2010-05-12May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 12,
2010, at 6:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker and Mr. Duane E. Snow.
ABSENT: Mr. Rodney S. Thomas.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis, Director of Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Clerk, Ella W. Jordan.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Rooker asked when the development fees matter was coming back to the Board, as action
was deferred on those at a previous meeting. Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development,
responded that they are not on the schedule to come back. Staff had planned to bring them back as part
of Community Development‟s W ork Plan for next year.
Mr. Rooker commented that he recalled that the Board voted for deferral. That being the case,
there is no reason for them to not come back. Mr. Graham said he can bring them back anytime the
Board wants to discuss them. If there are things the Board would like for him to do in preparation for
bringing them back, that would be good to know.
Mr. Rooker suggested Mr. Graham review the minutes from the previous discussion. There are
two new Board members who have not heard the entire discussion and they had wanted more time. He
asked that they be put back on the schedule and the Board makes a definitive decision.
Mr. Boyd said that there is some more information he would like, and he would let Mr. Graham
know what that includes.
__________
Mr. Boyd also stated that a Pantops Business Council is being created for all the businesses in
that area. It came out that there is a “tent city” growing through the woods along the potential greenway
there – and employees are concerned about walking there. He asked if there is anything the County can
do about the homeless people who live beneath Free Bridge and throughout the woods along the trail.
Mr. Tucker responded that Zoning officials and the Police have been out there several times, and
the dwellers will disperse but then come back. The County can continue to monitor the situation; he will
talk to the Chief of Police tomorrow about it to take another look at it.
Ms. Mallek suggested alerting Dan Mahon of Parks and Recreation, as he has been helpful in the
past in reaching out. She added that the homeless there may have previously lived out by the bypass
near Barracks Road, until that wooded area was cleared.
Mr. Boyd said he was told that it is affecting the businesses in the area. They are also
panhandling in the shopping center.
Mr. Davis said that they can be directed to leave off public property, but as Mr. Tucker has
indicated it‟s an ongoing enforcement problem because they move from one spot to another. Unless the
Police Department takes the initiative to go out and find them, they are not readily visible.
__________
Mr. Dorrier called the Board‟s attention to the resolution regarding Paul Goodloe McIntire (Item 7.3
on the consent agenda). He noted that the commentary on his life is very interesting. Mr. Rooker agreed.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Pam Evans said that many community members worked with County staff and Board
members to get a text amendment defining light industry and heavy industry so that the County would not
have the problem of heavy industry businesses in a light industry zoned area. She understands the
reasoning for special permitting with industrial properties. Using a cement plant as an example, just
because the land is zoned for the use, does not mean it can fit into the community, be dangerous or a real
problem. There are roads that cannot support different types of heavy trucks. She hopes that there will
be language included in the amendment such as “offsite, adjoining roads must be able to handle heavy
industrial traffic, both physically and safely, in the community under discussion.” A by-right use would not
allow this language to be considered.
__________
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Ms. Marcia Joseph said that she was present to respond to the article by the Free Enterprise
Forum. W hen she served on the Architectural Review Board (ARB) the Arby‟s-Forest Lakes site plan and
building came before them for review. She said that the title on the drawing was “Arby‟s Restaurant Model
PM-3094; Anywhere Drive, Anywhere U.S.A.” Ms. Joseph commented that the ARB felt it was part of their
responsibility to alert the developer to the fact that they did not consider Albemarle County “Anywhere
U.S.A.” She stated that the General Assembly granted counties the ability to form Entrance Corridors
somewhere around 1990, and the designated corridors “must lead to the historic treasures located in the
area.” Ms. Joseph said that for 20 years the ARB has been helping shape the character of the County‟s
corridors and maintain the regional character of the area. The ARB has a major impact on the Economic
Policy that was approved by four of the current Board members in March 2009. She stated that the very
first strategy says “Protect through diligent growth management efforts the County distinctive natural and
manmade qualities to maintain its attractiveness as a place to live and work.” Ms. Joseph said that these
attributes are what initially attract people to Albemarle County, along with clean air, clean water, green
open space, and reverence for historic properties.
