2010-05-05May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 5,
2010, at 9:00 a.m., County Office Building on McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann H. Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Mr. Duane Snow, and Mr. Rodney Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis, Deputy County Attorney Greg Kamptner, Clerk Ella Jordan and Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4a. Recognitions: Proclamation - Public Service Recognition Week 2010.
Ms. Mallek read the following proclamation into the record:
PUBLIC SERVICE RECOGNITION WEEK
MAY 3 – 9, 2010
WHEREAS, Americans are served daily by public servants at the federal, state, county, and city levels.
These unsung heroes do the work that keeps our nation working; and
WHEREAS, public service is among the most demanding and noble of professions; and
WHEREAS, Public Service Recognition Week is observed annually to celebrate and recognize the
valuable service that public servants provide to the nation; and
WHEREAS, over 500 Albemarle County Local Government employees work tirelessly to serve our
residents, businesses, and visitors, providing them with outstanding customer service while
maintaining careful stewardship of the resources with which they have been entrusted; and
WHEREAS, without these public servants at every level, continuity would be impossible in a democracy
that regularly changes its leaders and elected officials; and
WHEREAS, we appreciate the many accomplishments and contributions made daily by these public
servants;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do
proclaim
May 3-9, 2010 as Public Service Recognition Week
and call upon the citizens of Albemarle County to join their fellow citizens across the
County to recognize crucial role of public employees.
______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Rooker said that the MPO has been working to organize a meeting with Secretary of
Transportation Sean Connaughton, with the primary topic being obtaining earmarked funds for the Route
29/H250 improvements – from Hydraulic down to the Route 250 Bypass and the additional ramp at Best
Buy. If there are any other topics Board members want discussed, he asked that they pass them onto
him or Mr. Thomas.
__________
Mr. Thomas reported that Albemarle County Fire Rescue Advisory Board (ACFRAB) met last
Wednesday night, and the Operations Committee is working to come up with an agreement on the
policies. He also said that the team recommended setting a standard for screening possible volunteers –
including a Social Security number check, background check, etc.
__________
Ms. Mallek stated that she attended a ribbon-cutting event for the MITRE Corporation, which has
opened in Town Center III in the North Fork Research Park. She said that the company employs 7,000
people worldwide. The president (Al Grasso) and other officials came for the ceremony and emphasized
how glad they were to locate in Albemarle. Ms. Mallek noted that they indicated they have plans for
future expansion, and both Mr. Grasso and the head contractor for NGIC mentioned to her how important
it is for the County to maintain its excellent educational system – as employees will not want to move here
if they perceive their children will not have opportunities that are at least as good or better than those
where they are currently located.
__________
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Ms. Mallek noted to fellow Board members that they would be considering amendments to the
County‟s Strategic Plan for Economic Development later in the meeting. She read the following
statement into the record:
“To improve the process for policy changes, to build trust in our citizens that we are working for
the County‟s benefit, and their benefit, we need to improve our own communication within the Board. We
as Board members need to keep each other informed, rather than excluded.” She proposed that when
members are meeting with staff to develop new policies that colleagues are sent an email stating the fact
that this is going on. Ms. Mallek emphasized that if she had received a timely email about such meetings
recently, she would have been better able to respond to citizen questions, and for reporters to be
informed before she was about the substance of the draft was “gotcha politics” that puts a positive
outcome in question. “Rather than concentrating on who to keep out and how to control the process, it is
important to keep the Board – all of us, and by extension the community – informed.”
She said that the County Executive is also included in this request to inform the Chair when he is
in meetings with staff and citizens on policy development issues. Ms. Mallek asked for agreement from
each Board member to proceed in this manner, adding that she is reinstituting the pre-agenda meeting of
Chair, Vice-Chair, County Executive, and Assistant County Executive to discuss what is about to be
published for the upcoming agenda. She said that the items are listed for planning purposes many
months in advance, but are often changed at the last minute due to incomplete process work. Citizens
who see lists of upcoming items should always check the published agenda before making plans to speak
on a particular issue.
Ms. Mallek said that she looks forward to the Board‟s discussion on the Economic Development
Policy as there are many excellent items included in the proposal.
Mr. Thomas commented that there was a committee set up to give the Board ideas to consider,
not to set the rule of the day. He did not feel it was done behind anybody‟s back , and he feels that is why
the Board formed the committee.
Ms. Mallek asked if he agreed to send emails to bos@albemarle.org to keep people posted so
that everyone is pulling in the same direction.
Mr. Rooker stated that what happened went far beyond what Mr. Thomas mentioned, and what is
before the Board today is a draft of a changed plan for consideration. He indicated that the vote taken in
January 2010 to develop an action plan should have been followed up, if there was an interest in moving
it forward, with a discussion by the Board as to how to proceed – not by the creation of an ad-hoc
committee where the Board was basically excluded from that process. He added that it is just simply
inappropriate to have things brought before this Board as though this is the action plan, as this Board has
had no participation in getting there, or even in establishing the process by which that plan was brought
forward. Mr. Rooker emphasized that a ten-minute conversation could have made this process more
transparent, and meeting without the Board Chair even knowing is completely inappropriate.
Mr. Boyd said that the action plan developed called for something to be developed within six
months, and any blame rests solely with him. He does not think it was inappropriate to start acting
immediately on what the Board was going to do. He stated that he intended to bring the Board into the
discussion when there was something to think over, adding that there is often preliminary discussion with
staff prior to an item being brought to the Board.
Ms. Mallek noted that having the press have more information than the Board was awkward. She
added that her request is simply to have email notification to the Board so that they know what is going
on. It is important that there is no perception of anyone being left out.
______________
Agenda Item No. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Diantha McKeel said that as a member of the Albemarle County School Board, she is both
pleased and dismayed at the proposed Economic Development Action Plan in its current form. She said
that she is pleased that the County is looking at ways to grow its tax base and improve its revenues, as
the School Division have experienced over $8 million in reductions in local revenues for FY2010-11. She
recognizes that a viable future cannot be created through cuts alone, but must be enhanced through
increased revenues. She also appreciates that the Board is looking to grow skilled trades and the middle
class in the County, but she is upset at the lack of attention paid to education as an integral partner in
economic development. We know that the new economy is primarily a knowledge-based economy,
emphasizing the importance of education; we know that entrepreneurship is a cornerstone of sustained
economic development and is mentioned in your plan as your hope to cultivate home-grown businesses,
yet the action steps to do so do not mention the work of our schools in preparing that workforc e – those
future entrepreneurs. None of the measurable outcomes have to do with the quality of our schools or
critical role in economic development.
Ms. McKeel said that the proposed plan seeks to strategically grow and attract capital-intensive,
private-sector employers that provide a diverse array of career ladder employment opportunities to the
resident workforce. She suggested that one of the best draws for attracting businesses to this area is a
high-performing school division. Businesses will relocate here if their workers see us as a safe place to
raise our families, if they believe their children will receive a higher quality education and graduate
prepared for the global economy. She added that members of the Defense Intelligence Agency has
already reported difficulty in getting families to move to the County after the most recent budget cycle,
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
citing concerns over the County‟s recent lack of support for schools. Ms. McKeel suggested that Board
members Google “Albemarle County budget,” noting that one headline is “Albemarle budget plan forces
school job cuts.” Ms. McKeel said that to reach the Board‟s goal of attracting targeted businesses and
investments, you must include the County schools. You must recognize the importance of a strong public
school system to your economic development efforts and you must work in partnership with the School
Division to market the County and reach these objectives.
Ms. McKeel stated that it is not just about streamlining paperwork or making the County‟s website
friendlier to business, it is about ensuring that the County is the kind of place businesses and their
workers want to live and invest in. When businesses and families consider where they are going to
relocate, they consider the quality of the public schools and the support the locality provides for
education.
Ms. McKeel asked that the Economic Development Plan be amended to include recognition of
the integral nature of strong public schools in achieving the economic development goals, and explicitly
state how the School Division will play an important role in growing and sustaining businesses and
development in Albemarle County. Not only do we train the workers for these businesses, but we also
provide the reason for many employers and their employees to choose our locality to invest in. Education
must be an integral part of your plan, not just lip service in the preamble or rhetoric saved for elections.
__________
Ms. Candace Smith said that she is a small business owner and homeowner in the County. She
emphasized that the actions of the Board need to be “well considered and reasoned by the full Board,
and not the result of any Supervisor‟s singular efforts.” Ms. Smith said that each person was individually
elected to represent a portion of the county, and that needs to be included in any actions developed or
taken by the Board. She expressed concern with this issue after reading the May 3rd issue of The Daily
Progress, which reported that Ken Boyd met with the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic
Development (TJPED) and the Chamber of Commerce as suggested by actions from a January Board
meeting – but it became apparent that other Board members were not aware of his actions. Ms. Smith
added that the utilization of staff resources to develop the draft plan is also concerning, as is Mr. Boyd‟s
decision to “preselect members of the business community” to include in this meeting. She said that the
Board‟s charge is to represent a diverse and broad community, and a School Board member should have
been included. Ms. Smith expressed concern that the short-term efforts to stimulate economic
development may have long-term permanent impacts on the County‟s beautiful vitality. Granted
generating tax revenues from businesses is important and accommodating a business by cutting corners
or reducing requirements may seem attractive for the short term gains for potential tax revenues, even
though some businesses can be short lived. On the other hand the long term impact of minimizing
standards or regulations can immeasurably outweigh those gains.
Ms. Smith said that the action plan calls for reducing unnecessary and burdensome regulations
and shortening approval times. From her seven years experience on the ARB the speed at which a
project was put through was often dependent on the applicants themselves not following guidelines and
forcing staff to conduct additional reviews; those who did follow guidelines were approved in short order.
The applicants that overlooked the details that were simple to include and were spelled out in the
regulations had to return more times and as a result made the process appear long and burdensome,
even though it was due in part to some of their disregard for simple regulations. A recommendation in the
report suggests revamping the ARB, perhaps even considering a single architectural review administrator
vs. having a board of members is of concern just as a single Supervisor should not make decisions for
the entire Board. The value of having a board of ARB members involved on aesthetic matters should be
recognized as significantly better and more reasoned than the position of a single administrator. From
her vantage point it seems that some Board members will only look and listen to folks who will give them
the same message they want to hear.
__________
Ms. Christine Nardi addressed the Board, stating that she is Executive Director of the Center for
Nonprofit Excellence. The CNE is a community resource for and about nonprofits. The CNE is a
membership organization with over 240 members – 200 nonprofits as well as 45 area businesses and
consultants that work with and support nonprofits. She added that there are 53 members in Albemarle
County. Their service area is primarily the TJPDC, but they also serve members across Virginia. They
focus on providing best practice tools, training, and resources to area nonprofits in management,
governance, technology, and leadership. Ms. Nardi said that they also facilitate collaboration within the
nonprofit sector and with business, academic, and public sectors to effectively leverage resources and
meet the needs of the community. She noted the draft economic development action plan and
encouraged the Board to consider the nonprofit sector as a stakeholder in their discussions about
strategies to increase the economic vitality of the County. Ms. Nardi commented that the nonprofits
contribute to a quality community by what they do – but also through their business activity. In 2005
alone, nonprofits generated over $934 million in revenues, holding $5.6 billion in assets and spending
nearly $812 million in the community – employing over 6,000 individuals, or 6.1% of the state‟s total
employment. She said that nonprofits serve as a key component in promoting tourism and increasing the
economic vitality of small farms, citing examples of the Virginia Festival of the Book and Local Food Hub.
Ms. Nardi encouraged the Board members to visit the CNE offic e – located behind C‟ville Coffee – and to
encourage their constituents to do the same. She reminded the Board that the Charlottesville Civic
Action 2010 exhibit opens June 4, 2010 at City Space.
__________
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Morgan Butler said that he works for the Southern Environmental Law Center. Mr. Butler
stated that like many others, he was surprised to learn that a committee that included County staff and
officials had been meeting for several months and had developed a draft plan that would be presented to
the Board today. He said that it is not unreasonable or unusual for one or two members of the Board or
Planning Commission to have meetings with a staff representative and a group of interested members of
the public to work through an issue– but the meetings have been going on for some time and have not
been publicized. Mr. Butler added that they seem to have taken place behind closed doors, and as a
result it was only five days ago that the general public was made aware that a committee was working on
a plan and that the group had completed its work and created a draft to present to the Board today. He
believes that a lack of openness and transparency is of even greater concern when what is being
developed is a plan that calls for a shifting of County resources.
He noted that the staff report makes clear that the County will need to reprioritize other staff
efforts in order to carry out the various plans, reviews, and roundtables called for in this plan. Mr. Butler
pointed out that there have already been significant cuts to County staffing levels over the last few years,
and it doesn‟t seem that there are many non-essential items left for staff to be working on. He asked
what efforts could be dropped to tackle the various tasks set forth in the propose d plan, which seems
critical to get an answer to. He acknowledged that there are some very reasonable and sensible ideas
set forth in the plan, such as proactive rezoning of appropriate parcels to Light Industrial if they are
located within the development areas and promoting agribusiness. Mr. Butler stated that he doesn‟t see
how the County can make an informed decision as to how to pursue them without knowing what current
efforts would be dropped. He encouraged the Board to ask staff which efforts would need to be
prioritized if they are directed to move ahead with the plan. A public that has been largely locked out of
this process to date, deserves to know what affect this plan would have on existing programs and efforts
before any action is taken.
__________
Mr. John Martin, a resident of Free Union, presented a photograph of the construction of the
Ragged Mountain Dam in 1907 – which shows pride of accomplishment in building the dam. He said that
this community has done everything right in every stage of water supply planning for over 100 years –
always planning for the long term. Mr. Martin added that the water supply plan approved in 2006 honors
that legacy of future planning, as well as containing built-in protections for streams and rivers. He
encouraged the Board to continue supporting the plan, as it is an honorable plan.
__________
Ms. Liz Palmer, a County resident, said she was present to speak about the Water Supply Plan.
Mr. Boyd recently made a very patient and honest attempt in getting the City to come to some agreement
as to how to move forward with the W ater Supply Plan with respect to the demand analysis. She said
that it is still up in the air given time and financial restraints, but one criticism has been of the project‟s
scale – as it is based on the worst drought on record. Ms. Palmer stated that she gathered some
information from other localities, and this plan calls for 93 gallons per day per capita – with all uses rolled
into one, including domestic homes, businesses, hospitals, schools, fire protection, etc. She said that the
DEQ gives an appropriate range of 85 to 200 gallons, so the local plan is on the low end. She feels that
this is really not an enormous supply plan – it is quite reasonable.
Ms. Palmer stated that the future use is based on historic use, and she has tried to provide some
reasons as to why that use has been low in the past. She mentioned that Con Agra was never in the
historic use because it was not in the urban area. There are five companies included in her report that
were considered in developing the demand analysis. Ms. Palmer added that she hopes the Board will
remember in the future that the numbers are quite reasonable.
Mr. Thomas asked if the chart Ms. Palmer provided should combine Albemarle and
Charlottesville instead of separating them.
Mr. Rooker said that it is per capita, so you would be dividing anyway.
Ms. Palmer noted that they are separate demand analyses – with Charlottesville‟s being higher
because of U.Va. and the concentration of businesses. She added that she contacted Winchester‟s
Public Utilities Department and asked for their top ten users; White House Foods uses about 11 million
gallons per month – which is about 1/10 of what the Albemarle County Service Authority sold last month.
She picked that out because it is an agribusiness use and a good representative.
__________
Mr. Jeff Werner, of the Piedmont Environmental Council, next addressed the Board. He asked
what would be de-prioritized with new Economic Development Plan – noting that one of the photos in the
North Pointe brochure is a mountain view to the west, not of the strip along Rou te 29. Mr. Werner said
that it is the public processes that seem to be the target of the claim that the development process is too
slow, but those have kept the area what it is through protection of the watershed, dark skies, and
walkable communities. He commented that ACE has already been gutted, and it‟s doubtful that money
will ever come back.
Mr. Werner pointed out that between 1988 and 2003, approved site plans included 4.3 million
square feet of commercial and retail space, 1.6 million square feet of industrial space, and 1.6 million
square feet of office space. Since 2003, the County has approved in rezonings and other approvals an
additional four million square feet of retail space for a total of 8.4 million square feet – or 70 square feet
per capita for the projected 2030 population. He added that between 2002 and 2007 the Board rezoned
219 acres from LI to other uses, primarily commercial and shopping. Mr. Werner said that he didn‟t hear a
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
single word from the business community expressing concern about Light Industrial land being rezoned
as shopping center.
Mr. Werner said the County has approved, not including Biscuit Run, 11,909 dwelling units since
the year 2000 – enough to accommodate about 27,000 – and there are more pending, with the total now
at 13,643 dwelling units – enough for 31,378 people at roughly 2.3 persons per unit. Mr. Werner stated
that the projected 2030 population in the County is expected to increase by 36,269 people, so the
housing in the pipeline now could accommodate 85% of that. These are facts to look at before saying the
County is unfriendly to business.
__________
Mr. Neil Williamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum , said that is important is to move forward
beyond the communication issue and focus on the ideas within the Economic Development Plan. He said
that LI land that is misplaced in terms of what it could b e used for needed to be rezoned. The Free
Enterprise Forum does not offer positions on specific projects, but does appreciate the new push to allow
HI and LI by special use permit. He encouraged the Board to debate the plan on its merits.
__________
Mr. Boyd expressed concern that there is a lot of overreaction to the beginning stages of an
economic development plan – due largely to a very biased report in the Daily Progress by someone with
a conflict of interest and should not have written it in the first place. He asked everyone to not pay
attention to what was written in the Daily Progress because it is not a true depiction of what is happening.
The plan is a working document, not a final document up for vote today. He is still very confident that it is
appropriate the way it was done to bring it forward to the Board and the public. Staff reports are done all
the time, and they meet with individuals in order to get input.
In response to Ms. Palmer‟s comments, Mr. Boyd said the RWSA decided to appropriate $10,000
to relook at the figures for the demand analysis. City Council is concerned that the numbers used are not
adequate and a full-fledged study would have taken months to do.
Ms. Mallek asked if he feels the RFP going out will reflect that the numbers were based on a
slowing period by a number of users and that the community needs to plan ahead for increases, as a full
demand analysis might yield bigger numbers.
Mr. Boyd responded that you cannot base a demand analysis for a 50-year plan on just the last
four or five years; the original demand analysis used 50. He said that the compromise was to determine
whether that was a valid study. He does not think there is a lot of time available because the community
will lose an opportune bidding climate if this is postponed another year to do another demand study.
Ms. Mallek noted that the State may not grant another extension, and that deadline is quickly
approaching.
Mr. Tucker said that the point of the RFP is to re-evaluate the data that was used originally, and
determine whether it was adequate and accurate.
Mr. Rooker stated that there were two demand studies done, one by Gannett Fleming, Inc., and
the other by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Both studies came out almost the same in terms of projected
use. He said that several variables may have pushed up the ultimate supply needed, but at the end of
the day the Board – including him – accepted it. If we are wrong and have a 70 year plan instead of a 50
year plan, he does not see that as a problem for the community. Mr. Rooker added that it is so much
cheaper per foot to add the Ragged Mountain Dam and it almost seems foolhardy to find ways to push
the Dam down a few feet at today‟s prices.
Mr. Boyd said the problem is that the City Council does not agree with that, and as their partner,
we are trying to make them feel more comfortable. That is why it was decided to proceed with an RFP.
Ms. Mallek added that there have not been any real estimates on replacing the pipeline to Sugar
Hollow, and so the cost of its replacement needs to be factored in.
In reference to the comments regarding rezoning property from LI commercial, Mr. Rooker said
the proposed Economic Development Plan calls for Light Industrial around interstates, intersections, and
interchanges. One of the largest parcels fitting that criteria – Brass, Inc.‟s property at Fifth Street – was
zoned Light Industrial for many years, and one of the biggest arguments they made in their rezoning to
commercial was their inability to find an LI user. The Board has heard that time and time again when
these properties are rezoned from LI to something else. He thinks the Board needs to keep that in mind.
The Board removes land from LI because there is no demand for it, and puts it in commercial, but then
ruminates that there is not enough LI property based upon a report, but still no evidence of demand.
Mr. Boyd said that is a good point to bring up as part of the discussion.
_____________
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Mr. Rooker moved that Items 7.1 through 7.4 on the
Consent Agenda be approved and that Items 7.5 through 7.8 be accepted as information. Mr. Dorrier
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item No. 7.1. Approval of Minutes: March 3 and March 8, 2010.
Mr. Thomas had read his portion of the minutes of March 3, 2010, pages 1-28, and found
them to be in order.
Mr. Snow had read his portion of the minutes of March 3, 2010, pages 29 to the end, and
found them to be in order.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of March 8, 2010, and found them to be in order.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read.
______________
Item No. 7.2. Schedule public hearing for the proposed renewal of the Old Crozet School Arts
Lease Agreement for portion of the Old Crozet Elementary School.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Old Crozet Elementary School was built in 1924
and was used as a public school until 1990. From 1990 through 2007, the Charlottesville Waldorf School
leased the facility. The Old Crozet Elementary School was then vacant until June 2009, when the County
began leasing part of the facility to the Field School of Charlottesville and, in August 2009, a part to the
Old Crozet School Arts (“OCSA”). The two tenants together currently occupy approximately 15,165
square feet of the facility. The current OCSA lease term ends July 31, 2010.
Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires that the Board advertise and hold a public hearing prior to
leasing County-owned property.
Since occupying the facility, the OCSA has been an excellent tenant and is requesting to continue
to lease the facility. For the most part, the proposed lease agreement would continue the same
conditions as the current lease. However, the tenant would like to increase the term of the lease from the
current one-year term. Proposed changes from the current lease include:
automatic renewal of the lease for up to four additional one-year terms beyond the initial
one-year term, unless notice is given by the Landlord or the Tenant no later than 60 days
prior to the expiration of any annual term;
discontinuance of the County‟s reimbursement through a rent credit for the cost of any
pre-approved alterations, additions, or improvements made by the tenant;
an increase of 871 sq. ft. in leased space that includes access to an additional entrance
as well as the girl‟s restroom currently leased by the Field School. The removal of this
restroom from the Field School‟s lease will be presented to the Board for consideration
on May 5th.
With the inclusion of the additional space, the rent for the first term of the proposed lease
agreement would be $18,387.06. This amount is based on a rental rate of $3.81/sq. ft. that was also
applied to the recently approved lease for the Field School. This rental rate includes both rent and a
utility charge, based on projected use. At the end of September 2010, when a full year‟s utility data for
the building with occupants is available, staff will evaluate utility consumption and adjust the utility cost
component of the rent if warranted.
The renewal of this lease would result in an increase of $18,387.06 in annual re venue during the
first year.
Staff recommends that the Board schedule a public hearing on June 2, 2010 to receive public
comment on the proposed lease agreement.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized a public hearing on June 2, 2010, to
receive public comment on the proposed lease agreement.
______________
Item No. 7.3. Authorize County Executive to sign an amendment to the Field School of
Charlottesville‟s Lease for portion of the Old Crozet Elementary School.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the County currently leases the Old Crozet
Elementary School to two tenants. The Field School of Charlottesville (“Field School”) currently leases
11,210 sq. ft. Included in that square footage are the facility‟s two large restrooms. The Board of
Supervisors recently approved the renewal of the Field School‟s lease with the County to rent the same
square footage of the Old Crozet Elementary School to commence June 1, 2010. The second tenant, the
Old Crozet School Arts (“OCSA”), currently leases 3,955 sq. ft. Three of the four rooms included in that
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
lease have an individual restroom. The proposed renewal of their lease will be presented to the Board for
consideration on May 5th.
During the first year that OCSA rented space in the Old Crozet Elementary School, the OCSA
identified a need for additional restroom facilities. The OCSA approached the Field School about the
possibility of using one of the large restrooms. The Field School has determined that it does not need
both large restrooms and suggested one be taken out of its lease and added to OCSA‟s lease. Both
tenants are agreeable. A proposed lease amendment between the Field School and the County in which
the rented space is reduced by 267 square feet (from 11,210 to 10,943) is attached. Because this lease
amendment reduces the square footage of rented space than that in the lease previously approved by the
Board, a public hearing is not required.
The approval of this lease amendment would result in a decrease in annual revenue of
$1,017.27 during the first term of the lease. However, if the Board were to approve the proposed
OCSA lease agreement, there would be a corresponding increase in revenue in the amount of
$18,387.06 from the OCSA lease.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the Field School‟s lease amendment contingent on the
approval of OCSA‟s lease and authorize the County Executive to sign the lease amendment.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the Field School’s lease amendment
contingent on the approval of OCSA’s lease and authorized the County Executive to sign the lease
amendment.
LEASE AMENDMENT
THIS LEASE AMENDMENT is made this 9th day of April 2010 by and between the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Landlord, and the FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, Tenant.
WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant entered into a Lease Agreement (the “Lease Agreement”)
dated February 8, 2010 for the lease of a portion of the Old Crozet Elementary School; and
WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant desire to amend the Lease Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, Landlord and Tenant, for the sum of Ten and NO/100 Dollars ($10.00) and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,
agree as follows:
1. The first paragraph of Section 4.1 of the parties‟ Lease is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“Section 4.1. Annual Rent. Effective August 1, 2010, during the remainder of the first
term of this Lease, which expires June 30, 2011, Tenant agrees to pay to Landlord total
rent of $38,218.43, payable in equal monthl y installments of $3,474.40, in advance, on
the first day of each month during the term hereof. Gross square feet shall be calculated
within the perimeter of the area to be used solely by the Field School of Charlottesville.”
2. Effective August 1, 2010, the attached Exhibit A, page A-1 shall replace the Exhibit A,
page A-1 previously attached to the parties‟ Lease, and shall amend the Premises to be
leased.
In all other respects, the parties‟ Lease shall remain in full force and effect as previously
executed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument as of the day and
year first above written.
TENANT
FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
By: Todd A. Barnett______________
Print Name: Todd H. Barnett
Title: Head of School and President of Board of
Directors
LANDLORD
This Lease Amendment is executed on behalf of the County of Albemarle by Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., County Executive, following approval thereof by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: __________________________________________
Print Name: ___________________________________
Title:
_________________________________________
______________
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Item No. 7.4. FY 2010 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality
may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown
in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of
the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a
notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies
to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self -Sustaining, etc.
The total of the new requested FY 2010 appropriations, itemized below, is $614,551.04. A budget
amendment public hearing is not required because the cumulative appropriations does not exceed one
percent of the currently adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of seven (7) FY 2010 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2010073) totaling $17,000.00 for a Homeland Security grant;
Three (3) appropriations (#2010074, #2010076, and #2010080) totaling $364,887.04 for
various school programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2010077) totaling $27,500.00 for the R. K. Mellon Family
Foundation Grant;
One (1) appropriation (#2010078) totaling $5,500.00 for Sheriff Reserve Program
Contributions; and
One (1) appropriation (#2010079) totaling $199,664.00 for the ECC Sprint/Nextel 800
MHz Re-banding.
Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $614,551.04 and the
approval of Appropriations, #2010073, #2010074, #2010076, #2010077, #2010078, #2010079, and
#2010080.
* * * *
Appropriation #2010073 $ 17,000.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue: $17,000.00
The Department of Criminal Justice Services has awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a
grant from the State Homeland Security Program in the amount of $17,000.00. The purpose of this grant
is to purchase a license plate reader system to assist in detecting, deterring, disputing, and preventing
acts of terrorism. This system can capture license plate numbers and compare these numbers to a
database which then communicates crime or infractions associated with the vehicle and/or registrant.
There is no local match.
