2006-01-11
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 1)
Adjourned and regular meetings of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, were
held on January 11,2006. The adjourned meeting began at 2:30 p.m. in Room 235, and the regular
meeting began at 6:00 p.m. in Room 241 of the County Office Building on Mcintire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. The adjourned meeting was adjourned from January 4, 2006.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Mr. David
Slutzky, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Director of Community Development, Mark Graham, Clerk, Ella W. Carey, Deputy Clerk, Debi Moyers.
Agenda Item No.1. The meeting was called to order at 2:30 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker.
Agenda Item No.2. FY 2007-2010 Strategic Plan, Work Session.
Ms. Lori Allshouse, Strategic Planning Management Coordinator, addressed the Board. She
provided an update of the process, and one of the priorities mentioned at the Board's Strategic Planning
Retreat - Conservation Easements. She said the goal today is to get some directions from the Board and
form a conservation easement objective statement. For the last four years, the strategic planning process
has been cyclical, beginning in September and working throughout the fiscal year. This year the process
included a four-year plan. The work sessions tie strategic priorities to the County's budget. There will be a
public review period after the draft is prepared, with the goal being to have the plan ready in July.
Ms. Allshouse said some of the top priorities identified in the process include Education, Affordable
Housing, Promoting Economic Vitality and Conservation Easements. This year the Board also identified
Improving Infrastructure and Resolving Water Issues with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA)
as high priorities. She said there needs to be a comprehensive funding strategy for the future in order to
address these priorities. She mentioned that managing growth through master planning and rural area
strategies are a part of the overall plan. The process uses an ICMA (International City Managers'
Association) guideline for drafting Objective statements for the various strategic plans. Staff must
determine a completion month, date and year for each priority as well as make a statement as to whether
the item will be "maintained, increased, or reduced."
Ms. Allshouse said that at the Retreat, the Board gave staff directions to increase land and
conservation easements by fifty percent in four years, which is very clear guidance. She presented a map
showing current conservation easements in the County, including those acquired through the ACE
Program, and those lands acquired through proffered easements for parklands, noting that 12.8 percent of
land in the County is now in conservation easements, with another four percent protected as parkland.
Ms. Allshouse noted that about 60,000 acres in the County are in conservation easements, with
most of the work to encourage these easements being done by outside agencies. Six percent has been
purchased by the ACE Program and four percent is located in rural preservation developments. About
5,000 acres per year had been going into easements, but in 2005 this figure was 10,500 acres.
Regarding parkland, Ms. Allshouse reported that the County has 3,000 acres including proffered
lands for greenways, donations of parkland, and sites pursued by the County. Some parks have portions in
conservation easements. There is an increasing need for staff to monitor conservation easements, as
required by law.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan contains a couple
of recommendations that impact this, including one that cluster developments become the mandatory form
of subdivision in the Rural Areas. It is felt that alone will help increase the number of conservation
easements, adding that the Rural Areas section of the Plan recommends that the County review the Land
Use Assessment Tax deferral system, which could also lead to increased easements.
Ms. Allshouse said an initial step to meet the goal for Natural Resources and Cultural Assets,
would be to include parkland used for biking, hiking, fishing and other passive recreation. She would like to
have the word "permanent" added to conservation easements, and also specify an acreage amount,
including the qualifying parkland term if desired.
Mr. Dorrier asked if agricultural/forestal districts are included in the numbers given. Mr. Tucker
responded that while these districts are prevalent, they are not permanent; owners usually only preserve
the land for eight to ten years. He said they can continue in the program at each renewal date, but do not
have to.
Mr. Slutzky said he would not want to keep the forestry districts included in the total as they
accomplish something very different from the easements.
Ms. Thomas said she asked the Chairman of the ACE Committee what it would take to put away
more acreage, and the obvious answer was money because of inflation in land costs. She had also
indicated the need for managing easements more seriously as well as the whole program. She also
mentioned that the General Assembly may be greatly impacting the conservation easement program in the
State; Albemarle should stay abreast of the changes.
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 2)
Mr. Dorrier asked how Albemarle County compares to other counties in terms of the number of
conservation easements it has. Mr. Jeff Werner of the Piedmont Environmental Council PEC indicated that
Albemarle is one of the leading counties in the State, and the 10,000+ acres this past year is probably an
all-time record.
Mr. Dorrier asked what happens when outside agencies are involved and the County is not. Ms.
Allshouse responded that the County is not usually involved.
Ms. Thomas said that occasionally a county entity holds the easements.
Mr. Dorrier said it might be a negative if there are easements that are not permanent, especially
with the other non-profit efforts. Mr. Tucker responded that the County works with the other groups.
Mr. Rooker said he believes parkland should be included in the totals. Mr. Tucker said staff
agrees.
Mr. Rooker said he feels that passive parkland in the urban area should be included as it is
extremely important to preserving open spaces.
Mr. Dorrier agreed.
Mr. Tucker said it is easier for staff to manage if it is included.
Ms. Thomas noted that the term "qualifying" should still be included.
Mr. Slutzky suggested working on the definition of "qualifying," especially as it relates to parks in the
urban area. He wondered what would happen if pieces of parkland were needed for things such as
transportation routes, etc.
Mr. Rooker said land in conservation easements can be taken through eminent domain whether it
is on public or private land.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it would be useful to acknowledge proffers for actual acreage in conservation
easements; not just put money in the ACE program.
Mr. Rooker said that is a Strategy to meet the overall goal.
Mr. Slutzky asked if a conservation easement could be a requirement in order for property to be
eligible for the Land Use Tax program.
Mr. Davis said only three categories of land can be in land use - agricultural, forestal and open
space. It is at the County's discretion to limit land use taxation in any or all of those categories. If only open
space was allowed as a category, the landowner would have to either have an easement or enter into
agreement with the County. It is a little more complicated than just saying there is going to be land in
conservation easements. He added that State law sets out how properties qualify under the category of
open space, and land in a conservation easement by definition can qualify for the open space land
category. Land that is in a permanent conservation easement would otherwise qualify for land use; open
space is given the land use taxation category. Forestry land has a different set of criteria under State
regulations.
Mr. Dorrier asked if trees can be cut on land under a conservation easement. Mr. Davis replied that
it depends on the terms of the easement; the trees may have to be re-forested.
Mr. Benish said the forestry plan on an easement has to be monitored and maintained, which takes
manpower.
Mr. Wyant mentioned that the Nature Conservancy and the Virginia Outdoors Foundation monitor
the easements they hold, so that is one advantage to using those agencies.
Mr. Tucker asked if the Board is supportive of the second option as presented by Ms. Allshouse.
Board members agreed.
Ms. Allshouse said there are about 60,000 acres, so 7,500 acres per year would be added if the
Board wants to increase the total figure by 50 percent in the next four years.
Ms. Thomas stated that the Tourism Director, Mr. Mark Shore, had expressed his support for
increasing land under conservation easements, and this number seems to be in line with that
recommendation.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks the amount of acreage in a cluster development in the Rural Area should
not be a part of those numbers as those acres should be different from conservation easement land.
Mr. Rooker said he favors keeping those acres it the numbers as it is just one Strategy to put land
into conservation easements. He mentioned that at the Strategic Planning Retreat, clustering was
considered as one way to work toward the overall goal.
Ms. Thomas suggested that the acres in the clusters be distinguished because not all of the land in
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 3)
conservation easements comes about due to development in the rural areas. She does not like cluster
developments nearly as much, but the Board will be able to see if that is where the easements are coming
from.
Mr. Rooker noted that hopefully clustering would be used along with other strategies to achieve the
overall conservation goal.
Mr. Slutzky said he will support clustering, but views long-term conservation easements as a way to
stop development in the Rural Areas.
Ms. Allshouse said she understands the Board is saying that qualifying parkland should be
included. The word "permanent" should be added, the general idea on the numbers will work, and the
sources of acreage should be included in reports.
Mr. Boyd commented that he agrees, but he is concerned that additional staff will be needed to
keep track of this information.
Ms. Thomas said that currently there is a half-time position, and she is envisioning that it will
become a full-time position.
Ms. Allshouse said that staff has taken the priorities identified by the Board at the Retreat and is
creating a "white paper" for each of them. The hope is to have the strategies ready on July 1,2006.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the partners should provide input as to how to achieve these goals.
(It was the consensus of the Board to use the following Strategic Plan Objective regarding
conservation easements: "By June 30, 2010, increase the total combined acreage in permanent
conservation easements and qualifying public parkland by 30,000* additional acres (50%) using
public and private means". *Based on current figures.
(The Board requested that staff identify the source of protected acreage as part of
updates/reports.
(Ms. Thomas also requested that staff send a letter to the outside agencies which assist the
County with this goal to let them know the County has drafted a specific acreage objective
statement for the next four years.)
Agenda Item No.3. FY 2007 Business Plan, Work Session.
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, said staff would like directions from the Board on
specific initiatives. They need to have an understanding of the critical funding issues. She indicated that
staff insures the annual budget is aligned with the Board's Strategic Goals and Objectives, and the Business
Plan links this all together. She said the Board begins deliberations in September, with staff putting the
budget together toward the end of the year. Then in January staff works to balance the budget and bring it
back to the Board for work sessions. Today, staff will provide updated FY '07 revenue projections, review
department initiative requests, present critical funding issues for upcoming budget work sessions, and
gather Board input on budget issues for further research and discussion, along with a review of Strategic
Initiatives.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Budget Manager, reported that there is a projected total increase in the budget
of $21.0 million in revenues (a 12.2 percent increase), with the majority coming from local revenues, and
the majority of that is from the real estate tax.
Mr. Rooker asked how much of that increase is from new construction versus increased
assessments. Mr. Robert Walters, Chief of Administration and Taxation, said $1.4 million is just an
adjustment to the reassessment increase over what was given to the Board in October.
Mr. Breeden and Mr. Walters both said that the County has seen $200.0 million in new
construction. Mr. Breeden said a lot of the reassessment increase is in a cycle that goes up and down;
these revenues are based on an 18 percent increase in the reassessment. He mentioned that 25 percent
of the reassessments have been completed now and the figures are closer to 20+ percent at this time. He
said that includes commercial as well as residential properties. For the 2006-07 budget, the County is
looking at $12.63 million in new revenue from the real estate tax - $1,363,000 per penny.
Mr. Breeden reported that a lot of the allocations are due to revenue increases and the growth
formula that allocates money to the Capital Improvements Plan. He said that at this point, there will be
$22.0 million going into Debt Service and Capital for the next fiscal year, an increase of $2.2 million and
$195,000 over what was projected in October.
Mr. Breeden said the balance is split between Schools (60%) and Local Government (40%), with
the total going to the Schools estimated at $91.0 million, an increase of $1 0.2 million - $1.0 million more
than the October figures; the General Government figure has increased by $728,000. He added that
School revenues will likely increase by 15 percent next year considering both State and Federal revenues.
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 4)
This will change the allocation amount to the Capital Improvement Program due to the growth formula's
stipulation concerning the amount set aside for Capital and Debt Service.
Mr. Rooker said School revenues will increase substantially, but the Local Government revenues
will be reduced by the fact that the schools got more money from the State. There is something wrong with
th at.
Ms. Thomas said the County will not get less money. Ms. White said the Board can always decide
not to put as much money into the Capital side of the budget.
Mr. Rooker suggested looking at the way the formula is done, as the current result is ridiculous.
Mr. Breeden said the formulas were calculated totally independent of one another. The growth formula just
came into the decision some seven or eight years ago. He said there will be $8.2 million more in new
money for Local Government. He said that sounds good until the expenditure side is considered.
Mr. Breeden stated that the reclassification of public safety positions, along with the new positions
approved, will cost $608,000 for a full year next year. The current merit plan with the 3.95 percent market
increase will cost the County $1.175 million, and the merit element will cost $221 ,000. Health and dental
costs have increased, but by one of the smallest margins in a long time, increasing a total of $149,000 for
health and $7,000 for dental. VRS will increase from 11 percent to 12.9 percent for a total cost increase of
$512,000, and life insurance costs will cost the County $319,000 next year.
Mr. Breeden said there is a request for three new police officers and one evidence supervisor to
free up a policeman who can back out on the road, for a cost of $327,000. The Northern Fire Station is
scheduled to open July, 2007; staffing and funding for that will start three months early at a cost of
$418,000. A new position, that of transportation engineer, would be added on at a cost of $78,000.
Mr. Breeden said there will be a 54 percent increase in fuel costs since gas prices creeping up. He
noted that this should be the last year for costly vehicle replacements. There will be an increase of 31
percent in property and liability insurance rates, due in part to recent hurricanes and floods.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Loss Control Officer is helping this situation at all. Mr. Breeden responded
that external market forces are causing the increase; that person is finding savings in other areas.
Mr. Rooker said he recently worked on a private plan for a client, and only saw an eight percent
increase. He would not expect to see this kind of adjustment upward in property that's located out of
natural disaster areas. Mr. Breeden stated that this is the information given to staff.
Mr. Rooker asked if the County is locked into the Virginia Municipal League (VML) insurance rates.
Mr. Breeden their rates are the best available; staff checked other sources last year.
Mr. Breeden said the County is seeing a 20 percent increase in overtime pay, for a cost of $185,000
- with most of that being in the Public Safety and Community Development departments.
Ms. Thomas said she understands there will be a decrease in overtime with the addition of public
safety staff. Mr. Breeden responded that most of the overtime comes about because of time spent in court.
Mr. Breeden said Social Services costs will increase by $509,000, but they are offset by about
$400,000 in additional State revenues. He said baseline expenditures for County agencies are increasing
by five percent over the 2006 budget, or $308,000, not including salaries.
Ms. White reported that Strategic Initiatives are submitted by each department in an effort to carry
out their current work as well as meet their Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives. She said this year is a little
different because it is a transition year between the current plan and next year's plan. Unlike past years, the
new Strategic Plan does not include goals for effective and efficient government. She said this does not
need to be a strategic goal; it should just be the way the County does business. She said requests related
to training, tools, and technology total about $1.3 million.
Ms. White said all of the requested initiatives submitted are prioritized by the Office on Management
and Budget, and then they are brought to the Leadership Council for prioritization.
Mr. Breeden commented that about one-third of those initiatives were funded last year as the
requests were ranked in order of priority for funding.
Mr. Boyd said he did not understand the ran kings for Fire and Rescue as the Board has already
committed to some of the items.
Ms. White stated that today staff would be going over the top third of the items and asking the
Board for feedback. She said the Board may need more information about some of the items on the list,
and this is an opportunity to ask for that information.
Mr. Slutzky asked if one expenditure might be leveraged to save money in other areas. Mr.
Breeden said the criteria used in evaluating priorities are: Are there offsetting revenues to support it? Who
does it benefit? Is it public safety or health related? Does it support the Strategic Plan?
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 5)
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the best way to present this information would be to include a minus
number on items presenting a savings or reduction.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that some initiatives the Board has not committed to yet are shown. He
thinks the Board needs to look at whether the goals - such as fire and rescue response times - are
realistic. He said the Board is looking at these gargantuan leaps in expense on that side of things. He said
the Board needs to look at whether or not it might want to adjust the goals based upon a cost benefit
analysis of what may be achieved.
Mr. Wyant said he thinks the top third of the requests includes about 25 full-time employees.
Mr. Breeden said that under Enhancement and Quality of Life, funding is shown for the additional
Police Officers, the Evidence Supervisor, and staffing for the new Northern Fire Station. Many of the new
positions requested are the result of workloads and caseloads in those departments, due to growth in those
areas. There are no new initiatives involved. This is just keeping up with the growth being experienced.
Mr. Rooker said adding five people to Social Services means a six percent increase in that
department's personnel. Ms. White said that department nearly four positions below the caseload
standards set by the State yet the State does not put additional money into those salaries.
Ms. Thomas said this is just another example of an unfunded mandate.
Mr. Slutzky said he would find it useful if unfunded mandates were identified as this information is
presented.
Mr. Rooker asked if the additional staff will get the department up to the standard. Ms. White said it
will quite get them there, as the department is down five and one-half positions in adult services, and four in
child welfare services. Also, in the eligibility worker area the department is down five positions.
Mr. Rooker asked if adding those positions is to meet the State's recommended levels of staffing,
or the Goals set out in the County's Comprehensive Plan due to population growth. Mr. Breeden said
technology improvements are also driving up costs in the safety areas.
Mr. Rooker said the County has invested in this, and the Police Department has also received
Homeland Security grants. He wondered if full-time equivalents positions can be saved based on more
efficiency from technology.
Mr. Breeden mentioned that the dollar amounts include one-time startup costs such as furniture,
equipment, automobiles, uniforms, etc.; in some departments there is offsetting revenue.