She stated that the community made a choice in 1990 – along with many other localities in the
Commonwealth – to protect the County‟s distinctive natural and manmade qualities, to maintain its
attractiveness as a place to live and work. Ms. Joseph noted that they also created an appeal process
that allows the Board of Supervisors to have the final say if applicants do not agree with the decision of the
ARB. She encouraged members to consider the “Better Models” book, which gives examples of other
localities – and even some from Albemarle. Ms. Joseph said that Page 92 shows the illustration of Toys-
R-Us that was submitted for review back in 1990, and showed a picture of the local store – which has red
lettering instead of the typical multi-colored. She emphasized that changing colors of signs is not unusual,
and happens all over the country in communities that are concerned about maintaining a regional design
standard. Changing colors on the sign does not violate free speech; the message remains the same, just
a different color. Ms. Joseph added that the ARB is made up of citizens appointed by the Board, who are
engaged in many different businesses in the community and give their time, energy, and talents to help
promote economic development by preserving and enhancing the beauty of Albemarle County.
Ms. Joseph asked that the ARB not be painted as an evil, anti-development group of individuals.
They work hard and they deserve more respect than what was given them in the Free Enterprise Forum
report. She encouraged the Board to remember the importance of keeping the air clean, keeping the
water clean, and keeping open spaces open, and preserving the character of Albemarle County.
Ms. Candace Smith said that she is a small business owner and property owner in the County.
She addressed that the Free Enterprise Forum‟s report issued May 10th, which discusses the ARB‟s
“mission creep.” Ms. Smith said that the Forum claims that the report is a well-documented, balanced
review of many legal issues, and claims that they are a privately funded public policy organization whose
members encouraged the writing of this report and provided insight and content. She emphasized that
this report does not provide a balanced review, leading off with comments such as “the general attitude of
the ARB has been one of „our way or the highway‟ rather than encouraging attractive, orderly
development,” or describing the ARB as “gunning to make it as difficult as possible to get a certificate of
appropriateness.” Ms. Smith described the comments as “inflammatory and irresponsible,” even providing
the opinion that too few applications have been appealed since 1990. She indicated that this shows a lack
of understanding of the process and a desire to influence an uneducated audience as to the functions of
the ARB. Ms. Smith said that the reason there have been so few appeals is that there have been so few
denials. She noted that in her seven years on the ARB, the staff and the ARB have made great efforts to
try to get projects through and avoid denial – despite applicants‟ incomplete submissions or submissions
that do not follow the guidelines.
Quoting Mr. Neil Williamson‟s own words, Ms. Smith said it is these very guidelines that do allow
and provide predictability in the process if one would take the time to read and follow them. She said that
in reading the report, it is clear that there have been efforts to search out any case that would allow for
some interpretation of the ARB becoming a monster, or to justify his title of “mission creep.” Ms. Smith
added that those are creepy words themselves, and it seems Mr. Williamson and the Forum are not
aware that the ARB‟s role regarding signage is precisely what they want as well – as attractive signage
can be a part of the streetscape and serve as a way finder for customers. She said that the suggestion
that the ARB would consider putting aesthetics above safety requirements established by the Engineering
or Inspections Departments are “ludicrous.” Ms. Smith said that there are often conflicts with engineering,
but it is the ARB‟s role to address the aesthetics early-on so applicants can make reasoned and careful
adjustments in their design, and accommodate both engineering requirements and contribute to the
orderly, attractive development of the County. She urged the Board to be understanding of the complexity
of the issues the ARB must evaluate, and the importance of having a diverse, professional board that is
qualified to make the necessary aesthetic evaluations needed to preserve the beauty and foster good
business in the County. Ms. Smith stated that the report suggests business has been driven away by the
“monster ARB,” and her husband asked why, if there is this ARB weight crushing the business
development in the County, the corridors are so full of thriving business and ongoing development?
Mr. Jeff Werner, speaking on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council, said that in the
County‟s plan to re-evaluate the community‟s sign regulations, PEC is concerned that the process of
developing any ordinance changes appears to be somewhat limited, with staff proposing “roundtables to
solicit suggestions and comments from business owners as the ordinance amendment is developed.” He
said that Albemarle has a long tradition of seeking and allowing input from the general public during the
development of new policies and regulations, and the PEC hopes that the public involvement will be
equally welcome in the pending discussions on sign regulations. Mr. Werner expressed concern on
behalf of the PEC that the recently adopted mantra that Albemarle is “open for business” will result in it
being “open season” on a long list of policies and regulations that County residents have spent years –
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
even decades on. He said that among these are the rural character of the countryside, a growth area that
is “somewhere” not “anywhere,” and protection of natural and cultural resources. Mr. Werner said that
regarding signs, between 1969 and 2001 there were multiple work sessions, community meetings, public
hearings, and then the Board adopted of the sign ordinance in May of 2001. At that public hearing, there
were no comments from the public. He stated that in 2003, the County established a work group to review
four issues on the sign regs – commercial flags, advertising vehicles, neon lights, and window signage.