Appropriation #2010074 $33,619.73
Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $ 15,704.72
State Revenue: $ 2,279.04
Federal Revenue: $ 15,625.74
Fund Balance: $ 10.23
March 11, 2010 School Board Meeting Appropriations:
Albemarle County Schools has been awarded additional funds totaling $15,625.74 for Migrant Education
Programs (MEPs) under a United States Department of Education (DOE) Literacy Education and
Reading Network (LEARN) Consortium Incentive Grant (CIG). The grant requires State Educational
Agencies (SEAs) to make consortium arrangements with other states to apply for the funds. The grant is
designed to improve interstate and intrastate coordination of migrant education programs. Virginia, as a
part of LEARN, will develop reading lessons/resources, scientifically-based writing and study skills
lessons/resources, materials for parents to use with their children that align with the literacy lessons, a
comprehensive literacy success plan, and a graduation plan to help MEP staff work with students in
grades 7-12 and Out of School Youth (OSY) to identify and address barriers to high school graduation.
The LEARN Consortium has 18 member states, eight of which are small states with a migrant population
similar to Virginia‟s population. These states are: Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana,
Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah (lead state), Vermont, and Virginia. The Albemarle Regional MEP
program will review, field test, and provide feedback on LEARN instructional materials; communicate,
collaborate, and share information about results among consortium states, local/regional resources, and
technical assistance providers; complete evaluation surveys; and participate in interviews about project
implementation, outcomes, successes, and areas needing improvement.
The mission of the Mentor Teacher Program is to support beginning and experienced teachers new to
Albemarle County by appointing mentors, conducting mentor workshops, and offering professional
development in support of the Division‟s strategic plan. The Mentor Teacher Program is responsible for
mentor support, workshops, and materials for new teachers. Albemarle County Schools received
additional funds from the state for the Mentor Teacher Program in the amount of $2,279.04 for FY 09/10.
There is also a local fund balance in the amount of $10.23 from FY 08/09 which may be reappropriated
into FY 09/10. The funds will be used for staff development.
Albemarle High School received various cash donations totaling $666.72. These donations were made to
help fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at Albemarle High School. The current balance for the FY
09/10 AHS Synthetic Turf Project is $30,537.72 including this donation. The balance from FY 08/09 is
$6,866.66 for a grand total of $37,404.38. The high schools need to raise $325,000.00 in order to receive
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
matching funds from an anonymous donor, requiring Albemarle High School to raise an additional
$287,595.62 to secure matching funds. The balance required to secure construction is $650,000.00.
Stone Robinson Elementary School has received a donation from the Stone Robinson PTO in the amount
of $5,000.00. This contribution was made to help purchase various technology equipment for the
classrooms at Stone Robinson Elementary School.
Broadus Wood Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $250.00 from Josh and Elaine
Attridge. The donors have requested that their contribution be used to purchase any items needed in the
classroom at Broadus Wood Elementary School.
Baker Butler Elementary School has been awarded a Target Grant in the amount of $2,000.00. These
funds will be used to host three interactive family literacy nights where best research-based reading
practices will be shared to help strengthen home-school reading connections, improve students‟ reading
achievement, and foster life-long learning habits. Every family attending will receive a book and other
reading tools. For at-risk and ESL students, books on tape will be purchased and sent home on a routine
basis.
Hollymead Elementary School has been awarded a grant from the Science House Foundation in the
amount of $588.00. These funds will be used to purchase Lego Mindstorm Robotic Kits for the Hollymead
Robotics Club.
Stony Point Elementary School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 from the Bama
Works Fund of Dave Matthews Band in the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation. These funds will
be used to implement a music program that will enhance literacy instruction. A professional songwriter will
work with students and assist them with writing their own songs.
Monticello High School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $3,000.00 from the Bama Works Fund
of Dave Matthews Band in the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation. These funds will be used to
assist financially needy students with school-related costs such as field trips, school supplies, textbooks,
and supply fees for CATEC courses.
Target has awarded four Albemarle County Elementary Schools with Field Trip Grants. Recipients include
Baker Butler in the amount of $800.00, Greer in the amount of $800.00, Meriwether Lewis in the amount
of $800.00, and Yancey in the amount of $800.00.
Appropriation #2010076 $ 51,221.76
Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $ 51,221.76
March 25, 2010 School Board Meeting Appropriations:
Albemarle High School received various cash donations totaling $287.50 made at Albemarle High School.
These donations were made to help fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at Albemarle High School.
The current balance for the FY 09/10 AHS Synthetic Turf Project is $30,825.22 including this donation.
The balance from FY 08/09 is $6,866.66 for a grand total of $37,691.88. The high schools need to raise
$325,000.00 in order to receive matching funds from an anonymous donor , requiring Albemarle High
School to raise an additional $287,308.12 to secure matching funds. The balance required to secure
construction is $650,000.00.
Western Albemarle High School received various cash donations totaling $275.00. These donations were
made to help fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at Western Albemarle High School. The current
balance for the FY 09/10 WAHS Synthetic Turf Project is $1,275.00 including this donation. The balance
from FY 07/08 is $8,450.00. The balance from FY 08/09 is $10,711.66 for a grand total of $20,436.66.
The high schools need to raise $325,000.00 in order to receive matching funds from an anonymous
donor, requiring Albemarle High School to raise an additional $304,563.34 to secure matching funds.
The balance required to secure construction is $650,000.00.
At the March 3rd, 2010 Board of Supervisors meeting, several community members made donations to
the Albemarle County Public Schools totaling $1,544.18: Aubrey Phillips donated $881.10; Gregory Quinn
donated $20.00; Thomas Mix donated $272.08; Mary A. Kelly donated $365.00; and $6.00 was dona ted
from anonymous attendants at the meeting. These contributions will be placed in the School Board
Reserve fund.
Henley Middle School received a donation from the Henley Middle School PATSO in the amount of
$822.49. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to help fund the Enrichment Time before
9 Program at Henley Middle School.
Murray High School received a donation in the amount of $367.00 from Matthew Kessler. The donor has
requested that the contribution be used towards any instructional needs at Murray High School.
Murray Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $3,788.40 from the Murray Elementary
PTO. The donor has requested that the contribution be used to help fund the M3 classes and SOL
tutoring at Murray Elementary School.
Broadus Wood Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $5,000.00 from the Mandell
family. The donor has requested that the contribution be used to help supplement classroom instructional
supplies at Broadus Wood Elementary School.
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
The Monticello High School Booster Club and the Activity Club have raised funds to provide scorer‟s
booth/concession buildings at both of Monticello High School‟s baseball and softball fields. Monticello
High School received donations totaling $39,137.19. The MCHS Athletic Boosters Club donated
$8,329.82, Monticello High School donated $15,807.37, and $15,000.00 was received from an
anonymous donor. The donors have requested that their contributions go towards the construction of
these buildings at Monticello High School.
Appropriation #2010077 $ 27,500.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $ 27,500.00
The R. K. Mellon Family Foundation awarded Albemarle County Parks and Recreation an additional
$27,500 grant to provide an accessible playground at Walnut Creek Park. The Foundation previously
awarded a grant of $32,500 for this purpose which was appropriated on February 3, 2010. This
additional grant will fully fund this $60,000 project with no local match required.
Appropriation #2010078 $ 5,500.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $ 5,500.00
Funds for the Sheriff Reserve Program are contributions that have been made in support of the volunteer
reserve programs. This money is vital to support the many programs that the volunteer reserves are
involved with, such as Project Lifesaver, child fingerprinting, aid in Search and Rescue, etc. These
contributions allow the volunteers to perform many services without impacting the needed funding for the
Sheriff Office‟s budget.
Appropriation #2010079 $ 199,664.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $199,664.00
The Emergency Communications Center recently completed negotiations with Sprint/Nextel to re-band
their 800 MHz radio system as defined by the FCC. This is brought about because of interference issues
caused by Sprint/Nextel with certain 800 MHz radio frequencies. The re-banding process will begin with a
kickoff meeting scheduled for April 21, 2010. Sprint/Nextel has agreed to pay the project costs that the
Emergency Communications Center will need to complete its part of the overall project in the amount of
$199,664.00.
Appropriation #2010080 $280,045.55
Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $ 2,741.55
Fund Balance: $277,304.00
April 15, 2010 School Board Meeting Appropriations:
Albemarle High School received various cash donations totaling $471.00. These donations were made to
help fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at Albemarle High School. The current balance for the FY
09/10 AHS Synthetic Turf Project is $31,296.22 including this donation. The balance from FY 08/09 is
$6,866.66 for a grand total of $38,162.88. The high schools need to raise $325,000.00 in order to receive
matching funds from an anonymous donor, requiring Albemarle High School to raise an additional
$286,837.12 to secure matching funds. The balance required to secure construction is $650,000.00.
Hollymead Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $300.00 from Amber Aiken. The
donor has requested that the contribution be used to help fund the purchase of special education supplies
at Hollymead Elementary School.
Henley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $1,970.55 from Henley‟s Parent and Teacher
Support Organization. The donor has requested that the contribution be used to help fund the
“Enrichment Time before 9” program for the month of March at Henley Middle School.
Following completing of the FY 08/09 audit and evaluation of current year revenues, reappropriation of
school carryover funds takes place and portions of building rental funds are returned to schools. This
includes the reappropriation of $250,432.00 of school carryover and $26,872.00 of building rental funds
for a total of $277,304.00 from fund balance. Request the Board of Supervisors to amend the
appropriation ordinance accordingly.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the budget amendment in the amount of
$614,551.04 and approved Appropriations, #2010073, #2010074, #2010076, #2010077, #2010078,
#2010079, and #2010080.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010073
APPROPRIATION DATE 4/7/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Homeland Security Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1511 33000 330001 Revenue – Federal J 2 17,000.00
1 1511 31013 800100 Machinery & Equipment J 1 17,000.00
1511 0501 Est. Revenue 17,000.00
0701 Appropriation 17,000.00
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
TOTAL 34,000.00 17,000.00 17,000.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010074
APPROPRIATION DATE 4/7/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: School Board Meeting: March 11, 2010
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J 2 5,250.00
1 2201 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 250.00
1 2210 61101 800100 Machinery/Equipment - New J 1 5,000.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 5,250.00
0701 Appropriation 5,250.00
2 3104 18000 181240 Revenue J 2 4,000.00
2 3104 18000 181324 Revenue - Target Grant J 2 5,200.00
2 3104 18000 189900 Revenue J 2 588.00
1 3104 60204 420100 Field Trips J 1 800.00
1 3104 60206 420100 Field Trips J 1 800.00
1 3104 60211 312500 Prof Services - Instructional J 1 1,000.00
1 3104 60213 420100 Field Trips J 1 800.00
1 3104 60217 312700 Prof Service Consutlants J 1 500.00
1 3104 60217 420100 Field Trips J 1 800.00
1 3104 60217 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 2,088.00
1 3104 60304 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 3,000.00
3104 0501 Est. Revenue 9,788.00
0701 Appropriation 9,788.00
2 3151 24000 240380 Mentor Teacher Program
Grant
J 2 2,279.04
2 3151 51000 510100 Appropriation Fund Balance J 2 10.23
1 3151 61311 580500 Staff Development J 1 2,289.27
3104 0501 Est. Revenue 2,289.27
0701 Appropriation 2,289.27
2 3173 33000 330073 Migrant Consortium Incentive
Grant
J 2 15,625.74
1 3173 61101 132100 PT/Wages Teacher J 1 14,515.32
1 3173 61101 210000 FICA J 1 1,110.42
3173 0501 Est. Revenue 15,625.74
0701 Appropriation 15,625.74
2 9001 18100 181107 AHS Donations - Turf Project J 2 666.72
1 9001 60301 950245 AHS Syn Turf Field J 1 666.72
9001 0501 Est. Revenue 666.72
0701 Appropriation 666.72
TOTAL 67,239.46 28,369.73 28,369.73
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010076
APPROPRIATION DATE 4/7/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: School Board Meeting: March 25, 2010
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J 2 50,659.26
1 2201 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 5,000.00
1 2215 61101 152100 Wages - Substitute Teacher J 1 3,045.42
1 2215 61101 210000 FICA J 1 232.98
1 2215 61101 301210 Contract Services J 1 510.00
1 2252 61101 160300 Stipends - Instructional J 1 764.04
1 2252 61101 210000 FICA J 1 58.45
1 2303 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 367.00
1 2410 60100 999981 School Board Reserve J 1 1,544.18
1 2433 62420 301200 Contract Services J 1 39,137.19
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 50,659.26
0701 Appropriation 50,659.26
2 9001 18100 181107 AHS Donations - Turf Field J 2 287.50
1 9001 60301 950245 AHS Syn Turf Field J 1 287.50
9001 0501 Est. Revenue 287.50
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
0701 Appropriation 287.50
2 9002 18100 181107 WAHS Donations - Turf Project J 2 275.00
1 9002 60302 950245 WAHS Turf Field Program J 1 275.00
9002 0501 Est. Revenue 275.00
0701 Appropriation 275.00
TOTAL 102,443.52 51,221.76 51,221.76
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010077
APPROPRIATION DATE 5/5/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: R K MELLON FAMILY 2nd Grant awarded to Albemarle County Parks & Rec. for a
playground at Walnut Creek Park.
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 9010 18110 181131 Contributions - R K Mellon
Family
J 2 27,500.00
1 9010 71000 950252 Parks & Rec - Walnut Creek
Plygrd
J 1 27,500.00
9010 0501 Est. Revenue 27,500.00
0701 Appropriation 27,500.00
TOTAL 55,000.00 27,500.00 27,500.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010078
APPROPRIATION DATE 5/5/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Sheriff Reserve Program Contributions
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 8408 18110 181117 SHERIFF-RESERVE
PROGRAMS
J 2 5,500.00
1 8408 93010 930009 Transfer to General Fund J 1 5,500.00
8408 0501 Est. Revenue 5,500.00
0701 Appropriation 5,500.00
2 1000 51000 512020 TRNS. SHERIFF
CONTRIBUTIN
J 2 5,500.00
1 1000 21070 301230 CONTRIBUTED-RESERVE
PROGM
J 1 5,500.00
0501 Est. Revenue 5,500.00
0701 Appropriation 5,500.00
TOTAL 22,000.00 11,000.00 11,000.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010079
APPROPRIATION DATE 5/5/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: ECC Sprint/Nextel 800 MHz Re-banding
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 4110 19000 190280 RECOVERED COSTS J 2 199,664.00
1 4110 31062 312700 PROF. SERVICES J 1 199,664.00
4110 0501 Est. Revenue 199,664.00
0701 Appropriation 199,664.00
TOTAL 399,328.00 199,664.00 199,664.00
_____
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010080
APPROPRIATION DATE 5/5/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: School Board Meeting: March 11, 2010
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J 2 2,270.55
2 2000 510000 510100 App - Fund Balance J 2 277,304.00
1 2201 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 3,857.00
1 2202 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 6,026.00
1 2203 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 6,500.00
1 2204 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 1,076.00
1 2205 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 3,778.00
1 2205 61102 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 300.00
1 2206 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 4,829.00
1 2207 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 5,026.00
1 2209 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 890.00
1 2210 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 19,374.00
1 2211 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 7,805.00
1 2212 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 711.00
1 2213 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 8,553.00
1 2214 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 513.00
1 2215 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 3,078.00
1 2216 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 204.00
1 2217 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 6,875.00
1 2251 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 20,888.00
1 2252 61101 160300 Stipends - Instructional J 1 1,830.52
1 2252 61101 210000 FICA J 1 140.03
1 2252 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 14,009.00
1 2253 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 20,981.00
1 2254 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 14,022.00
1 2255 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 24,380.00
1 2301 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 9,949.00
1 2302 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 3,019.00
1 2303 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 8,836.00
1 2304 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 82,125.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 279,574.55
0701 Appropriation 279,574.55
2 9001 18100 181107 AHS Donations - Turf Project J 2 471.00
1 9001 60301 950245 AHS Syn Turf Field J 1 471.00
9001 0501 Est. Revenue 471.00
0701 Appropriation 471.00
TOTAL 560,091.10 280,045.55 280,045.55
______________
Item No. 7.5. FY2010 3rd Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report, was received as
information.
The executive summary states that beginning in 2007, the Board directed staff to provide a
quarterly update on the status of cash proffers. Since that time, staff has continued to improve and expand
these reports. The most recent reporting change includes the addition of designated non-cash proffer
improvements that both benefit the County and mitigate the impacts of development. This report
addresses both cash and non-cash proffers from January through March of 2010.
Cash Proffers January – March 2010 (3rd Quarter).
A. Proffered: Although three rezonings were approved during this quarter, none of them contain
new cash proffers. However, one rezoning did include other non-cash related improvements, which are
further explained below.
B. Total Obligated Cash Proffers: No rezonings containing cash proffers were approved;
however, the removal of potential revenue from the Biscuit Run rezoning has reduced the total obligated
cash proffer amount from $56,758,832 to $38,851,330.
C. Revenue: The County received a total of $49,100 in cash proffers during this quarter. The
contributions are from Belvedere ($7000 for affordable housing), Poplar Glen II ($38,900, of which $22,400
is for Capital Improvement Projects and $16,500 is for affordable housing), and Liberty Hall ($3200.for for
Capital Improvement Projects serving Crozet).
D. Total Interest Earnings: The total interest earned this quarter from collected cash proffers is
$252.66 for a total $316,431.07.
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
E. Expenditures: During the 3rd quarter, cash proffer funds in the amount of $1,838 left over
from the Western Park study fund were allocated to Parks and Recreation projects. Additionally, funds
from Avon Park ($2,836) and Stillfried Lane ($3,643) were allocated to the sidewalk CIP.
F. Current Available Funds: As of February 2010, $1,081,922 is available in cash proffer funds.
Some of these funds were proffered for specific projects while others may be used for general projects
within the CIP (see Attachment A).
Non-Cash Proffers
A. Proffered: Two of the three rezonings that were approved this quarter, ZMA 2007-2
Timberwood Common Phase II and ZMA 2008-7 ATNA, only proffered to limit uses on the property. The
third rezoning, ZMA 2005-3 UVA Research Park-North Fork, amended the previous rezoning and proffered
several road improvements, recreation and greenway dedications, and a land dedication.
B. Affordable Housing: A Liberty Hall site plan approved this quarter designates eight
affordable housing units. The Housing Department will determine whether a prequalified purchaser is
available. If a prequalified purchaser is not available, the County can elect to receive a cash contribution
of $19,100 per unit.
Cash proffers are a valuable source of revenue that help fund important County projects that
would otherwise be funded by general tax revenue. Non-cash proffers provide improvements that might
otherwise be funded by general tax revenue. One dedicated full-time staff person continues to monitor
and collect proffered funds, improvements and land dedications with the assistance of other County staff
and outside agencies.
This summary is provided for information on proffer activity and no action is required. Staff
welcomes any comments for improvements from the Board that they may wish to see in the future.
______________
Item No. No. 7.6. FY10 Third Quarter Financial Report, was received as information.
The attached Financial Report provides information on the County‟s General Fund operations and
Fund Balance as of March 31, 2010. The financial report includes a bar chart that compares current
fiscal year revenue and expenditure data with data from the previous fiscal year.
($ in Millions)
A. Attachment A: General Fund Financial Report:
a. Revenues:
Revenues, excluding Transfers and Fund Balance Appropriations, are estimated to be
$5.768 million (2.7%) less than appropriations of $217.145 million, a $0.857 million
increase over the previous estimate presented with the Second Quarter Financial Report.
Revenues combined with the use of $2.538 million in transfers from other funds and
$1.115 million in fund balance (Revenues, Transfers, and Use of Fund Balance) will total
$215.029 million, $5.845 million (2.6%) less than Budget.
Most national indicators suggest that econom ic output is expanding, although growth is
likely to remain weak for some time as the slack labor market and tight credit constrain
consumers. Nationally, the Consumer Confidence Index of leading indicators rose 1.0%
in February, its eleventh consecutive monthly increase, while the Virginia Leading Index
fell 0.1% due to the severe winter weather. The unemployment rate in Virginia rose to
7.7% in February compared to the national unemployment rate of 9.7%. Nationally, the
manufacturing sector marked its eight consecutive month above the expansionary
threshold. The Virginia economy, although weak, continues to outperform the national
economy. Positive conditions should accelerate once employment recovers. However, it
will still take some time before we begin to experience significant improvements.
Following is a brief revenue analysis for the FY10 fiscal year:
Real Estate Tax revenues are projected to be $0.223 million (0.2%) less than
Budget, an increase of $0.971 million over the previous Financial Report. The
improvement is due both to the current year impact from parcels formerly under
land-use reclassified as fully taxable as well as improved collections . Revalida-
tion revenues attributed to prior year roll-backs are set aside for one-time uses
and not classified as general fund revenues.
Personal Property Tax revenues are estimated to be $1.722 million (8.1%) less
than Budget, an increase of $0.183 million over the previous Financial Report.
The improvement is due to increased business equipment purchases as
economic conditions improve and the replacement of lower valued vehicles by
higher valued vehicles from the Cash for Clunkers program.
Delinquent Property Taxes & Fees are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.555
million (25.5%), a decrease of $0.252 from the previous Financial Report.
Delinquent fees previously implemented have encouraged timely payment
resulting in subsequent reduced delinquent fee collections.
Sales Tax revenues are estimated to be $1.325 million (10.6%) less than
Budget, a decrease of $0.225 million from the previous Financial Report.
Taxpayers continue to reduce discretionary spending due to economic
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
uncertainty. The volume of internet sales frequently treated as tax exempt has
increased significantly. Increased business development in surrounding
localities has shifted taxable sales from Albemarle to these other localities.
Business License, BPOL, revenues are estimated to be $0.892 million (8.9%)
less than Budget, a decrease of $0.187 million from the previous Financial
Report. BPOL revenues are dependent upon economic activity. Sales tax
revenue trends are a good indicator of BPOL revenues.
Utility Tax revenues are estimated to be $0.746 million (7.9%) less than
Budget, a decrease of $0.027 million from the previous Financial Report.
Food and Beverage Tax revenues are estimated to be $0.450 million (7.8%)
less than Budget, a decrease of $0.150 million from the previous Financial
Report. Consumers are continuing to eat more at home and visiting
restaurants less frequently while minimizing discretionary spending.
Other Local Tax revenues are estimated to be $0.836 million (8.1%) less than
Budget, an increase of $0.553 million over the previous Financial Report. The
improvement is due to Public Service tax, transient occupancy fees, and
recordation fees.
Other Local Revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.251 million
(6.0%), an increase of $0.026 million over the previous Financial Report.
State Revenues are estimated to be $0.429 million (1.8%) less than Budget, a
decrease of $0.150 million from the previous Financial Report. The decrease
is due to budget actions of the General Assembly in a number of areas.
Revenue categories with variances of less than $0.100 million from Budget
have not been analyzed for this report.
b. Expenditures:
The Office of Management and Budget estimates that total fiscal year expenditures,
including transfers, will be $212.050 million, an $8.824 million (4.0%) savings from
Budget. The savings include frozen positions, operational savings, and reduced
transfers including schools and capital.
i. Departmental expenditures are expected to total $78.296 million, a 5.0% savings
of $4.134 million from Budget:
A significant portion of departmental expenditure savings is attributable to
savings in salaries and benefits from the County‟s expanded hiring freeze and
salary lapse, totaling $1.963 million.
These savings include operational savings across all functional areas for
expenditures related to fuel, utilities, telecommunications, travel and training
and other areas. Staff is better able to identify operational savings in the Third
Quarter Financial Report because nine months of actual expenditures for the
fiscal year have occurred and only three months remain.
These savings also include reductions in the transfers to the Comprehensive
Services Act (CSA) and Bright Stars Fund totaling $295,000.
These savings are allocated by functional area as follows:
Administration expenditures are expected to total $10.268 million, a
savings of $0.636 million.
Judicial expenditures are expected to total $3.702 million, a savings of
$0.146 million.
Public Safety expenditures are expected to total $28.428 million, a
savings of $0.980 million
Public Works expenditures are expected to total $4.537 million, a
savings of $0.497 million.
Human Services expenditures are expected to total $18.064 million, a
savings of $1.019 million.
Parks and Culture expenditures are expected to total $6.306 million, a
savings of $0.104 million.
Community Development expenditures are expected to total $6.991
million, a savings of $0.752 million.
ii. Non-Department expenditures consisting of the revenue sharing payment,
reserves, and refunds are expected to total $18.458 million, a savings of $0.127
million.
iii. Transfers are expected to total $115.296 million, a 3.8% savings of $4.563
million from Budget:
Transfer to the School Division is expected to total $97.021 million, a 3.1%
savings of $3.129 million. This transfer amount is $0.449 million higher than
the projected transfer amount of $96.572 in the Second Quarter Financial
Report. This is due to the projected increase in shared revenues detailed
earlier in this report, particularly regarding real estate revenues.
Transfers to the Capital and Debt funds are expected to total $18.274 million, a
savings of $1.433 million. This amount is $0.117 million higher than the
projected transfer amount of $18.157 million in the Second Quarter Financial
Report and reflects the projected increase in revenues detailed earlier in this
report.
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
c. Revenues less Expenditures:
This report indicates that the fiscal year will end with $2.979 million of revenues in excess
of expenditures. Revenues and transfers are projected to experience a $5.845 million
shortfall which should be offset by $8.824 million in expenditure savings. This is an
increase of $2.653 million from the $0.326 million surplus amount projected in the
Second Quarter Financial Report. This increase, as detailed in this report, reflects an
increase in projected revenues from the Second Quarter Financial Report of $0.857
million and a decrease in projected expenditures from the Second Quarter Financial
Report of $1.796 million. The $2.979 million surplus results in Projected Available Funds
as of 6/30/10 of $21.754 million, which equals approximately 8.3% of the FY 2010
General Fund and School Budgets. This exceeds the 8.0% level specified for this
indicator in the County‟s Financial Policies.
B. Attachment B: General Fund Budget Comparison Report:
The chart report tracks changes in revenues and expenditures over time.
Revenues:
Real Estate Taxes, Other Local Taxes, and Transfers from Other Funds show
positive growth over FY09.
Personal Property Tax, Sales Tax, Business Licenses, Utility Taxes, Food &
Beverage Taxes, Other Local Revenues, State Revenues, Federal Revenues,
and Use of Fund Balance show decreases from FY09.
Expenditures:
Judicial, Public Safety, Parks & Culture, and Non-Departmental show
anticipated increases over FY09.
Administration, Public Works, Human Services, Community Development,
Non-School, and School Transfers show anticipated decreases from FY09.
C. Attachment C: Fund Balance Report:
The report indicates that the County:
Had an Audited FY09 Undesignated Fund Balance of $19.845 million as of
June 30, 2009,
Appropriated $1.070 million for Budgeted FY10 Initiatives and Reappropria-
tions,
Has a remaining June 30, 2009 Fund Balance of $18.775 million,
Has not approved subsequent appropriations, and
Has Projected Unobligated Funds of $18.775 million as of May 05, 2010.
D. Budget Impact:
This Financial Report is based on audited FY09 financial data and nine months of financial data
for FY10.
This report has been prepared for the Boards information. No action is required.
______________
Item No. 7.7. 2010 First Quarter Certificate of Occupancy Report as prepared by the Community
Development Department, was received as information.
During the first quarter of 2010, 177 certificates of occupancy were issued for 181 dwelling units.
There were one certificate of occupancy issued for a mobile home in existing parks, at an exchange rate
of $2,500, for a total of $2,500. There were no certificates of occupancy issued for the conversion of an
apartment to a condominium.
______________
Item No. 7.8. 2010 First Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Community Development
Department, was received as information.