Ms. Thomas asked if it is reasonable to just grant a few extra workers and then find out that needs
have not been met. Ms. White replied that any new staff member will be welcome as these departments
have gone without additional help for some time.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that items such as the eligibility workers in Social Services should show a
minus on next year's budget if they are absorbed in future years.
Mr. Rooker said that is not part of the baseline budget.
Mr. Breeden confirmed that one-time expenses will not show up in the next year's budget.
Mr. Rooker said in departmental budgets the decrease or increase in one-time expenses over the
prior year can be determined. If there are no one-time expenses, it will be a decrease. That shows up in
the baseline operating budget.
Mr. Breeden said he will send the Board some examples to make it clearer. In response to a
question from Ms. Thomas he confirmed that six positions are being added to the Police force.
Mr. Walters explained that the first four police officers will be working the beat, while the other two
are for administrative support. He noted that the call volume in the County has increased.
Ms. Thomas said that she would like to see some figures on this as there seems to be a large
increase in this department for such a suburban community.
Mr. Rooker said if the population is 90,000, there are 1.2 officers per thousand people. Mr. Walters
responded that the Department will still be 15 personnel short even with the new additions to meet the goal
of 1.5 officers per thousand. He noted that the Department is just starting to track response times.
Mr. Slutzky said that he would like to see how the investment in technology is paying off.
Mr. Dorrier added that he would like to look at the County's crime rate. Mr. Walters replied that
Chief Miller set the goal for officer ratio lower than the national average as he felt Albemarle did not need
the higher ratio.
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 6)
Mr. Breeden agreed that he would send the Board more detail on the Police Department's request.
He said the request for 4.4 Emergency Medical Services (EMS) staff provides for the Northern Station for
the entire year beginning July 1; they will be located in an alternative location until construction of the station
is completed.
Mr. Breeden said the request for a Park Service Officer is based on the need for more surveillance
at County parks. He said the Community Development department is seeing a substantial increase in its
workload. The Record Manager Position is related to running the City View computer tracking system. The
GIS Specialist is also tied into the Inspections area as inspectors are currently taking GPS readings that
should probably be done by someone else.
Mr. Wyant asked why surveyors aren't doing that. Mr. Breeden responded that the County is
moving in that direction, but this is what it takes at this time. He noted that the Customer Service Planner in
the Community Development Department is needed so planners do not have to interface with random
public visitors. He confirmed that this person would be a planner who would deal with short questions as
opposed to details on specific plans and requests.
Mr. Breeden said $7,500 is requested to have someone from the outside come in and evaluate the
County's compensation structure. He said there is $4,900 for employee fingerprinting; the current system
of having the cost deducted from the employee's first paycheck is quite cumbersome.
Mr. Rooker asked if the employees were actually checked against a database. Staff responded
that they are.
Mr. Rooker asked if the top third of these items could be sorted and printed out to give detail on the
items in their order of priority. It would also be helpful to have department total expenses projected for
2006-07 and compared to the current year, including recommended initiatives. Mr. Breeden said a lot of
that information will be included in the budget work sessions; this is just a preliminary presentation of that
information. He mentioned that the Police Records Clerk and General Services administration positions for
the County Office Building-Fifth Street are also in the top third.
Mr. Breeden said total agency requests for the coming year are $16.0 million, and are currently
funded at $13.9, for an increase of $2.1 million if fully funded as requested. He said the average increase
would likely by six percent for a cost of $837,000.
Ms. Thomas said she was surprised last year at how little the increases were for the outside
agencies, especially for the agencies that were performing really well. She said the County puts them
through "a ringer", and then gives them a four percent increase. She suggested having a "larger pie" to
consider for the agencies because there is a tremendous multiplier affect to any dollars the County gives to
the agencies that get most of their budget elsewhere. Mr. Breeden commented that the agencies are
getting about the same increase as what the County is realizing in increased revenue - eight percent. He
said the Commission on Children & Families (CCF) would get about six percent, but Juvenile Detention
would get about 17 percent due to the County's usage of the facility plus its new pay plan.
Mr. Rooker said that is a mandate.
Mr. Breeden stated that the SPCA is requesting a 124 percent increase. They will be addressing
the Board at the public hearing. It is an amount which is way over what the existing contract call for. He
added that expenses of the new facility are greater than anticipated. The Community Attention Home is
requesting a 46 percent increase, Charlottesville Transit service (CTS) is requesting an increase of 142
percent. The biggest part of the request from the Emergency Communications Center (ECC) is in the
maintenance agreement, and that is spread out evenly over the participating jurisdictions. He noted that the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad (CARS) is requesting that the County fully fund its operating
budget, which is a 248 percent increase over the current year; the County portion of their costs is about 60
percent.
Mr. Rooker asked if CARS provides all City EMS services. Mr. Tucker responded that they do.
Mr. Breeden said if one-third of initiatives are funded and the agencies are funded at an average six
percent increase, that leaves about $1.0 million of the $8.0 million surplus.
Mr. Rooker said there is no doubt the Board supports excellence in Education, but a substantial
amount of additional State revenues are coming in solely for education. He said the Board needs to look at
whether or not it will be able to meet its goals without as much allocation of local revenue. He commented
that the County has been funding a lot of that differential when there was less State funding, and now it
needs to be ascertained that those allocations are reasonable. The Board is not going to short-change the
schools, but it needs to make certain it does not short-change services in other areas. The Board needs to
look at the School side of things before making any decision.
Mr. Breeden said $300,000 more is budgeted than what is needed for the Tax Relief for the Elderly
program, as there have not been as many applicants as anticipated. The Board might want to consider a
tax rate reduction, and if so, staff should know that soon. He said there is funding now in the ACE Program
for those projects presently in the process, and there is also funding for Affordable Housing in the baseline
budget.
Mr. Boyd said the population increase does not come close to the increase in spending. He would
like for staff to build the budget around some reasonable indicator of what is happening in the economy.
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 7)
Ms. Thomas emphasized that it is the Board's duty to find those items that can be reduced or cut.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks staff should identify those things.
Mr. Rooker said that is why he would like to see numbers on departments. He mentioned that
there is over a 5.5 percent increase in inflation plus population growth, and many of the initiatives are driven
by goals in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Boyd commented that he is trying to be fair to the public, rather than just spending up to
revenue levels.
Mr. Rooker suggested creating a "rainy day fund," where there would be more of a level budgetary
process.
Mr. Dorrier suggested staggering the hiring of new employees. Mr. Breeden said that will likely
happen anyway.
Mr. Slutzky said that through the Comprehensive Plan and the Strategic Plan, the Board essentially
adds "under funded mandates" by setting goals. He noted that some things may be over funded relative to
target objectives.
Mr. Boyd commented that there isn't enough of an incentive for individual departments to look
deeply into what they're doing. He added said there is no way he can be assured that funds are being used
efficiently when all he sees every year is that every department needs more people. He thinks the Board
gives a message to just come in and spend the money that is available. Ms. Thomas and Mr. Rooker
disagreed.
Mr. Rooker said a close look at the budget, department by department, will show that the biggest
percentage increases are in those areas where improved services are being given. He said if Albemarle is
compared to other counties, this government has been operating pretty efficiently given the tax rate and
public satisfaction. This does not mean it is the end of the inquiry, but it is reasonable information to
consider.
Mr. Slutzky suggested using baselines of target objectives rather than baselines of what has been
done in the past. He thinks that some departments are being under-funded relative to the commitments the
Board has made to provide various quality of life benefits to the community. He cited inadequate
infrastructure as an item with which the public is not satisfied.
Mr. Rooker said there are people in the community screaming for master planning to happen at a
faster rate. He does not see any initiatives in this budget to accelerate master planning. He agrees that the
County should be run like a business, but the Board also has to look at whether it is meeting the service
objectives that have been promised to the community.
Mr. Boyd asked why the Board received this list that shows spending almost everything we have.
Mr. Rooker said he could certainly determine which initiatives should not be funded.
Mr. Boyd commented that many people cannot absorb a tax rate increase.
Ms. Thomas stated that the Board has a lousy tax that it depends on to get most of the revenue.
Mr. Wyant said there are suggestions the Board makes to give staff directions as to how to be more
efficient.
Mr. Breeden emphasized that most of the commitments for increases are for items the Board has
agreed to fund.
At 5:00 p.m., the Board took a brief recess, then reconvened at 5:10p.m.
(The Office of Management and Budget is to send to Board members again the FY '06-07
Strategic Initiative Request narratives resorted by OMB and Leadership Council rankings versus
departments. Also clarify the schools state revenues increase for FY '06-07.)
Agenda Item No.4. Development Review Processes and Public Input, Work Session.
Mr. Mark Graham said staff and the Planning Commission have held a number of work sessions on
legislative review processes and other matters.
Mr. Rooker said staff has presented a number of recommendations in each development process
category to streamline and shorten the process. He said the Board needs to be concrete about which of
these to adopt, or set this matter for public hearing.
Mr. Graham said the four areas concern building permits, ministerial, legislative reviews, and
Comprehensive Plan/Ordinance changes. Regarding building permits, the Virginia Association of Zoning
Officials determined that Albemarle County's timeframes are very similar to those of other localities. He
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 8)
said staff needs to improve quality control, and get the new data system (City View) available to customers
so they can check the review status of their request; this system will enable the public to check the status of
applications submitted to the County. This web-enabled tool should be available by July 2006, although it
will not enable people to submit complex building permit requests on-line.
Mr. Graham said the legislative review process needs to be focused on in order to reduce the use
of deferrals and also establish a proffer policy. He said the proposed proffer policy will come before the
Board on February 1. He said the level of detail Albemarle uses in its legislative reviews is extensive. He
said that as long as legislative reviews are a discretionary item there is some incentive for the development
community to try to hold back. It is going to be a give and take process.
Mr. Dorrier asked if he was considering master planning.
Mr. Graham responded that master planning falls under Comprehensive Plan changes. He said
the Board has expressed concerns about how long it takes to get Zoning Text Amendments completed,
such as with the Neighborhood Model. Staff cannot set hard deadlines for completion of the work, but it
needs to spend more time defining expectations.
Mr. Dorrier said it seems that the problem with the master planning process is the tendency for
repeated amendment of the product.
Mr. Rooker said the product is not amended after it is adopted without going through a substantial
process. With the master plans for Crozet and elsewhere, the Board needs to make certain the goals set in
those master plans are being met through the planning process. He said larger rezonings tend to become
a negotiating process. Negotiations have a tendency to not become serious until it is close to a deadline
and then the best offers are put on the table. Mr. Rooker said in certain situations, such as Rivanna Village,
things change. If hard deadlines could be set (except in rare circumstances), that part of the process might
be speeded up.
Ms. Thomas reviewed the conclusions that Mr. Graham had drawn from Board discussions of
August, 2005: Reducing the Planning Commission's role in ministerial reviews, limiting the use of deferrals,
implementing a proffer policy, and improved definitions of expectations to better define the public process.
Mr. Rooker asked if Board members were ready to act on those recommendations, or if they
needed more information first.
Mr. Graham said most people are not having problems with the ministerial review. That process
has worked pretty well, although problems have been caused by turnover in staff which has impacted
review times. He emphasized that the ministerial review times have been very similar to just about every
other jurisdiction.
Mr. Rooker commented that citizens get a false sense of expectations with ministerial reviews, as
often only the Planning Commission can determine whether the ordinances are being met. There is no
discretionary power in those cases.
Mr. Graham said the Planning Commission is scheduling a retreat where they will discuss this and
other issues.
Mr. Wyant wondered if the public really understands what is expected.
Mr. Graham said the biggest problem right now with ministerial reviews is lack of staff due to
turnover.
Mr. Rooker said notifications to adjoining property owners in ministerial actions are not required by
State law but are used by the County to assure that neighbors are aware of developments occurring near
them. He said staff has indicated that this takes a significant amount of time and resources and also builds
public expectations.
Board members agreed they had wanted to continue with the notification process so the public
feels included in the process, even though it adds time and bureaucracy to the process.
Mr. Boyd presented information on implementing business principles in government. He does not
have a problem with the product of the Neighborhood Model, but with its delivery. He reviewed the process
leading up to Board approval. He thinks everyone would likely agree that this is not the most efficient
process. He would like to review the master planning process, community involvement, staff and citizen
development and interaction, information-sharing, improved workflow, and timing. He would like this to start
in March with a group meeting bi-weekly to accomplish this, starting with a spot analysis to examine
strengths and weaknesses of the Neighborhood Model process. He would like for there to be input from
developers, the community and staff. He suggested that the committee include two members of the Board
of Supervisors, two members of Planning Commission, two members from the community, two staff
members from Community Development, and perhaps students from the Darden School at the University.
Mr. Rooker agreed it is a good idea to create a committee to look at this process, and he thinks
having the Darden School involvement would help tremendously.
Ms. Thomas wondered about using the land use department from the University's School of
Architecture as well. She feels the County is not in the Neighborhood Model business, but is in the ideal
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 9)
living environment business, and that model was developed through a very slow process with a lot of citizen
participation. She suggested making some deadlines for deferrals and change the way in which
development is approached by developers. It might not take a whole task force working on it for six
months. She would like to have some more discussion about what it is Mr. Boyd thinks is broken.
Mr. Boyd said he sees a number of things that are not working, and he does not want developers
going into the Rural Areas because it is easier to build there.
Mr. Rooker said staff has spent some time on this subject and has made some recommendations
already. There are plusses and minuses going through any process, but he thinks it would be beneficial to
have fresh eyes look at the process. Some good recommendations may save staff hours of time over the
next few years. He expressed general support for the idea, stating that it would be helpful to look at the
work already done on this in the past. He would like to get a staff report on this giving history of past efforts
to improve the process, so the Board is not reinventing the wheel.
Mr. Boyd said he wants this suggestion to move forward rather quickly.
Mr. Slutzky said staff works hard to get a lot done and yet there is a perception in the community
that doing Neighborhood Model developments is confusing and results in the desire to develop in the Rural
Areas. In addition to discussing the makeup of the group, there needs to be clear direction as to an
expected outcome. The other half of the equation is to make it less appealing for developers to build in the
Rural Areas by addressing issues such as clustering, phasing and mountaintop protection.
Mr. Rooker agreed, saying there is a tendency to adopt general goals and strategies without
moving forward with specifics. In addition to the new process, there needs to be a commitment to move
forward with the Goals and Strategies already adopted.
Mr. Dorrier said there is an unprecedented level of complexity to the County's ordinances now, and
suggested adding someone to this committee from the University Law School to help simplify the process.
He said the role of the Planning Commission might also need to be amended. He agreed that having two
Planning Commission members might be appropriate.
Mr. Rooker commented that the Commission's role is defined by statute, and staff recommends
setting time periods for actions to be taken.
Mr. Tucker said this item is slated to come back to the Board in early February for further
discussion.
Agenda Item No.5. Closed Session. The Board recessed at 6:05 p.m. but did not go into closed
session.
Agenda Item No.6. Call to Order. The regular meeting was called to order in Room 241 at 6:10
p.m. by the Chairman.
Agend3 Item No.7. Certify Closed Session. The closed session had been cancelled.
Agenda Item No.8. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No.9. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No.1 O. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Rooker announced that the Board will not be voting on joining the Thomas Jefferson
Partnership for Economic Development tonight. Another public hearing on this matter will be scheduled for
another date.
Ms. Mary Rice addressed the Board, reminding them that they unanimously voted last week to
affirm the 2024 build-out population of 12,500 in Crozet as a basis for meeting infrastructure needs and
service, and not as a target figure for population. She said Planning Department staff had estimated a high
end of the build-out figure at 24,000, and the Board's vote seemed to affirm the 12,500 figure. In the
executive summary, staff indicated an eight percent per year increase in the population figure, but in the
third quarter of 2005 the number of building permits issued in Crozet was 192, not 47 as staff had reported.
She said using the accurate figure makes the growth figure 16 percent, not eight percent. She encouraged
the Board to hold a public hearing on this and make some new zoning decisions based on that correct
figure.
Mr. Tom Loach addressed the Board, referencing the grand totals of maximum ideal population
coming from the DISC Committee report for Crozet was 12,189 - completely consistent with what the
community believed the master plan to be. He said consultants were aware of both the low and the high
end figures in the Comprehensive Plan, but chose the ideal population as the 12,189 figure, with 4,876
dwelling units. This number is completely consistent with the data that was on the master plan for Crozet
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 10)
as given to the community. He does not believe there ever was a 20-year build-out considered and the
community has been right about this all along. He commented that many people in the County would not
be in favor of participating in the T JPED.