Mr. Werner said that a diverse group met seven times between May 2003 and February 2004. In
February 2004, staff held a community roundtable to get input on the recommendations; in April and May
2004, the ARB held two work sessions on those recommendations – followed by three Commission work
sessions. He reported that in February 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing; in March
2005, the Board of Supervisors held another public hearing and adopted the new regulations in a 6-0 vote.
At that hearing there were two speakers – Mr. Murray Whitehill expressed concern about the negative
aesthetic impacts of unregulated signs and Mr. Tom Loach spoke as a veteran and praised the U.S. flag
provisions in the new regulations.
Mr. Werner asked what exactly has changed that requires this reexamination of the sign
regulations, and asked if the community would be allowed to participate in the discussion and process – or
just business owners.
Ms. Jo Higgins said that she admires those who have served on the ARB, but feels that they have
kind of lost their way. Some of the guidelines are difficult to interpret. There is inconsistency between
pleasing the different ARB members. She said that there is not a way to satisfy everyone, but there is a
perception that you must. Ms. Higgins stated that there is a lack of guidelines that provide enough
consistency, and many times aesthetics rules over function. She said that often the ARB review is
insulting to an architect‟s design, and the level of detail has gotten down to such minutia. Ms. Higgins said
that her opinion is the trouble is with the guidelines, as they are so loosely written, and decisions become
a subjective call. She added that the County‟s logo wouldn‟t be allowed in the Entrance Corridor, as it has
a “horse that looks like a comic character, it‟s too busy, and has too many colors.” Ms. Higgins said that
it‟s how you recognize Albemarle County, and businesses want that same recognition.
Mr. Neil Williamson said that he is President of the Free Enterprise Forum , a privately funded,
public policy organization that focuses on local government. He said that earlier this week the Forum
released the “Eye of the Beholder” report, which uses a review of public documents and case studies to
highlight the expansion of the ARB power beyond the scope and vision of when it was founded in 1990.
Mr. Williamson said that today the Forum is calling on the Board to issue a resolution of intent to form
roundtables that include citizens and other stakeholders to review the ARB process beyond the ZTA
reforms that will be before the Board later. Based on the success of the agri-business ordinances last
week, he said that the Forum suggests the gathering of roundtables of design professionals as well as
citizens to discuss ARB reform. Mr. Williamson said that some of the reforms will require further Board
action, but most involve policy changes and clarifications that could be implemented without delay. He
stated that those include: 1) place the ARB below the Planning Commission; 2) refine the charge of the
ARB, limited to the aesthetics of the Entrance Corridor; 3) revise the ARB design guidelines with the active
participation of design professionals and the citizens at-large; 4) restrict the ARB‟s ability to move
buildings on a site only to ease Entrance Corridor orientation; 5) redirect staff to clarify when staff requests
something of an applicant versus when they require something of an applicant; 6) require the County
Attorney or his designee to attend ARB meetings; and 7) transparency- release ARB meeting agendas
and minutes to the public via albemarle.org.
Mr. Williamson said that the Forum‟s report indicates that the Board has been woefully unaware of
ARB actions for many years and often didn‟t receive meeting minutes. He stated that the Forum is
requesting that the Board pass a resolution of intent regarding a roundtable to address the “Eye of the
Beholder” report‟s recommendation.
Mr. Rooker asked who made the recommendations in this report, and asked how many people
worked on it. Mr. Williamson replied that he wrote it, but the Free Enterprise Forum is responsible for its
content. He said that this is a great jumping off point for discussion.
Mr. Dorrier asked if he had ever served on the ARB. Mr. Williamson responded that he hadn‟t,
but has attended a number of their meetings.
Mr. Paul Wright, a member of the ARB, said that while the report may be a great beginning for
discussion, it would be a mistake to make decisions based on the information contained within. He stated
that the report talks about signage and the ability to see a shopping center on “Zan Road” – but that‟s
actually in the City of Charlottesville, not the County of Albemarle. He‟s told his wife before that he is not
responsible for the “Cheeseburger in Paradise” site. Mr. Wright said that Mr. Williamson seems to
contend in his report that it is the ARB‟s fault that a business was not able to determine that there were
regulations they did not follow before they put up their sign – and somehow the cost to fix the sign is the
ARB‟s fault. Mr. Wright stated that regarding the AT&T tower, most cell towers don‟t even come before
the ARB before – as they are almost automatically approved through the County‟s process. He also said
that the comments about the Montessori School are perhaps the most puzzling, because the reason the
School appealed is that he, himself, asked them to appeal it. Mr. Wright stated that he advised the School
to appeal to the Board so that they could pursue LEED certification, but they declined and eventually came
out with a good outcome. He thinks the ARB looks to attention for detail, how that is important and how
they follow the things the Board approved them to do. If changes need to be made, they will approve and
follow those design changes. He said that if the County decides that there is value to consistency in
appearance, then the ARB will continue to do the job with which they are charged.