During the first quarter of 2010, 114 building permits were issued for 115 dwelling units. There
was one permit issued for a mobile home in existing park, at an exchange rate of $2,500 for a total of
$2,500. There were no permits issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Proclamation - National Travel and Tourism Week, May 8–16, 2010.
Ms. Mallek read and presented the following Proclamation to Mr. Kurt Burkhart, Executive
Director of the Charlottesville Convention and Visitors Bureau.
National Tourism Week
May 8 through May 16, 2010
WHEREAS, the travel and tourism industry in Albemarle County continues to be vital to our economic
stability and growth; and it contributes significantly to our County’s cultural and social
climate; and
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
WHEREAS, the travel and tourism industry supports the vital interests of the Albemarle County
community, contributing to our employment, economic prosperity, international travel and
relations, peace, understanding and good will; and
WHEREAS, in 2008 the Virginia Tourism Corporation reported $268.8 million in tourism revenues were
attributed to County businesses; and approximately 2,866 people in Albemarle County work
in fields directly related to the tourism and hospitality ind ustry, including lodging, food
service, and attractions; and payroll for these individuals was $50.6 million; and
WHEREAS, 1 of every 8 non-farm jobs in the United States is created directly or indirectly or is induced
by travel and tourism; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Travel Association has estimated that each U.S. household would pay nearly
$1,000 more in taxes without the tax revenue generated by the travel and tourism industry;
and
WHEREAS, every citizen in Albemarle County benefits from the tourism industry; and it is fitting that we
recognize the importance of travel and tourism.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Ann Mallek, Chair of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the week of
May 8 through May 16, 2010
as
NATIONAL TOURISM WEEK
in Albemarle County, and I call upon all citizens to recognize the value of the tourism
industry in our community and to observe this week with appropriate ceremonies and
activities.
Mr. Burkhart thanked the Board for the proclamation on behalf of the thousands of people who
work in the hospitality and travel tourism industry.
______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Tourism Update, Kurt Burkhart, Director of Charlottesville-Albemarle
Conventions Bureau (CACVB).
Mr. Burkhart made a PowerPoint presentation on the CACVB, The CACVB operates under a
joint operations agreement between the City and County that went into effect in July 2009; the agreement
defines how the organization will be set up, funding requirements, Board of Directors, etc. It has been a
wonderful working relationship that continues to drive economic value to the Albemarle and
Charlottesville communities.
He said that the Bureau has the Visitors Center Downtown that is staffed with four full-time and
six part-time employees. The Bureau is overseen by an 11-member Board – noting the attendance of
Bryan Elliott, Chairman, and Chris Engel, Vice-Chairman.
Mr. Burkhart noted that the Board of Directors is comprised of five statutory officers per the
agreement, along with representatives from other industries. He presented an organizational chart
showing who they are. The mission of CACVB is “to enhance the economic prosperity of the City and
County by promoting, selling and marketing the City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle, as a
destination, in pursuit of meetings and tourism markets”. He mentioned an advertisement that Board
members will see beginning May 9, 2010, that talk about the power of tourism to the local economy. He
stated that the agriculture segment of tourism is huge, and is one of the fastest-growing segments of
travel with people looking for the locally grown and epicurean experience.
Mr. Burkhart reported that the CACVB‟s mission is accomplished in a number of ways, with public
relations being a huge component – along with partnerships such as the one with the Virginia Tourism
Corporation. He said that they will be opening a satellite office in the McIntire Office Building in June
2010, as well as a Monticello touch-screen kiosk in the Summer 2010.
Mr. Burkhart presented information on their activities to service the public and that create interest
for people to come to this area. He mentioned some of the key magazines they have placed
advertisements in. He added that golf has been a big niche market for them, adding that the CACVB is
supporting the recent Amtrak line with two one-half-page ads coming up. Public relations outreach is also
a huge part of what they do. He said that sales initiatives are a big part of their mission, and thus far they
have responded to over 152 RFPs for groups wanting to come to town. From July 2009 through February
2010 there has been just over $1 million in economic impact resulting from visiting groups. Mr. Burkhart
added that travel trade shows are key to the industry. They also support a number of local partnerships –
Amtrak Virginia is one.
Mr. Burkhart said they just completed their Certified Tourism Ambassador Program, and have
certified their 75th ambassador – with some County staff participating. Mr. Burkhart mentioned the “My
Backyard Vacation,” which has been another City-County-CACVB collaboration. This program will be an
expansion of the “Summer 2001” campaign.
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Burkhart said they will come back to the Board at a future date to provide information on the
CACVB‟s website and the “Backyard Vacation” program.
Ms. Mallek said she was glad to see information on the Monticello kiosk which was the basis for
the Board‟s decision to make a change at the Visitor‟s Center. Mr. Burkhart said they have put out a RFP
for the acquisition of the hardware. He explained that their plan is to have a notice of intent to award in
early June, installation hopefully by early July.
Ms. Mallek asked if there will be ticketing and reservation capabilities at the kiosk. Mr. Burkhart
said that the Visitors Center would handle hotel reservations and ticketing. The printed receipt and
information are part of the internal mechanics they have to get into.
Ms. Mallek commented that there is a big segment lost if reservations are not made at Monticello.
Mr. Burkhart replied that everything would be available online there, and able to be accessed at the kiosk.
______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Presentation of StreamW atch Annual Report, John Murphy.
Ms. Mallek noted that she participated in the Bio-Blitz at Byrom Park on Saturday, and there were
100 people from around the state there to survey the natural resources – wildlife, trees, bushes, and
shrubs.
Mr. Murphy said these reports are provided on an annual basis to the community and decision -
makers. This report was originally released in fall of 2009. He said that StreamWatch is an environment-
tal monitoring program, which focuses on providing the community with data information and interpreta-
tion – but not advocacy or management recommendations.
Mr. Murphy presented an image of the Rivanna Basin and the 35 monitoring sites, as addressed
in his report – with 32 of them being considered representative of streams in the community. He said that
the sites are spread throughout the basin, and the sites are selected to be representative of hydrology,
geography, land use and land cover. Mr. Murphy stated that the report window was three years, and
each site was sampled about seven times. The samples taken are biological samples of organisms that
reflect the condition of the stream. He said that he believes that is the best way to gauge water quality
and aggregate stream health. He added that over 70% of the streams tested failed the Virginia standard
for aquatic life, but only 16% were in very bad shape and a large portion are in fair shape. Mr. Murphy
said that many of these could be restored to good condition under the right circumstances. He stated that
almost 30% of streams meet the Virginia biological standard, which indicates that there is still plent y in
the watershed and in the County that is worth preserving.
Mr. Murphy reported that StreamWatch has been actively monitoring for six and one-half years,
and has not detected any significant change across the 765-square mile Rivanna Basin as a whole –
although they have seen some sites decline in terms of their biological health.
Mr. Rooker noted that the worst streams are those downstream of the City, as it‟s the most
intensely developed urban area, and asked if there might be a positive impact from the reduction of
phosphorus and nitrogen from Moore‟s Creek. Mr. Murphy replied that there would likely be some
improvement, but whether or not it would be significant enough to register through StreamWatch‟s
monitoring technique is uncertain. Ms. Mallek added that even the upstream of Moore‟s Creek is
completely degraded.
Mr. Thomas noted that all of Moore‟s Creek lies in the County, and asked how far upstream they
took samples. Mr. Murphy responded that all of the testing is done just at the site, and in many cases the
conditions at the site are representative of conditions along the stream.
Mr. Thomas asked if there is any possibility that Moore‟s Creek and Meadow Creek can be
rejuvenated. Mr. Murphy said Meadow Creek is an urban stream and he believes that you have to curb
your expectations for what can be achieved in Meadow Creek. Even with the stream restoration, which
will restore the geometry of the stream banks and it might improve the condition of the riparian strip, but
the issue is really the entire watershed. H would be surprised if the restoration there yielded any dramatic
results.
Mr. Rooker commented that the restorations are very expensive, per mile.
Mr. Murphy said that in the water supply area, some of the most severely degraded streams are
in and downstream from the most urbanized portions of the watershed – which is a good thing. He stated
that even the healthy streams are not considered “pristine,” and those in the best condition are those in
wooded areas with no homes or farms nearby. Mr. Murphy said that StreamWatch has noted a strong
relationship between stream health and land use intensity. A graph from their 2008 report shows the
percent of development-impacted land, with biological conditions; another line shows the Virginia
biological standard and the impact of development. He added that at 2% of developed area, a
substantial portion of sites begin to fall below the standard and by the time that number reaches 7%, all
sites fail to meet the standard.
Mr. Rooker asked what is getting into streams that are not being captured through all the
measures being taken to remove waste before it gets there.
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Murphy responded that there is too much water, too much energy going into streams from
runoff – and the stormwater control treatments are not in effect for as much as 85-90% of developed land,
due to historic development patterns and the fact that a lot of stormwater controls are no longer
functional. He mentioned that in urban areas, untreated water is usually polluted. A significant part of the
problem is the volume of water that is entering the stream channels. Mr. Murphy emphasized that the
channels are designed to accommodate a certain amount of water, and with development very high flows
“chew up” the stream channels. He said that there is also a lot less groundwater infiltration, which makes
streams tend to dry up.
Mr. Murphy said they are in the process of completing a three and one-half year study of land use
effects. One of the most important aspects of this study is an improved and updated land use, land cover
map of the entire Rivanna Basin. They hopefull y will be able to provide the Board and community with
some more precise statements about relationships between the amount of impervious cover in a
watershed and thresholds of stream health.
Ms. Mallek asked about StreamWatch‟s greater than average volunteer-level certification through
the DEQ. Mr. Murphy responded that they share their data with many agencies, including the DEQ – who
awarded StreamWatch with a “level three” status, which means they treat the data in the same way they
treat their own data. Streams can be listed or delisted based on the data that StremWatch gathers.
______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Presentation of the Historic Preservation Committee‟s 2009 Annual Report,
Jared Loewenstein.
Mr. Loewenstein, Chair of the Albemarle County Historic Preservation Committee, addressed the
Board to present their 2009 Annual Report. The Committee has provided Board members with a copy of
their Priority Recommendations and 2009 accomplishments. He said that the Committee contributed to
the production of a “Lost Albemarle” exhibit, which identified and illustrated several important County
historic resources that had been demolished – and this exhibit was mounted for Preservation Week 2009,
celebrated here and moved around the State. They are making ongoing efforts to continue to display the
exhibit in public facilities, i.e., schools, libraries, community centers, etc. They are also working to make
the exhibit available on their website.
Mr. Loewenstein said that Albemarle County was awarded a Community Preservation Grant from
Preservation Piedmont for use by the Historic Preservation Committee to help locate, research, and
disseminate information about eight historic African-American Rosenwald schools in the County. He
stated that Committee members have completed research on these schools and the results can be found
online, as well as in the Board‟s report.
Mr. Loewenstein said a subcommittee also spent a lot of time working with County Building
Officials to learn about the requirements of the demolition process. They have met with Fire and Rescue
officials to promote documentation and salvage of historic resources prior to training burns that are done
by the Fire Department. He added that the subcommittee has focused on promoting greater salvage of
historic building materials through the County‟s demolition permit process; 20 permits were reviewed by
the Committee this year and that work continues.
Mr. Loewenstein thanked the Board and county staff – particularly Ms. Margaret Maliszewski – for
working with the Committee.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Committee is keeping track of ongoing efforts for new historic districts.
Mr. Loewenstein replied, “yes”; in fact the County map is being updated to show those historic districts.
The Committee hopes to promote those more and work with the Visitor‟s Center. Heritage tourism
produces enormous revenue benefits for communities, and the Committee would like to see more efforts
focused there to enhance revenues. As the year progresses, the Board should be receiving additional
reports on those statistics.
Ms. Mallek said she understands that the Greenwood District will be official in December and the
Crozet District will have its final filing. Mr. Loewenstein s aid that is correct.
Mr. Rooker noted that there would be a lot of tie-ins available with the “Journey Through
Hallowed Ground,” and that would help provide significant opportunities for the area. Mr. Loewenstein
responded that two members of that grou p presented to the Committee in March, and they promised to
give their support in collaboration.
Mr. Rooker said an interesting statistic to have would be the percentage of land in the County that
is now in an historic district and where that stacks up with respect to other counties in the State. Mr.
Loewenstein said they have studied that some, but it is a possibility.
Mr. Thomas mentioned that when he served on the Planning Commission, they talked about the
Historic Preservation Ordinance – with education being a critical component of that. He asked how that
was progressing, and if there were a lot of people volunteering to come forward.
Mr. Loewenstein responded that there have been a lot of volunteers, and some of the work on the
Rosenwald schools led to people from the outside coming in and working. He said that there was a
reunion at the St. John‟s School last summer – and a lot of that was organized by community members,
working with the Committee. Mr. Loewenstein said that SOLs don‟t really have a place for historic
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
preservation education, and it‟s very difficult to get that integrated into school curriculum. They are
hoping to improve that component.
Ms. Mallek asked if they had received much response from the real estate letters. Mr.
Loewenstein replied that they have, but the County has difficulty doing it because of the burdens on a
limited staff. The Committee has considered taking those over. He reiterated that education is the key.
______________
Agenda Item No. 12. End-of-the-Year Intern Report, Lee Catlin.
Ms. Catlin said that the University Internship Program partnership has been a great example of
how to make up for staffing shortfalls. The Program involves having interns commit to 10 hours per week
in exchange for course credit. She said that the Program has been in effect for about 15 years, with
several interns per year – and in the last year the County has tried to step that up and bring more interns
in to maximize that potential. Ms. Catlin stated that this past year they had about 12 interns in the
organization, who will now be leaving the Program for graduation. The interns have created a video on
their experience. She presented the video, showing a day or two in the life of a County intern.
Ms. Catlin noted that the interns provided approximately 3,770 hours for five departments for 35
weeks, roughly equivalent to $35,000 in staff time. In terms of next year, they do not have the same
number of interns available, but staff is looking at it aggressively. She recognized two of the intern
sponsors – Lori Allshouse and Michael Culp. Also present was Ms. Terry DuLong Ray, who stood as a
representative of the interns. Ms. Catlin added that Diane Mullins put a lot of time into the intern program,
and recognized her for all her work.
Ms. Catlin said that the City, County, and University joined together to do an application for the
Google Fiber project to bring high-speed fiber to the community. Ms. Catlin said that it was a short
timeframe and the expectations were high; she recognized Eric Hahn for his help with the project, noting
that he is a 9th grader at Albemarle High School. She stated that Mr. Hahn turned the work around
quickly and produced a survey that 800 community members answered.
Ms. Mallek said she was fortunate yesterday to listen to the presentations from the food security
class and those students worked with different ordinances in an attempt to find ways to increase local
food production. It was a great example for getting excellent quality work done by someone outside our
staff, and we need that.
Ms. Catlin said Board members will continue to see benefits of the intern‟s work over the coming
months and year.
Ms. Mallek suggested staff look at opportunities for adults to volunteer. It might be good to put
together something to get that word out.
______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: ZTA-2009-00003. Farm wineries.
Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 4.15.2, Definitions, 5.1.25, Farm winery, 10.2.1, By right and
10.2.2, By special use permit, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This
ordinance would amend Secs. 3.1, by adding definition s of “agritourism” and “farm winery event”
and amending the definitions of “accessory use, building or structure” and “farm winery”; 4.15.2,
by adding signs identifying farm sales, a farm stand, a farmers‟ market, or a farm winery as an
“agricultural product sign”; 5.1.25, by amending the regulations applicable to farm wineries by
delineating those farm winery related uses allowed by right; requiring a special use permit for a
farm winery event, wedding or wedding reception, or a use not expressly allowed but determined
by the zoning administrator to be a usual and customary use at a farm winery, if more than 200
persons will attend at any time; requiring identified information and a sketch plan to be submitted
with an application for a special use permit; establishing regulations for sound generation from
outdoor amplified music and minimum yard requirements for farm wineries; and prohibiting
restaurants and helicopter rides; 10.2.1, by amending the cross-reference to by-right farm winery
uses; and 10.2.2, by adding certain farm winery uses as uses allowed by special use permit.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 19 and April 226, 2010.)
Mr. Cilimberg said in staff‟s notification of this public hearing, they informed the public that the
hearing was at 2:00 p.m. He understands that there will be individuals present from the farm wineries.
He could go through the presentation at this time, but would ask that the Board defer action until 2:00
p.m. to allow public comments.
Board members concurred with moving the public hearings for Agenda Items 13 and 14 until 2:00
p.m.
______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing: ZTA-2009-00018. Farm stands, farm sales, farmers’
markets.
Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 4.15.5, Signs authorized by special use permit, 4.15.6, Signs
exempt from the sign permit requirement, 10.2.1, By right, 10.2.2, By special use permit, 11.3.1,
By right uses, 11.3.2, By special use permit, 12.2.1, By right, 12.2.2, By special use permit,
13.2.2, By special use permit, 14.2.2, By special use permit, 15.2.2, By special use permit,
16.2.2, By special use permit, 17.2.2, By special use permit, 18.2.2, By special use permit,
19.3.2, By special use permit, 20.3.2, By special use permit, 20A.6, By right, 20B.2, By right,
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
22.2.1, By right, 23.2.1, By right, 24.2.1, By right, 27.2.1, By right, 27.2.2, By special use permit,
28.2.1, By right, 28.2.2, By special use permit, 35, Fees; repeal Secs. 5.1.19, Wayside stands,
5.1.35, Farm sales, 5.1.36, Farmer‟s market; add Sec. 5.1.47, Farm stands, farm sales and
farmers‟ markets, to Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would
repeal the existing regulations pertaining to wayside stands (5.1.19), farm sales (5.1.35) and
farmers‟ markets (5.1.36) and establish new regulations for farm stands, farm sales and farmers‟
markets (5.1.47) regarding the respective uses, maximum structure sizes, and minimum yard and
parking requirements; would allow farm stands and farm sales by right in the RA (10.2.1), MHD
(11.3.1) and VR (12.2.1) zoning districts, allow farmers‟ markets by right in the NMD (20A.6),
DCD (20B.2), C-1 (22.2.1), CO (23.2.1), HC (24.2.1), LI (27.2.1) (exterior or temporary or existing
structures) and HI (28.2.1) (exterior or temporary or existing structures) zoning districts, and allow
farmers‟ markets by special use permit in the RA (10.2.2), MHD (11.3.2), VR (12.2.2), R-1
(13.2.2), R-2 (14.2.2), R-4 (15.2.2), R-6 (16.2.2), R-10 (17.2.2), R-15 (18.2.2), PRD (19.3.2), PUD
(20.3.2), LI (27.2.2) (new structures) and HI (28.2.2) (new structures) zoning districts; and would
amend and add definitions of various terms related to farms stands, farm sales and farmers‟
markets (3.1), exempt off-site agricultural product signs from the requirement to obtain a special
use permit (4.15.5), and exempt on-site agricultural product signs from the sign permit
requirement (4.15.6); and, would create a new class of fees for a special use permit for farmers‟
markets and establish fees of $490.00 and $110.00 depending on existing on-site entrance and
parking conditions, which is a $490.00 and $870.00 reduction, respectively, in the fees that would
be charged under current regulations. The proposed fees are authorized by Virginia Code §
15.2-2286(A)(6).
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 19 and April 226, 2010.)
______________
Non Agenda. At 10:46 a.m. the Board recessed and then reconvened at 11:04 a.m.
______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Presentation on Regional Economic Development Issues, Mike Harvey,
Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (T JPED).
Mr. Snow recognized the work of Marvin Hilton who recently passed away. Mr. Hilton was his
appointee to the Albemarle County Service Authority and he would like to recognize him for the work he
performed for the County.
__________
Mr. Harvey said that he was asked to provide some insight into the discussions that provided the
framework of the revised economic development portion of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that this
is a unique region, with unique challenges. He thinks that any good Economic Development Plan should
be about the challenges.
Mr. Harvey reported that the three questions he wanted to investigate when he assumed his
position for TJPED were (1) whether the local economy was truly immune to happenings in the macro-
economy; (2) the issue of under-employment and lack of job opportunities; and (3) employment
dynamics. Although there are negatives, there are a lot of positives about this economy. Compared to
our peers, the local economy is in a lot better shape. He commented that the region has a very stable
employment base, but he wanted to focus on the challenges that exist here. At the end of his
presentation, he hopes to offer some recommendations, opportunities, actions and policies that some of
which will be presented in the Economic Development Action Plan.
Mr. Harvey said that the big issue that got the County into its current predicament is home
foreclosures, so he considers the recovery to be longer and much slower – more of a “u” than a “v.” He
said there are still a lot of foreclosures in the pipeline so possibly anoth er wave of them will come through
this year. He added that the price of oil has been another factor. He presented a chart showing how the
price of oil spiked and then knocked the community into a recession. He thinks that we are at a point
where you are starting to see demand destruction. That price and prices above that level will probably
hinder the recovery; it won‟t stop be recovery, but it will slow it. He mentioned that auto sales were at $15
million annually and is just now climbing back to $11 million. Mr. Harvey stated that retail has also been
severely impacted, and the region has pretty much mirrored national economic trends. The people who
are being dislocated out of the industries where the downfall has happened are having a difficult tim e
getting into jobs in the growing industries because they do not have the skill sets. That explains why this
is such a different recession. He also pointed out that most previous recessions were short and sharp,
but this one will be long and deep.
Mr. Harvey said that the regional economy (Planning District 10) is really not that much different
from what happened in the macro-economy, with losses and gains following national trends. He added
that the local area has lost about a quarter of its construction workforce, which is very significant. He
reiterated that the gains are happening in very different industries. Mr. Harvey said that the Albemarle-
Charlottesville area is not immune, but is just a little more insulated. The community is not immune to the
macro-economic conditions. He stated that there are more high-skilled individuals living here than there
are opportunities for them, but those don‟t always match up to employment. You want more of a balance
there.
Mr. Harvey reported that in PD10, about 11,000 people leave the region to go to another region to
work – with 4,800 of those leaving Albemarle/Charlottesville out of a total workforce of over 70,000. He
said that that‟s a significant number in his opinion, adding that about 30% of the A lbemarle/Charlottesville
workforce comes in. We actually net gain people into our market daily. Evidence points to that this
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
region does have under-employment, but he does not have the hard data to back it up. He thinks further
studies are warranted. He would like to know where these people are going if they are leaving the area.
Who are these people; what are they doing and are they lacking the right opportunities? If they are
leaving what does that mean; what is the impact on local transportation, l and use patterns?
Mr. Harvey then presented information on the greater Charlottesville business clusters. The
sectors fall into four categories – white collar service jobs, skilled trades, professional and lower wage
service. Middle class are the white collar and skilled trades, with a need for two to four years of college.
He reported that the average weekly wage over time would seem to indicate there has been a positive
trend upward, but the proportionality shows that in 1990 there was a more balanced economy. Mr.
Harvey noted that there is still a middle class here, but the composition has changed substantially.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the composition of the middle class has changed everywhere.
Mr. Harvey emphasized that the trend of losing skilled trade jobs continues here, and the lower
educated folks are the ones getting “hammered” here – with minorities representing only 20% of the
population but comprising 40-50% of the unemployed; only 11% of African-Americans in the local area
have any kind of post-secondary degree. If you‟ve got an economy that‟s growing away from you, it‟s
really going to cause some intractable issues. He noted that low-wage service as a sector didn‟t budge
over that period of time. Mr. Harvey said that manufacturing has likely seen its worst days.
Mr. Harvey reported that Culpeper has a very aggressive economic development effort, noting
their 2009 numbers, and stating that they have increased low-wage service jobs and have dropped in
skilled trade jobs as well – but it‟s not as chronic as Albemarle‟s issue. He added that the growth here is
definitely happening in the white-collar middle class.
Mr. Rooker asked if someone lives outside of PD10 but comes here to work, where are they
being counted. Mr. Harvey said that information is part of the quarterly census of employment and
wages, the jobs that exist in the area.
Mr. Dorrier asked how U.Va. was reflected in these statistics. Mr. Harvey indicated the area in
green on his chart and said the jobs are educational services, public administration, healthcare, etc.
Mr. Dorrier said that Culpeper wouldn‟t have that line. Mr. Harvey stated that they can still
maintain their growth, but it‟s just not as dramatic – noting that they‟ve gained 6,000 people; Albemarle
gained about 16,000 during that time period.
Ms. Mallek commented that the gain was in jobs. She added that Culpeper also gained 20,000
people who work in Northern Virginia. Mr. Harvey agreed.
Ms. Mallek added that she would like to know what Culpeper did to keep Merillat, Smith, and
other businesses there – and how that compares to the Albemarle effort to keep their businesses. Mr.
Harvey said Culpeper has had layoffs but he is not sure they have lost any of their major manufacturing
employers. He indicated that the Culpeper skilled trade occupations pay an average of $822 a week,
which is higher than their white collar middle at $717.
Mr. Harvey stated that he sees a “mismatch” of workers to jobs and jobs to workers in PD10.
There are people who live here who cannot work in the jobs that are available in the hospital. He thinks a
long-term economic development strategy could help address that. Albemarle has an economy that is
growing in such a way that it forces people to get a higher education or go somewhere to participate in
the middle class. Mr. Harvey said that there is a chronic issue with the “working poor,” as 95% of the
people on social assistance are working – with the average wage in that group $22,000 and below,
comprising one-third of our workforce.
Mr. Harvey asked the Board to step back and think about where the growth is happening which is
mostly in the public sector, so those employment drivers typically have to recruit from the outside. They
are moving people here that are putting kids in school that are using tax dollars to do so. He added that
leaning on the hospital-government-university sector too heavily as the driver there may be
consequences if that pattern continues to grow population but not private -sector tax base. Mr. Harvey
stated that any economic development program the County puts in place should have three main goals:
1) focus on recapturing the workforce that leaves here every day; 2) reduce the number and percentage
of our working poor; and 3) expand and diversify the local tax base.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Harvey has compared those statistics with those in other localities that
have similar geographic dynamics. T here are a whole lot more people coming into this area than going
out. He also said that he knows a lot of families where a husband works in Richmond and a wife works
here. He wonders how much of that is structural. Mr. Harvey agreed that that is a lot of the issue. He
thinks a lot is that these are good public sector jobs. You have some who moves in for that “good” job but
then the trailing spouse that has to find something and the opportunity does not exist here. He added that
the major employment sectors of this community are pretty narrow. Without the diversity of opportunity,
people have to go somewhere else to work.
Mr. Rooker said he knows people who move here with the idea that they have a job in Richmond
that they are not going to give up. Mr. Harvey agreed that there are a number of folks like that, but we
ask them what it would take to keep you here. He thinks all of that needs to be addressed when the
County looks at a plan.
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Mr. Harvey added that if the tax base is expanded and diversified in a responsible way the first
two recommendations can be addressed. Mr. Harvey said TJPED‟s recommendation is to “strategically
grow and attract capital intensive, private sector employers that provide career ladder jobs opportunities
for our resident workforce.”
Mr. Rooker stated that the “natural advantages” that the Albemarle-Charlottesville area has have
to do with a knowledge-based industry versus a capital-based industry. The capital-intensive industries
we‟ve had here come, find a cheaper place to do business in the world or whatever, and then they‟re
gone. In Waynesboro and Staunton they‟re fighting that all the time because they‟re always seeking
capital-intensive businesses. He asked if we would not be better focusing on knowledge-based
industries.
Mr. Harvey responded that they‟re converging. When he says “capital intensive” he is not
necessarily saying big machinery, etc. Using Taramark, Swift, etc. in Culpeper as examples, they will
employ all of their people from the local area. He said that there are inquiries from data centers all the
time for location in Charlottesville/Albemarle, but he has no place to put them.
