., ,..""..", '""'" ,"0 ..d."" .'" '''< "",,'c, '".we"p .,'"
'"
;E
..,e
<De
~~
u
0-"
U
:=~
1"0-
n
i~
H
~o-
;/~t;;
u"'1:l
~h
h
Co.
~..
~~
~~
~i
I~
IH
~~
~~
H;
\'jc
~:5
<Dill
~15
1'0-
~~
"
ri
..
rri
rri
'''Olla S-9009(Orll-X :SJ3J:l'lC
nooJ:tll:JnOll"o1 '6.....P.IIHS-900il(O(lI\OV:J\UOllo~S IJlj 1U/Od ,(UOIS - 900\1I00-UQ ,(1:) lIJOUleq,V _ gront\:)!
""'.,u
U~4Ptt 'It
::J-
.-
11II=-
5-
.--
1IlI--
.--
- --=~
.., --
~
-
........-.-----.....
..L-
::J- 11-
.-
11II=-
::J-
;@-
.-
.-
q;-
.-
.-
.-
.-
.-
.-
.-
11-
.-
>-
is-
.. --=~
., --
~
iY~
1
SUBDIVISION PlAT
SHOWING LOTS A lit B
A DIVISION OF IMP 32-48
RIO _OlSTRICT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY. VIRGINIA
'..-n:~\ol;;"'!~",,,\,,,-,,)Of..l"""''''
.__c""~"-'_,~!
'\~yi/5!v;~~'
'-...... ~w. 'UPl'"
""'"....
COUNTY PL/MUNI ClMfIISION
IOAAD OIF SlftRVl8llRS
--...
NOT.lAY P\aIC
,-,-..,:iii;-y~:c. ~~',:';-,-
...,..
;1/( ,',':, "!V':.~" !U; .~; .';,;/JfIP< ,(...(~~" {C;f
'_ ,'" .k 4Ii m-~ It;JT C[r ;~ ~~ ..'<;/{1.,
.'-';~:'l""'_:r:711)o.l.1:'
/
~~
~'~/}~:l;~t),
GiY>li(jr ~,lQ,W,~ }1 0,','( ,w ,-0( "":i>l"~il[~' >/' '''I~ p- H
"-
/q,<:~~ '
/
Iiiiiiii
r~ii'-,-~
I ~ ~EM::~~~
;.:. ~:fu~':~ "AA'JO
~-'I'_~-=-=~
IL
""'"
T
lOHIN&:
PAACEl aUA
~&~...!!!...H:.
~~~.
i"
I < ~'~Jl r ' :..,-,<~.~: . I
I ,~-::'"i I ="~::L"" I
LL___ __ __ ~ ,.,...". '\1___)
2
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4012
September 12, 2008
Tom Gale - Roudabush Gale & Associates
914 Monticello Ave
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP200800020 Airport Office Center, Sign # 40 & 43
TM 32, Parcels 48
Dear Mr. Gale:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 26, 2008, approved the above
noted petition as recommended by staff for stand alone parking in accordance with Section 18-4.12.11.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on October 8, 2008,
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,
Summer Frederick
Senior Planner
Zoning and Current Development Division
cc: Airport Office Center LLC C/O Virginia D Hahn
107 Dogwood Lane
Radford VA 24141
File SP200800020 Airport Office Center
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Name: SP2008-20 Airport Office Staff: Summer Frederick
Center
Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
August 26, 2008
Owners: Airport Office Center, LLC Applicant: Airport Office Center, LLC
Acreage: 1.655 acres Special Use Permit for: Stand alone
parking
TMP: Tax Map 32, Parcel 48 Proffers/Conditions: N/A
Location: The southern end of Business
Park Access, approximately 150 feet south of
its intersection with Airport Road [SR 649].
By-right use: Commercial Office Magisterial District: Rio
Requested # of Dwelling Units: N/A DA X RA
Proposal: The applicant proposes to Comprehensive Plan Designation:
subdivide the existing parcel, locating sixteen Neighborhood Density in the Hollymead
(16) existing parking spaces on a newly Community
created parcel, immediately adjacent to
proposed parcel on which primary use is
located.
Character of Property: A two-story office Use of Surrounding Properties: Light
building with associated parking exists on Industrial and Commercial Office.
parcel.
Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proposed subdivision does not None
will not provide for increased activity
beyond that which was approved with
SDP1989-29.
2. The proposed subdivision furthers
several Neighborhood Model
Principles.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the special use permit for stand alone parking in accord with
Section 18-4.12.11.
1
STAFF PERSON: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
SP2008-20 Airport Office Center
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant proposes to subdivide a 1.655 acre parcel, creating two (2) parcels with CO-
Commercial Office zoning (Attachment A).
Petition:
PROJECT: SP2008-020 Airport Office Center
PROPOSED: Stand alone parking
ZONING CATEGORY: CO-Commercial Office
SECTION: Section 18-4.12.11 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for stand alone parking
where authorized by the applicable zoning district regulations.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE: Neighborhood Density in the Hollymead Community.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: The southern end of Business Park Access, approximately 150 feet south of its
intersection with Airport Road [SR 649].
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 36/48
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
Character of the Area: The area surrounding the parcel is Light Industrial, commercial and
residential.
Plannina and Zonina Historv:
ZMA 1983-22 James Hahn, applicant: Request to rezone from RA-Rural Areas to C-1
Commercial. Request denied.
ZMA 1984-10 James Hahn, applicant: Request to rezone from RA-Rural Areas to CO-
Commercial Office. Request approved.
SDP1989-29 Airport Office Center: Request for approval of a final site plan to construct two (2)
office buildings and associated parking on approximately 1.54 acres. Request approved.
SUB2008-92 AOC Subdivision - Final: Request for a two (2) lot subdivision on a 1.655 acre
existing parcel, zoned CO-Commercial Office. Request denied.
Comprehensive Plan and The NeiQhborhood Model:
The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Neighborhood Density in the Hollymead Community.
The purpose/intent of the Neighborhood Density designation is to provide for a gross residential
density of three (3) to six (6) dwelling units per acre, a range of dwelling unit types, and
neighborhood-scale non-residential uses.
The proposed Places 29 Master Plan designates this area as Urban Edge (NTD-3), characterized
by one- or two-story (with occasional three-story) buildings. Residential buildings may be single-
family detached, duplexes, townhouses, garden or courtyard apartments or residences of similar
2
character with mostly landscaped front and side yards. Nonresidential buildings may be
separated from the street by landscaped front yards.
In relation to the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed division creates a commercial lot that would
accommodate a structure of size in keeping with neighborhood-scale.
The location of the lot and the configuration of existing parking and structures on the lot are in
keeping with the desired character as discussed in the proposed Places 29 plan. The lot is
located along a section of Airport Road where similar uses are found, and is separated from
streets by a wide, landscaped area.
Neighborhood Model principles relevant to this Special Use Permit include:
Releqated Parkinq - Existing parking on-site was constructed in accordance with an approved site
plan, SDP1989-29 (Attachment B). The approved site plan included a second building, currently
not constructed. The owner of the existing parcel has established a shared parking agreement,
ensuring the availability of sufficient parking for the existing office building and any subsequent
buildings that may be located on the proposed lot.
Mixture of Uses - Another commercial lot in this area, furthers the existing mixture of uses. There
are several retail, commercial, and light industrial uses located nearby along Airport Road, as well
as the residential neighborhoods of Deerwood and Abington Place on adjacent parcels.
Redevelopment - Utilizing the proposed site provides additional commercial space within the
established Development Area boundaries, maximizing available acreage already designated for
such development.
Staff Comment:
Section 31.2.4.1 of The Zoning Ordinance requires that special use permits be assessed 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,
This special use permit will allow the owner of the existing parcel to create a lot that has existing
parking, but no primary use. The approved 1989 site plan allows for the construction of an
additional office building on the area proposed for subdivision. No additional construction or
expansion is currently proposed.