__________________
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Agenda Item No. 6. Recognitions:
Item No. 6a. Proclamation – Charlottesville/Albemarle Senior Independence Day.
Ms. Mallek read the following proclamation into the record:
Charlottesville/Albemarle Senior Independence Day
WHEREAS, we are ever mindful that our nation is built on the wisdom, talents, and hard work of those
who were born before us;
WHEREAS, we acknowledge with gratitude their contributions to those great gifts of peace and prosperity
which we now enjoy;
WHEREAS, as a society fortified by independence, our aim is to nurture those who are younger and
follow the example of those whose years exceed ours; and
WHEREAS, our older citizens have worked long and hard to ensure that our lives are better, and our
community acknowledges and supports their right to live independently and actively into their
later years.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ann H. Mallek, Chair, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do
hereby proclaim
May 28, 2010
Charlottesville/Albemarle Senior Independence Day
and call upon all of our citizens to serve one another and the common good by celebrating
this day going forward.
__________
Item No. 6b. Proclamation - Business Appreciation Week.
Ms. Mallek read and presented the following proclamation to Ms. Susan Stimart, County Business
Development Facilitator:
BUSINESS APPRECIATION WEEK
May 16 – 22, 2010
WHEREAS, Governor Robert F. McDonnell has recognized May 16-22, 2010 as BUSINESS
APPRECIATION WEEK in the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, and called this
observance to the attention of all citizens; and
WHEREAS, Virginia and its localities recognize that jobs and investment follow private businesses that
seize opportunities to enhance economic activity, develop new products, and invest in
equipment that improves productivity; and
WHEREAS, economic vitality is a stated goal of Albemarle County’s Strategic Plan and an important
component of our Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Albemarle County benefit from jobs and investment that our business
community provides; and
WHEREAS, our business partners make a positive and lasting impact with their civic involvement,
financial support of local charities and non-profit organizations, and sharing of resources; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County applauds the success of local businesses that provide economic
opportunity while supporting the County’s goals and values of sustainability, environmental
protection and an attractive, vibrant, and livable community; and
WHEREAS, over the last three years the Virginia Department of Business Assistance’s Jobs Investment
Program has assisted seven Albemarle County businesses that anticipate creating or
retraining 260 jobs and adding over $13,745,000 in capital investment , thereby providing
significant support in the critical area of job creation and economic vitality;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby
recognize
May 16-22, 2010 as BUSINESS APPRECIATION WEEK
in the County of Albemarle, and express our appreciation to our local and state business
partners for their valuable contributions to our community.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that in 2009 Albemarle County added the third most jobs of any locality in
the state – behind Arlington and Fairfax County.
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Ms. Stimart said as part of the County‟s small business recognition, she would like to introduce
some representatives from the Virginia Department of Business Assistance – who run a long-standing,
successful program called the “Jobs Investment Grant,” which is eligible to both existing local and new
businesses in Virginia. She said that the DBA staff has sought innovative approaches to assist Albemarle-
based companies, creating resources for University-based entrepreneurship, and for nonprofit education
operations that have large employment footprints. Ms. Stimart stated that Ms. Mallek referenced their
activity in the last three years, creating 260 jobs and assisting with the capital formation of almost $14
million. She said that the DBA are ready to assist with four more companies – creating 275 new jobs and
adding $18 million in local capital investment. She said that this includes a company expanding from the
Kansas City area into Albemarle, which will bring 30 new jobs with a local payroll in excess of $2.5 million
– and likely raising local hotel revenues by adding 2,000 nights per year. Ms. Stimart said that this
decision was assisted by DBA staff as well as TJPED‟s Executive Director, Mike Harvey.
She recognized Peter Su, Secretary of Commerce and Trade for the Department of Business
Assistance; Preston Wilhelm, Director of the Virginia Jobs Investment Program; and Debbie Melvin,
Project Manager.