Mr. Thomas noted that the commercial tax base needs to be bolstered up considerably compared
to where it is now.
Mr. Rooker said that he would love to see a model of a community that has “grown their way to a
lower tax rate.” The studies that he has looked at over the years do not bear out that you will grow your
way to a lower tax rate. Mr. Thomas said he did not mean that. He meant to get a larger tax base that is
paying money into the County, not necessarily the residential sector, not even shopping centers. Mr.
Rooker commented that shopping centers are the most profitable for communities because they pay
sales taxes.
Mr. Rooker said that he likes the goal of reducing the percentage of working poor, but he doesn‟t
want to go down a path where there is no empirical data to show that effort will be successful. If you want
lower taxes for residential people, he would like to see a model where that‟s been done by doing what
they are talking about here.
Mr. Harvey said these are his theories. He added that he does take issue with the sale tax
comment because the sale taxes are $13 million annually out of a $300 million budget. He believes that
the County should focus on property taxes. Taramark is a good example, investing $250 billion in PP&E
in Culpeper, which is a nice win for the county in terms of the revenue.
Mr. Dorrier suggested focusing on niche industries, such as MITRE. Mr. Harvey agreed.
Mr. Rooker asked why a data center could not go into the University Research Park. Mr. Harvey
responded that they have to have a relationship with UVA – which is very flexible – and tend to be
“standalone” operations.
Mr. Rooker said he is not sure what MITRE‟s relationship is with UVA, but they have a lot of
relationship with Rivanna Station. The Research Park just leased 100,000 square feet of additional
space to defense people.
Mr. Harvey said he still thinks the County should be offering other alternatives. Maybe you will
also want to build your environment around the type of company you want to come here. He conceded
that a data center could possibly go into the Research Park, but outside of that the County should be
offering other alternatives – such as a standalone facility or ownership of a building. More often than not
we‟re losing those companies today. A lot of time the company wants to own its own property, have
different security, dual broadband, etc. There are many issues the company may be looking at from a
site parameter that may not have them work in the Research Park. He proposes putting together a task
force that will look at the needs and demands of companies that may want to come here.
Mr. Dorrier asked how much competition there is between Culpeper and Albemarle. Mr. Harvey
responded that it‟s moderate, and typically the competition is region to region.
Mr. Dorrier asked if most of the industries looking for new places go out of state. Mr. Harvey said
he does not have that information. In two years he has had only about 20 people looking in this region.
Most of their activity is start-up small businesses and existing businesses that they are helping expand,
and anytime you talk about targeting niche companies they need to be in the discussion as well, because
that‟s really where the job growth is going to come from.
Mr. Rooker and Ms. Mallek expressed their support of that comment, with Mr. Rooker adding that
he is skeptical about trying to lure in businesses, where they get whatever benefit they can and then
move on. He just wants to make certain that we are targeting companies that are likely to be here
because they have a reason to be here – other than it‟s the cheapest place to be.
Mr. Boyd asked about existing companies that are leaving the area and concerns that more may
be leaving. Mr. Harvey suggested Ms. Stimart respond to that question.
Mr. Harvey said he thinks the County and City can do more to approach the University abo ut
creating that eco-system that creates a knowledge-based economy. He also thinks the University is an
economic driver in terms of employment, but the region could be working with them to do a lot more in
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
terms of entrepreneurship. He would love to see a business model where companies were created from
work at the University, we help them grow, and they end up in the research parks.
Mr. Harvey said a lot of this is everyday common sense economic development, but now the
workforce element is thrown in because of disparity and other issues that need to be addressed.
Mr. Dorrier asked how the Charlottesville area compares to the Research Triangle. Mr. Harvey
responded that they are so different in terms of size – with RTP having millions, and being much more
tech-heavy – although the local region is growing in that sector.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the Charlottesville-Albemarle area has been able to target people
based upon quality of life, as a lot of people have located their businesses here becaus e of that reason.
He cited SNL as an example of a company that moved here from New Jersey and started with only a few
employees – and now employs about 600 people, many of those in career jobs. You can use your quality
of life to target people of that mind set.
Mr. Harvey mentioned that one of their target markets in Knoxville was entrepreneurs and smaller
businesses. He thinks that we need to be a little bit more active in our role, in terms of trying to influence
that process. Economic development is a process and a practice. He added that it needs to be about us
because that‟s the only way it will pay dividends.
Mr. Dorrier noted that given internet capability, you can be located anywhere and operate a
business. Mr. Harvey agreed, adding that it is little things like that that create a favorable environment for
businesses.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that several large money managers from New York have moved here over
the last several years to get out of the city and set up business here.
Mr. Harvey said that TJPED stands ready to work with the County, and will be sensitive to what
people are looking for out of the Economic Development Plan.
Mr. Rooker said that if you look at County citizen surveys, the things they rank the highest have to
do with protection of natural resources and things of that nature. He thinks the County needs to be
sensitive in its economic development efforts to look at businesses that have “reasonably small footprints”
as far as impacts on the environment and traffic. The County has no money for transportation. Mr.
Rooker said that he gets a lot of email from real estate companies about commercial property available,
and there must be thousands of vacant industrial properties around the country.
Mr. Harvey said that economic feasibility, workforce and real estate drive a lot of decisions when
companies look at an area.
Mr. Rooker commented that there is a 560-acre industrial park with a good transportation network
nearby and an aesthetic appeal, and they have been trying to fill that park for a long time. He asked if that
does not argue for focusing more attention on a place where we‟ve got facilities , utilities, and the road
system. Mr. Harvey responded that his recommended process is to start first with “who fits.” The reality
of economic development now has a real estate component to it and a lot of times we can not meet the
requirements that the prospect needs here. He added that we should remedy that.
Mr. Rooker said that there are empty facilities all over the country, and many people who have
Light Industrial land here have rezoned it for other commercial uses because they are more lucrative. Mr.
Harvey said there is a highest and best use argument going on, and that has to do with growth patterns
and compatibility with what is next door. He reiterated that if the County wants to get serious about
pursuing that manufacturing niche, it needs to do some of these other things. Mr. Rooker commented
that this is going to cost a significant investment. Mr. Harvey agreed but the County needs to start at #1
(of the three main goals) and figure its way down.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Harvey which locations are doing economic development right. Mr. Harvey
responded that Hampton Roads and Richmond are both doing a good job.
Ms. Mallek noted that they are cities, so that gives them a lot more power to do things than the
County has.
Mr. Rooker also mentioned that they both have higher unemployment rates. He asked how
success is measured.
Mr. Harvey replied that success depends on what the goals are. He said that he doesn‟t want to
focus solely on attracting businesses, adding that so much else has to do with cultivation and creating a
workforce with residents here.
______________
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Agenda Item No. 16. Albemarle County Economic Development Action Plan.
Mr. Tucker summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board
members:
This report is presented in response to the 2010 Albemarle County Action Plan approved by the
Board of Supervisors at its January 6th Board meeting. Specifically, the Action Plan directed staff to “work
closely with the Partnership for Economic Development and the Chamber of Commerce to develop a plan
in the first six months of 2010 to significantly increase non-personal tax revenues through economic
growth.” The Plan further states that “We should update our five year strategic plan to reflect this priority
and goal.” Staff will include discussion of this issue in a future review with the Board of Supervis ors
regarding the County Strategic Plan.
Shortly after the Board adopted the Action Plan, staff met with Supervisor Boyd to receive input on
proceeding with the goal. As a result, several meetings have been held over the past several months
with the Chamber, Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED), members of the
business community, Supervisor Boyd and staff to begin the process of developing an Economic
Development Action Plan for Board consideration. As that process began, the C hamber forwarded a
letter to the County Executive sharing its perspective on the development of priorities to address the
Board‟s adopted action plan. This group first met in mid-February, reviewed the Board‟s action plan and
the Chamber‟s input and shared various perspectives on the issue. Based on that input and discussion,
staff worked closely with Mike Harvey of the TJPED in developing a draft plan for further consideration by
the group and ultimately for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. The group had a final meeting in
mid-April to review the draft plan and, after minor revisions, recommended forwarding the attached plan
(copy on file) to the Board of Supervisors.
The Draft Economic Development Action Plan contains five key objectives:
I) Improve the County‟s business climate and image;
II) Simplify development review and create certainty with the process, giving the applicant
expectations for time and cost;
III) Strategically grow and attract capital-intensive private sector employers that provide a
diverse array of career ladder employment opportunities to our resident work force;
IV) Remove obstacles and expand options for industrial land users ; and
V) Promote agribusiness and tourism as part of a comprehensive economic development
program that recognizes the importance of the rural economy.
These objectives were developed to provide a comprehensive action plan focused on addressing
the primary goal of growing the commercial tax base to increase tax revenues without raising tax rates.
To assure these objectives are achieved, a set of strategies and actions were also developed with
specific timelines for completion. Recognizing current budget constraints and the importance of
partnerships, the action items place a high reliance on partnership with other organizations. Some
actions items, such as the County Web site enhancement and improvements to development review
processes were already underway and were easily incorporated into this plan. Other action items, such
as “considering amendments to development review to facilitate small business opportunity” are new
initiatives and will require staff resources to be redirected from other activities to meet the milestone.
To assure that progress in achieving the primary goal of increasing commercial revenues from
economic growth is monitored on a regular basis, a number of performance measures were identified.
First, staff will measure the split between the commercial and residential real estate. This measure is
used by a large number of localities, with a common rule of thumb that targets 70% residential – 30%
commercial. While Albemarle appears to be doing well with this measure when compared to other
localities, increasing revenues from commercial properties will be the emphasis in monitoring succ ess.
Other important indicators or measures that will be monitored on a regular basis include: Business,
Professional and Occupational License fees; Machinery and Tools tax; Bank Franchise tax, and Public
Service tax, which are indicators of commercial growth, and Sales Tax, Transient Occupancy tax, Meals
tax and Job Growth by sector, which are considered broader measures of economic vitality. Information
on these measures and indicators will be available and monitored on a quarterly basis through the
County‟s Performance Management site.
In considering possible tax benefits of this effort, staff believes it is important for the Board to
recognize that the Economic Development Action Plan will require a long -term commitment and short-
term performance may be misleading. It is doubtful the County will see this effort create a significant
change in the commercial/residential split within the next three to five years. Given current market
conditions and the complexity of commercial lending, it is possible the County may even see this
performance measure worsen over the next couple of years. Finally, it should also be recognized there
are no limitations on residential growth in the County and there is a large inventory of property ready for
residential development.
Implementation of this plan will not require additional staff, though it will require the County to
reprioritize other staff efforts to implement this plan within the stated timelines. While additional
funding may be required for the studies proposed under Objective III, alternatives that may offset this
cost will need to be reviewed prior to considering additional funds.
Mr. Tucker said staff requests the Board identify any additional changes, information, or process
desired before considering the plan for adoption. Once the plan is adopted, staff recommends including it
in the County‟s Strategic Plan as a new objective under goal five: Fund the County’s Future Needs.
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Tucker suggested that given the current time, the Board may want to move this item to later in
the meeting for a work session, even if they have to meet on another day.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to schedule this for a work session on June 2nd, and would also like
to get a copy of Mr. Harvey‟s presentation before they discuss the proposed plan.
Mr. Boyd added that he would like to allow public input during that work session.
It was the consensus of the Board to schedule a work session, with public comment, to be held
on June 2, 2010.
______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Closed Meeting.
At 12:17 p.m., Mr. Thomas moved that the Board go into closed meeting pursuant to Section 2.2-
3711(A) of the Code of Virginia, under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards, committees,
and commissions; under Subsection (1) to conduct an administrative evaluation; under Subsection (7) to
discuss with legal counsel and staff specific matters requiring legal advice relating to an interjurisdictional
agreement regarding public safety; under Subsection (7) to discuss with legal counsel and staff specific
matters requiring legal advice relating to an interjurisdictional agreement regarding the Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority; and under subsection (7) to discuss with legal counsel and staff specific matters
requiring legal advice relating to compensation requirements.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 2:06 p.m., the Board reconvened into open meeting. Mr. Thomas moved that the Board
certified by recorded vote that to the best of each Board member‟s knowledge, only public business
matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed, or considered in the
closed meeting.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Snow to:
Appoint Brad Sheffield to the CHART Committee to fill an unexpired term to end April 3, 2011.
Appoint Carol Rasmussen to the Police Citizen Advisory Committee with said term to expire
March 5, 2012.
Appoint Deborah Rutter to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee with
said term to expire December 31, 2011.
Reappoint Mark Gorlinsky and Nelson Shaw to the Ag and Forestal District Advisory Committee
with said terms to expire April 17, 2014.
Reappoint Naresh Naran to the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau with
said term to expire June 30, 2012.
Reappoint Jane Covington and Steven Meeks to the Historic Preservation Committee with said
terms to expire June 4, 2013.
Reappoint Rod Gentry and Barbara Kessler to the Workforce Investment Board with said terms
to expire June 30, 2011.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
______________
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
(Note: At this time the Board went back to Agenda Items No. 13 and 14.)
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: ZTA-2009-00003. Farm wineries.
Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 4.15.2, Definitions, 5.1.25, Farm winery, 10.2.1, By right and
10.2.2, By special use permit, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This
ordinance would amend Secs. 3.1, by adding definitions of “agritourism” and “farm winery event”
and amending the definitions of “accessory use, building or structure” and “farm winery”; 4.15.2,
by adding signs identifying farm sales, a farm stand, a farmers‟ market, or a farm winery as an
“agricultural product sign”; 5.1.25, by amending the regulations applicable to farm wineries by
delineating those farm winery related uses allowed by right; requiring a special use permit for a
farm winery event, wedding or wedding reception, or a use not expressly allowed but determined
by the zoning administrator to be a usual and customary use at a farm winery, if more than 200
persons will attend at any time; requiring identified information and a sketch plan to be submitted
with an application for a special use permit; establishing regulations for sound generation from
outdoor amplified music and minimum yard requirements for farm wineries; and prohibiting
restaurants and helicopter rides; 10.2.1, by amending the cross-reference to by-right farm winery
uses; and 10.2.2, by adding certain farm winery uses as uses allowed by special use permit.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 19 and April 226, 2010.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the County has been working with this proposed amendment for some
period of time. Staff believes that the Code of Virginia language requires that more detail be incorporated
into ordinance provisions to make sure it is fully consistent with Code requirements. He said that staff
also feels that amendments that better define “allowed uses and activities” at farm wineries should
provide local wineries and the public a clearer understanding of what is permitted . The proposed
amendments will also result in fewer questions of staff – as well as greater efficiencies for staff in use of
determinations, zoning clearances, and enforcement.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff also feels that in County policies for the Rural Area Plan there are
certain directives that are supportive of farm winery businesses, as well as in the intent established in the
Rural Areas district – all of which point to further economic vitality for the County‟s agricultural activities
such as vineyards and wineries. He added that it is also more consistent with the state‟s economic policy
to preserve economic vitality in the wine industry.
Mr. Cilimberg said that this process has been going on for about a year, starting with a resolution
of intent from the Planning Commission in April 2009. Last summer there was a roundtable with interests
from the wine industry and other public members. In November 2009 and February 2010 the
Commission held work sessions and then a public hearing from which they made their recommendation
to the Board in March 2010.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the major changes can be summarized in several areas:
simplified definition for farm winery and new definitions for agritourism and farm winery
event;
the addition of farm wineries (as well as farm stands, farm sales and farmers‟ markets) to
the uses for which agricultural product signs are allowed.
extent of County review based on potential to produce substantial impact: 1) usual and
customary primary uses and uses related to agritourism or wine sales producing no
substantial impact listed as by-right without limitation as to number of events; and 2)
vertain agritourism related uses considered to be event driven and in addition to people
coming and going throughout the day associated with other farm winery uses listed as by
special use permit when minimum attendance is more than 200 people (current
ordinance minimum is more than 150 people);
uses not considered usual and customary specifically listed as not permitted;
noise standard added for outdoor amplified music that mimics the general noise
regulations of the County Code; and
minimum yard requirements established, with reduction by the Zoning Administrator upon
certain findings.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the uses are permitted by right providing they are related to agritourism or
wine sales. He added that the Zoning Administrator can make yard reductions if no detriment to abutting
lots and no harm to public health, safety, and welfare is noted; written consent must be obtained from the
owner of the abutting lot(s). Mr. Cilimberg stated that two uses not permitted are restaurants and
helicopter rides – as there is a bit of history with the latter in the state.
Mr. Cilimberg said that matters raised by the public at the Commission have been addressed in
the proposed amendment dated April 14, 2010. Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff and the Commission
recommend approval of the amendment as presented.
Mr. Rooker asked about the uses permitted “provided they are related to agritourism or wine
sales,” noting that weddings and wedding receptions of not more than 200 persons are in attendance. He
asked how you could say a wedding is related to wine sales. Mr. Cilimberg said it would be expected that
they are having the wedding at the site to market the wine. It would be expected that vineyards are
selling wine at those events, as that has been the customary practice at such events.
Mr. Rooker said that the restrictions on amplified music and number of people should sufficiently
address concerns, as complaints in the past have related to noise and traffic. He commented that there
are no restrictions on the number of weddings at a winery. He asked if the County should consider some
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
kind of numerical limitation before a special use permit is obtained. Mr. Cilimberg said the control would
be if the wedding were to exceed 200 then a special use permit would need to be required. At 200 or
below there would be no limitation.
Mr. Rooker asked if the special use permit for each event. Mr. Cilimberg said the special use
permit is for any use with attendance over 200.
Mr. Thomas commented that he thought it would run with the property. Mr. Cilimberg said that all
of the provisions are applied to the land and for the event held at the winery.
Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Executive, clarified that a special use permit would apply to
weddings exceeding 200 people, so an owner wouldn‟t have to come in each time.
Mr. Davis added that a special use permit could put conditions as to how those weddings would
be operated.
Mr. Cilimberg said you could limit number if there was an issue of having too many events in one
day as part of the special use permit.
Ms. Mallek asked about the distinction between kitchen and catering, and restaurant. Mr.
Cilimberg explained that a restaurant would be “independent and purely commercial,” whereas this
function is associated with the winery – so what is not included in this ordinance is a provision for the
former.
Ms. Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning and Current Development, noted that the idea is that
there wouldn‟t be a restaurant opened to the general public that would be a separate draw; however, food
could be prepared to accompany a wine tasting or wedding.
Mr. Snow said that an applicant could come back and apply to open a restaurant. Mr. Cilimberg
replied that it‟s not allowed under winery provisio ns, so the ordinance would need to be amended.
Mr. Rooker expressed caution about building that in, as you could technically have a McDonald‟s
put in on a winery. He supports the structure of the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Snow said that it would be unlikely to have a fast food establishment on a winery property.
He thinks it would be a high class business that catered to a certain clientele.
Mr. Rooker commented that he thought the same thing about gas stations collocating with
McDonald‟s.
Board members agreed that they liked what staff was presenting as it stands.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Matt Conrad, of the Virginia Wine Council, expressed appreciation for the professionalism of
staff and level of cooperation in consideration of the business models. Mr. Conrad stated that the best
way to preserve the rural character of Albemarle County is to make agriculture profitable, and in this
zoning ordinance the staff have done that – and provided regulatory certainty for these wineries. He
added that the ordinance strikes a perfect balance between protecting the interest of the County to
manage the health, safety and welfare of its citizens and permitting the winerie s to operate in a way that
makes them profitable and economically viable. Mr. Conrad mentioned that King Family Vineyards,
Keswick, Blenheim, and Albemarle Ciderworks are all in attendance today, and are equally appreciative
of the work staff has done.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the ordinance meets their requirements. Mr. Conrad replied that it absolutely
does. From the beginning, staff have incorporated the wineries in this process and adopted their
feedback to come up with an ordinance that meets our needs perfectly. He added that they are hoping
this ordinance will be a model for Virginia.
Mr. Neil Williamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum , said the Forum supports this ordinance. The
Forum believes in the idea of regulation with the consent of the regulat ed. Staff has worked with an
engaged Albemarle County winery community understand the different business models and recognizing
the benefit of acreage under vine. Staff identified wineries as an important agricultural use in the Rural
Areas. He is concerned about the frequency of event limitations at the wineries, and asked the Board to
consider that potential.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the numeric piece has been removed, and replaced with language
that says certain uses that exceed 200 people attending at any one time would be subject to special use
permit.
Mr. Williamson said if a site is prepared for 250 or 300 people on one day, it certainly could
manage that if the Zoning Administrator felt that it could handle that on every day. Mr. Rooker
commented that that would be a good argument for the special use permit request.
Mr. Timothy Hulbert, of the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber
supports the proposed ordinance. The Chamber also applauds the staff and Board for coming together to
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
support this very important industry in our community. He said that he can forsee a time that a successful
winery might want to have a restaurant, and he hopes the Board would be open to that.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Rooker moved for approval of ZTA-2009-0003. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Thomas complimented staff and the Commission on their work with the public in making this
something that will work for the Rural Areas. Mr. Rooker concurred.
ORDINANCE NO. 10-18(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE
II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE O F THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are
hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
Sec. 5.1.25 Farm winery
Sec. 10.2.1 By right
Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
. . .
Accessory Use, Building or Structure: A subordinate use, building or structure customarily incidental to
and located upon the same lot occupied by the primary use, building, or structure, and located upon land
zoned to allow the primary use, building or structure; provided that a subordinate use, building or
structure customarily incidental to a primary farm use, building or structure need not be located upon the
same lot occupied by the primary farm use, building, or structure. (Amended 10-9-02)
. . .
Agritourism. Any activity carried out on a farm or ranch that allows members of the general public, for
recreational, entertainment, or educational purposes, to view or enjoy rural activities, including farming,
wineries, ranching, historical, cultural, harvest-your-own activities, or natural activities and attractions,
regardless of whether or not the participant paid to participate in the activity.
. . .
Farm winery: An establishment located on one or more lots in Albemarle County licensed as a farm
winery under Virginia Code § 4.1-207. (Added 12-16-81)
. . .
Farm winery event. An event conducted at a farm winery on one or more days where the purpose is
agritourism or to promote wine sales including, but not limited to, gatherings not otherwise expressly
authorized as a use under section 5.1.25(a), (b)(1) and (b)(3) through (b)(10) including, but not limited to
wine fairs, receptions where wine is sold or served; wine club meetings and activities; wine tasting
educational seminars; wine tasting luncheons, business meetings, and corporate luncheons with a focus
on selling wines; gatherings with the purpose of promoting sales to the trade, such as restaurants,
distributors, and local chamber of commerce activities; winemakers‟ dinners where wine is paired with
food; agritourism promotions; and fundraisers and charity events.
. . .
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of this section 4.15:
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
(1.1) Agricultural product sign. The term “agricultural product sign” means a sign or signs identifying
the produce, crops, animals or poultry raised or quartered on the property, or identifying farm
sales, a farm stand, a farmers‟ market or a farm winery. (Added 3-16-05)
Sec. 5.1.25 Farm winery
Each farm winery shall be subject to the following:
a. Uses permitted. The following uses, events and activities (hereinafter, collectively, “uses”) are
permitted at a farm winery:
1. The production and harvesting of fruit and other agricultural products and the
manufacturing of wine including, but not limited to, activities related to the production of
the agricultural products used in wine, including but not limited to, growing, planting and
harvesting the agricultural products and the use of equipment for those activities.
2. The sale, tasting, including barrel tastings, or consumption of wine within the normal
course of business of the farm winery.
3. The direct sale and shipment of wine by common carrier to consumers in accordance
with Title 4.1 of the Virginia Code and the regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board.
4. The sale and shipment of wine to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, licensed
wholesalers, and out-of-state purchasers in accordance with Title 4.1 of the Virginia
Code, regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, and federal law.
5. The storage, warehousing, and wholesaling of wine in accordance with Title 4.1 of the
Virginia Code, regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, and federal law.
6. Private personal gatherings of a farm winery owner who resides at the farm winery or on
property adjacent thereto that is owned or controlled by the owner, provided that wine is
not sold or marketed and for which no consideration is received by the farm winery or its
agents.
b. Agritourism uses or wine sales related uses. The following uses are permitted at a farm winery,
provided they are related to agritourism or wine sales:
1. Exhibits, museums, and historical segments related to wine or to the farm winery.
2. Farm winery events at which not more than two hundred (200) persons are in at tendance
at any time.
3. Guest winemakers and trade accommodations of invited guests at a farm winery owner‟s
private residence at the farm winery.
4. Hayrides.
5. Kitchen and catering activities related to a use at the farm winery.
6. Picnics, either self-provided or available to be purchased at the farm winery.
7. Providing finger foods, soups and appetizers for visitors.
8. Sale of wine-related items that are incidental to the sale of wine including, but not limited
to the sale of incidental gifts such as cork screws, wine glasses, and t -shirts.
9. Tours of the farm winery, including the vineyard.
10. Weddings and wedding receptions at which not more than two hundred (200) persons
are in attendance at any time.
11. Other uses not expressly authorized that are agritourism uses or are wine sales related
uses, which are determined by the zoning administrator to be usual and customary uses
at farm wineries throughout the Commonwealth, which do not create a substantial impact
on the health, safety or welfare of the public, and at which not more than two hundred
(200) persons are in attendance at any time.
c. Agritourism uses or wine sales related uses; more than 200 person at any time; special use
permit. The following uses, at which more than two hundred (200) persons will be allowed to
attend at any time, are permitted at a farm winery with a special use permit, provided they are
related to agritourism or wine sales:
1. Farm winery events.
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
2. Weddings and wedding receptions.
3. Other uses not expressly authorized that are agritourism uses or wine sales related uses
which are determined by the zoning administrator to be usual and customary uses at
farm wineries throughout the Commonwealth.
d. Information and sketch plan to be submitted with application for a special use permit . In addition
to any information required to be submitted with an application for a special use permit under
section 31.6.2, each application for one or more uses authorized under section 5.1.25(c) shall
include the following:
1. Information. Information pertaining to the following: (i) the proposed uses; (ii) the
maximum number of persons wh o will attend each use at any given time; (iii) the
frequency and duration of the uses; (iv) the provision of on -site parking; (v) the location,
height and lumens of outdoor lighting for each use; and (vi) the location of any stage,
structure or other place where music will be performed.
2. Sketch plan. A sketch plan, which shall be a schematic drawing of the site with notes in a
form and of a scale approved by the director of planning depicting: (i) all structures that
would be used for the uses; (ii) how access, on-site parking, outdoor lighting, signage
and minimum yards will be provided in compliance with this chapter; and (iii) how
potential adverse impacts to adjoining property will be mitigated so they are not
substantial.
e. Sound from outdoor amplified music. Sound generated by outdoor amplified music shall not be
audible: (i) from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the property line of the farm
winery on which the device is located; or (ii) from inside a dwelling unit.
f. Yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the minimum front, side and rear yard
requirements in section 10.4 shall apply to all primary and accessory structures established after
[insert date] and to all tents, off-street parking areas and portable toilets used in whole or in part
to serve any use permitted at a farm winery, provided that the zoning administrator may reduce
the minimum required yard upon finding that: (i) there is no detriment to the abutting lot; (ii) there
is no harm to the public health, safety or welfare; and (iii) written consent has been provided by
the owner of the abutting lot consenting to the reduction.
g. Uses prohibited. The following uses are prohibited:
1. Restaurants.
2. Helicopter rides.
(§ 5.1.25, 12-16-81, 1-1-84; Ord. 98-20(1), 4-1-98; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 10.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the RA district, subject to the applicable requirements of
this chapter:
. . .