Significant evergreen screening exists between adjacent residential properties and the parcel. It
is staff's opinion that granting the special use permit will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby
The area has a wide mixture of uses, including several similar uses in close proximity to the
parcel.
3
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The property is currently zoned CO-Commercial Office. The primary purpose of this district is to
permit development of administrative, business and professional offices and supporting accessory
uses and facilities.
with uses permitted by-right in the district,
The special use permit application does not proposed activity other than that which is allowed by-
right in the district.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Staff does not believe the public health, safety and general welfare will be compromised by the
proposed special use permit.
Summary:
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. The proposed subdivision does not will not provide for increased activity beyond that which
was approved with SDP1989-29.
2. The proposed subdivision furthers several Neighborhood Model Principles.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends approval of the special use permit for stand alone parking in accord with
Section 18-4.12.11.
Attachments:
A - Application plan
B - Approved site plan SDP1989-29
4
i~~~ alJlJ '" 8 N [ill
:Oaa ", ~
I::i i ~ :0:0::0: O:l
55""-,, ""- ....
_I ~~ JIl ~ ""-""c::: R ~
r---<::~ '" '''' :...:
. l~ co
~ Q.!:p= ""-:0..... "
:O",C") ~
i~ ~~ I ~ ~~lJ,)
"'fiiil C") "'0.0
~ o..,ro
0"'::1
::;~~ ro.....c
"'::I""
,~.~ "'.....-., ~ "'''''''
i :g ~ ~ il~:o "''''
-., roro
..... ..... '"
C") ""' C") "''''0
~~ i In CD::I.....
-., :x: 0 '" 0.::1
'. -., '" ,.,.
Ill! Ii I '" ::1"0
a ~ ,.,."'c
i1 ..,,.,.
..... Ol^.....
~ ~ ""J...........
CD:J.....
"'''',.,.
~ :<
~~~~ 01 '"
a a
~ '" 0 ~ ~
a ~
""' 55 ""
..... ;iJ ~ :n
'" ~ n
iii " p:l
:0 Sil '"
~ I\.)
r- -., ;E ~
.....
a ;::! :0
..... ~
'" ~ ~
il r-.-
.....
C")
:-;t
,.
>-0
~ ;!: ~ ~ ~ :z ~
~ ~ 0 ~
I\.):o:a", ~~ :i! ill ....
o::t..c:~
~:Otri~ -.,,, ..... ~ 0
~~ '" ;::: (/) =:1
. .....1"Tj ffi
c")oc") ;>1 ;::! >-0
~",-., "', "" '"'
!i5& ""- ", Cil '"
:O:~:B " -., :0 '"'
~",a r-a ..... !:B ""- !i!
~o~ -<a '" =R
"m 55 ....
-<" :0 CD ~ ~
1\.)-. ~"" ""- -.
"..-< '" -.,
""- .....a ~ :g ~ :-
~2::: ",-.
~r- a ""' :-
r-";;,,, ~ ""'"
""'" .......... ..... :i! "
'*'~'-l a", 0
""..... ""- ~ C;1
~-r,<:: ""-"" C") :g
or-.." :0",,- 55 55
oar- ~""
000 :0 S6
01!:J8 ""- ~ ~ ~
0 ~ -.,
....""-'" -.,
~"'~ ..... .." -<
C") ..... ~ ""-
"'", :;;; r:n
<:::J:X: ~
. 0 " -. 0 ~
"'>< 55 ~
",<= . '" ",
=i1 a' ""- 55
r- " -.
",""""- , ;:;;j ~ ~
3~~ ~ ;<' ;E a
""",a", i2 ~
1"Tj8<:::J ~ -., ~
<:::J ", .....
""-.......... r- ~
-"Bi~ <:::J
"'c::::o: ..... ~
8Ji2~ '" ""
il :i! ~
:o1?5<:::J .....
~rT1~ C") C;1 -<
-., ~
:o:oa 55 ;>1
....,,,,,-
~~;;:;~ .....
""- '"
""- ;-t ;-t
:0 ~~ ~~ :xJ_n:t:.. .... en
..... E5~ci-~ OJ
a ~~-~~ .." " ~ '" '" ~
C:::d::J...;;;:C W
cCaCOl ~8:a:::: (JI
"t:l"t:l a . "'''' "" " '"
. . -i"t:>"t:I ~CI--tC
............. 1::1' ""-a"""
Lu~l;:)' lo <:::J......." ""
'-'01<:: 01 CD I\.) ""-.....
.....--b..C ~~t::l~
ssn-!- .....",.
1-...............0') ....", C")
OJQ.lQJ'::'" ~~
M-1""t-......tJ1 ,
~~'" ~-.
<:::JS .~ /
"'~ ,
"'''' :- ,
~!::. /
:-
:0
;;;t>>:~(;1f)El8P'j
:o5JC:~~~fll~~
~~~~~~~6i~
-lU):t..:tJ""""'l::%:.....
~;.;:"o~~~~~~
_~~::z:: ~~f'11'1:1
c::J1'Tl~ r;;r-\J~
~ ~~rl1
.,,'"
~ ~~
c: r-
("")
~
CfJ ~
~
co 0
"11 X
~ .. ...
. pi
;> ~ U ~
.... IS
....
~
n
=- en
e X
.- m
~ .. !!I
=
....
;>
I/;
::;
Q 1!l
~ ,. PLAT NORTH
r
m Z
;c '"'; ]I :r
;:! " DB. B20 p.146
!'I '"
I!l ~
"""',
'''"',
'''"',
'''"'''
""',
'''"',
'''"',
'~,
'''-,
'''-,
',,-
"'--
/
/
/
'"
~<"('".
./'~
.;:
i!
-0
'"
ru
I
<5
~
,
'"
r-ru
0,",
....,
~~
-~ /..
:: /-'
-'
~
,
'"
r-ru
"'("")
....'
~~
0'
o
,.
~
'"
'"~ "
_ 07~
/"""-.....so. ....~ Y1
'~~c
Wo '~C'+
al' ~';'
m811:'" ,~
cn~ ~ )
~i';'aJ
..,,"' /
....'"
.m
,/
~oc -
'f-"
i!
-0
,
'"
r-ru
"'("")
-; ,
o
"'':''
'"
,.
,
'"
.f$$
fi'1i~
:SOle
S'l:>G
!'?';'~
~~~
4.,&~
';;;N
/~
-----..---
~
,
'"
r-ru
"'("")
-; ,
o
"',:"
o
,.
,
'"
..........,
'..........
~
,
'"
r-ru
0("")
....,
'"
'"'~
,
'"
t
......... '"'
..........,
.... '
~
,
'"
r-ru
"''"'
-; ,
<:>
Ol~
,
~
,
01
,
,
/"
'0
,<> '"
/....0 ,.
co ::0
-0' ....
-'-oor-
" N~~~!X'~-i
/ ~-~:~*!J3l5
~ ~~:~~~
!S~~~r:jJ..
- -0l~-1
'" ::0
"0,.,. c:
~- ~
<:I
~
'"'
I""'"QI a._'C x:......-t 0 0 n
';j_m C..., ~.to J :I: 0
co_mITQr1' CD X ..
_5i1 C'C~::E Z i c
C'xm-" _llJ ITI Z
CVCDQ.CV......rt"rt"c:: ..
tnQ mJ~C' ::D z -l
rt' DI'O I"t" CD C. -<
1""'"(1) 0 0 ,.,..... t/)
00 rt'-:I a::r<
rt"(Il to CD m..... "tJ
r1"::J':::::l" '" '" ,.
3::TCIlr1" __"",. r
<_0......01'")'0 "tJ
CD .., III :J (ll(D::J "tJ ,.
'" "'_0. .. Z
:::::I'D rt' 0 0 ::D
o .........0'r1'...,,0.... 0 Z
x;wom.., 0
....,...m<CrT":::::lrt" < t-I
CD I-'mcn::rm:::r Z
0... ........RlmCD ,.
cc..,oom ::::J r (j)
CDRl:J'CRlCt"f'....