Mr. Su said that there is already a very positive climate for business in Albemarle County, and the
State of Virginia has been ranked first for business four consecutive years by Forbes and CNBC. He said
that the DBA is a one-stop service for technical assistance related to business formation, access to
capital, and workforce development – and they have taken an integrated approach by working closely with
localities such as Albemarle to foster an environment that helps create job. Mr. Su said that their goal is to
assist existing and new companies in the area, in terms of implementing the highest quality in terms of
recruitment and training programs. He acknowledged his fellow staffers, noting that Preston Wilhelm will
retire in July after 30 years of service. Mr. Su said that their web is businessonestop.virginia.gov, and in
this region the point person is Debbie Melvin.
Mr. Rooker commented that the biggest challenge people face when starting a business is
accessing capital at the early stages, and asked Mr. Su about efforts to link them with private investors.
Mr. Su replied that the DBA has a financing authority called the “Small Business Financing
Authority,” whose primary role is to bridge the gap between the financing provided by local banks. He
added that they try to serve as a government guarantor for loans, and for smaller amounts they provide
direct lending, on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Rooker said that many of these companies need equity investments, not loans. North
Carolina does a good job putting equity investors in touch with early-stage companies. The links are not
as well established here as they are down there. He thinks it could possibly bear some good fruit in the
state if we could do a better job in that area.
Mr. Su agreed to look into it, adding that there are investors he‟s aware of in Northern Virginia
through his previous work there who may be interested.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr.
Dorrier, to approve Items 7.1 and 7.3. (Discussions on Item 7.1 and 7.2 are included under those items.
A separate vote was taken on Item 7.2.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas.
__________________
Item No. 7.1. Amend Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families
Agreement; Adopt Resolution to Create Community and Policy Management Team (CPMT); and Appoint
Members of CPMT.
The executive summary states that in 1997, the County and the City of Charlottesville (City)
entered into an Agreement creating the Commission on Children and Families (CCF). The CCF
Agreement set forth the structure, responsibility, staffing and funding for the CCF. One of the
responsibilities of the CCF under the Agreement was to act as the Community Policy and Management
Team (CPMT) as set forth in Virginia Code §§ 2.2-5200 et seq. The CCF Agreement provided that the
County and the City would pool their respective state Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) administrative
funding to operate the CCF.
In 2008, a Resource Management Review Study (RMRS) evaluated the efficiency of County
services. One of the recommendations from the RMRS was for the County and the City to determine
whether the CCF should continue to provide CSA administrative support to both the County and the City.
In May 2009, the Board conducted a work session to review and discuss the recommendations of the
RMRS and directed staff to evaluate the recommendation regarding the CCF. As a result of this directive,
a committee was formed to complete a study on this matter in collaboration with the City. At the
conclusion of the study, the committee recommended that the CCF no longer provide CSA administrative
support to the County and the City, and for the CCF to no longer perform the CPMT duties. It was further
recommended that the County and the City form their own respective CPMT‟s, separate from the CCF.
The County and the City would retain their state CSA funding rather than pooling it. In January 2010, the
committee submitted its recommendation to the County Executive and the City Manager. Both the County
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Executive and the City Manager incorporated this recommendation into their 2011-2012 proposed
budgets, which were adopted in April 2010 by the Board and City Council respectively. To implement this
change in the role of the CCF, an amendment to the Agreement between the County and the City
regarding CCF is needed.
Attached to this executive summary is the proposed amended CCF Agreement between the
County and the City (Attachment A). There are three proposed changes:
1. Delete Section 4 (c), which currently requires the County and the City to pool their
respective CSA administrative funds for the CCF. The County and the City will retain
CSA funding received from the State, rather than providing it to the CCF.
2. Amend Section 3 (b), which currently designates all CCF staff as employees of the
County, with the exception of one CCF staff being a City employee, so that all CCF staff
are employees of the County. The referenced City employee position is being transferred
to the Community Attention Home and will no longer be funded under the CCF
Agreement.
3. Delete Section 2 (a), which designates the CCF as the CPMT for the County and the City.
With the CCF no longer acting as the CPMT, separate CPMT‟s for the County and the
City must be created pursuant to Virginia Code § 2.2-5204.
The County is required to establish a CPMT pursuant to Virginia Code § 2.2-5204 with members
appointed as set forth in Virginia Code § 2.2-5205. While it is proposed that the County and the City
establish their own respective CPMT‟s, the County and the City intend to conduct their respective CPMT
meetings jointly to further the efficiency and consistency of services throughout the
Albemarle/Charlottesville Community. A proposed Resolution has been prepared for the Board‟s
consideration (Attachment C).