Ms. Paula Brown-Steedly addressed the Board, stating that she lives on Doctor's Crossing, a road
in the Stony Point area. She presented an article from the Daily Progress on January 5 about safety
concerns with school busses, noting that having a bus towed up a hill is not considered an accident. She
encouraged the Board to fix the road before there is an official accident on it.
Mr. Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum addressed the Board, noting that his group has
commissioned a rewrite of the Subdivision Text Amendment as it relates to the creation of interconnections
between adjoining parcels. He said the proposal they came up with may effectively fix the inequity issue as
it refines interconnectivity language to ensure the first landowner is not unfairly burdened by the
construction of roads and other facilities that are intended to serve abutting properties. Because
dedications are made at the time of approval of the subdivision and are shown on the plat that is eventually
recorded, the property interest is provided and put on the public record. Because the construction is
delayed until needed, it reduces the likelihood of an unfair imposition on a landowner just because they are
proceeding to develop first - especially when the connection provides the only public access to the abutting
property. He pointed out that it also makes it easier to calculate and maintain the appropriate construction
bonding for the improvements. This is something the Board somewhat invited them to do.
Agenda Item No. 11. Consent Agenda. Ms. Thomas moved for approval of Items 11.1 and 11.2
on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items as information. Mr. Dorrier seconded the
motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
Item 11.1. Request to set a public hearing to consider the amendment of the Lease for the Old
Crozet Elementary School building by the Charlottesville Waldorf School.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the County currently leases the old Crozet Elementary
School building to the Charlottesville Waldorf School (CWS) for its use as a private school. The original
Lease was entered into in July of 1999 for a term of up to six years. In 2004, the Lease term was extended
to July of 2006 because the CWS's plans for building its facility in Charlottesville had been delayed. CWS
is now requesting an extension of the Lease to July, 2007 with an option for one additional six-month
extension. This request is necessitated by additional delays that CWS has encountered in its efforts to build
its own facility.
When the Board agreed to extend the lease in 2004, the Building Committee of the Board
determined that because there were no definite plans for reuse of the facility, continuation of the lease was
appropriate. While the Building Committee has not specifically met regarding this extension, the situation
has not changed since then. The County is still in the process of determining the ultimate use of this site.
While the site was considered as a possible location for a future Crozet Library, public input on
development of the Crozet Master Plan indicated that ultimate location of the library should be targeted for
the immediate "downtown" area of Crozet. In addition to becoming an anchor for development of that
downtown area, location of a library there would have a positive economic impact on the area by drawing
residents to the primary business location in Crozet. Given that the library is not now targeted for the old
Elementary School site, staff does not believe an extension of the Lease to July, 2007, with a possible
extension to January, 2008, would conflict with developing plans for the building's reuse. In addition, the
lease extension would allow the County to continue generating rent from the facility and avoid the building
being vacant while plans for its reuse are being developed.
Mr. Wyant thinks it may be appropriate that the building be available for community use one
weekend per month if the Lease is extended. The proposed amendment to extend the Lease permits the
County to reserve and use the auditorium and restroom facilities in the building one weekend per month.
This will provide an opportunity for the County to accommodate community use of the property during the
Lease's term if appropriate uses are identified. Staff is continuing to discuss final language in the lease to
insure County use of the facility, while avoiding conflicts with CWS's annual school calendar. This and a
few other issues may result in minor amendments to the lease.
The proposed Lease amendment provides for the current Lease to be extended from July, 2006 to
July, 2007 with the option to extend the Lease to January, 2008 if a written request for the extension is
made prior to July 1,2006. In addition, the Lease amendment sets forth the terms and conditions for the
County to use the auditorium in the building one weekend per month. The proposed Lease amendment
would extend the rent for the property on the same terms as the original Lease. The current annual rent is
$55,824.00 ($4,652.00 per month). The rent increases annually by an amount equal to the annual
percentage increase in the CPllndex plus $3,000. In addition, the occupancy of the building by CWS
reduces the County's maintenance costs for the building that would accrue if the building were vacant.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize a public hearing for February 1, 2006, to consider the
approval of a Lease amendment to extend the terms of the Lease for the Old Crozet Elementary School
building by the Charlottesville Waldorf School.
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 11)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board directed staff to advertise for a public
hearing on February 1, 2006, to consider the approval of a Lease amendment to extend the terms of
the Lease for the Old Crozet Elementary School Building by the Charlottesville Waldorf School.
Item 11.2. Resolution to accept road(s) in Porters Village Subdivision into the State Secondary
System.
A memorandum was received from Mr. Greg Cooley, Roads Engineer, Department of Community
Development, addressed to Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk, stating that certain roads in Porters Village Subdivision
were ready for acceptance into the Secondary System of State Highways.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Porters Village Subdivision, described on the attached
Additions Form LA-5(A) dated January 11, 2006, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown
on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County. Virqinia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Porters Village
Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form LA-5(A) dated January 11, 2006, to
the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to S33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
*****
The road(s) described on Additions Form LA-5(A) is:
1) Simpson Lane (State Route 1049) from the intersection of Route 627 to the cul-
de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 09/16/1998 in the office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1744, page 659, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.25 miles.
Total Mileage - 0.25 miles
Item 11.3. Copy of Virginia Lottery Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2005 (on file in Clerk's office),
was received for information.
Item 11.4. Copy of Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors minutes for November
17 and November 22,2005, was received for information.
Item 11.5. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for September 20, September 27, October
25, and December 6, 2005, received for information.
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing to solicit input on local community development and housing
needs in preparation to seek funding through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program.
(This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on January 2, 2006.)
Mr. Ron White, Housing Director, addressed the Board. He said the funding comes through HUD
to the State for distribution to non-entitlement communities. The State announced that $8.3 million is
available for competitive applications this year. Albemarle could apply for up to $2.5 million for projects that
benefit low- and moderate-income persons, prevent slums and blight, or address urgent community needs.
Eligible activities include economic development, housing rehabilitation, housing production, community
facilities such as water facilities, and community service facilities. The County has been successful in
receiving and administering block grants, with recent grants including a Comprehensive Community grant
for the Porters Road/Yancey School neighborhood where approximately 30 houses were rehabilitated, 13
dilapidated houses were demolished, properties were cleaned and five new houses were built. The County
also received a grant providing a funds to construct a community center at Whitewood Village Apartments
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 12)
where after-school programs for children are held, along with adult training in GED and financial literacy.
Mr. White said staff has looked at the Hacktown Road neighborhood for potential housing
rehabilitations, and AHIP is still trying to complete surveys there. They have run into some water and sewer
problems that might need repair or other measures. AHIP has filed an application to develop the Treesdale
property on Rio Road and is seeking a planning grant of approximately $30,000 to evaluate this possibility.
Because they are community improvement grants, the County tries to identify projects through AHIP, but
less than one percent of residential structures in the County are considered poor or substandard. He said
the State requires that counties have a target area, and much of the County's substandard area is
scattered, so block grant money may not be available.
Mr. Wyant suggested that the Greenwood area be targeted.
Ms. Thomas suggested targeting the Southwood Mobile Home Park, and wondered if CDBG grants
could be used there. Mr. White responded that there would probably be some private or non-profit
ownership, and would not be an approvable application under private ownership.
Mr. Rooker commented that the same thing exists at the corner of Hydraulic and Rio Roads behind
the Rock Store. Mr. White said there have been discussions on how to deal with mobile home parks, the
value of the land, etc., as many of them lie within the Route 29 development areas. He added that AHIP
had to set up a for-profit with the Whitewood Road project.
Mr. Boyd wondered about space for a Boys & Girls Club in these facilities. Mr. White commented
that the after-school programs have been very successful.
Mr. Rooker suggested putting the community facilities at Whitewood Village under public ownership
so they would qualify for funding. Mr. White asked the Board to have people contact him with other
suggested target areas.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speaking, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Boyd moved to set a public hearing for March 8, 2006, for a second public hearing to review
the proposed applications. Mr. Wyant seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-2005-025. Jarman's Sportcycles (Sign #32). Public Hearing on a
Proposal for: Outdoor display of vehicles in accord w/Sec 30.6.3.2(b) of the Zoning Ord which allows for
outdoor sales, storage and/or display in the EC (Entrance Corridor Overlay) Zoning District. Zoninq
Cateqorv/General Usaqe: The property contains 2.219 acres zoned EC (Entrance Corridor) & HC
(Highway Commercial). Tax Map 78, Parcel 33B. Loc on south side of Richmond Rd (US 250 East)
approx .14 miles west of its intersection w/Sleepy Hollow Lane (private right-of-way). Magisterial District:
Scottsville. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on December 26, 2005 and January
2, 2006.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this request is to construct a two-story building in the Route 250 East
Corridor. The building would include porches on the north and west sides for the outdoor display of
motorcycles. He noted that a Special Use Permit is required because of potential impacts to the Entrance
Corridor due to outdoor storage and display. He said the Architectural Review Board (ARB) has no
objections to the request but has recommended some conditions for approval. He said that by limiting the
proposed vehicle display to the porches and designing the building to complement an adjacent structure to
the west, impacts of the display are expected to be limited and the overall development is expected to be
compatible with the district. He said staff had recommended approval of the request subject to conditions
related to location of display, treatment of display, retention of woodland and existing frontage, trees,
lighting, signage and fencing.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 13, 1005,
unanimously recommended approval of the request subject to the conditions recommended by staff, but
added one additional condition requiring supplemental planting on the east side of the building to further
address visual impacts to the Entrance Corridor and the historic Shadwell property to the east. He noted
that the ARB also recommends an alternative condition that is more specific as to planting type.
Mr. Rooker commented said he thinks this application is a good example of how the Planning
Commission saves the Board time, as the conditions have been thoroughly deliberated and crafted. He
then asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Charles Hendricks, one of the project architects, reported that they have added to the plan
eight Leyland cypress on 15-foot centers down the east side of the building.
Mr. Davis stated the language of the additional condition needs to be tweaked slightly to fit the
format of the conditions. He suggested that Condition NO.9 read: "Additional plants along the east face of
the building shall be installed to provide adequate screening; plant material shall be six to eight feet in
height, spaced 15 feet on center and should include hollies, Leyland cypress, and or cedars."
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 13)
The applicant agreed that he was comfortable with that condition.
Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing at this time. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier moved to approve SP-2005-025 subject to the first eight conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission, with the ninth condition being reworded to read: "Additional plants along the east
face of the building shall be installed to provide adequate screening; plant material shall be six to eight feet
in height, spaced 15 feet on center and should include hollies, leyland cypress, and or cedars," as stated by
Mr. Davis.
Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The outdoor display of vehicles shall be limited to the covered porches of the building only.
Vehicles shall not be displayed elsewhere on the site, or between the northern parcel
boundary and the Entrance Corridor (EC) ;
2. Vehicles shall not be elevated anywhere on site;
3. The existing woodland on site, as indicated by the "existing tree line," shall be retained in its
entirety, with the exception of that area necessary for installation of the septic field;
4. The existing four Sycamore (or London Plane) trees (Platanus x acerifolia or Platanus
occidentalis) located along the Route 250 East side of the property shall be preserved;
5. Tree preservation measures shall be included on the E&S plan and the grading plan
(submitted with the final site plan) to provide for conditions #3 and #4, above. The E&S
plan and grading plan shall include notes and details consistent with Chapter 3.38 "Tree
Preservation and Protection" of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook
(current edition). Tree preservation measures shall be coordinated throughout the site
plan set and E&S drawings. In the event that any site plan or E&S drawings show
inconsistent information regarding tree protection, the drawing(s) showing the greatest tree
protection shall prevail;
6. Site and building lighting shall be limited to the satisfaction of the ARB as illustrated in an
ARB approved lighting plan submitted with the final site plan;
7. Site and building signage shall be limited to the satisfaction of the ARB as illustrated in an
ARB approved drawing included with the applicant's final submittal for a Certificate of
Appropriateness;
8. The three-board fence proposed along the Route 250 East side of the property shall align
with the fence on the adjacent property to the west. The color of the proposed three-board
fence shall match the color of the fence on the adjacent property to the west; and
9. Additional plants along the east face of the building shall be installed to provide adequate
screening. Plant materials shall be six (6) feet to eight (8) feet in height, spaced fifteen (15)
feet on center, and should include Hollies, Leyland Cyprus and/or Cedars.
Agenda Item No. 14. ZMA-2005-006. Clevester Logan (Signs #10 & 11). Public Hearing on a
Proposal to: Rezone .545 acres from R-2 (Residential) Zoning District to R-4 (Residential) Zoning District
to allow property boundary line adjustments. Zoninq Cateqorv/General Usaqe: Tax Map 61 , parcels 44A &
44A 1 (portion of, 17,503 sq ft adjacent to Tax Map 61 , parcel 44, including existing dwelling) located at
2530 Hydraulic Rd (Rt 743) at intersection of Hydraulic Rd and Turtle Creek Rd. It is zoned R-2
(Residential) and EC (Entrance Corridor) Overlay. The R-4 Zoning District allows for up to 6 dwelling units
per acre. Magisterial District: Jack Jouett. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on
December 26, 2005 and January 2, 2006.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this request would allow rezoning from R-2 to R-4 for a lot consolidation that
would result in having two dwellings on one property. He said the subject unit is a single-family home on
Hydraulic Road and an unoccupied cottage behind it. He said this rezoning would exceed the density
allowed in the R-2 zoning district, but the density would be permitted in the R-4 district. He said the
Planning Commission had a fair amount of discussion as to the appropriateness of the applicant closing off
access to Hydraulic Road and using their two other access points on Turtle Creek Road. He said VDOT
recommended that the driveway on Hydraulic Road be closed with this rezoning. The Commission
indicated there was a need with this rezoning to have assurances that the entrance would be closed.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has indicated they will close the entrance when the primary
residence is no longer used as a single-family dwelling or when and if the second dwelling is occupied. The
Commission accepted this as satisfactory in their recommendation of approval. He noted that the proffer
did not include reference to both parcels, so staff updated that to include both parcels - Tax Map 61 , Parcel
44.A1 and Tax Map 61, Parcel 44.A.
With no questions for staff, Mr. Rooker asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. John Dezio said he represents the Logan's who own the property. He said they have owned
this property for almost 40 years. The cottage was occupied by Mrs. Logan's mother until she passed
away. He said the concern about the Hydraulic Road entrance is that the Logans have allowed the postal
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 14)
service to place three additional mailboxes on their property, and those neighbors access the Logan's
property from Turtle Creek Road and then come out to Hydraulic Road. He confirmed that the Logans are
fine with the proffer as it is written.
Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the hearing
was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker said that he supports the proposal.
Mr. Boyd moved to approve ZMA-2005-006 subject to the one proffer presented. Ms. Thomas
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The proffer is set out in full below.)
PROFFER FORM
Date: 1-11-2006
ZMA #: 2005-00006
Tax Map and Parcel Number: 61-44A1 and 61-44A
.545 Acres to be rezoned from R-2 to R-4
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly
authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to
the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it
is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such
conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
Vehicular ingress and egress to and from the property shall he only from Turtle Creek
Road, and such access from Hydraulic Road shall thereafter be prohibited, if either: (1) the
primary structure on the property ceases to be used as a single family residence; or (2) the
accessory cottage is occupied as a dwelling unit.
Siqnature of All Owners
(Signed) Clevester Logan
Printed Names of All Owners
Clevester Logan
Date
1/11/2006
Siqnature of All Owners
(Signed) Mattie W. Logan
Printed Names of All Owners
Mattie W. Logan
Date
1/11/2006
(Note: Petitions ZMA-2005-008 and SP-2005-015 were heard concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 15. ZMA-2005-008. Pantops Park (Sign #14). Public hearing on a Proposal to:
Rezone 4.87 acres (Tax Map 78, Parcel 16) from HC (Highway Commercial) to NMD (Neighborhood Model
District) to allow 42,000 sq ft bank & office building & two 22,500 sq ft mixed office & retail buildings with
proffers. Highway Commercial zoning allows for commercial & service uses & residential use by special
use permit (15 units/acre). Neighborhood Model District zoning is intended to provide for compact, mixed-
use developments with urban scale, massing, density & infrastructure configuration that integrates
diversified uses within close proximity to each other. Existinq Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density:
Regional Service & Community Service in Neighborhood Three. Regional Service designates areas for
regional-scale retail, wholesale, business and/or employment centers & residential (6.01-34 units/acre).
Community Service designates areas for community-scale retail wholesale, business & medical offices,
mixed use core communities and/or employment services & residential (6.01-34 units/acre). Location: Tax
Map 78, Parcel 16. Located in EC Entrance Corridor Overlay District on south side of Rt 250. This property
is the former Moore's Lumber site. Maqisterial District: Rivanna. (This public hearing was advertised in the
Daily Progress on December 26, 2005 and January 2, 2006.)