......311I:::::1 QI
.....<<(1). aCll:J n
..,. " "'::10.
c: " ..,0. 0. 0
'" ,.'" X
~_:::::l....~ro
w.....fIl'<fO::Jm X
::1- ::I n t-I
0. 1'T")ltlw..,
Cdoroc.n.... (/)
on- ~ ne- t/)
oQlC"moom
,r+Ql,:[,a. t-I
,'" ..::10.
"'''' ::JtDQI::T 0
n", n.,='tD Z
"::I mflln~
,.,. " "'..
"'" :;
0 0
~ .... .... Z
~ :r 0
m
n en ." -l
0
'" 0 )>0
~. :tl
m :D
'"
~ -<
0 Z
::I 0 en "D
~ ,. - C
-< Z
"0 en OJ
.., 0 ... r
." E!
'" .....
'" 3::
m n
z
...
'"
,.
en
Ii!
~
'"
z
,.
....
'"
o
,.
'"
'"
z
....
,.
n
'"
z
o
'"
r-
m
o
'"
m
o
CD
m
."
I~ :
~
""~
."?)~q,-":'
~"''b~~~
~'li..~~",,,,
,,<.#,,#'
",o,~~"
~ tS' ?
~ ,l'
CD
o
,.
::D
C
o
"11
t/)
C
"tJ
""
::D
<
t-I
en
o
::D
(/)
)>
)> 0 C/)
EP N - I C/)
~o<OC
)> s:: C/) <:: to
N)>O:SO
h-i (j) Z <
() ~ Z 1'":'\ _
omO\l/C/)
ca;;! '0
z)>" 0
~r- -I Z
<~s:cri
--I )>'"'0
N N '"T"1 L
(j)- V J>
Z~U>~-1
- I'\)
)> .b. to
CO
''-.....''
("")
~CJ€5 ~
~Q). :n
Cb:....h::a.b
Q;~~~~
~:g "-0 ~rn~
~"ru?: -i~"lJ
~!5~!.i~~~
~~~~~j!!:o
~~~~~
.....Qt_""<::b-
~M-CU ::c
~-~ :;;
\
,
,
\
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
,
/
/
,
,
/
,
/
,
/
\
'ONI "0088\7' ~ 3l\7'8 'HSn8\7'OnOtl
SO~0-LL6 (I>OB)
~06~~
VINlmM '311'AS31101I:lVHO
OVOl! ci1130'lNOV>l l>~6
2 !
N' .I
t
'0
~r
~~
s
~ :r
r-~t ~
I
I
~I
~- ~"",j.blW
tl
~I
; ~
;:
n I
" (; I
\ ~ I
:~
! ~ I
~
-J..
r\ ____
II.... .--......
I I;;;;
I I~~
I I
II
II
! I I
I I
II '0 3
Idl 2
I~ ~
1:11
I~I
Igl
I~I
I~I
I~I
I I
II
I I
I I
II
I I
I I
I:
I I
I I " ~
I I ~ '0
I I -'
I I
I~I
I~I
I I
J' ~
o
.;
2
-.:J
..J
<C
'"
"
'"
~
'"
n
d)
"-'
o
~
Cl
(l
'"
d
~
<
"
!!
.';
<--
~
"'
u
<II
..,
o
~
.,..
..J
~
"
'it
-r.
:;..
,
,
,
1
,
,
I
"
"
r-
;;;
~
~
t
.~
.oo"gl
:~:JIS ~
:~I
I~f;)'
~3g
I ;~~
......c:_
!rt$-
~o..J
'IO~~ I
:'O~5~1'
I~,'()~Q"
~
<-
o
J
SI:l3NNVld oNvi
SI:lOA3AI:lnS 'SI:l33N'~N3
~b'
J '"
< .
~:.
~
-
=
Q,l
0: e
UJ
0 co -=
::; ...
~ '-.. ::> ... ~
z lIJ
'" - UJ " ~
..J -
u: -
<
i r
~ ~
o
Q
~
!:
~ :f
o "
~
'" r
Z .."
~ ~~~~~!:-
:;: ~;ci :::-~z ~
~ d~~ii~
::.~~~
\;:HNtlJ'dl!\ ( t!.\04ncr:J ')""l"ldw~g1ld
N\:l1d 111S 1'o'f-.Jld
'lnlbm 1J,~Jo lyod'rJI'o'
o
~
::l
[!...
~
'\.
,....."":t
~~
:I:
I-
0:
o
Z
Ii
tj
, 3~
T,,<
."r"
, ~...
"Z!
c-~2:i
0%""'1:
~~~
~5a:~ ~
~~~ li;..,$
u_ o~ f(r
:5 tS 0 r:'"1131
S ~~~ ft~'-(/>>~
Fa: a~ ~ y~ J -
j:=3:J i.,.... ~ !
~~~ =:.~ ~~~~
..;.~~ ~~~ ~tr~
site"%: ~ ~'Ca::o
~~S 1I~&..:i~~i
~2f jUj ~~tr
,.;(I')u....~~ ~~r::::'
C-r.:lcn1: z:lI:'~ !::~lt~
~F~"i: -0.... ~1lc.J~
5:J~-.I g-.l~ :i:1C~
s~t~~ ~i~ ~J~
~!~~g~s~~
. <il:"~~"'~Il~"S'l'O~
u~~~~ It GfS-:;:!~
~:i~a: 355 G:~5-~
E~<d( ~-r~~;~5
Eo.;..s illoC::-~~:5
~~zg -z: -.J ~3:i_
1o.J~~::-Fo_fc-~rB
"''=~"R! !:'6S :rJ~o
~S~S ~()~ ic~~
....o~~a ~~,,-ffE;)
~;):i~~ '?~([ ?~~in
~
"t
'V-
'\
"'",
"tv
'b'
"'"
~
.,.~
...
"l.
....~
~
c
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I <v'
I ,....
, 0,
1 ~.
" "
,/ J
0.
<(
::;
>
I-
Z
U
;;
<D
!
!
~~
..i.
!
^
r
o
~~~
~" ~
u::"4"l(J<t"
f ~~ st
~~~~
~
;:
~ ~~'
'0
'c
~
~
;;0
~
,
1
I
" -
.
:js ~
'" :J-o 5
~E.~S
~-~i~
;j~~
~cri~:;
.n~:;-.2
-, ~
~~:;f
011 ~~
':I~c5f-
~~~~
~~~
.J,,"~5
..J!!i5
~~ll
..
'.
o
.~ ~
~
,
1
1
I
,
I
1
I
1
I
/" /
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
1/
,,,~~
, }"
~
\
:1;
~
I'>-
&
)J
Ii
'-'
,
I
/l.Itl."-
I., .
1$ ..:
'r,v
'I.t "4
/ .I
1
I
1
,
1
1
'*
.(.>
'"
~
n
~ ~
o w
:.:.~~~
< <>
> "'"
o :~
II: . 0::1
a.. .>
a.. ~:;: g
<( ~ ~.
.,
!~
~
"-
, f'
, % ~ -.J
~i~ ~
It d'-:--:i'
u,oJ(J~4=:.
l~:;s~
o~.t:":tf>"
<!...o~;
I5 '"
5~t'
~~::!u -z.)
~ ~~~~l~~
m .({) *"-5~8
~ I I I I
o
()
o~
/"
\
1
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
I
,
,
"
,
1
I
,
,
,
u.
o
~
co
<(
I-
- N ll') T
j~~~
r:r: J: r
cl]1t) If) d)
, /
o
,.
.
1 \
I
---...........-
.. "
~
"
l
~~ E
;;:i;t
J.,g:}ort:i'
gfO'''!~~ ~
Qo'Jf1; ..J,.)-..l ~~~ ~ !OJ .
~ 11.. ~~~ ~~. i"" "'-::-<~
_ ([ . IL.l ::J1:\f'I z. t:: C).....
~r 1C~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ .J~ ~L
~ fr: If") "~IC~ CQ~lo ..- 0' rc........