The following individuals are currently members of CPMT through the CCF, and in conformance
with state regulations, it is recommended that they be appointed as the members of the County‟s CPMT:
1. Bryan Elliott, County Representative;
2. Robert Johnson, Community Services Board Representative;
3. Martha Carroll, Sixteenth District Court Services Unit Representative;
4. Dr. Lillian Peake, Department of Health Representative;
5. Katherine D. Ralston, Albemarle County Social Services Representative;
6. Kevin Kirst, Albemarle County School Division Representative;
7. Jackie Bryant, Community Youth and Family Services Representative; and
8. Amy Laufer, Parent Representative
It is recommended that the term of appointment for the CYFS Representative and the Parent
Representative be for three (3) years from the first day of July of the year of appointment, and the Parent
Representative shall be eligible for reappointment to one additional term.
The adopted FY11 operating budget for the County incorporates the transition of CSA
Administrative functions from CCF to Albemarle County Department of Social Services (DSS) with a total
savings to the County of approximately $25,600 as estimated in the City/County Staff Committee Report
on CSA Administrative Support. These savings are achieved through re-directing the County share of
State CSA Administrative Revenue from CCF to County DSS and absorbing support functions for CSA
coordination with existing employees.
Staff recommends that the Board:
1) Approve the amended Agreement between the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
and the Charlottesville City Council on the Commission on Children and Families
(Attachment B) and authorize the Chair to execute it;
2) Adopt the Resolution to Establish a Community Policy and Management Team
(Attachment C) pursuant to Virginia Code § 2.2-5204; and
3) Appoint the recommended members to the CPMT.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd said in the Agreement it states: “…to coordinate, monitor and evaluate a
community wide system of children and family agencies… to be accountable to the efficient use of the
public/private resources.” The Board recently received information from the Center for Nonprofit
Excellence which provided a matrix of all the agencies working in different areas. This is something he
has been trying to challenge the Commission on Children and Families to look for any overlap among
nonprofit organizations and their activities. He asked if it would be possible to give CCF a more formal
directive in that regard. He is interested in seeing a report on what is being over-served and under-served
in these areas.
Mr. Rooker said that sounds like a good idea.
Mr. Bryan Elliott, Assistant County Executive, responded that the CCF conducts annually, on
behalf of the City and County, the agency budget review process for local grants. He said that over the
years, approximately 54 programs for 29 agencies have been funded through City and County dollars –
and the evaluation of those programs is based on what they submit in their applications. Mr. Elliott added
that sometimes those agencies are the same from year-to-year, but what drives some of the decision-
making for funding is the development of a Human Services Strategic Plan that both localities have
approved. He said that it has evolved in the recent timeframe to be linked to 0-6 early education
programs, youth programs, Computers for Kids, summer activities for kids, etc. The Commission is
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
responding to applications that come in the door as part of their solicitation from the public. It is not
perhaps as comprehensive as what the Center for Nonprofit Excellence has. Mr. Elliott stated that there is
a very rigorous review process as part of the CCF‟s evaluating and scoring.
Mr. Boyd said that they do a good job in that regard, but are missing part of their mission if they
don‟t come back with some analysis in their annual report as to which populations are over-served and
which are under-served.
Mr. Elliott responded that a week ago, the City, County, and members of the Commission met and
considered what other communities have done in terms of prioritizing their funding application processes
and where monies are allocated in the community. He said that the adoption of the Strategic Plan in 2007
was a step in that direction, but perhaps it‟s time to reevaluate and give more quantitative measures to
outcomes.
Ms. Mallek said that it would be helpful to have a matrix presented that shows the missing gaps
within the 54 programs that have been funded.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the amended Agreement between the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council on the Commission
on Children and Families and authorized the Chair to execute it (set out below); adopted the
Resolution to Establish a Community Policy and Management Team (set out below) pursuant to
Virginia Code § 2.2-5204; and appointed the following recommended members to the CPMT: Bryan
Elliott, County Representative; Robert Johnson, Community Services Board Representative;
Martha Carroll, Sixteenth District Court Services Unit representative; Dr. Lillian Peake, Department
of Health Representative; Katherine D. Ralston, Albemarle County Social Services Representative;
Kevin Kirst, Albemarle County School Division Representative; Jackie Bryant, Community Youth
and Family Services Representative; and Amy Laufer, Parent representative.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND THE CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL ON
THE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (the “County”) and the Charlottesville City Council (the “City”)
agree to join together to form the Commission on Children and Families (the “Commission”) whose sole
responsibility shall be to plan, coordinate, monitor and evaluate a community wide system of children and
family agencies. The intended goal of the Commission is to improve services to children, youth and families,
to be accountable for the efficient use of public/private resources and to be responsive to the changing needs
of the community. In doing so, we agree to the following:
1) With respect to the STRUCTURE OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County agree that:
a) The Commission shall consist of twenty-eight voting members. Eleven of the voting
members shall be citizen representatives (“Citizen Members”): five appointed by the County,
five appointed by the City and one jointly appointed private service provider. Of the eleven
citizen members, at least one appointee from each jurisdiction must be a parent, and at least
one appointee from each jurisdiction must be a youth under the age of eighteen years at the
time his or her appointment takes effect. Fourteen of the voting members shall be as follows
(“Agency Members”): the School Division Superintendent from both the City and the County;
one elected School Board member from both the City and the County; the Director of the
Department of Social Services from both the City and the County; the Chief of Police from
both the City and the County; the Director of Parks and Recreation from both the City and the
County; the Director of the Sixteenth District Court Services Unit; the Director of the Thomas
Jefferson Health District; the Director of Region Ten Community Services Board; a
representative of the University of Virginia; an Albemarle Assistant County Executive; a City
representative that represents senior management/leadership, as designated by the City
Manager; and the President of the United Way – Thomas Jefferson Area.