Agenda Item No. 16. SP-2005-015. Virginia National Bank at Pantops (Sign #57). Public Hearing
on a Proposal for: drive-in window for bank in accord w/Sec 24.2.2 of the Zoning Ord which allows for
drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses within HC (Highway Commercial) zoning. The
request is in conjunction with a request to rezone the property from HC to NMD (Neighborhood Model
District). Zoninq cateqorv/qeneral usaqe: Tax Map 78, Parcel 16, contains 4.87 acres & is zoned HC,
Highway Commercial & EC, Entrance Corridor. Located at 1241 Richmond Rd (US Rt 250E) approx 200 ft
from intersection of Richmond Rd & Stony Point Rd (US Rt 20N). Maqisterial district: Rivanna. (This public
hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on December 26, 2005 and January 2, 2006.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this is a request for a rezoning and a special use permit for a drive-through
window, which would allow an office building and bank in one building, and two mixed-office and retail
buildings. He said proffers have been provided. This area is designated for regional service and
community service uses, and is the location of the former Moore's lumber store. He said the drive-through
window is concealed from the Entrance Corridor. The building contains about 24,000 square feet of offices.
The Code of Development limits the amount of commercial and retail space in the property to 11,000
square feet; those will be on the first level of buildings 1 Band 1 C - the remaining buildings are proposed as
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 15)
offices.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that at the last Planning Commission meeting, the applicant agreed to
change his proffers to increase pedestrian improvements to better reflect VDOT's estimates for the costs,
and to extend the period in which an agreement to dedicate can be finalized. That would allow for a
connection from Route 250 to Spotnap Road within an existing private easement, and to create a new
public connection between Route 250 and South Pantops Drive. The pedestrian improvements are in the
areas of intersections "A" and "B" as presented, and will include possible crosswalks and crosswalk
signalization. He noted that the road coming through is also shown on the diagram presented.
Ms. Thomas asked if this plan leads pedestrians to an intersection where there is no plan to have
signalization. Mr. Cilimberg replied that there is a difficulty because of the number of lanes at the
intersection.
Ms. Thomas emphasized that there is a sidewalk that will lead to an intersection without any
crossing assistance. Mr. Cilimberg responded that it is ultimately VDOT's approval, but acknowledged that
VDOT would not do it unless the County encouraged them to.
Ms. Thomas asked what could be done to make that happen. Mr. Cilimberg said if the County
wants to pursue signalizing for pedestrians at either location, this certainly allows that. He said the monies
proffered could provide for that.
Ms. Thomas said she is also concerned about bus transportation, as she does not see a bus stop in
this plan. Mr. Cilimberg replied that pullouts are usually placed in more typically heavily traveled roads; the
bus would essentially just come into the Pantops project.
Mr. Rooker said if a bus is going to service that area, it would pull into the property.
Ms. Thomas said she did not think the Board should be approving things that seem to have no
recognition of the future of public transportation on Richmond Road (Route 250). She thinks it is going to
be a busy place where the availability of public transit will be needed.
Mr. Boyd noted that there is not any bus pull-off at all on this stretch.
Mr. Rooker said it is likely any bus route would use Richmond Road and then the bus turn right into
this property. From there a pedestrian could access the shopping center, the Albemarle County Service
Authority building, the medical offices, etc., all within a short radius of that property.
Mr. Cilimberg said the County currently does not have any plans for bus service changes in the
Pantops area, but the connecting road between Richmond Road and South Pantops Drive could
accommodate a bus. The applicant can talk about the best potential site within their parking area to
accommodate bus movement. The proffers do not specify exactly how the $20,000 given to the County will
be used, but the money will be used for pedestrian/transportation needs.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the County has received an agreement from all property owners who
will dedicate for a public road. He noted that a waiver of the neighborhood model district to provide at least
two housing types will also be necessary if this request is approved. Staff feels that allowing this project to
have just one type is appropriate because there are other residential uses within a quarter of a mile. He
concluded by saying staff and the Commission have both recommended approval of the rezoning subject
to the proffers submitted, a Code of Development and Application Plan, and have also recommended
approval of the special use permit with three conditions.
Mr. Rooker confirmed with staff that the Albemarle County Service Authority is a signature party to
the written agreement. Mr. Davis pointed out that there have been a few changes since the Board's
packets were distributed; some slight modification to wording.
Mr. Wyant asked about how the $20,000 costs in Item NO.4 in the proffers came about.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the proffers attached to the Executive Summary are the effective proffers;
they are dated December 20,2005, and noted as being Version NO.7. Mr. Davis pointed out that Version
NO.7 just corrects the handwritten amendments on Version No.6, but it is substantively the same.
In response to a question from Mr. Rooker, Mr. Davis said the County is not a party to the
agreement although the document says the County can enforce it. The agreement is different from the one
in the Board packets, and he has not had an opportunity to review the newer version.
With no further questions for staff, Mr. Rooker asked the applicant to speak.
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 16)
Mr. Bill Dittmar addressed the Board. He said they chose the "path less traveled" to do the
Neighborhood Model, and looked for interconnectivity in the project. He noted that Version NO.7 of the
proffers takes the handwritten changes from Version No.6, but all of those changes were done "hand-in-
hand" with Planning staff. He emphasized that there is pedestrian signalization at the "B" site, which goes
from sidewalk to sidewalk. He said they are not specifying where the money should be spent. Regarding
the bus issue, Mr. Dittmar said the Spotnap Road connector would be a less traveled road that could
handle bus connections into pedestrian access points. Riverbend Drive and South Pantops Drive both offer
options as well in the event of VDOT issues.
Ms. Thomas asked about a pullover on Richmond Road itself.
Mr. Dittmar replied that they have a deceleration lane into the property and are closing down two
interconnections and leaving the third; because of VDOT requirements, the bus could stop in a taper but
one does not exist. He does not believe there are any changes from the last variation of the multi-party
agreement. He reported that there are two pedestrian connections between two parking areas - down
along the new connector road and one within the project itself.
At this point, Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak,
the hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Davis confirmed that changes to the Agreement deal with issues that the Albemarle County
Service Authority had, and they look to be acceptable. Regarding the enforceability issue with the County,
he is comfortable because the proffer requires the applicant to build a road if the agreement has been
reached and dedicate it to public use.
At this time, Mr. Boyd moved for approval of ZMA-2005-008 subject to the proffers dated
December 20,2005 (Version No.7). Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, which passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The proffers are set out in full below.)
Proffer: December 20. 2005
Version # 7
PROFFER FORM
Date: December 20. 2005
ZMA #: 2005-0008
Tax Map 78, Parcel 16
4.77 Acres to be rezoned from Highway Commercial to Neighborhood Model District
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Owner hereby voluntarily
proffers the conditions listed herein below which shall be applied to Pantops Park (herein after "the
Property") if the Zoning Map Amendment (hereinafter "ZMA") is approved by the County of
Albemarle. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested ZMA and it is agreed that: (1)
the ZMA itself gives rise to the need for the conditions, and (2) such conditions have a reasonable
relation to the rezoning requested.
The term "Owner" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning the owner of record of the
Property and successors in interest. The term "ZMA Application Plan," prepared by the Cox
Company, last revised November 11, 2005, serves as the General Development Plan under
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance S 20A.4, and is referred to herein as Exhibit A. The term
"Code of Development" refers to Exhibit B.
The headings of the proffers and conditions set forth below have been prepared for convenience or
reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any
provisions of the proffers.
1. Construction and Dedication to Public Use of Extension of Spotnap Road: Owner
shall design and construct to VDOT public road standards, at no expense to the County of
Albemarle or the Commonwealth of Virginia, an extension of Spotnap Road from its
present terminus to US Route 250 within the recorded 50 foot access easement which
runs from the existing terminus of Spotnap Road to TMP 78-16, and adjacent to the
eastern boundary line of TMP 78-16 to US Route 250, as shown on the ZMA Application
Plan, including a pedestrian sidewalk along the western side of such extension. The
design of the extension shall accommodate vehicular ingress and egress to and from the
lower parking lot located on TMP 78-15C, owned by the Albemarle County Service
Authority. Owner shall construct an entrance from such parking lot to the extension in
conjunction with the construction of the extension. Owner shall complete construction of
the extension by the later of twenty-four (24) months after the first final site plan or
subdivision plat is approved by the County, or eighteen (18) months after the first building
permit has been issued by the County for the construction of a commercial building on the
Property. The extension shall be deemed to be complete when it is either accepted by
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 17)
VDOT or bonded for acceptance by VDOT, and the easement on which the extension is
constructed on TMP 78-16, if not previously dedicated to the County on a final subdivision
plat, has been dedicated to the County in fee simple for public use. If the written consent
to the dedication to public use proffered herein is not obtained from the Albemarle County
Service Authority, owner of TMP 78-15C, by February 28, 2006, the portion of this proffer
relating to dedication to public use shall be null and void as to portions of the easement
located on TMP 78-15C.
2. Improvement and Dedication to Public use of Existing Spotnap Road. Owner shall
construct all improvements to Spotnap Road which are required for Spotnap Road to be
accepted into the state maintained highway system, and cause the fee interest in Spotnap
Road, together with any necessary easements for fills, drainage and sight distance, to be
dedicated to public use. Owner shall complete construction of the improvements to
Spotnap Road by the later of twenty-four (24) months after the first final site plan or
subdivision plat is approved by the County, or eighteen (18) months after the first building
permit has been issued by the County for the construction of a commercial building on the
Property. If the written consent to the dedication to public use proffered herein is not
obtained from the Albemarle County Service Authority, owner of TMP 78-15C, and from
the owners of T JMJ 78-15C4, TMP 78-15C5 and TMP 78-15C7, by February 28, 2006 the
portion of this proffer which relates to dedication to public use shall be null and void.
3. Access Easement for Benefit of Adjoining Properties West of TMP 78-1. Prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Building 1-A as shown on the ZMA Application
Plan, Owner shall (i) convey a recorded private cross-easement for ingress and egress to
the extension of Spotnap Road for the benefit of properties adjacent to the western
boundary of TMP 78-16 via one point as shown on the ZMA Application Plan, and (ii)
construct and pave the travelway at grade within the cross-easement area contained on
the Owner's property as depicted by the ZMA Application Plan.
4. Pedestrian Crosswalk Improvements on Riverbend Drive. Owner shall design and
construct pedestrian crosswalk improvements in accordance with VDOT standards on
Riverbend Drive between its intersections with South Pantops Drive and US Route 250 at a
cost not to exceed $20,000.00. Owner shall complete construction of the pedestrian
crosswalk improvements by the later of twenty-four (24) months after the first final site plan
or subdivision plat is approved by the County, or within eighteen (18) months after the first
building permit has been issued by the County for the construction of a commercial
building on the Property.
The undersigned, which is the sole owner of the Property, hereby proffers that the use and
development of the Property shall be in conformance with the proffers and conditions hereinabove
and these proffers shall supersede all other proffers and conditions made prior hereto.
PANTOPS PARK, LLC
By: (Siqned) William D. Dittmar. Jr.
William D. Dittmar, Jr., Manager
Date: 12-20-2005
Mr. Boyd then moved for approval of the waiver for required Neighborhood Model residential
housing types. Mr. Wyant seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Boyd moved for approval of SP 2005-015 subject to the three conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Drive-up windows will be limited to three (3); including one to be used for an ATM;
2. Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness; and
3. Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices such as
signage, and pavement markings as indicated on the site plan. The crosswalk just beyond
the drive-up window bays for the bank shall be identified with crosswalk signage on either
side of the drive aisle.
Agenda Item No. 17. ZMA-2005-013. Inn at Monticello (Signs #78,79). Public Hearing on a
Proposal to: Rezone 4.6 acres from R-4 Residential (4 units per acre), to amend proffers to allow
additional dwelling unit & possible expansion of existing inn. Proffers: Yes. Existinq comprehensive plan
land use/density: Neighborhood Density Residential-residential (3-6 units/acre) & supporting uses such as
religious institutions & other small-scale non-residential uses. Location: Tax Map 77E1, Section 1, Parcel
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 18)
1; 1188 Scottsville Rd (Rt. 20) & Willow Lake Dr (Rt 1135). Maqisterial district: Scottsville. (This public
hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on December 26, 2005 and January 2, 2006.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this request is to amend proffers associated with the original R-4
Residential zoning to allow one additional dwelling on this particular 4.6 acre property. He said the owners
have a residence on the property - which serves as a bed and breakfast - and they would like to build an
additional residence to use as part of their business. The applicants submitted five proffers intended to
address comments of the reviewer and potential impacts associated with the rezoning. The number of
dwellings on the property would be limited to no more than two. Building permits would be required for any
additional dwelling units. The applicant would consult with staff and the Department of Historic Resources
prior to expansion of the Inn. The applicants will meet all requirements of the site plan section of the Zoning
Ordinance including evaluation of the existing access drive and bridge, parking requirements and
improvements, and impacts of the floodplain. He said that staff and the Planning Commission both
recommended approval of the Zoning Map amendment with the proffers submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that under the ordinance, the owner would not have to occupy the second
dwelling of the bed and breakfast, as that could be inhabited by an innkeeper. Concerns about the second
unit being separated from Willow Lake have been resolved. Zoning staff determined that there are 95 units
including this particular house. There are no issues in terms of this particular proposal affecting the Willow
Lake development and its requirements for open space and the maximum number of units that can be built.
This application amends the Willow Lake proffers, but the applicant is still 25 units below what they could
have built by-right.
With no questions for staff, Mr. Rooker asked the applicant to speak.
Ms. Rebecca Lindway addressed the Board. She and her husband have operated the Inn for 10
years. She said the need for tourist lodging is increasing, and their five rooms are occupied at a rate of over
70 percent, which is extremely high for a bed and breakfast. The house they currently live in was the
original piece of property that became the PVCC, the visitor's center, and Willow Lake subdivision. She
emphasized that they are not connected to Willow Lake except by a proffer that was offered prior to their
purchase, which designated their 4.6 acres. She said the property was disconnected from Willow Lake in
the 1980s, and they get no services such as snow removal from them.
Ms. Lindway noted that their house, built in 1856, does not allow for some of the amenities the
public is looking for, such as Jacuzzi tubs. She said they are looking for the potential to develop, even
though they are not certain yet that they will make the improvements.
Ms. Thomas said the Inn has a good reputation nationwide, as her sister in San Francisco
mentioned it to her.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Dorrier for approval of ZMA-2005-013 subject to the
amended proffers. He feels this is a positive asset to Albemarle County, and it allows the owner to maintain
the property while sharing its history. Mr. Wyant seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The proffers are set out in full below.)
PROFFER FORM
Date: November 28. 2005/December 13. 2005
ZMA # 2005-00013
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 77E1. Section 1. Parcel 1
Acres to be rezoned from to
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly
authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to
the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it
is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such
conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
1. No more than two (2) dwelling units shall be constructed on this 4.6-acre property.
2. The Owners shall not establish any additional tourist lodging in any dwelling unit other than
the one existing on the property on [date of rezoning by BOS] unless and until a site plan
meeting all the requirements of Section 32 of the Zoning Ordinance is approved by the
County.
3. During the site plan review process for additional tourist lodging as referenced in proffer 2,
the existing bridge shall be evaluated by the County Engineer for its ability to provide
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 19)
adequate access for the additional traffic and to assure that fire and rescue vehicles and
equipment can cross the bridge at all times, including during flood events.
4. Should the bridge be found to be inadequate by the County Engineer, the Owners shall
provide alternative methods of access prior to final site plan approval.
5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any additional dwelling units, the Owners shall
consult with and obtain approval by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and the
County's Director of Planning regarding the design of the proposed Structure. The final
building design shall be compatible with the existing historic dwelling in terms of form,
mass, scale, material, and overall character, as determined by the Director of Planning.
Siqnature of All Owners
(Signed) Rebecca K. Lindway
Printed Names of All Owners
Rebecca K. Lindway
Date
Nov 28, 2005
Siqnature of All Owners
(Signed) Norman J. Lindway
Printed Names of All Owners
Norman J. Lindway
Date
Nov 28, 2005
Agenda Item No. 18. ZMA-2003-008. Woodbrook Station (formerly Rio Hills) (Signs #65,66,67).