17. Farm winery uses authorized under section 5.1.25(a) and (b). (Added 11-11-92)
Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors
pursuant to section 31.2.4: (Added 10-9-02)
. . .
53. Farm winery uses authorized under section 5.1.25(c).
______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing: ZTA-2009-00018. Farm stands, farm sales,
farmers’ markets.
Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 4.15.5, Signs authorized by special use permit, 4.15.6, Signs
exempt from the sign permit requirement, 10.2.1, By right, 10.2.2, By special use permit, 11.3.1,
By right uses, 11.3.2, By special use permit, 12.2.1, By right, 12.2.2, By special use permit,
13.2.2, By special use permit, 14.2.2, By special use permit, 15.2.2, By special use permit,
16.2.2, By special use permit, 17.2.2, By special use permit, 18.2.2, By special use permit,
19.3.2, By special use permit, 20.3.2, By special use permit, 20A.6, By right, 20B.2, By right,
22.2.1, By right, 23.2.1, By right, 24.2.1, By right, 27.2.1, By right, 27.2.2, By special use permit,
28.2.1, By right, 28.2.2, By special use permit, 35, Fees; repeal Secs. 5.1.19, Wayside stands,
5.1.35, Farm sales, 5.1.36, Farmer‟s market; add Sec. 5.1.47, Farm stands, farm sales and
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
farmers‟ markets, to Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would
repeal the existing regulations pertaining to wayside stands (5.1.19), farm sales (5.1.35) and
farmers‟ markets (5.1.36) and establish new regulations for farm stands, farm sales and farmers‟
markets (5.1.47) regarding the respective uses, maximum structure sizes, and minimum yard and
parking requirements; would allow farm stands and farm sales by right in th e RA (10.2.1), MHD
(11.3.1) and VR (12.2.1) zoning districts, allow farmers‟ markets by right in the NMD (20A.6),
DCD (20B.2), C-1 (22.2.1), CO (23.2.1), HC (24.2.1), LI (27.2.1) (exterior or temporary or existing
structures) and HI (28.2.1) (exterior or temporary or existing structures) zoning districts, and allow
farmers‟ markets by special use permit in the RA (10.2.2), MHD (11.3.2), VR (12.2.2), R-1
(13.2.2), R-2 (14.2.2), R-4 (15.2.2), R-6 (16.2.2), R-10 (17.2.2), R-15 (18.2.2), PRD (19.3.2), PUD
(20.3.2), LI (27.2.2) (new structures) and HI (28.2.2) (new structures) zoning districts; and would
amend and add definitions of various terms related to farms stands, farm sales and farmers‟
markets (3.1), exempt off-site agricultural product signs from the requirement to obtain a special
use permit (4.15.5), and exempt on-site agricultural product signs from the sign permit
requirement (4.15.6); and, would create a new class of fees for a special use permit for farmers‟
markets and establish fees of $490.00 and $110.00 depending on existing on-site entrance and
parking conditions, which is a $490.00 and $870.00 reduction, respectively, in the fees that would
be charged under current regulations. The proposed fees are authorized by Virginia Code §
15.2-2286(A)(6).
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 19 and April 226, 2010.)
Ms. Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning and Current Development, said this proposed ordinance
has also been a very positive experience for staff. It is nice to work on something that is fun, there is a lot
of cooperation and with the help of the public, a much better product is created. Ms. McCulley said that
the need to revise the ordinance was recognized in response to a Zoning complaint about an off-farm
sale – and staff learned that the farm is not always the best location for selling farm products. She said
they also discovered that current Zoning regulations are “fairly limiting” in terms of where a farmer can sell
off the farm – and very limiting particularly in the Rural Areas. Ms. McCulley stated that the current
regulations are not adequately meeting the goals within the rural areas section of the Comprehensive
Plan, and hopefully this text amendment will better connect the agricultural producers with the
consumers. She said that the first step was the Board‟s adoption of a resolution of intent on October 7 th,
followed by a public roundtable on December 10th, a January 19th work session with the Planning
Commission – followed by an April 6th public hearing with the Commission, and finally today‟s public
hearing with the Board.
Ms. McCulley reported that there are three different uses that will meet different types of needs to
provide this service – farm stands, farm sales, and farmers markets. She mentioned that this ordinance
doesn‟t just relate to fruits and vegetables – but also to eggs, meat, and value-added products such as
jams, jellies, baked goods, cheese, salsas, etc. She explained that farm stands would allow a grower to
sell local, agricultural products and merchandise “off the farm,” with local meaning “from Albemarle or its
abutting localities.” Initially they started with the idea that the project must be from Albemarle, but based
on public input, staff found that it needed to relax that somewhat and see it more as a regional issue. Ms.
McCulley stated that farm sales would be “on the farm” sales of agricultural products and merchandise,
including subordinate sales of accessory merchandise. Farmers markets would be offsite sales of these
products, including the subordinate sales of accessory merchandise.
Ms. McCulley then highlighted the differences between the existing regulations and the proposed
regulations. She explained that with farm stands in the rural area, the change in the ordinance would
allow offsite sales versus the current provision for only onsite sales. Ms. McCulley said that farm sales –
which are on the farm – will be a use by-right versus the current provision requiring a special use permit.
She stated that they are adding a Village Residential district, which would allow the same market
opportunity there. Ms. McCulley said that the farmers market provisions have been changed substantially
– with the districts of Neighborhood Model, Commercial Office, Light and Heavy Industry added – and by
special use permit, Rural Areas. Ms. McCulley reported that Monticello Historic District could have them
by special permit under the new provisions, as could the Village Residential as well as all other residential
districts, the PRD, and the residential section of a PUD. She noted that in industrial districts, - LI and HI -
if a new structure is to be built for that purpose, a special use permit would be required.
Ms. McCulley said that currently, the farm stands (wayside stands) are extremely limited in area –
600 square feet – and the new provisions state that for farm stands and sales, if a parking area, tent, or
existing building is being used there are no limitations. If a new structure is to be used, she said, the n
instead of 600 square feet it is 1,500 square feet for farm stands; for farm sales it increases from 1,500
square feet to 4,000 square feet. The staff received a lot of good input from farmers about what it takes
to make something worth an investment on their farm as a farm sales structure. She stated that with
farmers markets the area is not affected because there was no previous cap on the retail sales area.
Ms. McCulley commented that staff has really been looking at process – what it takes to provide
adequate public input, but not automatically send everything through the Planning Commission and
require variances, etc. She said that before one of the Commission meetings, they got good input on the
administrative setback waiver – which has been incorporated into both the farm winery regulations and
the farm stand regulations. In comparing existing regulations to proposed, she said they are going from
what is currently a process that may go through the Commission and require an applicant to hire an
engineer or architect to do a site plan – to an administrative process that includes a formal public notice to
neighbors; the materials needed to review and approve it can be done by a layperson, and a hand -drawn
sketch will suffice.
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Mr. Rooker asked what the course would be if there are concerns raised by neighbors, and
whether there is the ability to impose conditions to reflect those concerns. Mr. Kamptner responded that
the Zoning Administrator has the authority under zoning clearance authority to impose conditions as
necessary. Ms. McCulley added that staff already does this in some cases.
Mr. Davis noted that it would have to be narrowly tailored to the health, safety, and welfare
conditions of the site. It will have to be very limited in scope.
Ms. McCulley said that the draft ordinance reflects a two-tiered fee structure, as discussed with
the Commission and recommended. The existing special use permit requirement for a commercial use
would require a fee of $980, and staff recognizes that that is a significant cost to yield a limited profit, so
suggested that the County subsidize it and only charge one-half that fee or $490. She added that there
are several sites in existence that already have adequate parking, an approved entrance, etc. – and those
are pretty straightforward reviews – so the lower fee of $110 would be applied to that type special use
permit. This fee only applies to farmer‟s market; everything else is by-right. Staff recommends adoption
of the proposed ordinance with the revised handout provided by Mr. Davis at the meeting.
Ms. Mallek said that at an earlier meeting there was an example of someone who has an existing
farm stand and wants to have another farmer sell there too – and at one point it was reflected in the
language but doesn‟t seem to be now.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that that‟s already included under farm sales. He added that if an offsite
farmer wanted to come from another part of the County to sell at that location himself, it would be a
farmers market and would require a special use permit; but if a farmer at one site is selling someone
else‟s product, it‟s just farm sales.
Ms. Mallek expressed concern that having a few farmers selling under a tent would require a
special use permit fee. Ms. McCulley responded that staff wrestled with that because it‟s hard to find a
line over which it becomes a special use permit requirement, and decided that the number of farmers can
be related to the intensity of use. Once it is more than one farmer off the farm, it‟s a farmers market.
Ms. Mallek asked if the $110 fee would apply if it occurs on an existing farm with a sales structure
already there. Ms. McCulley explained that farm sales are a use by-right, not a special permit use.
Ms. Mallek, used as an example, Chiles Peach on Jarman‟s Gap, an established business that
would like to have the woodworker from the top of the mountain sell some furniture on site. The
woodworker wouldn‟t be there but have his product on site. She asked if that would require them to be a
farmer‟s market. Ms. McCulley replied “no”; the products could be sold on site by the one property owner.
Mr. Tucker added that if there are separate vendors collecting separate money, that starts to lean
towards farmer‟s market. Ms. McCulley concurred.
The Chair then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Corky Shackelford said that he owns a farm in Stony Point in the Rivanna District. As a
member of the agricultural community, he would like to express his appreciation for the process that has
taken place for both this ordinance and the winery ordinance. The staff has been very sensitive to the
interests of the farmers and the winery people as well as their responsibility to the County. He
encouraged the staff to continue that process with future ordinances.
Mr. Neil Williamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum, said that both zoning text amendments relate
to agricultural economic development. This proposal also recognizes the value of adaptive reuse of the
sometimes historic buildings in existence in the Rural Area. He also complimented staff for recognizing
the “neighbor‟s fence rule,” and for acknowledging the importance of agribusiness. He added that all of
these regulations are an improvement over the current ones. He encouraged the Board to approve the
proposed ordinance.
Mr. Timothy Hulbert, of the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce, said that this is a
very positive step toward promoting agriculture as a part of economic development.
Ms. Mallek said that she has a farm and sells at farmer‟s markets, and asked if she was can vote
on this proposed ordinance. Mr. Davis replied, “yes”.
Ms. Mallek moved to approve adoption of ZTA-2009-00018, Farm Stands, Farm Sales, and
Farmers Markets. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion.
Mr. Davis added that all of these uses require VDOT approval for adequate entrance and site
distance.
Mr. Rooker said that it might be helpful for the Chamber and others to get a copy of the new
charts that explain what is required in each of the three categories.
Mr. Jason Newberry, of Current Development, indicated that he has already mailed the chart out
to roundtable participants, etc., as part of outreach.
Roll was then called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 10-18(4)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE
II, BASIC REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, Article III, District Regulations, and
Article IV, Procedure, are hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 4.15.5 Signs authorized by special use permit
Sec. 4.15.6 Signs exempt from the sign permit requirement
Sec. 10.2.1 By right
Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit
Sec. 11.3.1 By right uses
Sec. 11.3.2 By special use permit
Sec. 12.2.1 By right
Sec. 12.2.2 By special use permit
Sec. 13.2.2 By special use permit
Sec. 14.2.2 By special use permit
Sec. 15.2.2 By special use permit
Sec. 16.2.2 By special use permit
Sec. 17.2.2 By special use permit
Sec. 18.2.2 By special use permit
Sec. 19.3.2 By special use permit
Sec. 20.3.2 By special use permit
Sec. 20A.6 By right
Sec. 20B.2 By right
Sec. 22.2.1 By right
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
Sec. 24.2.1 By right
Sec. 27.2.1 By right
Sec. 27.2.2 By special use permit
Sec. 28.2.1 By right
Sec. 28.2.2 By special use permit
Sec. 35 Fees
By Repealing:
Sec. 5.1.19 Wayside stands
Sec. 5.1.35 Farm sales
Sec. 5.1.36 Farmer‟s market
By Adding:
Sec. 5.1.47 Farm stands, farm sales and farmers‟ markets
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
. . .
Accessory merchandise: Non-agricultural merchandise that is subordinate and customarily incidental to
the agricultural products sold at a farm sales use or a farmers‟ market such as pottery, baskets, canning
jars, pumpkin carving kits, wreath making supplies, floral arranging supplies, garden accessories, hand
tools for gardening and handmade crafts. For the purposes of this definition, farm machinery and
equipment (except hand tools), building materials, furniture, and other similar items are not subordinate
merchandise.
Agriculture: Horticulture, viticulture, silviculture or other gardening which may involve the tilling of soil for
the raising of crops; the keeping of livestock and/or poultry; and/or agricultural industries or businesses,
such as, but not limited to, orchards, fruit packing plants, dairies, nurseries, farm sales, farm stands and
farmers‟ markets. (Amended 12-2-87)
. . .
Farm Sales: The sale of agricultural products, value-added products and accessory merchandise on a
farm, either outdoors or within a temporary or permanent structure, where the vendor selling the products
and merchandise is engaged in production agriculture on the farm on which the farm sales use is located.
(Added 10- 11-95)
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Farm Stand: The sale of local agricultural products and value-added products, either outdoors or within a
temporary or permanent structure, where the vendor selling the products is engaged in production
agriculture in Albemarle County, but not on the lot on which the farm stand is located.
. . .
Farmers' Market: The sale of agricultural products, value-added products, and accessory merchandise
either outdoors or within a temporary or permanent structure by two (2) or more vendors in the rural areas
(RA) zoning district or by one or more vendors in any other zoning district where the use is allowed,
where each vendor selling the products and merchandise is engaged in production agricult ure in
Albemarle County regardless of whether it is on or not on the lot on which the farmers‟ market is located.
(Added 10-11-95)
. . .
Local agricultural products: Agricultural products grown or produced in Albemarle County or its abutting
localities.
. . .
Value-added products: Raw agricultural products that have been altered to enhance their value through
baking, bottling, canning, carving, churning, cleaning, drying, freezing, weaving, or other similar
processes.
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.15.5 Signs authorized by special use permit
Except as provided in subsection (d), electric message signs, off -site signs, and signs in public rights-of-
way may be authorized only by special use permit, as provided herein:
a. Circumstances under which signs may be authorized. The signs may be authorized only under
the following circumstances:
1. Off-site signs. Off-site signs may be authorized by special use permit within any zoning
district.
2. Electric message signs. Electric message signs may be authorized by special use permit
within any commercial or industrial zoning district, or any commercially designated areas
of a planned unit development.
3. Signs in public rights-of-way. Signs in public rights-of-way; provided: (1) the subdivision
or planned development to which the sign pertains abuts the public right-of-way; (2) the
sign is either a subdivision sign or a sign identifying a planned development authorized
by sections 19, 20, 25, 25A, and 29; (3) the freestanding sign regulations, other than
setback regulations, applicable to the lot with the use to which the sign pertains shall
apply; and (4) if the sign is located within an entrance corridor overlay district, a certificate
of appropriateness is issued by the architectural review board.
b. Authority. The authority to issue a special use permit for off-site signs and electric message signs
is hereby granted to the board of zoning appeals.
c. Procedure and administration. The application procedure, the findings and conditions to be
applied by the board of zoning appeals when considering an application for a special use permit,
and the authority to revoke such a permit, shall be as provided in section 31.6 of this chapter. In
addition to the foregoing:
1. For an off-site sign, the board of zoning appeals shall also find that the issuance of a
special use permit is necessary because an on-site sign would be ineffective to
communicate its message off-site because of topography or vegetation.
2. For an electric message sign, the board of zoning appeals shall also find that the sign
complies with all applicable state laws for such signs.
3. A permit number for each special use permit issued for an off -site sign shall be affixed to
the sign in a conspicuous place.
d. Exception; certain off-site signs. A special use permit shall not be required for off -site directional,
political, subdivision or temporary signs, and off -site agricultural product signs, except for those
advertising a farmers‟ market in any zoning district other than the Rural Areas, Monticello Historic
District, and the Village Residential zoning districts, provided that their number does not exceed
two (2) and they do not exceed an aggregate of thirty-two (32) square feet in sign area, and
further provided that any agricultural product sign advertising a farmers‟ market in the Rural
Areas, Monticello Historic District, or the Village Residential zoning districts is posted within that
particular zoning district.
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.05; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286.
Sec. 4.15.6 Signs exempt from the sign permit requirement
The following signs are exempt from the sign permit requirement set forth in section 4.15.4 provided that
they comply with the regulations set forth below and all other applicable regulations of this section 4.15:
(1) Agricultural product sign, on-site. One or two on-site agricultural product signs that do not exceed
an aggregate of thirty-two (32) square feet in sign area. (Added 3-16-05)
(2) Auction sign. An auction sign that does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area, and which is
posted for a total of thirty (30) days or less in a calendar year. Such an auction sign shall be
removed within seven (7) days after date of the auction.
(3) Commemorative plaque. A commemorative plaque that does not exceed four (4) square feet in
sign area.
(4) Construction sign. A construction sign that does not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in sign
area. Such a construction sign shall be removed within seven (7) days after issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
(5) Estate sign. An estate sign that does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area.
(6) Farm sign. A farm sign that does not include commercial identification and does not exceed four
(4) square feet in sign area.
(7) Home occupation class B sign. A home occupation class B sign that does not exceed four (4)
square feet in sign area.
(8) Incidental sign. An incidental sign that does not exceed four (4) square f eet in sign area.
(9) Political sign. One or more political signs that do not exceed the maximum sign area allowed for
the physical type of the sign (e.g., freestanding, wall) within the applicable zoning district.
(10) Private drive sign. A private drive sign that does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area,
limited to one such sign per entrance.
(11) Public sign. A public sign.
(12) Residence sign. A residence sign that does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area.
(13) Residential sign. One or more residential signs that are not illuminated signs and do not exceed
thirty-two (32) square feet in cumulative sign area.
(14) Special decorative display. A special decorative display used for holidays or public events, and
which is displayed for a total of sixty (60) days or less in a calendar year. Such a display shall be
removed within seven (7) days of said event.
(15) Temporary directional sign. A temporary directional sign that is erected no closer than five (5)
feet from a front lot line and does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area.
(16) Real estate sign. A real estate sign that does not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in sign area.
Such a real estate sign shall be removed from the site within seven (7) days of sal e, lease or
rental.
(17) Warning sign. A warning sign that is erected by a private landowner and does not exceed four (4)
square feet in sign area.
(18) Window sign. A permanent window sign, provided that it does not exceed twenty-five percent
(25%) of the total area of the window or door on which it is located, and the aggregate area of all
window signs on each window or door does not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total
area of the window and door; and further provided that if a permanent window sign will be on a
structure within the entrance corridor overlay district and the window sign is visible from an
entrance corridor overlay street, that the aggregate area of all window signs shall not exceed nine
(9) square feet per business and that a certificate of appropriateness for the window sign is
obtained as provided in section 4.15.15. (Amended 3-16-05)
(19) Commercial flag. A commercial flag, subject to the following: (i) not more than one (1) flag may
be flown on a lot, provided that if the lot is four (4) acres or larger, then one (1) additional flag may
be flown; (ii) the flag shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet in size; and (iii) the flag shall
be flown on a flag pole and, if two (2) flags may be flown, they may either be on the same or on
separate flag poles. (Added 3-16-05)
(20) Noncommercial flag. A noncommercial flag, subject to the following: (i) the f lag shall not exceed
twenty-four (24) square feet in size; (ii) on commercial, institutional and industrial lots, the flag
shall be displayed only on privately owned light posts and shall be installed in a manner so that it
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
remains taut and flapping and movement is minimized; and (iii) on residential and agricultural lots,
the flag shall be displayed from a mount on a dwelling unit or other permitted primary or
accessory structure, a flag pole, a mast, or suspended from a fixed structure, rope, wire, string or
cable. (Added 3-16-05)
(21) Advertising vehicle. An advertising vehicle in which none of the prohibited conditions delineated
in section 4.15.7(c)(2)(ii) or (iii) exist that is: (i) used as transportation for the business; and (ii)
parked in an approved parking space or parking area that serves the advertised business, or
temporarily parked at another business to actively receive or provide goods or services, such as
to load or unload goods, provide on-site services, receive vehicle maintenance and repair, or
obtain food for the driver and passengers. (Added 3-16-05)
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.04; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 5.1.47 Farm stands, farm sales and farmers’ markets
Each farm stand, farm sales and farmers‟ market shall be subject to the following, as applicable:
a. Zoning clearance. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, each farm stand, farm
sales use, and farmers‟ market shall obtain approval of a zoning clearance issued by the zoning
administrator as provided by section 31.5 before the use is established as provided herein:
1. Application. Each application for a zoning clearance shall include a letter or other
evidence from the Virginia Department of Transportation establishing that it has approved
the entrance from the public street to the proposed use and:
(a) Farm stands and farm sales uses. For farm stands and farm sales uses, a
sketch plan, which shall be a schematic drawing of the site with notes in a form
and of a scale approved by the zoning administrator depicting: (i) all structures
that would be used for the use; (ii) how access, on-site parking, outdoor lighting,
signage and minimum yards will be provided in compliance with this sect ion and
this chapter; and (iii) how potential adverse impacts to adjoining property will be
mitigated.
(b) Farmers’ markets. For farmers‟ markets, an approved site plan waiver as
provided in section 32.2(b).
2. Notice. The zoning administrator shall provide written notice that an application for a
zoning clearance for a farm stand, farm sales use, or by right farmers‟ market has been
submitted to the Virginia Department of Health and to the owner of each abutting lot
under different ownership than the lot on which the proposed use would be located. The
notice shall identify the proposed use and its size and location and invite the recipient to
submit any comments before the zoning clearance is acted upon. The notice shall be
mailed at least five (5) days prior to the action on the zoning clearance as provided in
section 32.4.2.5. The review by the Virginia Department of Health shall be independent
of the zoning administrator‟s review of the application for a zoning clearance and the
approval of the zoning clearance shall not be dependent on any approval by the Virginia
Department of Health. The notice requirements shall not apply to a zoning clearance
required for a farmers‟ market that has been approved by special use permit.
b. Structure size. Structures used in conjunction with a farm stand, farm sales use, and farmers‟
market shall comply with the following:
1. Farm stands. Any permanent structure established on and after May 5, 2010
(hereinafter, “new permanent structure”) used for a farm stand shall not exceed one
thousand five hundred (1500) square feet gross floor area. Any permanent structure,
regardless of its size, established prior to May 5, 2010 (hereinafter, “existing permanent
structure”) may be used for a farm stand provided t hat if the structure does not exceed
one thousand five hundred (1500) square feet gross floor area, its area may be enlarged
or expanded so that its total area does not exceed one thousand five hundred (1500)
square feet gross floor area, and further provided that if the existing structure exceeds
one thousand five hundred (1500) square feet gross floor area, it may not be enlarged or
expanded while it is used as a farm stand.
2. Farm sales. Any new permanent structure used for farm sales shall not excee d four
thousand (4000) square feet gross floor area. Any existing permanent structure,
regardless of its size, may be used for farm sales provided that if the structure does not
exceed four thousand (4000) square feet gross floor area, its area may be en larged or
expanded so that its total area does not exceed four thousand (4000) square feet gross
floor area, and further provided that if the existing structure exceeds four thousand (4000)
square feet gross floor area, it may not be enlarged or expanded while it is used as a
farm stand.
3. Farmers’ markets. Any new or existing permanent structure may be used for a farmers‟
market without limitation to its size.
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
c. Yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the following minimum front, side and
rear yard requirements shall apply to a farm stand, farm sales use, and farmers‟ market:
1. New permanent structures and temporary structures. The minimum front, side and rear
yards required for any new permanent structure or temporary st ructure shall be as
provided in the bulk and area regulations established for the applicable zoning district,
provided that the minimum front yard on an existing public road in the rural areas (RA)
zoning district shall be thirty-five (35) feet. The zoning administrator may reduce the
minimum required yard upon finding that: (i) there is no detriment to the abutting lot; (ii)
there is no harm to the public health, safety or welfare; and (iii) written consent has been
provided by the owner of the abutting lot consenting to the reduction.
2. Existing permanent structures. If an existing permanent structure does not satisfy any
minimum yard requirement under subsection 5.1.47(c)(1), the minimum yard required
shall be the distance between the existing permanent structure and the street, road,
access easement or lot line on May 5, 2010 and that distance shall not be thereafter
reduced. An enlargement or expansion of the structure shall be no closer to a street,
road, access easement or lot line than the exist ing structure.
d. Parking. Notwithstanding any provision of section 4.12, the following minimum parking
requirements shall apply to a farm stand, farm sales use, and farmers‟ market:
1. Number of spaces. Each use shall provide one (1) parking space per two hundred (200)
square feet of retail area.
2. Location. No parking space shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to any public street
right-of-way.
3. Design and improvements. In conjunction with each application for a zoning clearance,
the zoning administrator shall identify the applicable parking design and improvements
required that are at least the minimum necessary to protect the public health, safety and
welfare by providing safe ingress and egress to and from the site, safe vehicular a nd
pedestrian circulation on the site, and the control of dust as deemed appropriate in the
context of the use. The zoning administrator shall consult with the county engineer, who
shall advise the zoning administrator as to the minimum design and improve ments.
Compliance with the identified parking design and improvements shall be a condition of
approval of the zoning clearance.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 10.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the RA district, subject to the applicable requirements of
this chapter:
. . .
26. Farm sales (reference 5.1.47).
27. Farm stands (reference 5.1.47).
Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the RA district, su bject to the applicable
requirements of this chapter:
. . .
53. Farmers‟ markets (reference 5.1.47).
Sec. 11.3.1 By right uses
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the MHD:
. . .
3. Display and sale of gifts, souvenirs, crafts, food, and horticultural and agricultural products, including
outdoor storage and display of horticultural and agricultural products.
. . .
25. Farm sales (reference 5.1.47).
26. Farm stands (reference 5.1.47).
Sec. 11.3.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the MHD:
1. Farmers‟ markets (reference 5.1.47).
. . .
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Sec. 12.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted in the VR district, subject to the applicable requirements of this
chapter:
. . .
17. Farm sales (reference 5.1.47).
18. Farm stands (reference 5.1.47).
Sec. 12.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the VR district, subject to the applicable
requirements of this chapter:
. . .
18. Farmers‟ markets (reference 5.1.47).
Sec. 13.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the R -1 district, subject to the applicable
requirements of this chapter:
. . .
14. Farmers‟ markets (reference 5.1.47).
Sec. 14.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the R -2 district, subject to the applicable
requirements of this chapter:
. . .
16. Farmers‟ markets (reference 5.1.47).
Sec. 15.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted shall be permitted by special use permit in the R -4 district, subject
to the applicable requirements of this chapter:
. . .
18. Farmers‟ markets (reference 5.1.47).
Sec. 16.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the R -6 district, subject to the applicable
requirements of this chapter:
. . .
18. Farmers‟ markets (reference 5.1.47).
Sec. 17.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the R-10 district, subject to the applicable
requirements of this chapter:
. . .
20. Farmers‟ markets (reference 5.1.47).
Sec. 18.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the R -15 district, subject to the applicable
requirements of this chapter:
. . .
20. Farmers‟ markets (reference 5.1.47).
Sec. 19.3.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the PRD district, subject to the applicable
requirements of this chapter and provided that no separate application shall be required for any such use
as shall be included in the original PRD rezoning petition:
. . .
12. Farmers‟ markets (reference 5.1.47).
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Sec. 20.3.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the PUD district, subject to the applicable
requirements of this chapter and, provided that no separate application shall be required for any such use
included in the original PUD rezoning petition:
. . .