b) Terms of Appointment. Each Citizen Member of the Commission shall be appointed for a
term that shall expire three years from the first day of July of the year of appointment, except
the youth Citizen Members shall be appointed for a term that shall expire one year from the
first day of July of the year of appointment. With the exception of the private service provider
representative, each Citizen Member shall be eligible for reappointment to one additional
term of the same length as the initial appointment. The private service provider shall not be
eligible for reappointment to a second term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any Citizen
Member, including the private service provider, who is initially appointed to fill a vacancy, may
serve an additional successive term. Appointment shall be staggered for continuity. Each
Agency Member of the Commission shall serve for as long as they hold their public office or
until replaced by the appointing authority.
c) Manner of Appointments. The City and/or County shall appoint the specific individuals
representing that locality who will serve on the Commission, unless the member is solely
designated by his position or office, and by identifying the date upon which that individual‟s
appointed term will expire, if applicable. The representative of the University of Virginia will be
jointly appointed by the City and the County.
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
2) With respect to the RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County agree that
the Commission shall:
a) Provide comprehensive short and long range planning for children and family services within
the Charlottesville/Albemarle community;
b) Make program and funding recommendations to the City and County governing bodies within
the budgetary procedures and guidelines set by each jurisdiction;
c) Review and evaluate current service delivery systems to ensure that the needs of children
and families are being met effectively and efficiently;
d) Identify and encourage new and innovative approaches to program development for children
and families;
e) Identify additional public and private funding sources for children and youth programs;
f) Participate in the yearly evaluation of the director of Commission staff;
g) Provide structured opportunities for community input and participation on the needs of
families, e.g. public hearings workshops focus groups and work teams;
h) Provide an annual report to the Board of Supervisors and City Council to insure that the
County and City are in agreement with the policy and direction set by the Commission.
3) With respect to STAFFING OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County agree that:
a) Staff will be hired, supervised and evaluated as mutually agreed upon by the City and the
County with assistance and input from the Commission;
b) Staff will be employees of the County of Albemarle subject to all personnel policies and
entitled to all its benefits.
4) With respect to FUNDING OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County intend to:
a) Provide an annual contribution as mutually agreed upon for the operation of the Commission;
b) Direct the Commission on Children and Families to actively seek funding for children and
family projects from other sources, including public and private grants, local service groups
and the business community;
c) The County of Albemarle will provide fiscal and legal services to the Commission for an
administrative fee equal to one percent (1%) of the Commission‟s operating budget for a
period of five (5) years beginning January 1, 2007. At the conclusion of the five year
period the City and County will negotiate a fiscal agent fee consistent with the fee charged
for other joint City – County agencies.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BY:______________________________________
CHAIRMAN
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILE
BY:______________________________________
MAYOR
__________
RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH
A COMMUNITY POLICY AND MANAGEMENT TEAM
WHEREAS, pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 2.2-5204 et seq., the County desires to create a Community
Policy and Management Team (CPMT); and
WHEREAS, the CPMT shall have the powers and duties as set forth in Virginia Code
§§ 2.2-5206 and 2.2-5207; and
WHEREAS, the CPMT shall be comprised of the following members appointed by the County:
1. An elected official or appointed official or his designee from the County;
2. A representative from the Community Services Board;
3. A representative from the Sixteenth District Juvenile Court Services Unit;
4. A representative from the Thomas Jefferson Health District;
5. The Director of Albemarle County Department of Social Services or her designee;
6. The Superintendent of the Albemarle County Schools or her designee;
7. A representative from the Community Youth and Family Services (CYFS); and
8. A parent representative from the Albemarle community; and
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
WHEREAS, the term of appointment for members holding public positions shall be for so long as they
serve in that public position or until replaced by the Board; and
WHEREAS, the term of appointment for the CYFS representative and the parent representative shall
be for three (3) years, such term commencing from the date of appointment, or until replaced by the Board.