It'~~ - ~dlS~ ~8wN ~ ~~ j~o
~ '% -'5" ~~ 'Z e...:.. ([~
-, =~~~c[ ~~5[!= 0 ~~'::1? ~ il}~ :i$~
~~ 'l-:;n" ~"'oe :i ~""t:~
~1:i~ - rC\.J([ cD~- ..:.. '&J
~~ . ~~.n zoO? B ~_~'t
~~.. 5u~r~ 3~oc' - i~ 3~
~~ 7;F ~i~~ ~~~~~.r I:i-~-a-t
..JU c:c ~~~'t: C<;cll~ -;s IJ'/::J en .c
.ow~~ o~cn~~6 on~<<:-.J;j J')o,-C~ at;!
::iZ-:-~;- 'Z:':::J~IO~ ~..J~~e ~~ ~ i""~
~~2~([ . ~~c~~~S~-,;~ to'"ilo~
.nQ~~Z ~z~ ~uo~ n~cns ~ t~ ([1:\L
li!~i 9J~i~~~ I:~~ t:fr"8t:~fo
~~~~o~~~~rjS ~t2!ir t-c~g tt~~~
.. ~ .'ull:"%: .;;S;8tt.t!T. .....11:-
. '
~
I
1
I
/\
I
I
1
,
1
,
1
.~'s:~;L;::~.t;~.;...... / !
J.~/r~/'".'""!
'f
ml!.~:'
"--."" N
H!~i! .
E.s.s=
iiiH~,
l:E':~
~;:};= r
.~.:=f ~
;~~~i r
. h........:>
t:::.
f
'"
<]
,.
;j "
... 4:..,' t,J
; i ~~~!
~ k ~!~o~f
~ 9(jr:'~~
~O.JJ~
~ o~ .J 01) xon ~ . Q @.;)
_ 10"'!! .,JQ... w 5 ~- ~ ~ "1: tt: I ~ .
~[~ : s 5~ ~~ ~ ; ~ <t dJ~~
4)0 ~ ..-:c g~c cO .... c:; c.!T:.~..J
=~.c .,!J" ci.J ~ ~..,,,,, 2..~ L 0 ~ ;~~~~
~;7 _g g ~ GJ ~~~ B~ ~6 ~ ~~5k
Sf.~~ & '5 ~ ~..k:iS ~1P~<t: ~~~~
2 >- ,,!!i \= > ,,= <" os~"'" ~L"""'"
~~c..J- i3 ... ct t:o 'ri:. Ul...lc:l;c: orO<L;z:
~- r~~ x: to ~ x::g...- lll...... .J I 6-==- -~~
- -_-00" 0 _q::J u: :l ~5 ~~ ~~-.I~~ ;....'l;;~
:J :r:!!L S 0 c: ~o ~ ..,u:o~ ~'1: l;..J
~~- -z:~ if - ~ S~ ..,~ 8-.Jo~ 8ifB",~
='~~ ~~.t..~ ~ 501; 5~ m~f ~~-251C
~~g~ ~ 0 ~ J~JF< Z3~~ ?;d'~~
i3~f~ ~ ~ i ,~~8~~~og~~ ~~~r
~3S8.c_ ~ g .~~i~~5!:,~~~~Og-. ~E.,)5
~f l~ ,,=.nOitd;ll:t"""';C.a~02..~~-l~J~()
~5t g.g.5~~~~~Sr~~~mE!~~ 1
..Jw :i :; ~E:lf..~~ri.J~I:C.J" ..;:....
~~~~~ ~ ~~~C:~5~~~3~~f~ ~
..rOD
0)
"Jo
CO
1
I
I
,
I
o
Z L ~~ !~
~ =' 100 v....
a Q..JW \0.1"-
D f ii9 ~~ ~~
~ ~ ~~~ ~f!~
5 '-'" f~s ig ~
"- 'l: r' "'Ii 5 "0'';
'-'" <J1" ~;1."'lC ","'u
'f ~ ~~i5~:f ~i
~ 8 ~~~~~55a
8 ~ ~E.E" .n~~
it. 9 ~~~ ~I i.~
s "r ~5L~8 ~~
r ~ ,- ~~~
t: ~ !l 93:=
~ ~ b gg...a
~""'r. ~,,'
"-ii .
JIO~
-'uO
a:",,,,
l./J
t-.
J / i!
f/ CI)
1/ I !
. I 0 /
! / fi
";,;,~Lii;~"
"/.t;,~.;,)"1
/
__- Q'oli
t
/
>-.
'"
f
.,.
or
;/lI g
"::'-v
~t.J'rJ:
::JI(),I("~
[co /?P;
"01;09
"'-'v",
~
5
a-
:!
~
~
0 .
'" E-
"
~~ 0
ci i c ~~
~ (t, ~S~ ~IO
C ~ g~ ~ E~
~~; .... x:: " va c,
~ ~(l ~~ ct.... ~~
..;~ .l'lci ~I:~:;g aO~
~~ ~~~ .j>~O sf ~~
o ~8~~f n~ ~~ ~~~
w ~.Jd"I""">::l C([: 0 ...,d'lX
~~ ~~~~ :=?-s~ E-::l ~s?;
C-.I!! rr w....:::l",.... ~z:'I: o~..Ji ~c~
~ j()~~~ ?;~~u.n ~.() ~~~
0..... <t<tl....<:::r~o r~o ..Ie "t.B
i6E- ~a:r~~ Q~O~a ~ii ~~q:
-=~'% :I:-~a"~ ~1OJ";.t) .nz.;:..o-:-:~
~~ ~~f:~~ ~~~5i ~~~ ~~~
~c~ q:'t::O::~~ 6~~~5 ~6fct3..J
;~~J~~~~ ~3~n ~~ ~~~
z;:~~C:::'..Jlf)ov ZcJoo~ 'Eo~ ~~
jrt::r~~~~ ~~f: 2~F~~r
~:Jg~'~8e ~~~~r~~ ~~~
~~S~~~~~ r:~~B~~:5rF~
"f!:..s~5i"fx':I ~~o~~~o~ a~~
;18Ui:ct-u~~ 5~~a:1:i([~a: o~O
~;~~~~~ ~~~-e.~~~I~~
~~~~oe.~~ u~e.;aocr~ ~It~
~f.~~~;~~~~rE~~2~; 95c
~~ ~ ~~ ~ ,,~~~:1 ~~2;'~~! ~
~;;;~8o~-o>~([~<I)::]~~(( ~~~
f'
I
I
1
1
I
I
-.
.u
..,-f
.ri~
'r
o~ _
~~I ~~ ~
~:~vt
~~ [\!Ii....
l~ ~ ~;; ~
~ltl ~~ ..,......~
"'..," el)",,,,,
~~ ~.J~~
~<Oo "":-~ oo-9_~~
~:Q~ "'\D~~~~o.J
~~~ I:-O~ ]~ ~~;;
~~~ :1" ~ ~di ~~ !..
'Ii. A.' - a ; ::1 ~ III ..J ~
i~ ~ r~~ ~ ~~~ ~ .~~ ~~~
<to"x.., 9 <0 8111fS> ~ 1:'5
r-,"-U '<i%:~..J z;7:. d ~1C
.. :OB~~~~~~~r~~~
~I ~l '>.. Q cO ~ S dJ ~ a;
m ~ ~~ 6 ~ ~ ~
'> ~l ~.. ~
~ ~ :::JS ~l ~;I.,..
~. ~ ~ 5~ i" ~I~
<I: zl Cl <110 :; 1:
~ ~ ~1 -.J 0 .0 ~
D
(;.J
;' .:w.;
, ,.;".":0_;
",
" /iil.i
-.(
,,'
"
,
,
1
1
,
I
,
':i
"'-
~-
;1
,'If(t
:;~;;OfI:f""
.t!-,/il
S<i~!
"-'
o
All-American Road and
Virginia Byway Designations
For Roads in the Journey Through
Hallowed Ground Corridor
Routes 20,22,53,231,250 and 729
Journey Through Hallowed Ground Corridor
,.-.,-, ,.",,~, _,,,.; ,,_~..!i,,' "._l.fi..1i.. C"'~'U,. ,...J,',,' ,-~'; .' '" "...