9. Farmers‟ markets (reference 5.1.47).
Sec. 20A.6 Permitted uses
The following uses shall be permitted in the NMD district, subject to the regulations in this section and
section 8, the approved application plan and code of develo pment, and the accepted proffers:
a. By right uses. The following uses are permitted by right if the use is expressly identified as a by
right use in the code of development or if the use is permitted in a determination by the zoning
administrator pursuant to subsection 8.5.5.2(c)(1):
. . .
10. Farmers‟ markets (reference 5.1.47).
Sec. 20B.2 Permitted uses
The following uses shall be permitted in the DCD, subject to the regulations in this section:
A. By right uses; retail and service. The following retail and service uses are permitted by right:
11. Farmers‟ markets (reference 5.1.47).
Sec. 22.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted in the C-1 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this
chapter. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate
officials, may permit as a use by right, a use not specifically permitted; provided that such use shall be
similar to uses permitted by right in general character and more sp ecifically, similar in terms of locational
requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the zoning
administrator‟s decision shall be as generally provided in section 34.
. . .
a. The following retail sales and service establishments:
. . .
16. Farmers‟ markets (reference 5.1.47).
b. The following services and public establishments:
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted in the CO district, subject to the applicable requirements of this
chapter:
. . .
15. Farmers‟ markets (reference 5.1.47).
Sec. 24.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted in the HC district, subject to the applicable requirements of this
chapter. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate
officials, may permit, as a use by right, a use not specifically permitted; provided that such use shall be
similar to uses permitted by right in general character, and more specifically, similar in terms of locat ional
requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the zoning
administrator‟s decision shall be as generally provided in section 34.
. . .
43. Farmers‟ markets (reference 5.1.47).
Sec. 27.2.1 By right
Except as otherwise limited by section 27.2.2.10, the following uses shall be permitted by right in the LI
district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter:
. . .
20. Farmers‟ markets that will be conducted outdoors or within a temporary or existing permanent
structure (reference 5.1.47).
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Sec. 27.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the LI district:
. . .
19. Farmers‟ markets that will be conducted in a new permanent structure (reference 5.1.47).
Sec. 28.2.1 By right
Except as otherwise limited by section 28.2.2.14, the following uses shall be permitted by right in the HI
district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter:
. . .
29. Farmers‟ markets that will be conducted outdoors or within a temporary or existing permanent
structure (reference 5.1.47).
Sec. 28.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the HI district:
. . .
18. Farmers‟ markets that will be conducted in a new permanent structure (reference 5.1.47).
Article IV. Procedure
Sec. 35 Fees
Each applicant shall pay the applicable fees established below, provided that neither the county nor the
county school board shall be required to pay any fee if it is the applicant:
a. For a special use permit:
1. Rural area division for the purpose of "family division" where all original 1980 development rights
have been exhausted under "family division" as defined under section 18-56 of the subdivision
ordinance - $220.00. (Amended effective 1-1-94)
2. Rural area divisions - $1,240.00.
3. Commercial use - $980.00.
4. Industrial use - $1,020.00.
5. Private club/recreational facility - $1,020.00.
6. Mobile home park or subdivision - $980.00.
7. Public utilities - $1,020.00.
8. Grade/fill in the flood plain - $870.00.
9. Minor amendment to valid special use permit or a special use permit to allow minor expansion of
nonconforming use -$110.00. (Amended effective 1-1-94)
10. Extending special use permits - $70.00.
11. Home Occupation-Class A - $13.00;
Home Occupation-Class B - $440.00.
12. For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9) children - $490.00. (Added 6-3-92)
13. For day care centers - ten (10) or more children - $980.00. (Added 6-3-92)
14. Farmers‟ markets without an existing commercial entrance approved by the Virginia Department
of Transportation or existing and adequate parking - $490.00.
15. Farmers‟ markets with an existing commercial entrance approved by the Virginia Department of
Transportation and existing and adequate parking - $110.00.
16. All other uses except signs - $980.00. (Amended 7-8- 92)
b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance - $840.00.
c. Amendment to the zoning map:
1. For planned developments - under 50 acres - $1,020.00.
2. For planned developments - 50 or more acres - $1,570 .00.
3. For all other zoning map amendments - under 50 acres - $1,020.00.
4. For all other zoning map amendments - 50 or more acres - $1,570.00.
5. Minor amendment to a zoning map amendment - $220.00.
d. Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit - $120.00. (Amended 7-8-92)
2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning administrator's
decision) - $120.00, to be refunded if the decision of the zoning administrator is overturned.
e. Preliminary site development plan:
1. Residential - $1,190.00, plus $13.00/unit.
2. Non-residential - $1,580.00, plus $13.00/1000 square feet.
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
f. Final site development plan:
1. Approved administratively - $410.00.
2. If reviewed by the commission before approval of preliminary site development plan - $1,130.00.
3. If reviewed by the commission after approval of the preliminary site development plan - $790.00.
4. For site development plan waiver - $270.00.
5. For site development plan amendment:
a) Minor - alterations to parking, circulation, building size, location - $95.00.
b) Major - commission review - $270.00.
6. Review of site development plan by the architectural review board - $200.00.
7. Appeal of site development plan to the board of super visors - $240.00.
8. Rehearing of site development plan by commission or board of supervisors - $190.00.
9. Rejection by agent of incomplete site development plan:
a) Rejected within ten days - $200.00.
b) Suspended after site plan review - site plan fee shall not be refunded. $65.00 fee shall be
required to reinstate project.
g. For relief from a condition of approval from commission or landscape waiver by agent - $180.00.
h. Change in road or development name after submittal of site development plan:
1. Road - $20.00.
2. Development - $25.00.
i. Extending approval of site development plan - $45.00.
j. Granting request to defer action on site development plan, special use permit or zoning map
amendment:
1. To a specific date - $35.00.
2. Indefinitely - $75.00.
k. Bond inspection for site development plan, for each inspection after the first bond estimate - $60.00.
l. Zoning clearance - $35.00.
m. Accessory lodging permits - $35.00.
n. Official Letters:
1. Of determination - $75.00.
2. Of compliance with county ordinances- $75.00.
3. Stating number of development rights - $40.00.
o. Sign Permits:
1. Any sign, except exempted signs and signs requiring review by the architectural review board -
$35.00.
2. Signs required to be reviewed by the architectural review board - $75.00.
p. Tier II personal wireless service facility - $790.00. (Added 10-13-04)
q. Review of groundwater assessment information required by sections 31.2.2 or 32.5.7:
1. Tier 1 assessment under Albemarle County Code § 17-401 - $50.00.
2. Tier 3 assessment under Albemarle County Code § 17-403 - $400.00 plus $25.00 per lot.
3. Tier 4 assessment under Albemarle County Code § 17-404 - $1,000.00.
In addition to the foregoing, the actual costs of any notice required under Chapter 22, Title 15.2 of
the Code shall be charged to the applicant, to the extent that the same shall exceed the applicable fee set
forth in this section. The fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the “County of
Albemarle.” An application presented without the required fee shall not be deem ed to be submitted and
shall not be processed. If the zoning administrator determines after a fee has been paid that the review
and approval to which the fee pertains is not required to establish the use or structure, the fee shall be
refunded to the applicant in full. For any application withdrawn after public notice has been given, no part
of the fee will be refunded.
______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Work Sessions: Places 29, David Benish.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, said that this work session is a continuation of discussions
regarding the Places29 Master Plan. This is one of the County‟s five master plans, covers the develop-
ment areas and covers the Route 29 North corridor. The focus of this work session is to respond to
questions, requests for information that Board members may have. He said that Mr. Stephen Williams,
Executive Director of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) and of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO, will be presenting traffic modeling for
Berkmar Drive. Mr. Benish indicated that he would be reviewing the Board‟s requested information
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
regarding other matters – primarily the expansion areas and future projects as outlined in the master plan.
He said that Ms. Lee Catlin would provide an overview of the remaining public participation processes, as
well as the future role of the citizen advisory committees. Mr. Benish stated that staff hopes to receive
direction as to any needed modifications to the draft plan prior to public hearing, any additional
information/work sessions needed prior to the public meetings/hearing, accept/advise on final public input
steps, and provide any initial comments on role of citizen advisory councils . Mr. Benish said, at this time,
Mr. Williams will review the Berkmar Drive traffic analysis. This analysis should respond to the value of
Berkmar Drive, the amount of traffic it would carry and implications of the potential expansion areas to the
roadway network.
Mr. Williams said that he would be presenting an analysis done for the MPO Policy Board in
response to their request late last year. He said that he would be addressing the existing traffic
conditions in the Route 29 North corridor, primarily north of Rio Road, as well as anticipated future
conditions in 2035 – which is modeling 10 years beyond the original Places29 model. Mr. Williams stated
that he would also be presenting a number of alternatives related to future roadway scenarios and socio -
economic development such as new units and retail uses that represent the possible inclusion of growth
area expansion in that area. Mr. Williams said he would also be summarizing the findings from all of that
study.
Mr. Williams pointed out on a map the area that Places29 encompasses, stating that they have
been modeling the entire MPO region – which extends to the Greene County line to the north, Fluvanna
County line to the east, halfway between Ivy and Crozet to the west, and some distance south of I -64 to
the south. He said that the entire area is being called the “study area,” because it includes all roadway
improvements being considered as well as the area proposed for growth area expansion. Mr. Williams
stated that they are specifically focusing on an extension of Berkmar Drive from its existing endpoint just
south of the South Fork of the Rivanna River all the way up to Airport Drive, and a connection to
Technology Drive up all the way to Lewis & Clark. He added that they will also be looking at other
transportation improvements in this area – including those proposed on US 29 and other improvements
proposed as part of Places29.
In terms of existing traffic conditions, Mr. Williams said that much of US 29 – particularly from Rio
Mills Road up to Airport Road – has a failing LOS or “F”; from Lewis and Clark Drive down to Airport
Drive, there is LOS “E” – meaning that it isn‟t quite failing yet; from Rio Mills Road down to Rio Road,
there is LOS “D” – meaning stable traffic flow. Mr. Williams noted that Berkmar Drive has a low level of
traffic as it exists today, and has been identified in traffic studies done in that area as having LOS “A.” He
mentioned that Dickerson Road has LOS “C” north of Airport Road, and LOS “D” from Airport Road to
Earlysville Road; Earlysville Road is shown as being LOS “D” from its intersection with Dickerson Road
down to its intersection Rio Road and Hydraulic Road. Mr. Williams added that all the connecting roads
in this area – Lewis and Clark Drive, Airport Road, Hilton Heights Road and Rio Road - have a LOS “A” at
this point in time.
Mr. Boyd asked if the LOS “F” was all the time, or just during certain times of the day. Mr.
Williams responded that it is only certain times of the day at this point – where it would be a low LOS “F.”
The range of LOS “F” is very broad in that they go from stop and go traffic during morning and afternoon
peak hours and none the rest of the time up to it‟s a daily parking lot all the time.
Mr. Boyd commented that the levels are not weighted based on the fact that it is only four hours a
day that the serve is at level “F”. Mr. Williams agreed, adding that there is a measure of v/c and delay.
“V/C” is volume to capacity ratio which is an indication of how much traffic is being pushed down the road
compared with capacity. He said that a v/c of 1 is “at capacity,” and that is the lower boundary of LOS
“F.” As it goes higher – 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 – you start having very bad conditions for a large part of the day.
Mr. Snow asked Mr. Williams to define “A” and “C” levels of service. Mr. Williams replied that “A”
is unimpeded traffic flow, where you have the road to yourself. It is like the conditions you get in a rural
area or in the middle of the night. The LOS “B” means that there is other traffic on the road but the travel
is still unimpeded; “C” means that there is more traffic on the road, but a driver can still progress at the
speed limit and can still pass or turn; “D” means a driver is moving at the speed limit but is limited in
maneuverability; “E” is when the roadway performs under the posted speed.
Mr. Rooker said it would be better to have a numerical rating as opposed to the letter rating. He
commented that it‟s not a very precise wa y to measure traffic. The volume to capacity ratios are actually
more helpful in determining how much additional traffic a road can handle.
Mr. Thomas asked about the status of the stretch between Greenbrier and the Route 250/29
Bypass.
Mr. Rooker explained that that is the top priority project, which will include a right-hand turn lane
all the way down from the Waffle House past Albemarle Place – which is providing an additional left-hand
turn lane onto Hydraulic Road and will widen the whole road and intersection. He thinks the money is
currently available; preliminary engineering work is being done.
Mr. Williams added that he did not have the figures for that stretch of roadway.
Mr. Rooker also said that the synchronization on the lights on Route 29 with the City section has
finally been worked out, from Hydraulic Road to Route 250 Bypass. Ms. Mallek noted that it‟s made a
huge difference in improved traffic flow.
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Mr. Williams explained that with future conditions, they are using the traffic network as it exists
today for 2035 – with the only significant capacity improvements being the Meadow Creek Parkway, the
McIntire Extension, and the Interchange. He added that they are also considering in the model in three of
the scenarios, the potential of a South Hollymead expansion. Mr. Williams said that he‟s been working
with Community Development staff to identify the level of development they would expect in that area in
2035; their anticipation was for about one-third of the build-out in that area – including some Neighbor-
hood Service Center, some Urban Mixed Use, and some Neighborhood Density Residential. He stated
that the combination of uses will generate new population of about 580 additional people, about 593
additional employees – totaling 6,041 personal trips per day.
In terms of future conditions related to potential improvements to the roadway net, Mr. Williams
said that they considered the possibility of an expansion of US 29 from Rio Mills Road north to US 33 in
Greene County to six lanes; the extension of Berkmar Drive from its current endpoint all the way up to
Airport Road and connecting to Technology Drive as a four -line, minor arterial including a new bridge
across the South Fork of the Rivanna River; the addition of a connecting road that would run from Route
29 to Berkmar and over to Earlysville or Dickerson Road; grade separations on US 29; and a new traffic
signal at Northside Drive.
Mr. Williams said that with all of the different combinations, the Places29 study group ended up
with six possible alternatives: 1) the “no build” alternative, which is simply no improvements to the
roadway network beyond that which would be expected by 2035 and no addition of expansion a rea; 2)
“Build 1,” which includes just the 2035 network and a six-lane widened Route 29 from Rio Mills Road
north; 3) “Build 2” - the 2035 network, the six-laning of Route 29 and the Berkmar Drive extension from
the current endpoint up to Lewis and Clark Drive and the Places29 new road; 4) “Build 3” - the 2035
network which only considered a four-lane Route 29, the Berkmar Drive extension and the Places29 new
road if the Department of Transportation does not improve Route 29 to six lanes within the time period.
Ms. Mallek asked about the possible placement of the Places29 “new road.” Mr. Benish
responded that it is a road concept that would most likely be at the Hollymead Drive entrance over to an
area south of the traffic circle on Earlysville Drive. He said that the idea was it would connect near Rio
Mills Road or on Roosevelt Drive below the traffic circle creating another large block through that area.
Mr. Thomas commented that that road would go through the Mooney property. Mr. Benish said
that it is in the general area.
Mr. Thomas asked if VDOT has proposed the road all the way to US33, and asked if Greene
County was aware of this plan. Mr. Williams explained that VDOT‟s long-range transportation plan
includes the six-lane improvement, and Greene County is aware of it and is incorporating it into their
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Boyd asked what the 2035 network “check” means. Mr. Williams said they are using the
2035 network as the base for all these different models.
Mr. Boyd asked where the grade-separated interchanges are included. Mr. Williams responded
that the ones from Rio Road North are included; the ones south of Rio Road are not included here
because they wanted to have as a comparison the items that are considered “assured,” which is a pretty
limited collection of transportation improvements. He mentioned that the Hydraulic Road separation
doesn‟t fall into that category, and isn‟t even in the MPO‟s long-range transportation plan at this point. Mr.
Williams said that it doesn‟t have much of an impact on this traffic anyway; Greenbrier has also been
considered but is not in MPO‟s long-range transportation plan. He said that one factor is potential
siphoning off for Meadow Creek, but very little of what happens north of Rio Road affects what happens
south of it in the model, and the same is true in the other direction.
Mr. Boyd asked if the interchanges at Hydraulic Road and Greenbrier Drive are now off the table.
Mr. Williams replied that they are not necessarily off the table, they are simply not in the „fiscally
constrained‟ long-range transportation plan, meaning basically, they do not have enough money.
Mr. Boyd asked if the m oney might be available for Rio, Airport and Ashland. Mr. Williams
responded that Rio and the others were included because they were being studied for their traffic impact.
Mr. Thomas asked if the grade separations would include a full blown freeway or just skirt along
the Route 29 properties. Mr. Williams said they do not get into design details for this kind of modeling
study; they just look at traffic flows.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that for Places29, there was a preliminary design done for an interchange
– and it was a tight interchange to minimize impacts on surrounding properties. He also stated that
Greenbrier was taken out a long time ago, noting that there are only three roads between Hydraulic and
Airport Road that continue going east-west after they cross Route 29. Mr. Rooker said that there was
once a plan to connect Greenbrier with the Meadow Creek Parkway, but that did not go forward so
Hydraulic is really the only east-west connector, along with Rio, and then Airport Road. He added that
there was some thought that, with the building of the Meadow Creek Parkway, there would be a lot of
pressure on the Rio Road/Route 29 intersection because a lot of people would cut across and go
Downtown.
Mr. Benish said that the interchange at Hydraulic Road has always been considered a long-term
improvement; the at-grade improvements and the parallel road have always been the shorter term so
what was recommended in the Hydraulic/H250 study and incorporated into their Plan.
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Mr. Rooker noted that the “fiscally constrained” plan could not include any additional
improvements, and it was decided that Rio would go in. They could not have included both roads.
Mr. Williams continued with his presentation and said that the next alternative 5) “Build 4”
includes all proposed improvements, including the South Hollymead expansion, but does not include the
bridge over the South Fork Rivanna; and 6) “Build 5” which includes all improves including South
Hollymead expansion area.
Mr. Williams then presented information from an earlier discussion about the standard
measurements of traffic – the six levels of service from A to F. He mentioned that “ADT” is average daily
traffic on a 24-hour weekday roadway; “V/C” is volume to capacity as previously mentioned; and “delay” is
the average travel time on a road measured in minutes.
Mr. Williams showed some schematic diagrams of traffic volumes for all the different alternatives
considered – the first three did not include the South Hollymead expansion. The first model – the “no
build” plan includes 2035 population and employment projections plus the existing roadway network, with
a four-lane US 29. He noted that when the roadway becomes as congested as the stretch of Route 29
from Rio Road up to Airport Road and beyond, people try to find alternative routes – which creates
“diversion traffic” using Earlysville Road, Dickerson Road, Proffit Road, and even Rae‟s Ford Road. Mr.
Williams said that the heavily congested traffic condition is extending quite a distance out from the US 29
Corridor, and as a result there are sections of the alternative routes that begin to operate a t LOS “F.” He
reported that the total volume of traffic that is going across the “cut line” is about 117,500 vehicles per
day.
Mr. Williams reported that the second alternative they considered was just the US 29 six -lane
widening, and just widening it in that area increases the volume from 72,000 up to about 85,000 – which
allows the traffic on Rae‟s Ford Road and Proffit Road to drop down to the point they‟re providing
adequate levels of service. The section of Dickerson Road that runs from Airport Road down to
Earlysville Road is still at LOS “F,” and then Earlysville Road, itself, is at LOS “E.”
He stated that the third alternative considered was the six-lane widening, the Berkmar Extension
with the bridge, and the Places29 new connector road. Berkmar Drive Extended from Rio Road to
Hollymead Town Center would run at a LOS “C,” and in the immediate area around the Town Center
would operate at a LOS “B” with areas north of that section running at LOS “A.” Mr. Williams said that US
29 from Airport Road down to Rio Mills is still running at LOS “F,” but the volume is reduced considerably
from the “no build” or “build one” models. He noted that this represent s a traffic condition which is very
close to what we have today, a low LOS “F.” He added that the connecting road is showing a good LOS
and moderate volume; Earlysville Road also drops down to a LOS “D,” so is actually operating at about
the same traffic levels as it is today. Mr. Williams said that the only section that is functioning really well is
the section of Dickerson Road from Airport Road down to Earlysville Road. Mr. Williams noted that the
same volume is crossing the cut-line, but because of the addition of Berkmar Extended and the six -lane
29, most of that traffic is being served there.
Mr. Williams noted that those are the three scenarios the group considered that do not include the
South Hollymead expansion area.
Mr. Rooker commented that the traffic on the one-mile stretch of Dickerson Road is similar to the
traffic on Georgetown Road today. The traffic moves pretty well.
Mr. Boyd asked if the traffic on Georgetown Road would go away if there was a western bypass.
Mr. Rooker commented that it may or may not, depending on where it starts.
Mr. Williams then discussed the three scenarios that do include the South Hollymead Expansion,
noting that across the cut line in the previous alternatives there were about 117,500 trips – and there
would be about 119,700-120,000 with the expansion.
Mr. Williams explained that the first alternative includes the Berkmar Extension with the bridge,
includes the Places29 new road and the South Hollymead expansion, but only looks at US 29 as a four -
lane facility in this example. He indicated that there would be about 30,000-35,000 on Berkmar, which
would make it a LOS “E” because it is proposed as a four-lane facility. Mr. Williams stated that US 29 is
running at LOS “F,” but this is a declining LOS so there is lots of delay and a high v/c ratio. When we
have Berkmar, but only have a four-lane Route 29, both of them operate but not as well as they could.
He added that there is still a LOS “E” on Earlysville Road; Dickerson Road is still at a fairly high level of
traffic.
He said that the “build four” alternative includes a six-lane US 29, the Berkmar Drive Extension,
but not the bridge. Mr. Williams stated that in this alternative, there would be about 76,000 vehicle trips
per day on US 29 – which is consistent with what is there today – and there are about 15,000 vehicles per
day on Berkmar from Rio Mills north through Hollymead Town Center up to Airport Road. He added that
there would still be a LOS “E” on Earlysville Road and LOS “F” on Dickerson Road.
Mr. Williams reported that the last alternative considered was the full build of all proposed
improvements – six-lane US 29, full Berkmar Extension from Rio all the way up, the new road and the
South Hollymead expansion. He said that they ended up with about 73,000 vehicles per day on this
section of Route 29 – still with a LOS “F,” but better flow than what is there today and LOS “C” on
Berkmar Drive and LOS “D” on Earlysville Road.
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
He then presented information on different roadway sections, with US 29 broken into segments
with the number of lanes, average daily volume, level of service, the estimated travel time, and the v/c to
C ratios. Mr. Williams reported that under today‟s conditions, it takes about 7.1 minutes on average to
travel from Rio Road to Lewis and Clark Drive on US 29 in average conditions. In the “no build” they are
looking at that m ore than doubling in terms of travel time between Rio Road and Lewis and Clark Drive
that are due to the high levels of congestion. In the “Build 1” (US 29 6-lane widening) they get much
higher volumes, the v/c go down, although they are relatively high for this area, and the travel time is at
about 8.6 minutes. In “Build 2” (US 29 6-lane widening, Berkmar Extension w/bridge, Places29 new road)
the travel time is below what it is today at 7, from 7.1, with good v/c ratios. In “Build 3” (US 29 4-lane
widening, Berkmar Extension w/bridge, Places29 new road, South Hollymead Expansion) traffic is higher
on Route 29, but all else is similar to “Build 2”. “Build 4” (US 29 6-lane widening, Berkmar Extension
w/out bridge, Places29 new road) has good v/c ratios and reasonable travel time. “Build 5” (US 29 6-lane
widening, Berkmar Extension w/bridge, Places29 new road, South Hollymead Extension) provides the
best travel time and levels of service.
Mr. Williams noted that on Berkmar, in just about all cases, there is a good level of service, good
v/c ratio, and very little indication of congestion – except for “Build 3” where Berkmar is extended all the
way up but US 29 is not widened. He also indicated that it seems that the widening actually improves
the traffic flow more than the bridge does. W ith Dickerson Road from Airport up to Lewis and Clark
except for “no build” all of the other alternatives are providing a LOS “B,” and the section from Airport
Road to Earlysville Road is problematic in all cases – but it particularly fails if there are no improvements
on US 29 due to the high level of traffic that‟s diverting off of Route 29 to try to get out to Earlysville Road,
Rae‟s Ford Road, etc. Mr. Williams said that with Earlysville Road, it‟s the sam e – without widening of
Route 29, that road will have a poor LOS; in the other build conditions it‟s generally varying from a LOS
“E” to a LOS “D,” which is what the current level is. He reported that all of the connecting roads in
general are operating well with the one exception of the very short segment of Airport Road from Route
29 to Berkmar Drive, as it is failing in most of these alternatives or at LOS “E” because of the large
volume of traffic that the model has turning onto Route 29.
Mr. Williams then summarized their findings.
2035 future traffic conditions (no build)
1) In 2007, on US 29 between Ashwood Boulevard and Rio Mills Road the total volume of
traffic is 52,430 average daily trips with an average total travel time on US 29 between
Rio Rd and Lewis and Clark Drive of 7.1 minutes.
2) In 2035, due to growth in the region, if no improvement are made to US 29, total volume
of traffic on US 29 between Ashwood Boulevard and Rio Mills Road will increase to
72,892 (+39%) and average travel time on US 29 between Rio Road and Lewis & Clark
Drive will be 14.5 minutes.
3) In 2035, if no improvements are made to US 29 the roadway will be heavily congested
with a traffic volume to capacity ratio between Ashwood Boulevard and Rio Mills Rd of
1.60, a v/c ratio of 1.43 between Ashwood Boulevard and Hollymead Dr and a v/c ratio
of 1.42 between Hollymead Drive and Airport Road.
4) This will result in continuous stop and go traffic every day. The heavy congestion on US
29 will result in high volumes of traffic diverting to avoid US 29. This will lead to heavy
traffic and congestion on Dickerson Road and Earlysville Road and to a lesser extent on
Rae‟s Ford Road and Proffit Road.
2035 roadway improvement scenarios
1) Widen US 29 to 6 lanes (Build 1) – Widening US 29 to 6 lanes will allow additional traffic
to use US 29. Traffic volume on US 29 between Ashwood Boulevard and Rio Mills Road
will be 88,046 ADT. Travel time between Rio Road and Lewis & Clark Drive will average
8.6 minutes, about 1.5 minutes higher than 2007 but about 6 minutes less than travel
time without any improvement on US 29. This will eliminate diversion traffic onto Rae‟s
Ford Road and Proffit Road. However, Dickerson Road and Earlysville Road will continue
to experience diverted traffic and will still have traffic in excess of capacity and high levels
of congestion.
2) Widen US 29 to 6 lanes and extend Berkmar Drive (Build 2) – This scenario completely
mitigates the impact of new growth in the MPO area and results in travel time on US 29
between Rio Road and Lewis & Clark Drive of 7.0 minutes, slightly less than the 2007
travel time. In this scenario traffic volume on US 29 between Ashwood Boulevard and Rio
Mills Road will be 72,982 ADT. On Berkmar Drive extended between Ashwood Boulevard
and Rio Mills Road traffic volume will be 20,198 ADT. On Berkmar Drive extended the
motorist will experience LOS C between Ashwood Boulevard and Rio Mills Road, LOS B
between Hollymead Drive and Ashwood Boulevard, and LOS A between Airport Road
and Hollymead Drive. The motorist will experience LOS D on Earlysville Road with traffic
volumes of 12,000 to 13,000 ADT. Dickerson Road between Airport Road and Earlysville
Road will remain at LOS F.
Impact of South Hollymead Expansion area
1) The South Hollymead Expansion Area will result in 6,041 additional trips in 2035.