Public Hearing on a Proposal to: Rezone 1.21 acres from PD-SC (Planned Development Shopping
Center) shopping centers, retail sales & service uses; & residential by special use permit (15 units/acre) to
NMD (Neighborhood Model District) residential (3-34 units per acre), mixed with commercial service &
industrial uses. Proffers: Yes. Existinq comprehensive plan land use/density: Regional Service, regional-
scale retail wholesale, business and/or employment centers & residential (6.01-34 units/acre). Location:
Tax Map 45, Parcel 94A. Located on Berkmar Drive (Rt 1403) approx .75 miles from intersection of
Berkmar Drive & Rio Rd. Maqisterial District: Rio. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress
on December 26, 2005 and January 2, 2006.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this is a request for a rezoning from Planned Development-Shopping Center
(PD-SC) to Neighborhood Model district (NMD) for a property on Berkmar Drive behind the Rio Hills
Shopping Center. He said there are to be eight residential units and 9,600 square feet of commercial office
space, as well as open space amenities. Staff noted that the proposal conforms to Comprehensive Plan
and Neighborhood Model principles, although there are issues related to design, need for a street tree
waiver, and lack of a written commitment to provide affordable housing.
Mr. Cilimberg said that at the Planning Commission's last meeting on this request, it recommended
approval with commitments from the applicant, specifically a proffer for $1725 per unit for affordable
housing as well as modifying some items in the Code of Development. The Commission met and voted
unanimously to grant the waiver for the street tree requirement based upon conflicts with utilities, and
recommended that a waiver be granted, due to its small size, to provide one housing type within this infill
project.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the requested changes have been revised and completed per the
recommendations of the County Attorney and Planning Commission. He said there was a need to clarify
ownership in the signed proffers, and he distributed information on the necessary commitments as reviewed
by Mr. Davis. He explained that two proffers are provided - one for affordable housing and one for the
actual site design.
Mr. Rooker asked if the proffers had changed. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the applicant adjusted the
use of unexpended funds; now they would provide for projects identified in the County's CIP if they were not
used for affordable housing. In an earlier version, he said, the funds would have been refunded to the
owner. Mr. Davis noted that the last sentence in the first proffer also clarifies maintenance of the pedestrian
pathway.
Mr. Boyd asked how the figure of $1725 was arrived at. Mr. Cilimberg said the Housing Committee
has recommended that as a standard amount for a cash proffer, the Commission asked for that
commitment, which the applicant gave. He explained that the Board received information that was referred
to the Commission, and the housing proffer was part of that information.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the Commission is making a recommendation based on the
information they have. The Board can certainly make a different recommendation. He added that the
amount would be about $14,000 in lieu of an actual provision of 15 percent of the development being in
affordable housing. Mr. Davis said the Housing Committee felt that smaller developments should not have
to provide as much toward affordable housing as a large developer. He thinks the eight units being
developed here would clearly be a smaller development.
Mr. Boyd said he does not think the Housing Department should be turning out policy statements.
Mr. Davis replied that it is not a policy statement, but just a position paper. This Board has established no
policy on affordable housing proffers.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board might want to establish such a policy. Mr. Tucker emphasized that
this is the Housing Committee's recommendation.
Mr. Boyd asked what happened to the recommendation concerning affordable housing
recommendation that the Board gave to the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission got the
information from the Housing Committee and held a number of work sessions concerning the Affordable
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 20)
Housing Policy. In this particular situation the Commission felt that having one unit dedicated as affordable
was not reasonable, and agreed that having a proffer in lieu of a unit was appropriate. They asked what
figure had been used, and that's how the $1725 came to be.
Mr. Rooker reminded Board members that with bigger developments, such as the development on
Route 250 West, $3,000 per unit was proffered. There certainly is a way to solve this problem, and that is
for this Board to establish a policy. It can wait for the Commission to make a recommendation or the Board
can take on the issue. Mr. Cilimberg said the Housing Department did not make a specific
recommendation on a cash proffer amount, but when the question was asked, the figure of $1725 was
used because of precedent with other development proffers.
Mr. Rooker noted that in some communities the proffers only apply to rezonings. Mr. Tucker said
the proffer policy will be before the Board in March.
Mr. Davis commented that proffers are intended to deal with impacts of development, and trying to
put a numerical figure on affordable housing might be difficult. He said an applicant can proffer it, but
coming up with a fair formula is going to be tricky.
Mr. Slutzky said his preference would be units, instead of dollars. He asked if this site is occupied
by low-income units. Mr. Cilimberg replied that an adjacent property does have low-income housing, but
this is open space property now.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that it is unattractive open space, so the development would be an
improvement. Mr. Cilimberg commented that the property has served mostly as a buffer between the
shopping center and Berkmar Drive. In response to a question from Ms. Thomas about other outstanding
issues, he said they have been addressed through the Code of Development to the satisfaction of staff and
the County Attorney.
Mr. Rooker said the Neighborhood Model calls for a certain amount of open space within
developments. Mr. Cilimberg responded that when the open space plan was done, this area was identified
as a significant wooded area, but not much was left after the building of the Rio Hills Shopping Center. He
noted that Places 29 is addressing general open space use in the community; the Commission discussed
this issue in their last meeting.
Mr. Rooker said that as part of the master planning process, the County needs to commit public
resources to acquire those areas, perhaps through CIP funds.
With no further questions for staff, Mr. Rooker asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Hunter McCardle of McKee Carson, representing Parkside 1 LLC, addressed the Board. He
explained that Parkside began working on this project in 2003, and held an onsite work session in January,
2004. At that time, the Planning Commission recommended studying this parcel as a Neighborhood Model.
The applicant has created a plan for mixed-use development with re-vegetation of the area. This project
helps tie the parcel into the urban fabric by creating a streetscape along this road.
Mr. George Ray, managing member of Parkside 1 LLC, addressed the Board. He said Mr. Rieley,
Chairman of the Commission had recommended working with staff to draw up a Neighborhood Model
project and it is considerably better than the original plan brought forward. The Commission asked if the
applicant would make a contribution to affordable housing, and he agreed to the $1725 figure. He and his
partner have purchased a 23-acre property near the Airport, and they intend to contribute $600,000 - half
of which would be available for down payment assistance, and half of which would bring down the cost of
the lots for the developers so they could offer the lots for less.
At this time, Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
hearing was closed, and the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker commented that a combination of affordable housing tools - units, down payment
assistance, etc. - will help people get into homes.
Motion was offered by Mr. Slutzky for approval of ZMA-2003-008 subject to the proffers dated
January 11,2006. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The proffers are set out in full below.)
PROFFER FORM
Date: 01/11/2006
ZMA # 03-008
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): TMP 45-94A
1.21
Acres to be rezoned from PDSC
to NMD
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly
authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 21)
the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it
is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such
conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
1. The Owner shall establish the sidewalks, pedestrian pathway, and stairway shown on the
plan entitled Wood brook Station Rezoning Application Site Concept, prepared by McKee
Carson, Consulting Engineers, Landscape Architects, Land Planners, last revised October
24, 2005, including that portion of the pedestrian pathway shown on Tax Map and Parcel
Number 45-94A, in conjunction with the first site plan approved for the property. The
sidewalks, pedestrian pathway and stairway shall be designed and constructed to VDOT or
County standards, as applicable, as provided in Albemarle County Code 18-32.7.2.8.
These improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of any CO's for any
business or residences in the development. The Owners shall maintain the pedestrian
pathway it establishes on Tax Map and Parcel number 45-94A.
2. The Owner shall contribute to Albemarle County one thousand seven hundred twenty-five
dollars ($1,725) cash per dwelling unit for affordable housing. The cash contribution shall
be due and payable with each application for a building permit. If the cash contribution has
not been exhausted by the County for the stated purpose within 10 years from the date of
the last payment of the contribution, all the unexpended funds shall be applied to projects
identified in the County's Capital Improvements Program.
Siqnature of All Owners
(Signed) George W. Ray, Jr.
Member, Parkside I, LLC
Printed Names of All Owners
George W. Ray, Jr.
Member, Parkside I, LLC
Date
1/11/06
Mr. Slutzky then moved for approval of the waiver for the residential property variance from the
Neighborhood Model for housing types. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, which passed by the following
recorded vote.
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
Board members thanked Mr. Ray for his work on the Paramount Theatre in Charlottesville, stating
that it is a great asset to the community.
Agenda Item No. 19. CPA-2005-001. Land Use Plan Transportation Update. Public Hearing on a
Proposal to: Amend the Transportation Section of the Comprehensive Plan to include, but not be limited to,
references & updated information based on adopted regional transportation plans. (This public hearing
was advertised in the Daily Progress on December 26, 2005 and January 2, 2006.)
Mr. Cilimberg at the Board's last work session on this CPA, it was decided to pursue changes in the
Comprehensive Plan regarding Land Use Transportation as represented in Pages 1-36 of the draft, but the
Board decided not to include changes to development area profiles for individual neighborhoods. That will
be part of more comprehensive updates during master planning. He said this amendment intends to
incorporate the MPO's Regional Transportation Plan, which has components that include the urbanized
area, a regional bike, pedestrian, and greenway plan, and a rural area transportation long-range plan.
Mr. Boyd suggested changing the language regarding Hillsdale Drive Extended not being
completed until after completion of the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Tucker said most of Hillsdale Drive
lies in the City so it may be difficult to control that.
Mr. Rooker said all but a few feet of it is in the City.
Ms. Thomas recalled agreeing to Mr. Boyd's suggestion at an earlier meeting.
Mr. Rooker said the language in the Board's motion was a detailed policy statement on that project,
including a number of things regarding design.
Mr. Slutzky asked if he supported this language today if he is foreclosing an opportunity to revise
the building of this road.
Mr. Rooker said that if the County were not to support this road, it would put the City in a difficult
situation. He said the County asked for this road for a long time, and the City did not go forward with it. But,
when the Route 29/250 study was completed, the City saw the need for the road, and has moved
expeditiously to get things in place to do the project. He said the project was thoroughly debated and the
City has moved forward based on the County's intention to support the project. He clarified that
representatives from the Senior Center did not speak against the project, but wanted some assurance of
the design aspects of the project. He assured Mr. Slutzky that it is not too late to be involved in the project,
as the final design has not been signed off on.
Ms. Thomas said this plan had a tremendous amount of public input.
Mr. Davis suggested changing the language to say "This roadway should be timed to be completed
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 22)
after the completion of the Meadow Creek Parkway."
At this time, Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter was placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Ms. Thomas to adopt CPA-2005-001 amending the
Transportation section of the Comprehensive Plan and to include the following additional language under
Hillsdale Drive Extended: "This roadway should be timed to be completed after the completion of the
Meadow Creek Parkway."
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted language of CPA-2005-001 is set out below:)
Introduction
Transportation is one of the most important services provided by government. Transportation links
people to their jobs, schools, shopping, community activities, and entertainment. The County strives to
create an efficient and affordable system that offers travel choices that are functional and will minimize
harm to the community and natural environment.
There is a distinct and mutually dependent relationship between transportation and land use. Land use
decisions affect existing transportation networks and future transportation needs. Conversely, the
existing and planned transportation network/system affect most land use decisions. There is also a
regional context to transportation issues which goes beyond local interest. While land use plans and
decisions are made in the context of governmental boundaries, transportation needs and networks
cross those jurisdictional boundaries. Careful coordination of transportation planning with land use
planning at a state, regional, and local level is essential.
Transportation facilities include state primary and secondary roads, public transportation services and
facilities, intra-and inter-regional air, rail, bus, and trucking (freight) facilities and services, as well as
walkways, bikeways, and greenways.
General Principles for Transportation
The following principles provide guidance for transportation related decisions. The principles establish
the overall focus and vision for transportation in the County. These principles: 1) reflect the need for
transportation related decisions to be consistent with and support the County's growth management
policy; and, 2) recognize the regional efforts in transportation planning established by the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) and Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. In order to develop
effective regional solutions, the United Jefferson Area Mobility Plan (UnJAM 2025) combines the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transportation (CHART) Plan for the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) area with the Rural Area Transportation Long-Range Plan, for the five-county
Thomas Jefferson Planning District (Nelson, Louisa, Fluvanna, Greene, Albemarle).
General Principles:
1. Plan, establish, and maintain a comprehensive County transportation system which supports
the growth management policy and provides for necessary public safety.
2. Establish a transportation system that supports the preservation and enhancement of land use
and environmental preservation goals, and that facilities are developed and built in a manner
sensitive to the environment.
3. Encourage (1) the reduction of traffic congestion, pollution and energy consumption, vehicular
miles traveled and (2) increased mobility of the general public, especially, handicapped and
the disadvantaged, through the increased use of public transportation, car/vanpooling and
park and ride lots.
4. Support regional transportation planning efforts by utilizing the policies of the UnJAM-CHART
Plan as the transportation principles for the County. They are as follows:
The over-arching goal of the UnJam 2025 is to create a balanced, multi-modal transportation network,
by A) Improving connections throughout the region; B) Improving mobility within neighborhoods, towns,
and counties; and C) Making transportation choices which help foster livable communities. Several
major factors are required to achieve these goals:
. Completion of a well-connected network of roadways parallel to major highways, with better
connections within and between neighborhoods.
. Re-engineered intersection and corridor design, along with added lanes and capacity
improvements, to improve operational efficiency and safety.
. Fast, frequent, dependable transit service with seamless connections throughout the region.
. A terrain-modified grid of smaller streets serving more compact development forms in the
suburban and rural developments.
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 23)
. Well-executed design details for pedestrian-friendly streets, bike lanes and trails, transit stops,
safer intersections and pedestrian crossings.
. Improve connection and travel throughout the region.
. Improve mobility within neighborhoods.
. Make transportation choices which help foster livable communities.
All of these elements will also help complete the transit "customer delivery system" needed for
efficient, cost-effective transit operations. By building new critical facilities and re-engineering existing
roadways, the Plan will improve system operations and safety. In addition, the Plan will increase
mobility of the general public, especially the elderly, handicapped, and disadvantaged, through the
increased use of public transportation, car/van pooling, park and ride lots, and through the integration
and coordination of existing and future transit services.
Transportation Planning
Transportation planning and policy development occur at the state, regional and local levels.
State
The Commonwealth of Virginia, through several state agencies, develops plans for a wide range of
transportation facilities and services. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) develops the
Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan and six year improvement plans for urban, interstate,
primary, and secondary roads. The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation develops the
state rail plan and is responsible for public transportation planning. The Department of Aviation
develops individual airport master plans and the Virginia Air Transportation Systems Plan. The Virginia
Port Authority is responsible for developing public port and waterway plans.
Regional
The amended Federal Highway Act of 1962 established that federal, state, and local officials create a
cooperative, continuing, and comprehensive transportation planning process for urban areas. This
process must conform to objectives stated by the U.S. Department of Transportation. In Charlottesville
and Albemarle County the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) was formed in response to this
requirement. The MPO is the primary planning body responsible for regional transportation planning.
Both localities, along with the University of Virginia, are represented in this process by appointees ofthe
governing bodies. Two committees of the MPO, the Technical Committee and the Policy Board, are
responsible for insuring that the planning process is carried out in a cooperative, comprehensive and
on-going manner, and in conformity with federal and state guidelines. CHART and the Rural Areas
Long Range Plan make up what is known as UnJAM 2025 Plans. Albemarle County staff and elected
and appointed officials are represented on both of these committees and participated with the
compilation of these documents.
Urban Area Transportation Planninq
The regional transportation planning document for the MPO area is the CHART Plan. This is the lead
document for regional transportation planning for the City and County urbanized area (see Map N) and
is used as a general guide for planning future transportation improvements in the County, providing a
comprehensive approach to the Urban Area's transportation problems. It addresses all modes oftravel
including highways, public transportation, pedestrian and bicycle access. The study contains
inventories, data, and analyses, of the transportation system and makes recommendations for
providing and maintaining an adequate transportation system. The MPO is the acting policy and
decision-making body for the CHART Plan.
The CHART Plan covers only the urbanized area of the County, not the entire County (see Map N).
Rural Area Transportation Lonq Ranqe Planninq
The County is also involved in a regional transportation planning effort covering areas of the County
outside the MPO Study area, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson Counties. The Rural Area
Transportation Long Range Plan process complements MPO level planning efforts and establishes a
regional transportation planning process to address broader regional and rural issues. This Plan
identifies a larger transportation system/network framework within the Planning District area. The Plan
is generally reflective of and consistent with County principles and goal for transportation planning for
the Rural Areas.
The major transportation goals for Albemarle County's rural areas are to preserve rural character while
improving safety and multi-modal transportation choices. Residents suggested leaving the rural roads
as they are whenever possible, focusing on road safety improvements such as shoulders and
guardrails, straightening curves, and increased regular maintenance, rather than paving and widening
rural roads. Road improvements should support intended growth, as indicated in the County
Comprehensive Plan, and not encourage growth outside of designated development areas, as well as
provide access from farms to markets along strategic routes. Rural roads have multiple purposes and
benefit from design that keeps drivers alert and moving at appropriate speeds to react safely to slower
moving farm equipment, bicyclists, people checking the mail, or children walking to a bus stop.