';"".""Ii,.",~,<Y",~" ",,' i.", ""',,"'''';..,'1_, ~",-.'.\.;", ,j',..";""
~'ll l1I!fo4'.>roIlll 0JUn J\l:r.:>Xe
1
Proposed Roads for All American
Road Designations
-~ Roods c::J Cowlty Boondary
-R.....
_ City 80undary
N
i\
''''
Q ".000;16.000 1@(l0ll
;
Roads Proposed for State Scenic Byway and
National All-American Road designation
2
Implications of All-American Road Designation
An All-American Road designation:
Does not impose any restrictions on private property with the exception of
prohibiting the installation of new signs advertising off-site uses and
activities (billboards) along these roads. Such signage is already restricted
by County regulation and the existing Virginia Byway designation along
these routes.
All other regulatory authority remains with local and state jurisdictions.
Would not limit VDOT's ability to maintain, operate or improve transportation
facilities along designated byway corridors, nor would it increase the extent
of Federal review.
Would make affected localities and states eligible for grant funding to
support and enhance the National Scenic Byway through the National
Scenic Byways Discretionary Grants Program.
Designated All-American Roads will be included in future American Byways
maps published by the U.S. Department of Transportation and will be
marketed to national and international visitors with the hope of increasing
heritage tourism in the area.
Routes 20,22 and 231 are already designated Virginia Byways, which have the
same implications as the All-American Road designation.
Implications of Virginia Byway Designation
A Virginia Byway designation:
. Does not impose any restrictions on private property, except that it
may prohibit the installation of new signs advertising off-site uses
and activities (billboards) along these roads. Such signage is
already restricted by County regulation.
. All other regulatory authority remains with the locality. A Virginia
Byway designation
. Does not limit VDOTs ability to maintain, operate or improve
transportation facilities on such designated roads.
. Will be included in a State map of scenic roads and byways
. VDOT staff has indicated that all four road segments (Routes 53,
729, 20 and 250) are eligible and should be considered for Virginia
Byway designation.
3
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING VIRGINIA BYWAY DESIGNATION
FOR ROUTES 729, 53 AND PORTIONS OF ROUTE 20 AND ROUTE 250
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Virginia Department of
Transportation have determined that Route 729 (Milton Road) from its intersection with Route 250 to its
intersection with Route 53, Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway) from the Fluvanna County line to its
intersection with Route 20, the portion of Route 20 that is also part of Route 250 East from the intersection of
Route 20 and Route 250 East to the City of Charlottesville city limits at Free Bridge, and the portion of Route
250 from the intersection of Route 22 to the intersection of Route 729 (Milton Road) qualify for designation as
Virginia Byways; and
WHEREAS, each of these routes have relatively high aesthetic or cultural value, leading to or within
areas of historical or natural significance; and
WHEREAS, the designation of a Virginia Byway offers opportunities for tourism and economic benefits
to localities; and
WHEREAS, the designation of a Virginia Byway does not affect land use controls and road
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the land along Route 729 and Route 53 is zoned Rural Areas and is designated as Rural
Areas in the County's Comprehensive Plan and the portion of Route 20 identified herein is zoned for commercial
uses; and
WHEREAS, the Rural Areas zoning does not allow for dense residential or commercial development
and allows for uses such as agriculture, forestry and detached single family dwellings and the commercial zoned
areas will not be adversely impacted by the designation; and
WHEREAS, the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership has expressed its support for the
designation of these routes as Virginia Byways,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of SupeNisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
hereby supports the designation of Route 729 (Milton Road) from its intersection with Route 250 to its
intersection with Route 53, Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway) from the Fluvanna County line to its
intersection with Route 20, the portion of Route 20 that is also part of Route 250 East from the intersection of
Route 20 and Route 250 East to the City of Charlottesville city limits at Free Bridge, and the portion of Route
250 from the intersection of Route 22 to the intersection of Route 729 (Milton Road) as Virginia Byways; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County requests that the
Commonwealth Transportation Board take all necessary actions to effect a designation of these routes as
Virginia Byways.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution
duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of five to zero, as recorded below, at a
meeting held on October 8. 2008. h " . . _
. itl/(~
Clerk, Board of County SupeNisors
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Ms. Mallek
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
y
y
Absent
y
Y
Y
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S FEDERAL
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION "ALL-AMERICAN ROAD" DESIGNATION
FOR ROUTES 20, 22, 53, 231, 250 AND 729
WHEREAS, the United States Congress approved legislation in May 2008 to create The Journey
Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area; and
WHEREAS, this legislation creates a National Heritage Area corridor that includes Routes 20, 22, 53,
231,250 and 729 from Thomas Jefferson's Monticello in Charlottesville north to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania; and
WHEREAS, designation of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground as a National Heritage Area, and
Route 20 North (Stony Point Road) from its intersection with Route 250 East to the Orange County line, the
portion of Route 20 that is also part of Route 250 East from the intersection of Route 20 and Route 250 East to
the City of Charlottesville city limits at Free Bridge, Route 22 from Route 250 East to its junction with Route 231,
Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway) from the Fluvanna County line to its intersection with Route 20, Route
231 from Route 22 to the Louisa County line, the portion of Route 250 East from the intersection of Route 22 to
the intersection of Route 729 (Milton Road) and Route 729 (Milton Road), from its intersection with Route 250
East to its intersection with Route 53, as All-American Roads within the National Scenic Byways Program, will
help support the four-state public/private partnership that has been developed to promote and celebrate the
historical and cultural resources along the route; and
WHEREAS, designation of the County as a National Heritage Area and Routes 20,22, 53,231,250 and
729 as All-American Roads will make federal funds available to government entities located along this corridor
for the purposes of developing tourism, preservation and enhancement of historical sites and battlefields; and
WHEREAS, designation of the County as a National Heritage Area and Routes 20, 22,53,231,250 and
729 as All-American Roads is consistent with the principles, goals and objectives of the County's
Comprehensive Plan to protect the County's natural, cultural, historic, and scenic resources; and
WHEREAS, the designation of the portion of Route 20 that is also part of Route 250 East from the
intersection of Route 20 and Route 250 East to the City of Charlottesville city limits at Free Bridge, Route 53
(Thomas Jefferson Parkway) from the Fluvanna County line to its intersection with Route 20, the portion of
Route 250 East from the intersection of Route 22 to the intersection of Route 729 (Milton Road), and Route 729
(Milton Road) from its intersection with Route 250 East to its intersection with Route 53, as All-American Roads
is contingent upon them being designated as Virginia Byways by the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation
Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
supports the designation of Route 20 North (Stony Point Road) from its intersection with Route 250 East to the
Orange County line, the portion of Route 20 that is also part of Route 250 East from the intersection of Route 20
and Route 250 East to the City of Charlottesville city limits at Free Bridge, Route 22 from Route 250 East to its
junction with Route 231, Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway) from the Fluvanna County line to its intersection
with Route 20, Route 231 from Route 22 to the Louisa County line, the portion of Route 250 East from the
intersection of Route 22 to the intersection of Route 729 (Milton Road) and Route 729 (Milton Road), from its
intersection with Route 250 East to its intersection with Route 53, as All-American Roads within the National
Scenic Byways Program.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution
duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of five to zero, as recorded below, at a
meeting held on October 8, 2008. ll'
( fLGWflyJg,-
erk, Board of County Supervisors
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Ms. Mallek
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
Ave Nav
y
y
Absent
y
y
y
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
National Byway Designation for Routes 20, 22, 53,
231,729 (Milton Road) and portions of Route 20 and
Route 250 and Virginia Byway Designation for Route
53, Route 729 (Milton Road) and portions of Route 20
and Route 250
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing on National Byway Designation for
Routes 20, 22, 53, 231,729 (Milton Road) and
portions of Route 20 and Route 250 and Virginia
Byway Designation for Route 53, Route 729 (Milton
Road) and portions of Route 20 and Route 250
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
October 8, 2008
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Journey Through Hallowed Ground (JTHG) Partnership is requesting all localities along the JTHG corridor, from the
Gettysburg battlefield in Pennsylvania to Monticello, adopt resolutions supporting the designation of Routes 15, 20, 22
and 231 as National Scenic Byways Program, All-American Roads. (See Attachment C) The National Scenic Byways
Program is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and is a grassroots
collaborative effort established to help recognize, preserve and enhance selected roads throughout the United States.