2) Berkmar Drive Extension and 4 lane US 29 with Expansion Area (Build 3) – If the
expansion area is added with the Berkmar Drive extension and 4 lane US 29, there will
be several impacts. Traffic on US 29 will be somewhat worse than 2007 conditions with
traffic volume on US 29 between Ashwood Boulevard and Rio Mills Road of 57,049 ADT
and travel time between Rio Road and Lewis & Clark Drive of 8.5 minutes. Traffic on
Berkmar Drive south of Hollymead Drive will be at LOS E with 35,324 ADT between
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
Ashwood Boulevard and Rio Mills Road, and 31,862 between Hollymead Drive and
Ashwood Boulevard. In this scenario, traffic on Dickerson Road will be a LOS E/F and
Earlysville Road will be at LOS E.
3) Berkmar Drive Extension without bridge over S. Rivanna River and 6 lane US 29 with
Expansion Area (Build 4) – In this scenario Berkmar Drive extension provides access to
new land uses, but since there is no bridge across the South Rivanna River, it does not
serve through traffic and US 29 functions similarly to the scenario in which US 29 was
widened to 6 lanes without Berkmar Drive extension. Travel time on US 29 between Rio
Road and Lewis & Clark Drive is 7.6 minutes and traffic on US 29 between Ashwood
Boulevard and Rio Mills Road is 76,776. Berkmar Drive extension provides LOS A/B with
a peak volume of 15,660 ADT between Ashwood Boulevard and Rio Mills Road.
4) Berkmar Drive Extension with 6 lane US 29 and the South Hollymead Expansion Area
(Build 5) – This alternative provides almost identical levels of service on both US 29 and
also Berkmar Drive as the Build 2 scenario. In this scenario, US 29 provides the same
level of service and travel time as the motorist experiences today. Berkmar Drive
functions at acceptable level of service (LOS A, B or C) for its entire length.
Mr. Williams concluded by stating that in all future scenarios Dickerson Road is at LOS “F”
between Airport Road and Earlysville Road and may require future study.
Mr. Boyd asked if any attempt was made to assign costs estimates to the alternatives and how
much the model had used variables of different types of communities along Route 29. Mr. Williams
responded that the group didn‟t get into the cost estimating, although staff has, and VDOT has an
estimate to widen US 29 to six lanes. That information can be included in the final report.
Mr. Rooker said that under all these scenarios, if you do not include cost estimates, you‟ve got a
problem. Mr. Williams agreed.
Mr. Williams stated that they took the land use assumptions that staff provided in terms of the
development, which mimics what is in Places29. He said that one of the features in the land use policies
is establishment of density sufficient to support transit and encourage bike and pedestrian use . The
model accounts for those increased uses of these alternate modes and subtracts trips out to mimic the
increased use of transit, bikes and pedestrians in the area. Also, they did not change the land uses
between the scenarios with the exception of the addition of the South Hollymead Expansion area.
Mr. Boyd commented that he is looking for the “best bang for the buck” with the options the
County has, and what might be expected through rezonings and proffers. He added that transit is
important, but it does add cost. For example, he does not know if it is cost justified or desirous if it cost
$10.0 million per year to add the necessary transit capabilities, to save $10.0 million for an additional
lane.
Mr. Williams said that if the Board wants TJPDC to model different land use alternatives, they
have software that can perform all kinds of variables. They chose not to do that because they wanted to
give the Board a straightforward comparison with just two land use alternatives. If the Board will give staff
directions, TJPDC can work with them.
Mr. Benish stated that this model is based on what is proposed in Places29, and the scenarios
that were run were with the expansion areas as were looked at with the Commission.
Mr. Rooker said that there are many variables that are already locked in, because the projects
have been approved or the rezonings have taken place. He stated that from a land use standpoint, the
question has been the impact of a possible expansion of the area south of Hollymead Town Center and
north of the River. Mr. Rooker emphasized that under any of the land use scenarios, completing the
widening of the “hourglass” area near Forest Lakes is the most important improvement, including from a
safety standpoint; the vertical alignment would also be corrected in that process.
Mr. Boyd commented that there may be monies proffered through development of the section in
between the developments to help allow for the widening of Route 29.
Mr. Thomas asked if the citizens groups are still active. Mr. Cilimberg responded that they have
not had a meeting for a while, but plans will be discussed in the meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that within the scenarios presented, there was information as to traffic
impacts with and without the expansion of the area between the River and Hollymead Town Center. If
the Board wants traffic analysis run on any of the other scenarios, staff needs to know. Staff also needs
to know if the Board is looking at increments of developm ent, partial development.
Mr. Rooker said that if an area continues to grow and is approved in that location, it is likely to
build out over the 25-year period being considered.
Mr. Benish clarified that the commercial aspect is built out in the models , but the residential
aspect was assumed as one-third of the growth because of the available capacities within the existing
development areas.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff talked to the landowners about their vision of what they would like to see
happen, and what that would mean in the long run. Mr. Benish said the proposed land uses are based
closely on what was submitted by the applicant at the beginning of the Master Plan process. The area
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
was changed a little bit. He said that the format is considered to be a large-format/big box retailer and
mixed use, and that is what is provided in the expansion area.
Mr. Boyd asked if that is what the Places29 land use calls for. Mr. Benish noted that the Planning
Commission did not recommend those expansions, but took them to the public – and staff had provided a
scenario with those land uses. As part of his presentation, he will summarize the scenarios and ask for
direction from the Board. Mr. Cilimberg added that the traffic model is what was presented to the
Commission as the land use if they decided to incorporate that expansion area. It is what the staff would
recommend if the Board decided to incorporate the expansion area.
Ms. Mallek asked if this would have significantly different traffic implications if it were more of an
employment area as opposed to commercial. Mr. Cilimberg responded that it would depend on how it is
done. Mr. Benish said it would also depend on the d ensity. He added that employment tends to be less
of a traffic generator than retail, but then it also depends on the type of employer.
Mr. Cilimberg added that there is a great percentage of the projection for 2035 that is essentially
reflecting zonings that have been approved, even going back to the first UREF rezoning – which was an
amendment to the Comp Plan at the time. There is a great amount of acreage up in that area that got
modeled in this traffic modeling that is reflecting some pretty large-scale rezonings that have been done
over the last 20 years.
Mr. Benish said the following memo responds to questions from the Board‟s January 13, 2010
work session:
“The Board requested information regarding a number issues related to the proposed expansion
areas and recommended transportation improvements in the US 29 corridor. Staff has organized the
information and responses into the following list of questions:
1. Traffic information for Berkmar Drive Extended/Traffic Impact of the Proposed Expansion
Area to the Road Network:
A. How much traffic would Berkmar Drive Extended take off of US 29?
B. The traffic impacts of the proposed Expansion Area south of Hollymead, based on
the uses proposed. What would be the net gain in capacity? Asked for a map of the
area showing distances between roads, the length of Berkmar Drive Extended, the
parcels involved, the land use designation in the current Comp Plan, the same in
Places29. What will the impact be of changing these designations?
Information to answer these three questions will be provided by Steve Williams, Executive
Director of the TJPDC, during a presentation at the work session. A copy of his PowerPoint
presentation is attached for your reference (Attachment A-on file).
Mr. Williams can also provide information on the newer transportation model that the PDC is now
using; how it is different from the one used in the US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study.
2. When are traffic studies required for development proposals, how much do they cost, and
who pays for them when they relate to a Comp Plan Amendment.
The County and VDOT typically require traffic impact analyses (studies) with rezoning and special
use permit applications and with major site plan and subdivision plats. Recent state legislation
requires an analysis based on a certain threshold of activity. From the VDOT website (Revised
Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations, Administrative Guidelines (July 2008)):
Chapter 527, 2006 Acts of Assembly added §15.2-2222.1 to the Code of Virginia … to require
localities to submit rezoning, site plan, and subdivision plat proposals along with traffic impact analysis
studies to VDOT if these proposals can be expected to substantially affect transportation on state-
controlled highways (“state highway”). VDOT will provide the locality with advisory comments and
recommendations concerning the traffic impact of the development. (Note: “substantial” impact is
defined in the code as a change that would generate 5,000 vehicle trips/day on a state controlled
highway)
This new Code section also instructs localities to submit any new comprehensive plan or plan
amendment to VDOT if it will lead to substantial impacts or changes to the existing transportation
network. The intent is to improve the coordination between local planning for future growth and
planning for the improvements to the existing transportation network to serve such growth. The new
Code does not require an impact analysis/study for Comprehensive Plan amendments submitted to
VDOT.
For rezonings, special use permits, site plans, and subdivision plats, the applicant is typically
responsible for undertaking and paying for traffic studies. The cost of a study will vary sig nificantly
depending on the scope of the study, which is based on circumstances related to the type, size,
and location of the development proposal and the existing transportation network. The scope of
the traffic study is ultimately decided by VDOT. If a comprehensive plan amendment originated
with the County, then the County would be responsible for submitting the necessary information
to VDOT as deemed necessary and consistent with the Code. However, if the comprehensive
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
plan amendment accompanies an application for a rezoning, then the applicant would be
expected to submit the necessary information to VDOT, as deemed necessary.
3. What information on traffic impacts and improvements can be obtained from the Route 29
Corridor Study? What is the status of the Route 29 North Corridor Study and how might its
findings impact Places29 recommendations?
The Route 29 Corridor Study process relied on existing traffic studies and plans already
developed by communities along the corridor. Therefore, the Route 29 Corridor Study utilized the
land use and transportation network analysis undertaken by the County, VDOT, and the MPO as
part of the Places29 process. That Corridor Study generally acknowledged the recommended
transportation improvements in the Places29 Master Plan for this portion of US 29. The Route 29
Corridor Study consultant and VDOT initially considered an additional parallel road concept (from
Leonard Sandridge Drive to Hydraulic Road) and an alternative design concept for the
US29/US250 Bypass interc hange improvements (different from the one identified in the 29H250
Study and Places29). However, based on public and community input, those two improvements
were not recommended in the final draft of the Route 29 Corridor Study presented to VDOT.
The CTB has generally accepted the corridor-wide strategies recommended in the Route 29
Corridor Study but, as noted in their resolution (Attachment B), directed VDOT and its consultant
to undertake additional work to review specific recommendations for improvements to the
corridor, including:
A prioritized list of intersections to be replaced by grade-separated intersections
A plan to improve mobility and accessibility north of the Charlottesville, evaluating various
alternatives, and not limited to prior proposals
A plan to improve mobility and accessibility in the Gainesville, Haymarket, and Buckland
region, and not limited to prior proposals
A plan to limit the number of traffic control signals in the Route 29 Corridor
The consultant for VDOT‟s Route 29 Corridor Study is now revising the first version of the study.
Completion of this work in anticipated in the late spring/summer timeframe.
4. Provide more details on the 29H250 studies—recommendations and status.
The 29H250 Study was developed in two phases, both conducted by the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission (TJPDC), with support from City, County, and VDOT staff, and the
same consultant team that worked on the Places29 Master Plan. Phase 1, the 29H250
Intersections Study, was completed in 2003. Phase 2 expanded the Phase 1 study area
northward to include the Greenbrier/US 29 intersection and westward to Barracks Road and the
US 29/250 Bypass interchange. The second phase, completed in 2004, included the
development of design concepts for an overpass at US 29 and Hydraulic Road, along with urban
design concepts for land uses in the area between US 29, Hydraulic Road, and the 250 Bypass.
The Study recommended a series of improvements for this area and those recommendations
have been included in the Places29 Master Plan. The studies involved significant public
participation at several workshops. An executive summary of the Phase 2 study is included in
Attachment C.
Key recommendations of the study and their status are noted below:
Improving the US29/US250 Bypass interchange by adding a lane to the US 29
southbound lanes, by adding a lane to the onramp, and by adding an auxiliary lane on
the Bypass to the Barracks Road interchange.
US29 south of Hydraulic Road would consist of an eight-lane section, providing an
additional south bound lane to the US29/250 Bypass interchange
STATUS: Currently in the plan development stage by the City/VDOT. Currently $4.7 million in
City and State funds (including Revenue Sharing funds), and private sector funding from the
Albemarle Place proffers is allocated to this project. Additional federal earmark funding has been
requested by the City with support from the County. Completion of the project is intended to
coincide with the opening of Albemarle Place.
Increase parallel roadway capacity by constructing Hillsdale Drive from Greenbrier Drive
to Hydraulic Road, and by extending Hillsdale further south from Hydraulic Road to
Holiday Drive.
STATUS: This project, almost all of it located in the City, is under design by the City and VDOT.
The road is being incorporated into recent development projects (the new Whole Foods site north
of Hydraulic Road). It is anticipated that a significant portion of the cost of the project (right of
way) will be provided by the development community.
US29/Hydraulic Road interchange. A grade separation of this interchange is necessary to
meet the long-term traffic projections. An urban interchange configuration is
recommended.
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
STATUS: The developer of Albemarle Place has completed an analysis to determine the right of
way necessary on the site (the northwest quadrant of the intersection) to accommodate an urban
interchange. The County has now approved an official map identifying the necessary right of way
in the northwest quadrant of the intersection. No other work has been undertaken to date on this
project. This is considered a long-term project. Emphasis is placed on first adding additional lanes
to US 29 in the City, making improvements to the 250 Bypass interchange ramps, extending
Hillsdale Drive, making other inter-parcel connections, and making access management
improvements in the immediate area.
5. Provide more information on pedestrian crossings for US 29. How the grade-separations
would incorporate pedestrians, bicycles, and transit along with vehicles. The UVa student
study of pedestrian crossings.
The Master Plan now includes an example of a pedestrian/bicycle overpass connecting the
Fashion Square Mall with the Shopper‟s World area. A photosimulation of the potential overpass
is shown in Figure 4.1 (page 4-15) and a concept plan of the overpass is shown in Figure 4.2
(page 4-16). The “List of Implementation Projects” in Chapter 8 identifies US 29 pedestrian
crossovers/crossings as a Transit/ Pedestrian/ Bicycle implementation project (Project Reference
No. 29, page 3 of the list). The intent is to evaluate interim at-grade crossing improvements and
long-term grade-separated improvements.
Each of the recommended grade-separated intersections would include pedestrian
paths/sidewalks and accommodate bicycles and transit. In some cases, a transit stop might be
incorporated into the grade separation. More precise information about the specific way that each
mode would be handled will be available when each grade separation is designed.
Staff and VDOT both have copies of the University of Virginia student study of pedestrian
crossings. The students recommended certain locations and designs for at-grade crossings. As
road improvements are made, these crossings could be incorporated if VDOT determines that the
location is appropriate. However, based on initial and preliminary conversations with VDOT staff,
there is significant concern with establishing any at-grade crossings along US 29 due to the
significant traffic volumes, speeds, and the number of turning movements along US 29. Installing
pedestrian crossings at signalized intersections could cause a significant negative impact on the
LOS of the intersection.
6. What are the potential the impacts of the improvements to US 29 on existing businesses?
Which businesses are more likely to be affected and how will the County minimize impacts
during construction? How do the benefits balance the costs/impacts? What help can we
give to affected businesses during construction to make up for possible loss of/reduction
in customer base that results from more difficult access? Other innovative ways to assist
property owners.
In the long-term, most, if not all, businesses will experience improved access as
customers/clients will be able to reach the business by vehicle, transit, bicycle, and on foot.
Clustering businesses in Centers will encourage customers/clients of one business to patronize
other businesses while they are in the Center. So, in the long-term, most businesses will benefit
from road and other infrastructure improvements recommended in the Plan. The proposed
improvements along US 29 will, for the most part, not require expansion beyond the existing right
of way. This is because the current right of way for US 29 is very wide and the road‟s cross
section will not be widened (for the section south of the Rivanna River) beyond the current eight
lanes. The interchange design concepts are also intended to minimize need for additional right of
way and to allow businesses to be located adjacent to the interchanges, with access through
proposed ring roads and/or parallel roads.
The most significant impacts to businesses will occur during construction of the various
improvements. Businesses located adjacent to the road segments being improved will be the
most affected by construction of these improvements. Those located near proposed interchanges
may be impacted the most during construction due to the potentially more complex access
modifications and detours during construction and grade adjustments. However, until each
improvement is designed, staff cannot say exactly which businesses will be affected and to what
degree. It is the intent of both County and VDOT staff to minimize the impact of road construction
on businesses throughout the area. Programs to help businesses during construction can be
devised as part of each Small Area Plan, along with the development and design of each road
improvement. However, the following approaches will be considered to minimize th e negative
impacts of construction on businesses, residents, and the traveling public:
completing parallel roads and crossing streets prior to interchange construction or major
road segment improvements in order to provide effective alternative access options
staggering the timing of project phases
night construction schedules, and
enhanced signage during construction
Staff did some research to see if there were any other innovative approaches used in other areas,
such as financial assistance or other non-physical/non-construction related means to assist
adjacent businesses during construction of projects. Staff did not find any other approaches to
offer at this point in time.
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
When funding for the recommended grade separations at US 29/Rio Road and at US 29/Airport
Road/Timberwood Road is identified, design of the improvement can begin. At this point, County
staff, working with VDOT and TJPDC staff, will prepare a Small Area Plan for each of the affected
areas. These Small Area Plans will cover the areas shown within the white dashed lines on the
Future Land Use Map. The planning process will involve significant public participation by all
businesses, residents, and property owners in the area. The design will be worked out with input
from the public. The result will be a more detailed land use map for the area and a design for the
road improvements within the area. The road improvements will include any jug handle
connectors or ring roads for the overpasses, as well as any other changes in the local
neighborhood road network. Owners of businesses will be invited to comment on designs and to
work with staff to minimize the effects on their businesses whenever possible.
7. How is the Western Bypass incorporated into the Plan?
The Western Bypass is discussed briefly in Chapter 8, Implementation, on page 8-3.
Nothing in the draft plan necessarily precludes the potential for the construction of a bypass at
some point in the future, if needed. The recommended transportation improvements in Places29
for the US 29 corridor focus on improvements that serve both the local and regional functions of
the road, of which local movements make up the vast majority of the total trips. The
recommended improvements can be done incrementally, with each one providing some
improvement to the transportation network.
Expansion Area Information
8. Provide the total acreage of the potential Piney Mountain expansion area. How much of the
expansion area includes acreage purchased by the Federal government. What is the long
term needs for base expansion? What areas of land did the government want to purchase
for the base, but could not due to limited funding? Staff should contact NGIC/DIA to find
out: a) if they have expansion plans and where they might want to expand; and b) what
issues and/or preferences they have for potential land uses and activities adjacent to the
base.
The proposed Piney Mountain Expansion Area includes approximately 60 acres, which includes a
portion of the new DIA facility located outside the Development Areas plus approximately 30
additional acres. The Federal government now owns two parcels in Piney Mountain totaling 75
acres (TM 32, Parcels 5C1 and 5C4). Of these two parcels, one is completely inside the Piney
Mountain Development Area. The other parcel contains roughly 30 acres outside the boundary (in
the Rural Areas).
Staff has contacted NGIC/DIA several times since January to find about potential expansion
plans and whether NGIC/DIA are comfortable with the land uses shown on the Future Land Use
Map and in the potential expansion area adjacent to the base. NGIC/DIA staff have not yet
responded to staff‟s request for information. As soon as NGIC responds, staff will provide their
comments to the Board.
9. Land Inventory & Absorption--Provide the number of available/approved residential units
and retail square footage (approved, but not yet built), and information on market
absorption/need for residential and retail land.
Residential:
The total number of dwelling units that have been approved as part of recent rezonings, special
use permits and major subdivision plats and site plans is approximately 8000 units (8,069). This
total does not include the units approved as part of the Biscuit Run development. Please note
that this total is just for approved developments and does not include the development potential
of other undeveloped/underdeveloped residentially zoned or designated lands within the
Development Areas.
Based on the additional residential growth projected by the Virginia Employment Commission for
the next 20 years (to 2030) and the average household size for Albemarle (2.12
persons/household, according the U.S. Census Bureau‟s American Community Survey), the
approved 8000 units can accommodate just over 70 percent of the total gro wth expected over the
next 20 years (or 12 to 15 years worth of growth).
Some of the major approved residential projects with remaining capacity in the Places29 area
are:
Belvedere (750 units)
North Pointe (893)
Hollymead Town Center
(areas A, B, D) (1,718)
Albemarle Place (650)
Arden Place (212)
Briarwood
(Phase 1A&B, 5 port.) (173)
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
Oakleigh Farm (101)
Treesdale (90)
TOTAL 4,587
Based on the economic analysis prepared at the beginning of the Places2 9 planning process in
2005-06:
The Places29 area has the potential to capture between 1,770 and 2600 new residential
units based growth trends/capture rates for the area and the county from 1990 to 2005.
Single-family homes will still be the housing type demanded by the majority of the market
(55%), but multi-family housing will become will become a more attractive housing type
due to its affordability and its ability to satisfy the increasing one- and two-person
household market.
Further information from the market analysis about residential activity in the County is presented
in the Master Plan in Chapter 3, Existing Conditions and Future Trends (p. 3-15 through p. 3-
16). The information in this chapter is a summary of the more lengthy analysis presented in the
Assets, Needs, and Opportunities Report that was completed early in the planning process and
that served as the basis for the land use planning. The Demographic and Economic Trends
section on page 3-13 of the Master Plan was accurate as of January 1, 2007; the market analysis
predates the economic downturn that began in 2008.
Retail:
A total of just over 4,000,000 square feet of commercial development has been approved as part
of recent rezonings, special use permits, and major site plans throughout the County. This total
does not include the approximately 120,000 square feet of commercial approved as part of the
Biscuit Run development. Like the residential information above, this total is just for approved
developments; it does not include the development potential of other
undeveloped/underdeveloped commercially zoned or designated lands within the Development
Areas.
Some of the major approved commercial/retail projects with remaining capacity in the Places29
area are:
Albemarle Place* (616,000 sq. ft. of comm./retail)
North Pointe* (582,600)
HTC* (Area A1, A2, C) (803,500)
HTC* (Area C) (68,000)
Northtown Center (199,800)
Total 2,269,900
Other major projects in County:
Fifth Street-Avon Center (440,000)
Rivanna Village* (125,000)
*These are totals for retail areas. Each project contains additional square footage approved for
office, service uses, and other non-residential uses.
Due to limited staff resources and other work priorities, staff was unable to update a previous
retail demand/absorption analysis conducted by the Fiscal Impact Planner in 2003. The Chamber
of Commerce and TJPED were contacted at the beginning of the Places29 planning process and
invited to share any information about number of commercial retail buildings, vacancy rates, and
industrial users. At that time, both organizations indicated that they did not collect and maintain
this type of information. So, staff proceeded with information prepared by our land use/economic
consultants.
Since the Board‟s request for information at the January work session, staff has contacted the
Chamber, TJPED, and CAAR and invited them to provide information, both at this work session
and as an attachment to this memo.
Based on the economic analysis prepared at the beginning of the Places29 planning process in
2005-06:
“It is projected that between 1.0 and 1.4 million square feet of retail is supportable in the
County between 2005 and 2015.” If the above projects in the Places29 area are built over
the next ten years, “these approved projects will provide more retail space than the 1.0 to
1.4 million square feet that is supportable throughout the entire County between 2005
and 2015.”
Additional data and mapping will be provided with the staff presentation at the work session.
Other Information
10. What will the impacts of Places29 be on residential areas/neighborhoods?
At the beginning of the Places29 planning process, the Board requested that existing residential
neighborhoods be recognized as developed places, and the existing character of those place be
protected. The Master Plan provides a statement indicating this and the framework generally
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
does not proposed to locate any Centers or road improvements within these neighborhoods. This
direction has been incorporated into the Master Plan as part of the Vision and Guiding Principles,
specifically in Guiding Principle 6 (page 2-2).
New neighborhoods are expected to be developed in a more compact, mixed use form that would
provide additional opportunities for mixed uses, walkability, and transit.
11. What improvements are achievable in a reasonable amount of time?
The County‟s Master Plans are used in at least two different ways. First, the Plan gives guidance
on many aspects of land use and development based on the text and the Future Land Use Map.
This guidance will be useful beginning immediately after the Plan is adopted and will continue
throughout the life of the Plan.
The second purpose of the Master Plan is to identify and set priorities for those projects that will
be necessary to meet the needs of the area during the life of the Plan. Places29 includes a list of
implementation projects at the end of Chapter 8. For the implementation projects that will require
funding from the County or other sources, having the projects shown on the Future Land Use
Map and/or described in the text of the Plan will demonstrate to potential funding sources that the
project is supported by the County. These projects will be identified for consideration should
funding become available and needs identified in the Plan should guide decisions on funds
decisions. For those projects where designs can be prepared, the County may be in an
advantageous position to obtain funding for projects that need to be “shovel-ready.” For those
projects that developers are expected to construct as part of a development, including them on
the Future Land Use Map ensures that the County can require provision of them as part of a
rezoning or special use permit approval.
Given limited available funds currently at the State and local level, the achievable improvements
are those where federal sources, grants, and private development can assist in funding the
design and development of the projects:
Grant sources are available to support sidewalk, bike, and transit (operational and capital
related) improvements. Examples of available grants include Enhancement Grants, the
Safe Routes to School Program, and the Pedestrian Safety Program.
Potential federal funds may be available to assist in the construction of US 29 and 250
Bypass improvements in the City, and potentially allow some of the existing funds on the
latter project to be transferred to other priority improvements.
Grant sources (e.g., Enhancement Grants, Revenue Sharing funds, stimulus funding)
and existing and future proffer funds could be used to support design and development of
segments of Berkmar Drive. Portions of the road could be developed as part of future
development proposals.
Staff notes ongoing projects in the area:
Construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway
Design and funding for construction of US 29 and 250 Bypass Interchange improvements
City and County planning efforts to establish a regional transit “authority” or similar
structure.
Pursuit of grant funds for sidewalk and crosswalk improvements in the County‟s northern
urban areas, specifically around the AHS/school complex, Rio Road east, and Hollymead
(and also for the Pantops area).
Implement the recommended access management/traffic management improvements in
the US 29 corridor as part of the development review process and through strategic use
of VDOT funds for minor improvements.
A $190,000 Safe Routes to School Grant and a $125,000 Enhancement Grant were awarded th is
year for sidewalk, streetscape, and road improvements. Staff will continue to pursue these and
other services to implement priority County projects.
12. When will new US Census information to be available?
The US Census website (“Key Dates”) now indicates that the Census Bureau will deliver
redistricting data to the states in March 2011. All other information usually released by the
Census will be available after March 2011.
Additional information from the County‟s GDS division indicates that the first demographic profile,
with summarized population and housing characteristics, will be available in May 2011. The first
data summary file, with additional population counts for 63 race categories and Hispanic or Latino
residents, along with selected population and housing characteristics, will be available June –
August 2011.
__________
Mr. Benish then went over the residential and retail inventory portion of the report which is set out
under #9 above. He summarized information on retail space in Albemarle Place, North Pointe, Fifth
Street-Avon Center and Rivanna Village.
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
Mr. Snow asked for an update on the status of Albemarle Place.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that they have been in discussions with the County over the last several
months over submission of their site plan. There is a rezoning request where they recently resubmitted
information regarding their proffers; staff has reviewed the request and provided comments. He said that
they have not yet submitted a site plan, but have been actively discussing the submittal with staff.
Mr. Rooker reported that they plan to break ground in 2011 and have parts of the town center
open for business in 2012. He added that there are a lot of transportation improvements they have to
make as a part of that before they can open.