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 24)
The County has adopted a policy to address private citizens that wish to utilize their own resources to
pave public roads. This policy is located in the Albemarle County Department of Community
Development.
The Rural Areas Section of the Comprehensive Plan addresses land use and transportation issues in
more depth. Rural transportation is being addressed in this section to identify the regional effort
undertaken with the Rural Area Transportation Long Range Plan.
County
The primary components of the County transportation planning efforts are the Comprehensive Plan,
UnJAM 2025 Plan, the Six Year Primary and Secondary Road Plan Project Priority Lists, the County
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and cooperative planning and study efforts with the state, MPO, and
T JPDC.
An important role of the County in road planning and development is to ensure thatVDOT projects and
private sector development proposals adhere to the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan,
CHART Plan and other County and MPO adopted transportation studies. These studies include:
. Transportation Systems Management (TSM)/Functional Classification Study
. Route 29 Crossover Study
. Route 29 Pedestrian Study
. Ivy Road Corridor Study
. Jefferson Area Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Plan
. Southern Charlottesville Transportation Study and Entrance Corridor Study
. Crozet Master Plan
Neighborhood Model:
Planning for transportation should consider and incorporate the principles and recommendations ofthe
County's Neighborhood Model. The Neighborhood Model describes the more "urban" form of
development desired for the Development Areas. The Neighborhood Model supports convenient
routes for pedestrians, bicyclists, buses and other transit including light rail that will augmentthe street
network. Public transit stops will be located within each Development Area. Walking to them will be
safe and convenient.
The Neighborhood Model establishes the 12 Principles for Development that should be adhered to in
new development proposals.
These principles are:
. Pedestrian Orientation
. Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths
. Transportation Networks and Interconnected Streets
. Parks and Open Space
. Mixed Uses
. Neighborhood Centers
. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale
. Relegated Parking
. Affordability with Dignity
. Redevelopment
. Site Planning that Respects Terrain
. Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas
A more specific discussion of the Neighborhood Model Principles can be found in the Land Use Section
(page 8) and Appendix A 1, The Neighborhood Mode/.
Recommendations
. Recognize the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
as the transportation planning body for the region. The MPO, with the assistance of
designated staff, should take the lead role in:
Planning for the coordinated delivery of transportation services by public and
private providers.
Identifying and recommending to Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and the
University of Virginia, administrative and operational activities which can be
appropriately coordinated or centralized among service providers.
Continuing the implementation and monitoring of its "Charlottesville-
Albemarle MPO Private Sector Participation Policy Process." Adopted May,
1986; Revision Approved March, 2002. This document is available at
Albemarle County Department of Community Development and the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission. The Planning District Commission
updates this document on an as needed basis.
Reviewing all service proposals and developing a procedure for identifying
public transportation service demand and-identifying appropriate service
providers.
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 25)
. Support the MPO's planning function through the following efforts:
Take formal action on MPO recommendations.
Review its adopted studies and, where appropriate, consider them for
adoption into the Comprehensive Plan.
. Adhere to and implement Neighborhood Model Principles in transportation planning.
. Make all residential and commercial development as transit-ready and transit-worthy
as possible
Streets and Roads
The development and maintenance of an efficient and safe road system is critical to influencing the
location of future residential development and economic activity while also accommodating existing
needs. Planning for roadway improvements is a complex procedure due to fragmented and limited
funding sources. In addition, the ultimate responsibility for construction and maintenance of roadways in
the County lies with the State, through the Virginia Department of Transportation: there are no County
maintained public roads.
All County roads are categorized either as interstate, primary or a secondary. Interstate highways are
the highest level of functional road and are part of a national system of freeways and expressways,
providing long distance traffic, high speed and limited access connections. Interstate 64 traverses the
County and connects the Charlottesville-Albemarle County area to major north-south interstates (1-81
and 1-95) and the Richmond and Norfolk metropolitan areas. The total length of Interstate 64 in the
County is approximately 31 miles.
The Primary System consists of arterial roads. From the state level planning perspective, the primary
purpose of these roads is to move traffic; access to properties is considered a lower function/priority.
There are 115 miles of primary roads in the County, including the following:
Route 53
Route 231
Route 29
Route 6
Route 22
Route 250
Route20
Route240
Route 151
All of these primary roads are designated as Entrance Corridor routes, providing provides access to the
City and County's historic districts and properties. Therefore, these roads are important not only for the
transportation function, but also for scenic and visual character.
The majority of roads in Albemarle County are secondary roads. As of December 31,2000 there were
818.07 miles of secondary roads in the County. Of this, 587.53 (72%) were hard surfaced and 230
miles (28%) were gravel roads.
Major Corridors
The County has three major corridors that present particular transportation concerns. These corridors
are Route 29 North, Route 250 East, and Route 250 West.
Route 29 North
Route 29 North is the major north-south arterial road through the County, and a major state arterial
which links Washington, D.C., Charlottesville, Lynchburg and, Danville. Route 29 north of
Charlottesville is the major commercial corridor in the County. Route 29 is proposed to be upgraded
from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport Road (Route 649). However, plans have not been
developed or scheduled for construction by VDOT. VDOT has conducted a major study of the Route
29 Corridor from Albemarle County (from the South Fork Rivanna River) to Warrenton, Virginia. The
purpose of the transportation analysis was to determine the future level of travel demand along the
corridor and to assess whether the highway is designed adequately to accommodate projected traffic
volumes.
In early 2003 a staff team from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission & Charlottesville-
Albemarle MPO, VDOT, City of Charlottesville, and Albemarle County conducted the 29H250 Study.
The purpose of the study was to develop specific intersection design concepts that address vehicular,
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit movement for improved mobility, safety, and development opportunities
within the Route 29/Hydraulic Road/Route 250 Bypass area, while protecting existing tax base,
business, neighborhoods, and employment. This study was considered the first component of an
ultimate study including the full length of Route 29 in the County. This initial study has been completed
and adopted by the MPO, City and County as the guiding plan for improvements to Route 29 in the
area.
The major traffic improvement recommendations include a grade-separated interchange at Route 29
and Hydraulic Road, constructed with roundabouts at the end of the off-ramps for optimum traffic
controls. Signalized intersections could also work. A new Hydraulic Road alignment is proposed just
north of existing Hydraulic Road to allow full traffic movement during construction.
The County is currently undertaking a Master Planning process (P/aces29 Study) for the Northern
Development Areas along the Route 29 corridor (Neighborhood 1 and 2, Hollymead, and Piney
Mountain). The P/aces29 Study includes a major transportation planning component which will not only
complete the "29H250" study process for Route 29 north, but will establish recommendation for overall
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 26)
road network serving the Northern Development Areas. This unified land use and transportation study
will be completed within the next 2 years (2007). Other studies that have been conducted along the
Route 29 Corridor are described below.
u.s. Route 29 Corridor Development Study
The U.S. Route 29 Corridor Development Study (Phases I Albemarle County to Fauquier County. The
goals of this Study are to create a unified multi-modal transportation system of air, rail, transit, and
highways, improve energy efficiency, promote economic development, and improve quality of life. The
Study reviewed all relevant elements of the federal legislation including an extensive public
participation process. It addressed land use planning, advanced acquisition and preservation of right of
way, and overall social, economic, and environmental effects. The Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors supports the use if access management techniques as the principle means of controlling
traffic on this corridor of Rt. 29.
u.S. Route 29 Corridor Development Study (combined Phases II/III N.C. to Charlottesville)
This study resulted in a long-range multi-modal plan for transportation in the corridor and will
assistance state and local governments in prioritizing transportation projects, identifying and requesting
funding, and planning the location of various land uses and public facilities. Most all of the area along
this section of the Corridor Study is not in the County's Development area and the County did not
support any of VDOT's widening recommendations. On February 14, 2001, the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisor endorsed a resolution that established their position regarding this study and the
Route 29 South Corridor. It states:
Almost all of the area along the Rt. 29 South Corridor is not in the County's Development
area. Data developed by the consultant and verified by the County does not project
significant development in this area of the County through the study period. Therefore, the
County does not believe controlled access through elimination of all individual access points
and an extensive system of service roads and signalized intersections should be assumed
as necessary for Albemarle County. The County does support the coordination of land use
planning and transportation system planning through specifically incorporating the access
management recommendations of the Phase I Corridor Study into the planning for the
Route 29 South corridor in Albemarle and throughout the study area. Albemarle County
believes that access management planning is a logical and viable recommendation for the
Route 29 corridor south of Charlottesville. Through proper planning that balances land use
and transportation priorities in the particular sections of the corridor in the County,
appropriate access management measures can be identified and pursued.
Use the "Parkway" design cross-section in Albemarle County, without service roads and
limited access should be used in Albemarle County. Under no scenario should the
"Freeway" design concept be used in Albemarle County. Furthermore, it is not anticipated
that signalization of intersections will be necessary in Albemarle County, but in no case is
reservation for interchanges at any Albemarle County intersections necessary. The full study
with recommendations is available at the Department of Community Development.
Route 250 East
Significant commercial development exists along Route 250 East mostly within the designated
Development Areas. The County is currently conducting a Master Plan for the Pantops Development
Area. This study should be completed by 2006. This study will identify land use and transportation
recommendations that will guide the growth of the Pantops area. A separate study will evaluate the
feasibility of an Eastern Connector. The Eastern Connector is identified in the UnJAM 2025 Plan to be
studied to determine it potential impact to analysis the traffic on the Route 250 East and Route 29 north
corridors.
In 1999, VDOT conducted the Route 250 East Corridor Study. The purpose of the study was to
examine existing and future travel conditions within the corridor in order to identify transportation
deficiencies. The Route 250 East Corridor Study area begins at the east corporate limits of
Charlottesville and ends approximately three-tenths of a mile east of Route 15 at Zion Crossroads in
Louisa County. A conceptual multi-modal transportation plan to address these deficiencies will result
from the study.
The study recommended a series of short term and long term recommendations. The Study's
recommendations will be considered in conjunction with the Pantops Master Plan process.
Route 250 West
In the fall of 1997, VDOT initiated the Route 250 West Corridor Study to produce a long-range
planning study with conceptual engineering plans. The Route 250 West Corridor Study may be used to
assist VDOT and Albemarle in preserving rights-of-way to accommodate future transportation needs in
the corridor. The subject of the study was the segment of Route 250 in between 1-64 (Exit 107 Yancey
Mills) and the west corporate limits of Charlottesville.
The study recommended a series of short term and long term recommendations (the Route 250 West
Corridor Study is on file in the Albemarle County Department of Community Development
Department). A controversial long term recommendation was to widen Route 250 from the City limits to
Mechums River. The Citizens Advisory Committee and the Board of Supervisors opposed VDOT's
recommendations for Route 250 West. The Citizen Advisory Committee and the Board of Supervisors
supported maintaining Route 250 West with its present roadway cross section. The Board also created
the Route 250 Task Force, which is a standing committee charged to review and make
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 27)
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors with regard to all transportation improvements on the
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 28)
Route 250 West corridor (Route 250 Bypass to the Yancey Mill interchange). The Task Force will
review each proposal prior to approval.
It should be recognized that Route 29 North, Route 250 East, and Route 250 West provide both access
for inter-regional travel and access for the major commercial and residential areas of the Urban Area
and City. Road improvements should be designed to accommodate anticipated traffic demands and
present capacity should be utilized to the greatest extent possible.
MAPN:
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 29)
Meadow Creek Parkway
The Meadow Creek Parkway, from the intersection of Mcintire Road and the Route 250 Bypass in the
City of Charlottesville to Rio Road at Norfolk Southern Railroad will provide new north-south route
connection from the County northern urban area to downtown Charlottesville. The new road will also
provide an alternative to Rio Road and Park Street.
The Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report, May 2001, by Jones and Jones Consultants, establishes an
alignment location and design standards for the development of Phase I of the Parkway in the County,
from Melbourne Road to the railroad bridge on Rio Road. This report can be found under separate
cover. In summary, the study calls for a two-lane road constructed on sufficient right-of-way to allow for
its upgrade to a four-lane road, if necessary. The proposed design calls for a parkway concept, which
includes pedestrian and bicycle facilities, landscaping and an adjacent linear park. The linear park will
provide an open space and recreational benefit to the community and will serve to connect Mcintire
Park, Greenbrier Park, and the City/County greenway along Meadow Creek, with additional linkages, to
Pen Park, Charlottesville High School, CATEC and Charlottesville Catholic School. The proposed road
alignment and design in the Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report are consistent with the alignment
and design for the City portion of the road.
Northern Free State Road
The Northern Free State Road was formerly referred to as the Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II. The
UnJAM 2025 Plan recommends that this road be studied in conjunction with the Eastern Connector,
based on changes in development patterns and proposed projects in the northern area. It is assumed
that portions of the roadway will be built by private developers, and that the character of the roadway
may change within and between neighborhoods.
This road will be considered with the Route 29 Corridor Transportation Study (29H250) Master
Planning process and with the Places29 Study now underway. This road will provide access to existing
neighborhoods and areas of development north of Rio Road and potentially connect Urban Area to the
Hollymead Community and Route 29.
Hillsdale Drive Extended
The Hillsdale Drive Extended will connect existing Hillsdale Drive from its terminus at Greenbrier to
Hydraulic Road, creating a parallel roadway east of Route 29. This roadway will create an efficient
alternate route for many residents, allowing them easier direct access to work, shopping, schools, and
community facilities without having to travel on the Route 29 corridor. This roadway should be timed to
be completed after completion of the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Southern Parkway
The Southern Parkway will connect Avon Street to 5th Street Extended. Currently, there is no direct
connection and this requires travelers to take a circuitous route to travel a very short distance. This
road will provide an important easUwest connection to the Southern urban area and provide important
emergency (fire/rescue/police) access to in the area. This road will also improve easUwest traffic now
traveling through city neighborhood streets. Since some commuters use Interstate 64 to make this
connection, this project could reduce local traffic on the Interstate.
Route 29 (Western) Bypass
The Western Bypass is a proposed six-mile long roadway from the interchange of Route 29 and Route
29/250 Bypass to just north of Route 643 (Polo Grounds Road). It is planned to connect with Route 29
and the proposed Northern Free State Road.
The County has been working with VDOT through the MPO to address the County's concerns with the
Western Bypass. As a result of this effort, the UnJAM 2025 Plan described the Western Bypass as
noted below.
The project as designed does not meet community or regional needs, and has been
determined too costly for the transportation benefits to be gained (draft design plans for
the Western Bypass can be found in the Albemarle County Department of Community
Development and the local VDOT Residency Office). The transportation goals of the
Bypass can be more effectively realized with improvements to the existing Route 29
corridor.
Portions of the right-of-way reserved for this project should be considered for potential use
in other projects such as Berkmar Drive Extended. The remaining right-of-way should be
sold, with the proceeds going toward other projects in the Route 29 corridor that better
deliver cost-effective solutions to congestion along the corridor. These include adding
additional lanes to Route 29 North. These actions would effectively contribute to the near-
term improvements needed to maintain Route 29 as the major north-south automobile
and truck route.
Recommendation
. Implement the recommendations of the UnJAM 2025 Plan, including but not limited to the
following:
The recommendation for the Western Bypass.
To undertake a traffic impact and location study for the Eastern Connector.
. Implement the recommendations of the 29H250 Study and implement the transportation
recommendations of the Places29 Study, when adopted.
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 30)
. Maintain existing cross-section of Route 250 West from Route 29/250 Bypass to the 1-64
interchange.
. Implement improvements to Route 250 East consistent with Neighborhood Plan, when
adopted.
. Construct the Meadow Creek Parkway, including an interchange at the Route 250 Bypass.
. Construct the Hillsdale Drive extension as recommended in the Hillsdale Drive Extension
Study.
. Complete construction of the Southern Parkway by extending the road to connectto 5th Street.
. Implement the UnJAM 2025 Plan recommendations regarding the Route 29 Western Bypass.
Road Development
There are several major tools and processes that are used to plan for needed road improvements.
These tools and processes are discussed below.
Six Year Primary and Secondary Road Plans
The Primary System Construction Program consists of a prioritized list of improvements and a financial
implementation plan for all projects in each locality within the Culpeper Highway District (Culpeper,
Fauquier, Madison, Orange, Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Rappahannock, and Louisa Counties). The
Board of Supervisors reviews and approves a priority listing of projects for the County and forwards this
list to VDOT. The final list of improvements and financial plan is established by VDOT for the entire
district.