There are currently 126 National Scenic Byways in the country. There are four designated in Virginia: Colonial Parkway
(Williamsburg/Jamestown/Yorktown), Skyline Drive, Blue Ridge Parkway, and the George Washington Memorial
Parkway (outside of Washington, D.C.).
In Albemarle County, there are four additional roads which have been identified as part of the JTHG Corridor and are
also being recommended for All-American Road designation, These roads are Route 53, Route 729 (Milton Road) and
portions of Route 20 and Route 250, These road segments would complete an uninterrupted road corridor through
Albemarle County and the entire JTHG three-state corridor, An uninterrupted corridor is an important factor in the
evaluation process for the National All-American Road designation. To be eligible for the All-American Road
designation, these four road segment must first be designated by the State as Virginia Byways. VDOT staff has
determined that all four road segments (Routes 53, 729, 20 and 250) are eligible and should be considered for Virginia
Byway designation, Prior to Virginia Byway designation by the State, the Board must adopt a resolution in support of the
designation. The Board may hold a public hearing on the proposed designation, but a public hearing is not required.
The Board of Supervisors is seeking public input on both the National All-American Road designation and the Virginia
Byway designation,
The roads proposed for designation as All-American Roads are:
. Route 20 North (Stony Point Road), from its intersection with Route 250 East to the Orange County line
. Route 22, from Route 250 E to its junction with Route 231
. Route 231, from Route 22 to the Louisa County line
These roads are already designated Virginia Byways.
The roads being proposed for designation as Virginia Byways and All-American Roads are:
. Route 729 (Milton Road), from its intersection with Route 250 to its intersection with Route 53;
. Route 250 (east), from Route 22 to Route 729 (Milton Road);
. Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway), from the Fluvanna County line to its intersection with Route 20;
. Route 20, from the intersection of Stony Point Road (Rt. 20 north) and Route 250 east of Charlottesville through
the City of Charlottesville to the Interstate 64 interchange south of Charlottesville (a small portion of this
segment, from Stony Point Road to Free Bridge, is in the County and not currently designated. This segment of
road is considered part of both Route 250 and Route 20).
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents.
Goal 2: Protect the County's Natural Resources.
Goal 3: Effectively Manage the County's Growth and Development.
AGENDA TITLE: National Byway Designation for Routes 20,22,53,231,729 (Milton Road) and portions of
Route 20 and Route 250 and Virginia Byway Designation for Route 53, Route 729 (Milton
Road) and portions of Route 20 and Route 250
October 8, 2008
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
All-American Road Designation:
To be designated a National Scenic Byway, a road must possess at least one of the following "intrinsic qualities" on a
regional level: archaeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational, or scenic. To meet the higher level All-American
Road designation, a road must possess at least two of the intrinsic qualities on a national level. Applying U.S.
Department of Transportation standards, the JTHG Partnership determined that the Route 15/20/22/231 corridors and
Routes 53,729 and portions of Route 20 and Route 250 meet the criteria for the All-American Road designation,
An All-American Road designation does not impose any restrictions on private property with the exception of prohibiting
the installation of new signs advertising off-site uses and activities (billboards) along these roads. Such signage is
already restricted by County regulation and the existing Virginia Byway designation along these routes, All other
regulatory authority remains with local and state jurisdictions. ( http://www.bvwavsonline,orq/nominations/articles/74891 )
According to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) staff, an All-American Road designation would not limit
VDOT's ability to maintain, operate or improve transportation facilities along designated byway corridors, nor would it
increase the extent of Federal involvement. These corridors are within a JTHG National Heritage Area, VDOT staff has
noted that "the NHA designation is designed to call attention to issues of historic and heritage conservation" and,
therefore, "it may increase public attention and scrutiny on the effects of VDOT actions within the NHA."
An All-American Road designation would make affected localities and states eligible for grant funding to support and
enhance the National Scenic Byway through the National Scenic Byways Discretionary Grants Program, According to
the JTHG Partnership, the NHA and the proposed routes, if they receive the All-American Road designation, will be
included in future American Byways maps published by the U,S, Department of Transportation and will be marketed to
national and international visitors with the hope of increasing heritage tourism in the area.
Virginia Byway Designation:
The Virginia Byway Program identifies road corridors containing aesthetic or cultural value near areas of historical,
natural or recreational significance, Roads designated as Virginia Byways are identified on a widely distributed Map of
Scenic Roads in Virginia and promoted on the Virginia Scenic Roads Web site. The program encourages travel to
interesting destinations on these roads, which are generally away from high-traffic corridors. Byways typically stimulate
local economies by attracting visitors to lesser-known destinations. (link to VDOT Virginia Byway fact sheet:
http://www . virqin iadot.orq/proqrams/faa-bvwavs.asp )
A Virginia Byway designation does not impose any restrictions on private property, except that it may prohibit the
installation of new signs advertising off-site uses and activities (billboards) along these roads, Such signage is already
restricted by County regulation, All other regulatory authority remains with the locality, A Virginia Byway designation
does not limit VDOT's ability to maintain, operate or improve transportation facilities on such designated roads.
VDOT staff has indicated that all four road segments (Routes 53, 729, 20 and 250) are eligible and should be
considered for Virginia Byway designation. Prior to Virginia Byway designation by the State, the Board must adopt a
resolution in support of the designation, Virginia Byway designation is a prerequisite for All-American Road designation,
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan:
The intent of both the All-American Road and Virginia Byway designations is consistent with the County's
Comprehensive Plan goals to protect natural, cultural and historic resources including:
Goal: Protect the County's historic and cultural resources.
Objective: Pursue additional protection measures and incentives to preserve Albemarle's historic and archaeological
resources in order to foster pride in the County and maintain the County's character.
Goal: Preserve the County's scenic resources as being essential to the character, economic vitality and quality of life.
Objective: Maintain the visual integrity of all Albemarle's roadways.
Strategy: Pursue additional Virginia Byway designations for roads meeting State criteria:
. Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway)
Since both the All-American Road and Virginia Byway designations for the proposed roads are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and neither designation would establish new restrictions on private property except restrictions on
billboards, which are already regulated in the County, staff recommends that the Board support this proposal.
AGENDA TITLE: National Byway Designation for Routes 20,22,53,231,729 (Milton Road) and portions of
Route 20 and Route 250 and Virginia Byway Designation for Route 53, Route 729 (Milton
Road) and portions of Route 20 and Route 250
October 8, 2008
Page 3
A resolution supporting an All-American designation for Routes 20,22,53,231, and 729 (Milton Road) is attached
(Attachment B). A resolution supporting Virginia Byway designation for Route 53, Route 729 and portions of Route 20
and Route 250 is also attached (Attachment A).