Mr. Thomas noted that they are putting in that right turn lane, which Mr. Rooker confirmed would
run from the Waffle House down to Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Rooker said that it‟s possible to get it done concurrently with the part south of that if the
money is in place at the right time. He added that with the Meadow Creek Interceptor project going
forward; the previous water and sewer issues have mostly been resolved. Mr. Rooker noted that the
developers were able to deal with all of that without imminent domain, but just dealing with landowners
privately.
Mr. Benish added that it appears that the areas approved in Route 29 North would seem to meet
the initial need for growth based on the analysis between 2005 and 2015. Mr. Rooker commented that
that assumes the growth all took place in the 29 North corridor. Mr. Benish stated that if he had made
this presentation prior to Kohl‟s being started, the inventor y would be different as it was pulled out of the
presentation.
Mr. Benish then summarized the residential portion of the report. Mr. Benish reiterated that there
are approximately 8,000 units approved and undeveloped in the County. This number is largely based on
rezoning and major site plans, not all site plans. Some of the information provided to the Board by other
organizations is a little more aggressive in attempting to attract every site plan. Staff finds it difficult to
ensure that it is not double counting so they have taken a more conservative approach. Subdivision plats
and site plans can be submitted as preliminaries, finals and revised. They have to track whether the site
plans are actually implementing the numbers that are accounted for in the rezoning and as the names
change, it gets difficult to track. He added that it is not to say the other numbers are inaccurate; staff just
wanted to make sure it was not double-counting.
Mr. Rooker said that in good years, there were about 500 houses a year in the growth areas
absorbed in the County; so using staff‟s figures, the existing potential supply would suffice for about 16
years in the growth area. He added that Piedmont Environmental Council‟s (PEC) figure is about 13,000
units, which would suffice for about 26 years.
Mr. Benish stated that staff evaluated capacity by looking at overall growth estimated by VEC,
which projected population to reach 120,000. He added that just the ones that have been approved could
account for 12-14 years of that growth. Mr. Benish said that the approved development in retail and
residential, for the next ten years, seems to adequately support anticipated growth.
He reported that the timeframe considered reasonable for transportation improvements is
influenced by available local and state funding, but there are projects moving forward and available funds
have been assigned to projects in the Places29 area. Mr. Benish mentioned that there may be a small
amount of money reallocated from the existing Meadow Creek project to other projects. He noted that the
design for Hillsdale Drive is underway between VDOT and the City, although the road remains an
important parallel route for the County as well. Mr. Benish added that the alignment concept is being
incorporated into site plans and development proposals that the City is reviewing right now, and
construction is underway along Hydraulic Road that incorporates the right-of-way alignment for the
Hillsdale Drive Connector.
Mr. Benish said that the US 29 Bypass interchange ramp has been mentioned, and $4.7 million
has been allocated in City, State, and proffered monies from the Albemarle Place development. An
earmark is being requested to complete that funding and perhaps be distributed to other projects. He
reported that the Berkmar Drive extension and bridge is in preliminary planning in terms of proffer monies
and CIP allocations for the location work and environmental studies for the bridge. He noted that the
bridge is a necessary first step for the overall road alignment and location.
Mr. Rooker commented that there isn‟t money for everything, and a problem the County has
encountered previously is spreading money among too many projects. He emphasized that all traffic
studies have shown that the widening of Route 29 is imperative, and it seems to make more sense to
assign funding for design of the project the traffic studies show as the most necessary project in the area.
He is afraid that if you spread your money around, you get nothing.
Mr. Benish responded that the widening of US 29 is one of the top five priorities, along with
Berkmar Drive. The Board left a little over $1.0 million in the CIP for Places29 Master Planning and it is
hoped that VDOT would step up and take on the six-laning of Route 29 so that the County can focus on
Berkmar Drive. It then becomes a decision that if that does not happen where our money is best spent.
Staff does anticipate that those are the two top projects that we need to work on – one or the other or
both if we could.
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
Mr. Thomas said that this would be something to discuss with the Secretary of Trans portation.
Mr. Benish mentioned that there is ongoing work for sidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes, and
transit improvements – as well as the access management improvements identified in the Route 29 North
Corridor Transportation Study that are part of Places29. That is how when redevelopment takes places
on Route 29, to provide for better or safer access. Those recommendations are being implemented at
this time and are ongoing efforts that contribute to improving the function of the corridor.
Mr. Rooker asked if there had been an answer to whether Berkmar Drive Extended would ever
qualify for primary road funds; Meadow Creek never did. He expressed concern about the lack of
secondary road funds, and the Eastern Connector was kicked out because of concern s it would rely on
those funds. He thinks they have to be cognizant when they look at these road projects, and the potential
for getting them funded, of the pots of money that you might be able to tap in to get them done, and that
does temper the realistic potential for a project getting done.
Mr. Benish responded that it had been the hope earlier in the Places29 process with those from
the planning side of VDOT that parallel road systems and networks that contribute to providing for
capacity on the route 29 corridor may be available for that funding, but they have now reached a different
level where even funding for primary roads is very limited. He hopes there will be more flexibility at the
State level to use those funds.
Mr. Rooker said he was a whole lot more confident they could get federal funds to widen Route
29. Both Hillsdale Drive and Meadow Creek have never gotten any federal funds. The initial construction
of Berkmar Drive was primarily with County money. He thinks they need to get an answer to that before
allocating money over there because it may be a road to nowhere in the sense that they may never have
the money to build it out.
Mr. Benish replied that with master planning, the first step is identifying all the projects that are
important and identifying the priorities. As the plan is implemented, they will need to focus on the best
use of funds. He added that the traffic studies indicate that the widening of Route 29 to six lanes is vital.
Mr. Benish noted that most of the recommendations for transportation improvements are based on a
backlog of improvements that are already needed – which is based on approvals that have already taken
place. The Places29 land use component does not intensify development beyond th e original
Comprehensive Plan; it is more of a form change. Staff will have to look at the cost benefits, but the form
of development can be a factor in the transportation conditions.
Ms. Lee Catlin, Community Relations Director, reported that there has been significant public
engagement to this point on Places29 that has involved residences, businesses, neighboring jurisdictions,
and other key stakeholders. She said the effort started in 2005 with a “citizens planning academy,” and
have held 17 major public engagement activities – including big and small meetings, 15 meetings with
other stakeholders including the North Charlottesville Business Council, the Earle Neighborhood Group,
the Chamber of Commerce, etc. Ms. Catlin said that they‟ve also had 28 Board of Supervisors and/or
Planning Commission work sessions, public hearings, and meetings. She stated that regardless of all
those meetings, it hasn‟t been reviewed or discussed with the public since the Commission approval
process at the end of 2009 – so it‟s appropriate now to get back in front of the public with an opportunity
for them that reintroduces the Places29 Master Plan. Ms. Catlin said that this would be a chance for the
County to indicate any significant changes that have been made or m ay be made. She added that the
outcome sought from the plan is that interested stakeholders have ample opportunity to review and
understand the basic concepts of the Places29 Master Plan prior to a public hearing.
Ms. Catlin said that it‟s important to note that this process is not geared to solicit a huge amount
of new public input, but is designed to get people informed and making them familiar so that they can
bring feedback to the Board‟s public hearing. If there is any significant public input, staff will provide that
information to the Board. She stated that the format she is proposing is similar to what was used last fall
in getting ready for the Planning Commission public hearing. Ms. Catlin suggested that after the meeting
today, the final Places29 draft plan would be released to the public, shared via email and posted to the
website. She noted that the Places29 website is a very thorough resource regarding the plan and the
process. Ms. Catlin proposed that in the end of May and early June there be open houses held in several
locations in the plan area, and in the County Office Building. The Board could hold its public hearing on
June 9, 2010. She said that in July and August, staff would make revisions to the plan, hold any needed
work sessions, and then prepare for another public hearing in September if deemed necessary – and
then to the Board for action.
Mr. Thomas asked if there is a statement available on the impact of the effect of the plan on
existing businesses and residences.
Ms. Catlin replied that the staff has compiled documents that are essentially a summary of the
master plan, including FAQ, top 10 questions, etc. and has made that available to the public. If someone
looks at those documents and the information is not sufficient to answer their questions about “What does
this mean to me?” the open houses are a good opportunity for them to talk with staff.
Mr. Thomas asked if everybody in the Emmett Street corridor and Route 29 corridor know the
impact to them of interchanges, if they are installed.
Mr. Rooker said there is no way to know the impacts of an interchange in advance of some
engineering work being done on its design. It is not until you design an improvement that you are going
to be able to specify what the impacts are going to be; that is just a fact of life.
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
Mr. Cilimberg commented that the nature of master plans is similar to comprehensive plans –
describing the kinds of improvements that are felt to be necessary, to lay out concepts, but it does not get
into designing the improvements. He mentioned the Western Avenue design in Crozet, noting that the
land was not affected as predicted – but that was OK, because the concept intended to get a road
between Route 250 and Jarman‟s Gap Road. Eastern Avenue has the same kind of designation in the
plan. Mr. Cilimberg said that there could be small area plans where specific improvements are called for,
and it is possible that a concept out of Places29 will get redefined. That is the next step. This is the
setup to tell us we want to spend resources of the County to then proceed with work towards deciding
how those things will be done in the future.
Mr. Rooker noted that there was some effort with Places29 to look at some areas with more
specificity – but people got alarmed at the possibility that their property use would be prescribed.
Adopting a master plan does not change the zoning or use of the property, nor does it prohibit a property
owner from using property the way it is currently being used. It presents some options that allow them to
change that use in the future. It actually should enhance their property values because it gives them
perhaps higher-density potential uses in the future.
Mr. Boyd commented that the interchanges do concern him, as there is no way that they will not
affect businesses. He said that he doesn‟t see how any of the interchanges can be afforded, and noted
that he was relieved when the MPO dropped them. He asked why put any of it on the plan if we cannot
see within some acceptable timeframe that we‟ll have some kind of money to do it with.
Mr. Rooker responded that it is open to discussion and there will be input from the public, adding
that there has been some work done by VDOT following the Route 29 North Corridor Study. He said that
there was an intersection analysis done, and VDOT thinks there are at least ten intersections along Route
29 in Albemarle County that need improvements. VDOT is saying that they will not have the money to do
grade separated interchanges, but will have to do at-grade improvements for some of them. The Board
needs to recognize that VDOT has identified those as intersections that need substantial improvements
based on the growth of local traffic.
Mr. Boyd noted that VDOT also drops any secondary roads that can not be funded in the next six
years. The County keeps the roads in its plan, but they are not keeping it in theirs. He asked if the
County should keep interchanges in its plans that are not within VDOT‟s six year plan.
Mr. Rooker said that the MPO has a 20-year plan, and items were removed from that due to
financial constraints; in order to get in a six-year plan, an item would have to be in the 20-year plan.
There is a difference though between the six-year and the 20-year plan, and the financial constraint
requirement was the 20-year plan that we were talking about.
Ms. Mallek added that it is informative for landowners who have one idea of what might be
coming in the future, so there is not a surprise for the next generation.
Mr. Boyd said that having a line on the map looming over a property owner can influence their
decision as to what to do with their land.
Mr. Rooker said if commercial property is taken by VDOT, it would be paid for at fair market
value. He pointed out that the concern of businesses like Albemarle Place has been traffic that does not
move, because people go away. He said that they‟re not bothered by a grade-separated interchange at
Hydraulic Road and Route 29, as their concern is that the traffic count remains in that area and improves
over time but that the flow continues somehow.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that the plan sets out 20 years and beyond, and Mr. Benish‟s report
refers to things that can be achieved in the foreseeable future. He said that there are a whole lot of other
items that won‟t be possible because of resource limitations, but that doesn‟t mean they shouldn‟t be
reflected in a plan – because of the need to address what will ultimately be demanding improvements in
15, 20 or more years. Mr. Cilimberg added that one major challenge with Route 29 has been how traffic
moves east-west across the corridor, and that tends to fail before the north-south traffic. If the east-west
traffic doesn‟t have ways to move from one side of Route 29 to another, then businesses will be affected.
And that can have as much or more of a detrimental impact on businesses as Route 29‟s traffic condition
itself.
Mr. Boyd asked if this could be tied to growth, as the plan considers 2035 levels, and have it
stipulate that when a certain population is reached an interchange would be put in.
Mr. Cilimberg said that there is some language used in some other plans as to how the County
would approve new development in association with improvements to the system; there is some language
in Places29 to address that. If it needed to be more precise in terms of addressing different areas where
interchanges are being envisioned, staff could work on that.
Mr. Thomas commented that the entire master planning process has improved tremendously,
with the Crozet plan being the pilot, but stakeholders and the public are still not completely “plugged in”
with Places29.
Ms. Catlin responded that the plan has been in development for a long time, but the Board has
not really had a chance to have a formal public hearing to hear what the public has to say abou t it. If it is
not done in June, it would be September before it can happen.
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
Mr. Boyd said he thinks that is a good plan. He would like to take another look at the land use
pros and cons based on what was in the original plan, and what was taken out b y the expansion of the
Hollymead South growth area.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that staff has made a recommendation that reflects what was originally
provided; what the Planning Commission saw is essentially what Mr. Boyd is asking about.
Mr. Benish agreed to share that information with him.
Ms. Catlin said that now that Places29 is nearing finalization, it is a good time to resolve the
future role of the Citizens Advisory Councils. There are three partners that make master plans work – the
community, businesses and the County. She explained that the councils, appointed by the Board, have
been established as an important community liaison tool once master plans were adopted for the
development areas in order to continue the community dialogue and citizen engagement. Ms. Catlin
stated that the councils were appointed at a time when things were different, when the County‟s CIP was
much more robust and had significant funding programmed and anticipated capital investment in the
infrastructure projects called for in the master plans. She noted that staffing was also at a much different
level, with a full-time Community Engagement Specialist and plans for several neighborhood -based
planning positions. Ms. Catlin said that at the time, the councils were envisione d as very active, hands-on
working groups with work products, action plans, etc. – and were actually charged to fulfill 11 areas of
responsibility and produce an annual 12-month work plan.
Ms. Catlin stated that due to recent reductions, many of the master plan projects have been
pushed way out and the need for community involvement has been lessened. She said that there have
also been significant reductions in staff, including elimination of the Community Engagement Specialist
position and abandonment of plans for the two planning positions. Ms. Catlin also mentioned that one
planner position that directly supports the councils has been eliminated, and one other planner position is
scheduled for reassignment as well. She said that the Transportation P lanner and Greenways Planner
positions were eliminated, and they were both tied into the work of the councils. Staff needs to define a
new, more targeted role that reflects current resources and creates realistic expectations. These councils
have importance and value but staff cannot meet the current expectations and the charge and the
mission that was initially identified for them due to funding and organizational changes. She added that if
adjustments are not made, there will be frustration and tension with an unproductive working relationship.
Ms. Catlin suggested that the focus of the councils be shifted from project implementation and
action planning to more of an advisory feedback/community liaison dialogue role. This would result in a
more targeted mission and charge, a reduced mission schedule and significantly limited staff activity
between meetings. She said that there are a total of seven groups right now, and the refined approach
proposed includes bringing back a redefined charge to the Board with a more narrow focus, in time for
Places29; Crozet and Pantops would be transitioned after their master plan revision processes are
complete. She suggested having one meeting annually where all the councils come together, as there
are some shared issues and discussions that would be beneficial. Ms. Catlin added that there would be
two or three other meetings per year for each council, depending on the activity level for each
development area – now and in the future. She said that the groups have adopted some self-sufficiency,
but there must be some staff involvement in order to maintain information sharing and to meet FOIA
requirements. Ms. Catlin stated that staff‟s recommendation is to bring a revised mission and charge for
advisory councils back to the Board, and move forward in that way with Places29 and other master
planning areas.
Mr. Boyd suggested that they become County Executive-appointed to relieve the FOIA
requirements.
Ms. Catlin responded that if they do not have good staff work, it‟s hard for them to be very
productive and they can go in a direction that is frustrating to them, or in a direction that turns out not to
be possible. Staff wants them to be an identifiable community liaison, communication-feedback group.
Staff thinks they can keep that component of them, given the approach that they have proposed here.
She added that as things pick up in the future, the groups‟ focus may return to projects.
Mr. Boyd commented that with the Pantops group, there was not much for them to do other than
react and comment.
Ms. Catlin responded that they had a charge to do an action plan, etc., and it caused anxiety
among members. That group is functioning in a good way, but they are at odds with the mission and
charge that some of them feel like they should be obligated to be doing. She thinks it is about aligning
those in a better way.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the plan is good; it is a much more practical approach to what they
actually do.
Ms. Catlin said staff recognizes the need for their involvement in the community as projects come
on line. It just does not seem to be a good idea to keep these groups going with a lot of work as a
standing practice when there is not money to do things.
Ms. Mallek emphasized that there needs to be a happy medium, as the Crozet gro up will feel that
a stand-down is incredibly premature given the number of projects going on there. She said that they
have taken their own minutes and it would be a big mistake to change their direction now. Ms. Mallek
added that she goes to almost every meeting, and they are very engaged. If these groups are willing to
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
step up, she thinks it would be a big mistake to tell them to stop. It is a way to get inf ormation out from
County government to an incredibly diverse group of citizens.
Ms. Catlin said that this would not be a “one size fits all” approach, as there are different levels of
activities depending on the planning area. She said that the ability to staff ultimately seven of these
groups on anything close to a monthly schedule, keep their websites going , their A-mails, staff research,
presentations and the follow-up is not something that they can accomplish right now.
Ms. Mallek suggested telling each group that their staff presence is gone, except when there are
special things that need to be presented – and have the councils ask for help when they need it.
Mr. Benish said he was ready to conclude the presentation. He can show Board members th e
maps for the expansion areas if they want to see what the Commission presented.
Mr. Boyd asked what discussions have gone on regarding the pros and cons for leaving the
expansion areas in.
Mr. Benish responded that the Forest Lakes Board provided a letter of opposition, and there were
about six comments in writing against the expansion; at the meetings there was some support from
developers in the area – one or two spoke in favor.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that for Area 2, staff could package the original information provided by
one of the landowners and excerpts from the meetings where that area was discussed.
Board members expressed support that idea. Mr. Rooker added that they also be provided with a
copy of any letters.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the Forest Lakes area has had the most interaction on whether to add or
not add the expansion area.
Mr. Benish added that he is also working to get comments from the DIA regarding the expansion,
but no one has been authorized yet to speak on their behalf.
Ms. Mallek emphasized that he should tell the DIA the reason for inquiring is to avoid fencing
them in and possibly restricting what they have in mind in the future.
Mr. Benish said that staff would like direction from the Board as to whether to move forward with
a June 9th public hearing, and whether to include the expansion options.
Mr. Rooker said that the best course would be to proceed as it was presented today – with the
expansion area as an option – and that will also “flag” the item as one that the County is particularly
interested in receiving public comment on.
Mr. Benish responded that the Commission proceeded in that way. He confirmed for Mr. Thomas
that the two expansion areas considered were Area 2 and Area 1.
Mr. Rooker stated that he is hoping to have a public hearing where those are presented as
options for the public to comment on. He is not comfortable recommending a plan.
Mr. Benish mentioned that a second public hearing wouldn‟t be required unless substantial
changes were made, as staff did intend to advertise the expansion areas.
Ms. Mallek said that if it were planned ahead of time, having a second public hearing would really
reassure people.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the plan then includes the procedures that Ms. Catlin pointed out
between now and June 9th, with the public hearing held then on the base plan plus the options of
expansion. He said that staff will prepare packets on each area to provide some history for the public and
the Board.
Mr. Rooker said that if it is going to be voted on in September, the Board should have a nonpublic
hearing work session between the June 9th meeting and the September meeting.
Mr. Thomas commented that he will not be present for the May 12 th Board meeting.
At this time, the Chair asked for public comment.
Mr. Timothy Hulbert, of the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce, said that he has
received many comments from Chamber members over the last five years on Places29, and no one has
ever said “this is a great idea, we need to move forward with this.” There are some components that are
supported by many of the Chamber members – such as fixing Route 29 South from the Waffle House
down, expanding Route 29 to more lanes, the Berkmar Extension over the River, Hillsdale Drive, etc. Mr.
Hulbert said that the land use components are problematic from the get-go. He commented that the
Chamber has had to fight its way in with the previous MPO Director to get cost estimates. He believes
there could be some estimate as to the economic dislocation. He was disappointed in the memorandum
which spoke about the highest and best use after everything is all over which there is no argument with.
He is concerned about the disruption that certain elements of the plan will cause. Mr. Hulbert
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
emphasized that the Board needs to take a step back, and suggested that they pull out the pieces that
make sense and approve those, but hold tight on the other items. He said that five years ago, there was
a three percent vacancy rate in the Route 29 corridor, and that is higher now.
Mr. Henry Weinshenk, a member of the North Charlottesville Business Council, said he heard a
lot of assertions today that he thinks need some clarifications. A level of service “F” is typical of any
urbanized area. He said that the whole definition of level of service is for rural highways, and everything
he sees on Places29 is “building an expressway” – because the County does not want to build a Western
Bypass. Mr. Weinshenk said that the Board has been playing a shell game, and they should treat the
citizens as adults. He stated that ramps definitely affect businesses, and if the Board intends to build an
expressway they should ask for “a big fat one” from VDOT so that owners can get cash for giving up their
property instead of continuing to operate in a “derelict commercial area.” Mr. Weinshenk s aid that the
Board could do a lot of preliminary engineering with the $1.0 million they have left, and the Route 29
projects demand that. He has asked repeatedly that the County show real plans. They need to see the
ramps and the expressway that is being built.
Mr. L. F. Wood said that in the years he‟s worked for the North Charlottesville Business Council
there are not many business people or citizens who know enough about Places29 to come to a public
hearing and speak knowledgably about it. The people don‟t know what a grade separated interchange is
or how it would affect them. Mr. Wood said that there is lots of confusion, and it is doubtful there would
be a big turnout for the next public hearing – so the best course would be to take a step back from the
master plan. Mr. Wood said he does not believe there would be enough money in his life time to build
this proposal. He suggested that the County focus on five elements of the plan that can be done in a
relatively short period of time and concentrate on getting them done. Mr. Wood emphasized that the
reason for the plan is to serve the citizens in a convenient fas hion, and he‟s not sure that grade-separated
interchanges accomplish that. He added that the business community is willing to help as the plan moves
forward. June 9th is a little early for a public hearing.
Mr. Neil Williamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum, said that he has a little bit of a different view
regarding the retail absorption rate, as not all of the land that is undeveloped is currently available – and
any particular parcel may not be appropriate to all users due to cost, location, size, tr affic demands, etc.
He said that the idea of master planning and the potential restoration of the development area is worthy of
discussion. Mr. Williamson noted that the County now has a smaller development area than what they
defined in 1980, with the conversion of Biscuit Run to a State park and other developable acres lessened
due to regulations with stream buffers, etc. He said that many of the transportation projects presented
here are already needed, have no chance of funding, and are not included in the MPO‟s financially
constrained plan. Mr. Williamson stated that a new, more targeted plan should be developed – reflecting
current resources and creating realistic expectations among citizens.
Mr. Morgan Butler, of the Southern Environmental Law Center, said that the notion that projects
should not be included in the master plan if they don‟t have funding negates the whole point of a long -
term plan. He said that a lack of current financial resources should not prevent inclusion of essential
projects in a master plan. Mr. Butler stated that regarding the grade-separated interchanges at Rio Road
and Hydraulic Road, it has been known for some time that Route 29 simply will not work unless the north-
south and east-west traffic movements are untangled. He said that the environmental impact statement
and traffic modeling done for the Route 29 Bypass show that without the grade-separated interchanges
there, even with a bypass that stretch of Route 29 would still be at LOS “F,” and the interchanges without
a bypass reach a LOS “B,” with implementation of both the interchanges and bypass bringing the LOS up
to “A.” He added that a lot of focus today was on the northern part of the corridor and widening Route 29.
He asked that the Board keep in mind that the modeling only looked at that part of the corridor, but there
are significant traffic problems that exist now further south of the corridor. It is clear that something needs
to be done to untangle the traffic at the intersections. Whether it ultimately becomes a grade separated
interchange or some other fix, is one of the benefits of a small area plan. The small area plan is an
avenue to get folks to sit down, to consider the impacts, to consider ways to mitigate the impacts, and is a
way to move forward. He does not think the optimal solution is to stick our heads in the hand, to take
those off of the plan and hope that the transportation situation is going to remediate itself on its own when
every other alternative they have looked at does not solve the problem.
There being no further public comment, the matter came back to the Board.
Mr. Rooker said that he believes the public hearing should move forward on June 9th, as people
are not going to be any more engaged in September than they are in June. He noted that there have
been 60 meetings having to do with Places29 – including 32 public participation meetings – and if the
plan “misses something” there has certainly been ample opportunity for the community to weigh in as to
what that is. Mr. Rooker commented that there were initially comments about the process taking too long,
and now they have shifted to “we should delay it.” He said that the interchanges are long -range projects,
but there is no way to accommodate east-west movements across Route 29 without interchanges. He
mentioned the overpasses at Dairy Road, Rio Road, and Locust an Park Streets as being absolutely
necessary for traffic flow. Mr. Rooker stated that every traffic study done for the Route 29 corridor
includes interchanges, but regardless that is subject to the hearing on June 9th – at which the public will
have another opportunity to be heard. He thinks it is time to move forward, let the public be heard one
more time and schedule this for a final decision.
Ms. Mallek added that the public may indicate at that time what the top priority items are in the
plan, and move them forward.
May 5, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
Mr. Snow expressed serious concerns about the overpasses, but agreed it is time to move
ahead. It is time to move ahead with the discussion and planning stages.
Mr. Thomas said he also agrees that it is time to move ahead. He added that Broad Street in
Richmond is 12 miles or so long, and it has two interchanges on it – one on I-64 West and one on I-95 on
the east end. There are no interchanges on that road and it operates fine. He does not go along with the
statement that you cannot get across Route 29; you can.
Mr. Rooker asked how to get bicycles and pedestrians across Route 29, adding that he is not
sure how to solve that problem without an overpass. They can be built tight so that they do not have a
huge impact
Mr. Snow said that Mr. Weinshenk noted there has been no design presented of an off-ramp, and
that would be helpful in evaluating the plan.
Mr. Rooker responded that there have been some preliminary designs done, as part of the
29/H250 study, and they have been made available to the public.
Mr. Thomas mentioned that there were also plans for roundabouts on Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Rooker said that there were plans for both, adding that every traffic study shows that at some
point in order for traffic to flow in that area, you are going to have to have [interchanges] at the major
intersections. He added that having two interchanges on Route 29 does not create an expressway, as
you have many other at-grade intersections. Mr. Rooker said that an expressway has no entrances on
the sides, and that is simply not the case here.
Mr. Snow stated that everyone agrees there are several items that can be done in the short term,
and many that will have to be considered for the future.
It was the consensus of the Board at this time to move forward with the plan as Ms. Catlin
presented, including a hearing with public comment on June 9th.
______________
Non Agenda Item. Closed Meeting.
At 5:21 p.m., Mr. Thomas moved that the Board go into closed meeting pursuant to Section 2.2-
3711(A) of the Code of Virginia, under subsection (1) to discuss the salary of the County Executive.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
__________
At 5:50 p.m., the Board reconvened into open meeting. Mr. Thomas moved that the Board
certified by recorded vote that to the best of each Board member‟s knowledge, only public busi ness
matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed, or considered in the
closed meeting.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn to May 10, 2010, 4:00 p.m., PVCC.
Mr. Rooker moved for the Board to adjourn to May 10, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. to the Dickenson
Building at PVCC. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chair
Approved by the Board of
County Supervisors
Date: 09/01/2010
Initials: EWJ