The Six Year Secondary Road Plan also consists of a priority list of improvement projects and a
financial implementation plan for all projects within the County. Each year the financial implementation
plan must be reviewed and approved for appropriation by the Board of Supervisors. The County adopts
a priority listing of projects every two years. The list is based on transportation recommendations
identified in the UnJAM 2025 Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and related planning studies. The total list
of projects exceeds anticipated that which can be completed during the six year time horizon of the
plan. The County has significantly more control over project priorities on the Secondary System than it
does on the Primary System.
Traditionally, most County roadway improvements have been limited to funding through VDOT's six
year road planning process for both primary and secondary roads. Recently, however, the County has
made a more concerted effort to fund the development of proposed roads and work with the
development community to encourage participation in the development of these roads. Examples of
these projects include the connection of Commonwealth Drive to Greenbrier Drive, and the
construction of Hillsdale Drive/Branchlands Boulevard and Berkmar Drive Extended in which the
County and developers shared construction costs. In order to take advantage of these types of efforts
in the future, it is necessary that the County have an effective transportation planning process which
provides standardized methods to identify and prioritize new projects. Future roads which the County
proposes for development, but which are ineligible for VDOT construction funds, will need to be funded
through the Capital Improvements Program.
Recommendation
. Maintain and regularly update a County Priority List of Secondary and Primary Road
Improvements.
General Design Standards For Roads
The following are general design standards for roads in the County:
1. Design new roads in a manner which is sensitive to County and regional efforts
which encourage multi-modal opportunities and neighborhood and pedestrian-
friendly character:
Provide sidewalks on both sides of the street along all arterials, collectors,
and local through-roads in the Urban Area, Communities and Villages
unless, other pedestrian access facilities adequately address current needs
or pedestrian access in a certain location is deemed inappropriate for
reasons of safety.
Encourage, where right of way is reasonably available, paved shoulders on
shoulder and ditch designed roads (rural cross-section) and wider outside
lanes on curb and gutter designed road (urban cross-section) on any new or
reconstructed road to more safely accommodate bicycles. Paved shoulders
also improve long term road maintenance by reducing pavement
deterioration along road edge of rural cross-section roads.
Accommodate, where appropriate, bus stop pull-outs or other improvements
necessary to support bus service. For new major road projects consider long
term need for additional room to support mass-transit facilities (rapid/express
bus lanes, rail service, etc.). Major road projects can be considered a
significant widening or improvement to a primary road or a secondary road.
2. In the Rural Area, road improvements should be designed to protect environmentally
sensitive areas and conform to County goals to preserve rural character. In this
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 31)
regard, improvements which contribute to increased vehicle speed, such as
straightening alignments and additional lanes may create less safe conditions and
may not be consistent with the rural character of the County. Paving shoulders for
enhanced safety and bike use should be encouraged. In the Development Areas,
streets should be designed with a streetscape (sidewalks and plantings) that support
the Neighborhood Model. Any anticipated road improvements or construction in
sensitive or significant resource areas as defined by the Open Space Plan, Natural
Resource and Cultural Assets Plan, or other documents should receive extremely
careful scrutiny and provide protection measures to eliminate ecological,
environmental, and aesthetic concerns.
3. Landscaping should be provided along major roads in the Urban Area, Communities
and Villages, particularly along designated Entrance Corridor Roadways and areas
of intensive development.
4. Mast arm traffic light poles and street light poles and signs are encouraged over
hanging street lights.
5. Locate utilities underground where feasible. If utility poles are to be above ground,
encourage their consolidation into one corridor along the road.
6. Minimize clearing activities associated with construction to the greatest extent
feasible.
7. Require interconnection of adjacent developments/neighborhoods within
Development Areas, and, where appropriate, in Rural Area development, to achieve
a local road system and provide alternatives to the regional road network for local
trips. This principle should apply to residential and non-residential developments.
"Traffic calming" measures (lower speed limits, all directional stop intersections,
speed bumps, traffic channeling measures).
8. Discourage direct access from individual lots to arterial and major collector roads.
Utilize joint entrances, frontage roads, and side street access or other methods to
reduce access points to adjacent properties on major collector or arterial roads.
9. Minimize the number of access points per parcel or development area to those
necessary to provide safe and convenient access to and from the site.
10. Minimum desirable separation of street intersections is 1 ,000 feet for principle arterial
roads and 800 feet for minor arterial roads. Minimum desirable spacing for cross-
overs (divided road) is 1,300 feet for principle arterial and 1,000 feet for minor
arterials. Entrances shall be located either directly across from a cross-over or at a
minimum of 500 feet from a crossover. Encourage use of block configurations in the
Development Areas. Block lengths should range from 200-600'.
Traffic Reduction
Traffic reduction initiatives are intended to reduce dependency on the automobile, and change the
pattern of single-occupant auto trips, as the dominant means of transportation. Although it is
recognized that auto travel will continue to be a primary means of travel, reducing auto trips can: 1)
delay the need for road improvements by better utilizing existing road capacities; and, 2) conserve fuel
and reduce pollution (air, water, noise). Alternative transportation services and initiatives which can
reduce single-occupant auto travel include public transit services, ride-sharing/van pooling programs,
bicycle and pedestrian access facilities, and travel demand reduction techniques such as tele-
commuting and flex-time work hours. Adherence to the General Principles for Transportation
recommendations for the above noted services and facilities should serve to implement traffic
reduction initiatives.
Transportation Services
Public transportation includes any public mass transit services available to County residents such as
the Charlottesville Transit System (CTS), the University Transit Service (UTS), and JAUNT. The County
also benefits from other providers it does not fund, such as taxi services and inner-city bus services.
The transit service providers to the County are described in more detail below. An important
component in planning and providing public transportation services is the "Private Sector Process"
adopted by MPO members. This process is designed to more equitably involve the private sector when
selecting public transportation service options. The inclusion of the private sector perspective has
resulted from Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) regulations requiring: (1) notification of
proposed services to private providers; (2) consultation with private enterprise for public services; (3)
consideration of private carriers in providing services; (4) comparison of costs between service
proposals by the private and public sectors; and, (5) complaint resolution mechanisms for private
operators.
Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS)
Public transportation in the Charlottesville and the urban areas of Albemarle County is provided by
Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS). CTS operates six days a week with ten daily, fixed routes, one
demand response, and six night service routes throughout the urban area. Creating the hub of the
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 32)
public transportation network, bus routes circle around the downtown pedestrian mall before
breaking off in the designated direction. CTS service extends south to Interstate 64, as far up
Route 29 North to Wal-Mart, and east to Pantops. Buses are wheelchair accessible and CTS
offers paratransit programs, in conjunction with JAUNT, for riders with disabilities who are unable to
use regular route buses. CTS buses are also equipped with bike racks. The County will continue
to:
. Implement County related recommendations of the Charlottesville Transit Development Plan,
and participate in its update which occurs every five years.
. Continue to support Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (T JPDC) Rideshares
services and the Commuter Information Team (CIT).
. Participate with T JPDC, MPO, and Rural Area Transportation Long Range Plan to develop
regional plan for park and ride lots.
. Continue to work with area employees to reduce single occupancy commuter vehicles.
JAUNT
JAUNT, Inc. is a regional transportation system providing fixed-route and demand-response service to
the citizens of Charlottesville, Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa, and Nelson Counties. JAUNT receives
federal and state mass transit funding as well as funds from the local governments, human service
agency payments and passenger fares. The eighty-vehicle fleet carries the general public, agency
clients, the elderly and people with disabilities throughout Central Virginia. Mobile Data Computers
have been installed in all of JAUNT's vehicles and new, sophisticated scheduling software handles all
1,200 scheduled trips per day. Reservationists can quickly find the most effective vehicle for each trip,
dispatchers know exactly where each vehicle is, and operators access their trip information directly
from their on-board computer. Fixed route services primarily connect outlying communities to the
urban area, but routes to less populated centers are available as well. Weekday transit routes operate
on most primary roads: Route 29 North and South, Route 20 South, Route 250 East and West, and
Interstate Route 64.Routes in rural Albemarle County originate in various communities including
Scottsville, Covesville, North Garden, Keswick, Advance Mills, Earlysville and Slate Hill.
The following services are provided to the County by JAUNT:
. Coordinated transportation services for all human service agencies serving the County.
. Rural public transportation services, including rural to urban commuter work runs.
. Special services to the handicapped and elderly, including door-to-door prearranged
personalized service.
. Supporting services to the handicapped in CTS areas.
University Transit Service (UTS)
UTS offers transportation and charter services to students, employees, and visitors to the University of
Virginia. It operates twenty fixed routes throughout the calendar year, with a focus on the academic
year. UTS has three types of service: full, holiday, and commuter. Transfers can be made between
CTS and UTS buses.
Currently, UTS is wholly owned and operated by the University and is funded through mandatory
student fees and parking passes. The service is oriented toward students, faculty, and employees of
the University.
The County's growth management policy and land use plan create both distinct advantages and
disadvantages in providing public transportation services. The effort to concentrate growth in specified
Development Areas, particularly in the Urban Area around the City, permits a large portion of the
population to be served with relative ease and efficiency. However, the low density and wide dispersal
of population in the Rural Areas make it more difficult to provide convenient access to public
transportation to those areas in a cost effective manner. While providing public transportation in the
urban areas only is consistent with the County's growth management policy, it results in little or no
service to low-and moderate-income individuals and families, the elderly, and the handicapped who
reside in the rural regions of the County.
Ride Sharina
RideShare is a program of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission working to reduce
traffic congestion and increase mobility throughout the city of Charlottesville and the counties of
Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson by promoting alternatives to the single occupant
vehicle. Its services includes car and vanpool matching, referrals to transit providers, inventory,
marketing, development of Park and Ride lots, operating the Guaranteed Ride Home Program, and
promotion of bicycle and pedestrian transportation. This program is continuing to expand and most
recently has implemented a School Pool program, to assist schools with traffic congestion that
frequently occurs in their lots. RideShare is also an active participant of the Commuter Information
Team (CIT) which includes RideShare, Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS), JAUNT, University Transit
Service (UTS), and Greene County Transit.
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 33)
Park and Ride lots located in Albemarle County include:
Scottsville - Rt. 20 at the Scottsville Market Keene
Mountainside Senior Living
Avon Street Extended
Pantops Shopping Center
Darden Towe Park
Wal-Mart
Forest Lakes South Entrance
Peace Lutheran Church
Forest Lakes North (Health Services Center)
Maple Grove Church
Grace United Methodist Church
Recommendations
Identify methods of funding transit services and develop a funding structure/program to
support transit in the County.
Expand transit service in the Urban Area, and to the Hollymead, Cedar Hill Mobile
Estates and Piney Mountain Communities.
Utilize the Transit Development Plan and other studies to assist in determining the
location and timing for the provision of transit services.
Consider expansion of service hours to include nights and weekends on appropriate
routes to improve ridership and service.
Continue to recognize and support JAUNT as the primary public transportation
provider for rural Albemarle County and the County's transportation disadvantaged.
Continue to support MPO and JAUNT ride-sharing services.
Participate with MPO and JAUNT to develop a regional system of park and ride lots.
Work with area employers through MPO to encourage development of
ridesharing/vanpooling programs and travel demand reduction programs. Encourage
development of ridesharing and travel demand reduction programs in evaluating
rezoning and parking lot requests for major industrial, office, and commercial
projects.
Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Greenway Access
Pedestrian and bicycle access is an important aspect of the County's overall transportation system.
Walkways and bikeways provide for safe and convenient travel and improve the efficiency of the
roadway system by reducing potential conflicts between motor vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists.
Pedestrian and bicycle access improvements can also complement and enhance the mass
transportation system by improving access to bus stops and places of economic activity. The provision
of an effective pedestrian/bicycle system can also enhance the sense of community within developed
or developing areas of the County by providing pedestrian/bicycle facilities that interconnect
communities and facilitate and encourage interaction within the area.
Appropriate facilities such as walkways, pathways and bike facilities create a safe and effective
pedestrian/bicycle environment. These facilities alone, however, do not provide for adequate safe and
efficient access, and as a result, additional facilities or improvements may be necessary such as street
lights, signs, and other road intersection improvements.
The Department of Community Development in cooperation with the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission has developed the Jefferson Area Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Plan. This
Plan will replace the existing Pedestrian Obstacle Study, and the Bicycle Plan for the City of
Charlottesville and Albemarle County.
The purpose of this plan is to provide information and guidance on development of facilities and other
accommodations to enhance safe bicycle and pedestrian travel within the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District. This plan will also satisfy the Virginia Department of Transportation requirement that a
roadway be identified as a bike lane or sidewalk in a locally adopted bicycle or pedestrian plan before
improvements can be made. Descriptions are given as to how localities can create and maintain safe
and efficient walking and biking systems, linking people to the services they need. An overall network
is proposed that connects the many communities of the region, and smaller networks proposed for
within those communities. The plan also identifies methods for increasing awareness among the
public, especially automobile drivers, about the needs of walkers and cyclists. The Plan provides
recommendations for both physical improvements and programs aimed at improving bicycle and
pedestrian facilities and safety, and discusses implementation and funding issues. The improvement
recommendations from the study are provided in Appendix B of the Land Use Plan.
The Jefferson Area Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Plan begins with a description of existing
conditions, demand and need, and possible facility types for both bicycles and pedestrians. The Plan
allows for links to surrounding localities. Public input was invaluable to the development of this plan.
Local biking clubs and organizations were invited to the meetings. The Jefferson Area Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Greenways Plan incorporates the recommendations of the County's Greenway Plan
(Appendix A of the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Section of the Comprehensive Plan (page
201).
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 34)
Goals and Objectives of the Regional Plan are:
GOAL 1: Provide a comprehensive and coordinated reqional bicyclinq and walkinq system.
Objective: Provide safe bicycle and pedestrian access to public facilities, employment and commercial
centers, schools, residential areas, and recreation and tourism attractions.
Objective: Integrate bicycles and pedestrians into planning for transportation and land development.
Objective: Ensure consistency among local plans, designs, and facilities in the region.
Objective: Provide adequate support facilities for the travel networks.
Objective: Encourage developers to include bicycle and pedestrian access in projects.
Objective: Integrate bicycle and walking networks with transit systems.
Objective: Preserve and restore walking and bicycle access when roadways expand.
GOAL 2: Provide safe bicycle and walkinq networks. convenient for all users.
Objective: Provide a system that serves expert, intermediate, and novice users of all ages.
Objective: Provide a system that serves recreational and utilitarian user needs.
Objective: Create a network easily used by residents, guests, and tourists.
Objective: Develop a system that meets or exceeds VDOT standards.
Objective: Minimize potential conflicts between bicycles, motor vehicles, and pedestrians.
Objective: Provide signage, markings, and physical improvements to ensure safe and easy usage.
Objective: Provide and maintain riding surfaces free of obstructions, trash, gravel, and other hazards.
Objective: Develop improved methods of bicycle accident data gathering, analysis, and retrieval.
GOAL 3: Educate the public of bicyclinq and walkinq advantaqes. facilities. safety and requlations.
Objective: Develop a comprehensive public information and education program to raise the
community's awareness and enjoyment of walking and bicycle riding facilities.
Objective: Inform public of health and environmental benefits to further entice users.
Objective: Incorporate maps of facilities into standard transportation and tourist maps.
Objective: Inform bicyclists and pedestrians of their responsibility in relation to traffic.
Objective: Educate bicyclists and drivers on the rules of the road and bicycle safety.
GOAL 4: Establish a system to coordinate steady implementation of the plan.
Objective: Establish priorities for facility development consistent with funding priorities while maintaining
flexibility to develop any segment of the system as opportunities permit.
Objective: Develop facilities which are cost efficient to construct and maintain.
Objective: Maintain awareness of and pursue all potential funding sources.
Objective: Hire staff at each locality or regionally to be in charge of grant writing, plan coordination, and
other activities that will provide the necessary support to implement the plan.
Recommendations
Utilize the existing Neighborhood and Master Plans for identifying potential walkway,
bicycle, greenway, and streetlight projects.
. Implement the recommendations of the Jefferson Area Bicycle, Pedestrian and
Greenway Plan.
Evaluate existing Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements and enabling
legislation to ensure pedestrian facilities are being provided as called for in this Plan.
Evaluate the need (and method) for the County to supplement VDOT's walkway
maintenance, grassy strips, and tree lawn areas.
Maintain an on-going walkway, bicycle, and greenway construction fund in the Capital
Improvements Program. Utilize all possible funding sources for the construction of
walkways and bicycle facilities.
Utilize Development Standards for Roads and Land Use Standards for Development
as guidelines for pedestrian facility development.