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no direct budget impact of designating these routes as All-American Roads. The designations would provide
opportunities for grants related to enhancing and protecting the scenic corridor.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
At the conclusion of the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolutions supporting a
Virginia Byway designation for Route 53, Route 729 and portions of Route 20 and Route 250 and an All-American Road
designation for Routes 20, 22, 53, 231,729 and portions of Route 20 and Route 250 in Albemarle County,
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Resolution. VirQinia Bvway
B - Resolution. All-American Roads
C - Map showinQ JTHG National HeritaQe Area and JTHG Corridor
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING VIRGINIA BYWAY DESIGNATION
FOR ROUTES 729, 53 AND PORTIONS OF ROUTE 20 AND ROUTE 250
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Virginia Department of
Transportation have determined that Route 729 (Milton Road) from its intersection with Route 250 to its
intersection with Route 53, Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway) from the Fluvanna County line to its
intersection with Route 20, the portion of Route 20 that is also part of Route 250 East from the intersection of
Route 20 and Route 250 East to the City of Charlottesville city limits at Free Bridge, and the portion of Route
250 from the intersection of Route 22 to the intersection of Route 729 (Milton Road) qualify for designation as
Virginia Byways; and
WHEREAS, each of these routes have relatively high aesthetic or cultural value, leading to or within
areas of historical or natural significance; and
WHEREAS, the designation of a Virginia Byway offers opportunities for tourism and economic
benefits to localities; and
WHEREAS, the designation of a Virginia Byway does not affect land use controls and road
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the land along Route 729 and Route 53 is zoned Rural Areas and is designated as Rural
Areas in the County's Comprehensive Plan and the portion of Route 20 identified herein is zoned for
commercial uses; and
WHEREAS, the Rural Areas zoning does not allow for dense residential or commercial development
and allows for uses such as agriculture, forestry and detached single family dwellings and the commercial zoned
areas will not be adversely impacted by the designation; and
WHEREAS, the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership has expressed its support for the
designation of these routes as Virginia Byways.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, hereby supports the designation of Route 729 (Milton Road) from its intersection with Route 250 to its
intersection with Route 53, Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway) from the Fluvanna County line to its
intersection with Route 20, the portion of Route 20 that is also part of Route 250 East from the intersection of
Route 20 and Route 250 East to the City of Charlottesville city limits at Free Bridge, and the portion of Route
250 from the intersection of Route 22 to the intersection of Route 729 (Milton Road) as Virginia Byways; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOL YED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County requests that the
Commonwealth Transportation Board take all necessary actions to effect a designation of these routes as
Virginia Byways.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _ to _, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Ms. Mallek
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S FEDERAL
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION "ALL-AMERICAN ROAD" DESIGNATION
FOR ROUTES 20, 22, 53, 231, 250 AND 729
WHEREAS, the United States Congress approved legislation in May 2008 to create The Journey
Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area; and
WHEREAS, this legislation creates a National Heritage Area corridor that includes Routes 20, 22, 53,
231,250 and 729 from Thomas Jefferson's Monticello in Charlottesville north to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania; and
WHEREAS, designation of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground as a National Heritage Area, and
Route 20 North (Stony Point Road) from its intersection with Route 250 East to the Orange County line, the
portion of Route 20 that is also part of Route 250 East from the intersection of Route 20 and Route 250 East to
the City of Charlottesville city limits at Free Bridge, Route 22 from Route 250 East to its junction with Route
231, Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway) from the Fluvanna County line to its intersection with Route 20,
Route 231 from Route 22 to the Louisa County line, the portion of Route 250 East from the intersection of Route
22 to the intersection of Route 729 (Milton Road) and Route 729 (Milton Road), from its intersection with Route
250 East to its intersection with Route 53, as All-American Roads within the National Scenic Byways Program,
will help support the four-state public/private partnership that has been developed to promote and celebrate the
historical and cultural resources along the route; and
WHEREAS, designation of the County as a National Heritage Area and Routes 20, 22, 53, 231, 250 and
729 as All-American Roads will make federal funds available to government entities located along this corridor
for the purposes of developing tourism, preservation and enhancement of historical sites and battlefields; and
WHEREAS, designation of the County as a National Heritage Area and Routes 20, 22, 53, 231, 250 and
729 as All-American Roads is consistent with the principles, goals and objectives of the County's Comprehensive
Plan to protect the County's natural, cultural, historic, and scenic resources; and
WHEREAS, the designation of the portion of Route 20 that is also part of Route 250 East from the
intersection of Route 20 and Route 250 East to the City of Charlottesville city limits at Free Bridge, Route 53
(Thomas Jefferson Parkway) from the Fluvanna County line to its intersection with Route 20, the portion of
Route 250 East from the intersection of Route 22 to the intersection of Route 729 (Milton Road), and Route 729
(Milton Road) from its intersection with Route 250 East to its intersection with Route 53, as All-American Roads
is contingent upon them being designated as Virginia Byways by the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation
Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
supports the designation of Route 20 North (Stony Point Road) from its intersection with Route 250 East to the
Orange County line, the portion of Route 20 that is also part of Route 250 East from the intersection of Route 20
and Route 250 East to the City of Charlottesville city limits at Free Bridge, Route 22 from Route 250 East to its
junction with Route 231, Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway) from the Fluvanna County line to its intersection
with Route 20, Route 231 from Route 22 to the Louisa County line, the portion of Route 250 East from the
intersection of Route 22 to the intersection of Route 729 (Milton Road) and Route 729 (Milton Road), from its
intersection with Route 250 East to its intersection with Route 53, as All-American Roads within the National
Scenic Byways Program.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution
duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of to , as recorded
below, at a meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Ave Nay
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Ms. Mallek
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
ATTACHMENT C
Journey Through Hallowed Ground Corridor Management Plan
\
\
\
)
<'
,
/
"pending designatiCfl ffi B state scent byway
60
Miles
240
Fig. 1-4: The primar\' travel rolllefor the Journey Through Hal/owed Ground and its location within tllf'
National Heritage Area (tan) and the Chesapeake Bar Watershed (above lefi)
2
Chapter 1: Introduction
DRAFT: July 2008
ORDINANCE NO. 08-3(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, is hereby amended
and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3-213 Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District
Chapter 3. Agricultural and Forestal Districts
Article II. Districts of Statewide Significance
Division 2. Districts
Sec. 3-213 Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 7, parcels 6, 7, 8A, 9, 9A, 9B, 9B1, 9C; Tax map 16,
parcels 4B, 4C, 13A, 13D, 15A, 15A3, 15E, 15G, 16B, 17,26, 30B, 36, 52B1, 52B2, 54; Tax Map 17,
parcels 8B, 8C, 17C, 18H, 20A2, 22, tax map 29, parcel 1 H (part). This district, created on
September 21, 1988 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on October 8, 2008, shall be next
reviewed prior to October 8, 2018.
(Code 1988, ~ 2.1-4(m); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98; Ord. 08-3(3),10-8-08)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of five
to zero. as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on October 8.2008.
(~
oard of County Supervisors
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Ms. Mallek
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
y
y
Absent
y
y
y
Free Union AF District Review
AFD2008-00004
Periodic review of the Free Union AF district.
Free Union AF District Review
AFD2lXJ8.OOOO4
1
Free Union AF District Review
AFD2008-00004
,
..~ .~ ~'.~ ~:~...:~"'--
~~ ~~~"I-i~"" ~Iifta
~~.~ ,:;~. Ita ,~~
I..~~. ....:q~~....f!.~~.'~~1 ,I. .~f
~I~. '~"v>'J"'.'.~~. ,1 ~. ..1"". ......~.I ~iE
'" ~ -rr ~~1''' ~.:~, ~I.~
. i1! ~~,. . ;~...,;"t JiA..
~"to:. , . iZff
~-.wJ~l ,~ ., '..l'~.
,~-a,,",,,.~ . .;",,~.
" .:~.
~~-
...~
~Ie,'~,~
'fi.~/'
~.5
.'
Free Union AF District Review
AFD2008-00004
Current Status:
Size: 1,400.94 acres
Located northwest of Free
Union
Drains to the South Fork
Rivanna River
Land cover in the district is
largely forested on Fox
Mountain and along
Peavine Hollow, and more
open closer to Free Union.
~eeo,'!sni!::, A~~/dwForesta1 District ~.
(::.~~,~:,~~~;;;;;,~~~:,~.>_.", ~I
; ~~~t <~:f.~J~E:~~~~:t[~~Zj~2:';~~~ r;;' .~;;:~;t~w,... oc_lV.
.' ,
I
.
~- ,
-,..
-
IF....Unio~'AFD
.....
I-RoaIcb;
2
Free Union AF District Review
AFD2OOl-OOOO4
Uodate on Withdrawals
Withdrawal requests
received just before the
9/9/08 PC hearing:
Sanders Property
TMP 17-8 = 21.899 ac
Ellertson Prooerty
MP 16-38 = 3.175 ac
TMP 16-39 =4.116 ac
Withdrawal request
received before 10/8/08
Board hearing:
Mclntosh Property
TMP 16-15C=22.05 ac
TMP 16-37 = 81.44
~fYeo~ni~" Agric~~ral-FDrestal District.. ~_ ~
I I , . I , , , J
New Total: 1268.26 ac
Free Union AF District Review
AFD2008-00004
Planning Commission Recommendation:
On September 9th 2008, the Planning Commission recommended
renewal of the Free Union District for a 10-year period.
3
Phone (434) 296-5832
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Board of Supervisors
Scott Clark, Senior Planner
October 1, 2008
AFD2008-00004 Free Union District Review - Update on Withdrawals
On September 9,2008, at the Planning Commission hearing on this item, staff presented a list of properties withdrawing
from the district. The landowners requested withdrawal after the Planning Commission staff report was distributed, so the
withdrawals were presented to the Commission at the hearing, The Commission's action, recommending renewal of the
District, included the withdrawal of the following parcels:
TMP 17-8 = 21.899 ac
TMP 16-38 = 3.175 ac
TMP 16-39 = 4.116 ac
The new total acreage for the District after these withdrawals would be 1,371.75 acres,
Draft: September 10, 2008
ORDINANCE NO. 08-3(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, is hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3-213 Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District
Chapter 3. Agricultural and Forestal Districts
Article II. Districts of Statewide Significance
Division 2. Districts
Sec. 3-213 Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 7, parcels 6, 7, 8A, 9, 9A, 9B, 9Bl, 9C; Tax map 16, parcels 4B, 4C, 13A,
13D, 15A, 15A3, 15C, 15E, 15G, 16B, 17,26, 30B, 36, 37, ~ 52Bl, 52B2, 54; Tax Map 17, parcels &,
8B, 8C, 17C, 18H, 20A2, 22, tax map 29, parcel IH (part). This district, created on September 21, 1988 for
not more than 10 years and last reviewed on September 9, 1998 October 8. 2008, shall be next reviewed prior
to September 21,2008 October 8.2018.
(Code 1988, S 2.l-4(m); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98; Ord. 08-3(3), 10-8-08)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance 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
Ms. Mallek
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phonc (434) 296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4012
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
File
Scott Clark, Senior Planner
September 19, 2008
AFD2008-00004 Free Union review of Agricultural/Forestal District
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 9, 2008, by a vote of 5:0,
recommended renewal of AFD2008-00004 Free Union Agricultural/Forestal District as proposed,
The Board is scheduled to hold a public hearing on this item at its October 8th meeting,
SCISM
/
~ Ave
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: Staff: Scott Clark
AFD2008-00004 Free Union AF District
Review
Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
September 9,2008 October 8, 2008
Proposal: Periodic review of the Free Union Comprehensive Plan Designation:
AF district. Rural Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission recommend renewal of the District for another 10-
year period.
AFD 2008-00004 Free Union District Review
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the Free Union district:
Sec. 3-213 Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Free Union Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 7, parcels 6,7, 8A, 9, 9A, 9B, 981, 9C; Tax map 16, parcels 4B, 4C, 13A, 13D, 15A, 15A3,
15C, 15E, 15G, 16B, 17,26, 30B, 36, 37, 38, 39, 52B1, 52B2, 54; Tax Map 17, parcels 8, 8B, 8C, 17C, 18H, 20A2,
22, tax map 29, parcel 1 H (part). This district, created on September 21, 1988 for not more than 10 years and last
reviewed on September 9, 1998, shall be next reviewed prior to September 21,2008.
(Code 1988, S 2,l-4(m); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98)
The district is located northwest of Free Union, from the area of Chapel Spring Lane northwest to Fox
Mountain (see Attachment A for a map). The majority of the district is located in the Buck Mountain
Creek watershed, which drains to the South Fork Rivanna River and the community's largest surface-
water supply. A small portion of the district drains to the South Fork Rivanna through Ward's Creek and
the Moorman's River. Land cover in the district is largely forested on Fox Mountain and along Peavine
Hollow, and more open closer to Free Union.
The district was created in 1988, and originally included 1,650 acres. In 1989,30 more acres were
added, and 733 acres were added in 1991. However, during the 1998 review, 1,012 acres (two parcels)
were removed. The district now includes 1,400.94 acres.
Landowners may withdraw their parcels from districts by right during a renewal at anytime before the
Board of Supervisors takes final action to continue, modify, or terminate the district. No landowners
have requested withdrawal yet.
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: Of the 1400.94 acres that comprise the Free Union
District, 210.19 acres are enrolled in the Agricultural category of the land-use taxation program, while
770.93 acres are enrolled in the Forestry category, and 45.81 acres are in the Open Space category
Enrollment in these tax categories is an indicator of active rural land uses.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestal uses, the Free
Union district includes approximately 20 dwellings.
Local Development Patterns: The district is largely made up of large farm parcels, as are the
surroundings. The area includes some land in smaller residential lots and an area zoned for Planned
Residential Development, but is largely rural in character. Four parcels in the District, and many nearby,
are under conservation easements.
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Free Union district is entirely designated as
Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the district are zoned RA Rural
Areas.
Environmental Benefits: Conservation of this area will help maintain the environmental integrity of the
County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water, agricultural soils, mountain resources,
critical slopes, and wildlife habitat.
AFD200-00004 Free Union AF District Review
PC 9-3-08 BoS 10-8-08
2
Time Period: The Free Union District is currently on a 10-year review cycle.
Agricultural/Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Recommendation: On July 28,2008, the Committee
recommended that the Free Union District be continued for another lO-year period.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend renewal of the Free Union District
for a lO-year period.
Attaclunent:
A. Free Union district map
AFD200-00004 Free Union AF District Review
PC 9-3-08 BoS 10-8-08
3
Free Union Agricultural-Forestal District ,,11
o 0.25 05 1 Miles .:
I I I
.. .:"f~T~foo:'d \~ .It,:~4'!J<tt:.. ':i.I.Wty (,:..In'J:i,,l.::: l:.'~'l"..:;fll..,.t' l'~pl,.
l1~p .:rc:.-:,X .':'" S:ott. =.L.:.rk. ':-J_~" 2l"O'i..
.. rJ:I.": ~.I'" "'1f'l ..l...t"'ll ;,.. d..pic:l._i ....... '~....r'...i.. '..'1....,16..11.,1'\1 :",:l ..w.J ...nt wil.
't: ..:(. oor~'':l"'..ICC :t \.:o,ed :Ie J. lc'~':'.L Qc.sec.p':1:':"I. 1t'..:.r n:.p .1~ t:',: -:t..e-:J..:r'l p'J::p:e:.:e 0:"1_'\",
II' -'..,.;...1 bHtild...,j...1 r..!"l"'I~1. 11::-1. ...'....'If. .~''lI' ~"".!.,.. .!...I...
It> ...-:'J.~.l pt"_::", ':I.:')i ';:m.o:i'WC~J.t:1 of. ,'irq.;.~;:,
! - Roads
,
II . 4 Free Union AFD
I r'77l
I ~ Conservation Easements
, Parcels
AFD200-00004 Free Union AF District Review
PC 9-3-08 BoS 1 0-8-08
4
COUNTYOFALBE~E
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Planning Commission
Scott Clark, Senior Planner
June 26, 2008
AFD 2008-00004 Free Union AF District Review - July 8th Consent Agenda
The Free Union Agricultural/Forestal District review is included on the Consent Agenda for this meeting,
The Commission is simply being asked (as required by the Code of Virginia) to forward this item to the
Agricultural/Forestal Districts Advisory Committee for their review; no other action is needed now. After the
Committee's meeting, the items will return to the Commission for a full public hearing.
Staff requests that the Commission forward this review to the Agricultural/Forestal Districts Advisory
Committee for their consideration.
Please let me know if you have any questions,