Implement the recommendations of the existing Bicycle Plan for the City of
Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Regularly review and update Plan.
Include bicycle and sidewalk facilities within new major developments depending on
their location. Provide amenities such as bike racks and shower facilities.
. Consider using VDOT and railroad excess right-of-way for multi-use trails.
Other Transportation Types
Air Travel
The purpose of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Master Plan of August 18, 2004 is to provide the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority with useful, understandable information and guidance to
develop and maintain a safe and efficient airport. It also provides the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) and the Virginia Department of Aviation with information concerning the planned development at
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Master Plan is a
comprehensive planning guide that ensures the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport remains a safe,
efficient, and environmentally sensitive air transportation facility, while serving the growing needs of air
travelers throughout the region.
The Airport has maintained a master plan for facility development since 1972. Prior updates include
1982 and 1994. FAA requires an airport to maintain a master plan in order to be eligible to receive
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 35)
grant-in-aid funding through its airport improvement program. There are no set guidelines from FAA
on how often an airport master plan should be updated. Each master plan includes forecasts of
aviation activity that are applicable for 5, 10 and 20 year periods. Historically, the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airport has conducted an update every 10-12 years.
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport (CHO) is the only commercial service airport in the region (the Louisa
County Industrial Airpark is a general aviation airport). The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport is located
in northern Albemarle County west of Route 29 at Routes 649 and 606, approximately eight miles north
of Charlottesville. Service was initiated at the Airport by Piedmont Airlines in 1955. Since then, the
facility has grown to include a 60,000 square foot terminal facility with modern customer amenities
offering on-site rental cars, ground transportation, and food service. General aviation facilities include
an executive terminal offering a full-service fixed base operation, flight schools, and aircraft charter
firms. Significant increases in the number of passengers departing from the airport on commercial
flights have occurred. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport continues to grow, from 65,620
passengers departing on commercial flights in 1980 to 132,432 in 1990, and serving 163,416
passengers in 2003.
The County is aware of the need to address infrastructure needs which would improve airport
operations, such as public utility and road improvements. Any future land acquisition and development
by the Authority will also need to be coordinated with the County to insure consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan and all applicable ordinances, and to minimize negative impacts of expansions.
Rail Travel
Passenger and freight rail service are available in north-south and east-west directions throughoutthe
region. AMTRAK service for passengers originates at the City of Charlottesville's Union Station on
West Main Street. There are no other AMTRAK stops in the planning district.
TransDominion Express (TDX)
The TransDominion Express (TDX) project is a collaborative effort between both state and local
agencies. As detailed in the 1998 Bristol Report, The TDX is a proposed rail system that would
connect southwest Virginia with both Washington, D.C. and Richmond. TransDominion Express will
serve the region, with proposed rail corridors starting in Bristol, with destinations to Washington D.C.,
and Richmond. Service to Richmond will be through Lynchburg, and a stop is proposed for
Charlottesville on the route to Washington. The TDX would cover approximately 400 miles and has
nineteen formal and informal proposed stations. The Virginia Department of Rail and Public
Transportation found that "creation of TDX would decrease traffic congestion on highways and
interstates, reduce air traffic pollution, increase safety, stimulate tourism and commerce and provide an
efficient alternative to automobile travel. The County supports the TDX and funding.
A direct physical impact of rail service is the possible conflict with pedestrians and autos at crossing
points. Also, hazardous materials are transported daily along railroad lines. Safety records show that
railroad shipment of such material is safer by far than along highways. The shipment of hazardous
material further increase the importance of railroad crossing improvements, such as the installation of
warning devices to minimize potential collisions. The responsibility of rail-road-highway at-grade
crossings are considered the responsibility of the Virginia Department ofTransportation and, therefore,
are addressed in the Six Year Road planning process.
Presently no freight originates in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. Freighttrains, however, run on the
rail line. Two private terminals receive freight in the Charlottesville area: the University of Virginia
receives coal; Better Living receives building material.
A team track loading facility is presently located at the existing Norfolk-Southern Railroad Station
adjacent to West Main Street. The platform, although used infrequently, provides a facility to unload
industrial and farm equipment from railroad cars to other vehicles. When the proposed multi-modal
station is constructed, the team track loading platform will need to be relocated.
Rail access is an important component of the County's overall transportation system, and it is important
to maintain the railway system as a complement and supplement to other transportation modes. Rail
access can also be important to industrial activities.
Should usage of rail lines be abandoned, efforts should be made to maintain the lines for future rail
use. Interim uses, such as trail use, may also be appropriate. These rights-of-way would be different
and costly to re-establish if needed again the future. Their availability in the long term may prove
beneficial to the County and to adjacent communities.
Grade-separated crossings, whether underpasses or overpasses, are generally the responsibility ofthe
railroad involved. Several existing railroad bridges and underpasses are of substandard design or
condition, create impediments to free traffic flow, and may present safety problems.
Recommendations
. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Master Plan of August 18, 2004 is recognized
as a guide for the development Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. Continue to
recognize the Airport Authority as responsible for the management, planning, and
expansion of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport facilities. The County and the
Airport Authority should coordinate long-term land use and development plans for the
airport area.
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 36)
. Continue to implement improvements to railroad crossings and bridges through the
six year road planning process or other necessary means.
. Maintain existing rail passenger service and pursue enhanced service for the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Community. Monitor all potential railroad abandonment
efforts to determine the impact on the County and region. If abandonment takes
place, evaluate possible alternative uses such as a linear park with pedestrian,
equestrian or bicycle trails.
Maintain support of the funding of the TransDominion Express and support that it be seriously
considered as a multi-modal means to address congestion on Route 29.
Agenda Item No. 20. Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (T JPED),
Discussion of.
Mr. Rooker noted that there will be a public hearing on this matter, and he asked that people who
speak tonight not speak again at that time.
Mr. Tucker reported that the Board has received T JPED's by-laws and five-year plan of activities,
along with a list of its Board of Directors. The cost of participation would be $12,500 per year, and the
County would have one representative on its Board. The Partnership's Board meets quarterly, while their
Executive Committee meets monthly.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the Board has discussed adopting a new Economic Development Policy
section of the Comprehensive Plan, and asked about the timing of that change. Mr. Tucker responded that
the Board indicated it wanted to adopt the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission's Economic
Plan, which it has done. The Board will see the Economic Development part of the Comprehensive Plan
next month.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Robert De Mauri, T JPED Executive Director, to come forward and answer a
few questions.
Mr. Boyd said the Partnership is perceived by some members of the public as a lobbying
organization. Mr. De Mauri said the Partnership's mission is to promote and facilitate job creation and new
business investments. It is not trying to effect public policy or legislation. If an organization asks for
T JPED's opinion on something, they give it.
Mr. Boyd said public perception is that the T JPED Board meets privately. Mr. De Mauri said the full
board meets four times a year, and the executive committee meets each month. The meeting schedule is
predetermined, and they could certainly make that information available to the public.
Mr. Dorrier asked what T JPED's role is when a business wants to locate in Albemarle County. Mr.
De Mauri said if a company makes an inquiry, T JPED contacts the County and determines a level of
interest on the part of the locality. They do not provide any additional assistance in that regard. He said
they have a 21-member voting board (they could have 24 members) with an equal balance of private and
public partners. It would not make sense for him to direct a company to locate in Albemarle if the County
does not want them. The marketplace actually drives the decision. There are very few locations in
Albemarle County a business might be able to consider. He emphasized that the Partnership serves as a
resource to business inquiries from outside of the County as well as companies from inside.
Mr. Wyant asked how Mr. De Mauri would view T JPED's role in the Crozet development area. Mr.
De Mauri replied that he views the Partnership as a secondary resource to a local economic development
person or local government individual who is trying to facilitate something happening within the county. He
emphasized that their role is connecting businesses to localities, and vice-versa. The whole economic
development process is one of trying to identify requirements that a company may have and then matching
those requirements somewhere in the region to fulfill that requirement most effectively, both location-wise
and otherwise.
Ms. Thomas asked if the T JPED would do that even if the County were not a member of the
T JPED. Mr. De Mauri said he tries to represent the region as it exists, and the County's participation would
encourage better dialogue as to the County's objectives. He thinks an ongoing relationship would only
strengthen the process and, hopefully, effectively enable the County to achieve what it wants to achieve.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the T JPED has had good results in other jurisdictions. Mr. De Mauri said "yes."
There are just three other localities that are not currently participating. He indicated that Greene is
probably going to rejoin T JPED; Madison is not currently a member but each locality makes a decision in its
annual budgeting process about participation. He said Madison felt a bit insulated from the development
pressures affecting Greene and Albemarle and decided not to join. He emphasized that T JPED focuses on
basic job creation, and does not engage with shopping center developers, as those projects are market-
driven, but deals with research centers, manufacturers, etc.
Mr. Slutzky said his experience as a small business owner in Charlottesville is that the T JPED
helped find him a new location and offered connections to training opportunities. Mr. De Mauri said a good
portion of T JPED's activity is focused on existing business, and trying to accommodate their needs
somewhere in the region. They have strong partnerships with academic institutions, such as PVCC and the
University. They also arrange meetings between businesses outside of the area and ones already located
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 37)
here. He emphasized that their focus is to connect information about a locality in the context of the region to
a prospective business. If a company they are working with does not feel it is a good fit, they have the
country and the world to go to.
Mr. Wyant asked if the T JPED had a role in State Farm moving more of its operation to the area.
Mr. De Mauri said they did.
Ms. Thomas asked how T JPED encourages community leaders to support infrastructure, etc., if
they don't engage in discussions with the boards of the various localities. Mr. De Mauri said they provide a
means to present that need to the community in the context of business development. All they do is
present the information, and hopefully bring the people together.
Ms. Thomas asked about T JPED's interest in developing a regional business park. Mr. De Mauri
said that recently a high-tech manufacturing company wanted to locate here, but the only location possible
was the University Research Park. No where else in the region was there a competitive location. This
region does not have very many - if at all - that can be considered world-class or even regional-class
locations for companies who want a nice setting, an image, good landscaping, the kind of company all
would be pleased to have. He said a regional park would provide this type of environment where
businesses could locate, making the area competitive with locations like Richmond. He said the area is in
transition from traditional manufacturing jobs to a more knowledge-based, technology-oriented economy.
The challenge is creating jobs that are at higher skill levels, and the challenge for T JPED is to encourage
these companies to come while creating the training and education to work here.
Ms. Thomas said one thing that might need attention is the area's agricultural base, and the
marketing of local products. Mr. De Mauri replied that if the County had a specific initiative related to that,
then T JPED would certainly develop a dialog about it.
At this time, Mr. Rooker invited members of the public to speak.
Ms. Colette Sheehy, Vice-President for Management and Budget at the University of Virginia,
addressed the Board. She said that a couple of years ago, she stood in this same position to encourage
the County to participate in the Partnership. The University still believes participation is important. She said
the University does not understand why elected representatives do not choose to be at the table when
important work affecting the future of the community is being discussed and addressed by other localities,
the University, and businesses. She thinks this is inconsistent with the high standards of participation in
other parts of the Board's work. They are not suggesting that this Board alter its views or compromise what
it stands for. They are asking that the Board allow its views to be heard, and that it share it vision for the
County and the larger region. She encouraged the Board to have the County become a full member, as it
will benefit T JPED's work.
Mr. Eric Kaplan, founder of Front Line test equipment, addressed the Board. He said
Charlottesville is a terrible place to have a business, as there is no access to capital, no customers, no
skilled labor. He said organizations like this are needed to help businesses. Why not help them? What's
the obstacle here?
Mr. Rooker encouraged Mr. Kaplan to come back when the public hearing is held to hear this
discourse. After some discussion, Board members agreed to have the public hearing on joining the T JPED
on February 8, 2006.
Mr. Boyd said that he strongly supports the County's participation in T JPED, citing Mr. Kaplan's
concern as an example of why.
Mr. Rooker thanked everyone who came out tonight, and said this question will be considered early
on the agenda at the meeting on February 8.
Agenda Item No. 21. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd, to appoint Ms. Mary Lou Fowler as the Jack Jouett District
representative on the Social Services Board, with said term to expire December 31,2009.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Slutzky. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 22. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Cilimberg clarified that the Pantops Park application had existing conditions which provided for
the potential for a crosswalk and signalization at Richmond Road and Route 250, contingent upon VDOT
approval. He said the discussion earlier at this meeting may have implied that those amenities would not be
a possibility. The pricing leading to the $20,000 proffer did include that possibility.
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 38)
Mr. Cilimberg said he did get the handout from Mr. Tom Loach regarding the Crozet growth
information. His staff is going to take another look at the work of the DISC Committee that produced the
information on population growth in Crozet: that data actually references adding population. He said the
worksheet table used was part of what was put together with the DISC work that led to the Neighborhood
Model, and staff is going to clarify the figures.
Mr. Tucker said the Board adopted a resolution earlier concerning the design for the Meadow
Creek Parkway, but it wanted some confirmation from VDOT regarding an at-grade or grade-separated
interchange at Melbourne Road. He noted that in June, 2004 VDOT brought back information in which they
indicated an at-grade intersection would be fine. He said the Board did not take any action at that time but
generally agreed with VDOT about the interchange.
Ms. Thomas asked if the City agrees with the interchange plan.
Mr. Rooker replied that the only alternatives on the table are a roundabout or at-grade
intersections.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Harrison Rue feels a roundabout would work, but VDOT feels it would not.
Mr. Rooker noted that the Airport Road roundabout has received many positive comments.
Mr. Wyant said some people are confused the first time they drive through it, but it provides a very
smooth flow.
Ms. Thomas said an engineer pointed out to her that the Route 240/250 interchange going into
Crozet would be an ideal place for a roundabout.
Mr. Boyd moved that the Board of Supervisors confirm its determination made on July 7,2004, that
VDOT had demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Board of Supervisors that the public would not be better
served by grade-separating the Meadow Creek Parkway and Melbourne Road and the Board is satisfied
that Condition NO.4 of the Meadow Creek Parkway Resolution of Intent adopted by the Board on May 5,
2004, has been met. Mr. Wyant seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Wyant said the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association had sent to him a check for
$4,000 to be used in recruitment of volunteers. Mr. Rooker said he will send a thank you letter from the
Board.
Ms. Thomas said she has a draft of the MPO's monthly report, and wondered if Board members
would like additional information on the MPO other than the year-end report. Mr. Rooker said the
T JPDC.orq website covers everything the MPO adopts or does. Mr. Boyd said he would like copies of the
MPO minutes put in his Board packet.
Mr. Rooker said he has had a meeting with an individual from Rivanna Village who expressed an
interest in doing a visioning process there. He said the discussion revolved around who might be the best
party to lead that process, and he suggested Mr. Harrison Rue, Executive Director, Planning District
Commission, as the facilitator of such a process.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board is committed to doing a detailed master plan of that area.
Mr. Rooker responded that the County is committed to doing master plans of all growth areas, but
there are not sufficient resources to accomplish this all at one time. He said that in order to get a
framework done, the process for this area of the County started with Pantops.
Mr. Slutzky said Pantops seems more urgent, and he is not convinced that Rivanna Village is the
next choice. Mr. Tucker replied that the plans for the growth areas have been prioritized.
Mr. Boyd said people in the Pantops area feel they were "led to water and then not allowed to
drink."
Ms. Thomas drew a distinction between holding a charrette and doing an actual master plan. She
wondered if something other than a master plan could be done.
Mr. Rooker said it is good to take advantage of the energy of the public while it is there, and
Rivanna Village residents are ready to move forward with something.
Mr. Slutzky said the County cannot afford to do simultaneous master planning of growth areas
because there are not sufficient staff resources or money for consultants. He is reluctant to send a signal
to people that the County is moving forward with a master planning exercise at Rivanna Village because he
thinks it is unlikely to happen.
Approved by the
Board of County
SUDervisors
Date: 9-06-06
Initials: ewe
January 11, 2006 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings
(Page 39)
Mr. Tucker explained that the County provides money to the T J Planning District Commission, and
could contract with them to move things forward.
Mr. Slutzky said staff would still need to be involved.
Mr. Rooker stated that Mr. Tucker is indicating there may be a more economical way to move this
forward by using T JPDC instead of having staff lead the charge.
Mr. Slutzky said he would be sympathetic to doing what it takes to master plan the growth area
sooner rather than later.
Mr. Mark Graham said it might be appropriate to hold this conversation at the work session on
February 1 concerning the Community Development Department. He said the five-year work plan for the
Comprehensive Plan would be reviewed at that time, along with the master plans. Board members agreed
with that plan.
Agenda Item No. 23. Adjourn. At 9:17 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board,
the meeting was adjourned.
Chairman