The CYFS representative shall not be eligible for reappointment and the parent representative may be
appointed to one additional three (3) year term or until replaced by the Board; and
WHEREAS, the County CPMT will conduct joint meetings with the City of Charlottesville CPMT to
ensure continuing efficiency and consistency within the Albemarle/Charlottesville Community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
creates and establishes a CPMT pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 2.2-5204 et seq. with all the powers and duties
as set forth in Virginia Code §§ 2.2-5206 and 2.2-5207 consisting of the members identified above for the
prescribed terms of service.
__________
Item No. 7.2. Resolution of Intent to Amend the Zoning Ordinance, Sign Regulations.
The executive summary states that on January 6, 2010, the Board adopted the “2010 Albemarle
County Action Plan” that outlined a series of objectives for the coming year which included, among other
things, amending the County‟s sign ordinances. That objective, number 6 in the Plan, states “The sign
ordinances need to be re-examined to ensure they do not overly restrict economic vitality of area
businesses. Staff should work with local retailers to develop new ordinances that will help promote good
business practices as well as maintaining quality aesthetic values.” The attached Resolution of Intent is
being presented in response to that action item.
The County‟s sign review and approval process has been criticized by some local businesses as
difficult to understand and navigate. For certain types of development signs the standards may restrict
appropriate advertisement of some businesses, such as a business in a business center or
industrial/business park. Also, certain regulations may make it difficult to have business identification
while waiting for sign approval or fabrication. There have been other suggested changes, such as:
allowing temporary signs for a longer period while awaiting their permanent sign; not regulating interior
signs at all; streamlining process to allow for more administrative/timely design approvals; redefining “on-
site” for planned developments with multiple parcels; and increasing the allowable height for signs. Staff
proposes to have roundtables to solicit suggestions and comments from business owners as the
ordinance amendment is developed.
Staff time and costs associated with the review and approval of sign applications may be reduced.
Staff recommends that the Board adoption the attached Resolution of Intent.
(Discussion: Mr. Rooker said that the proposed review of the sign ordinance is an example of
why the Board needs to be careful about acting precipitously – which he thinks was done in early January
when a list of things was set out and voted on as directions. Mr. Rooker stated that the better protocol
would have been getting a staff report from Planning and then consider this as a separate item, so that
everybody on the Board would have the information before they voted the intention to change the sign
ordinance. He has some specific recommendations on the Resolution of Intent. He would like to amend
the fourth “Whereas” to say: “it may be desirable to amend the county‟s sign regulations,” adding that the
process shouldn‟t be started with the presumption that they need to be amended. The idea of a roundtable
and discussion is to make that determination and then to make recommendations about what ought to be
done, if anything. Mr. Rooker said that the next “Whereas” in the third line should read “to consider
amending….” Again, the reason is that there is not a predetermined decision that the sign ordinance is
being amended until the Board gets a report back that follows the process. He added that the roundtable
that‟s been established for these discussions is “a very narrow group that only represents business
interests.” He thinks the sign regulations exist to serve businesses and the general aesthetics of the
community.
Mr. Rooker suggested including Dr. Bruce Bateman on the roundtable, noting that Dr. Bateman
has an interest in signs and aesthetics in the community – and has written several letters to the Editor
about signage. Mr. Rooker also said that there should be one representative from either the
environmental organizations, either PEC or SELC. He thinks roundtables should be round, and include a
variety of viewpoints. He added that with those proposed changes, he is prepared to support the item.
Mr. Boyd said he has no problem with including those changes, but he does think the sign
ordinances need to be changed and that is why this issue was brought forward.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Boyd if he is on the roundtable and is making that determination. Mr. Boyd
said he does not want to be a part of the roundtable. He also has no problem with adding people to the
roundtable because we want to be as open and transparent as possible. This is a community issue and
the Board needs to get all points of view. From his standpoint, there are necessary changes to the sign
ordinances.
Mr. Dorrier said that Mr. Rooker‟s comments are very wise, and it is necessary to have both
professionals and amateurs deal with sign issues. There are some technical issues that need to be
addressed, so he thinks that if the County gets a good committee, they will move ahead with it.
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Boyd noted that it is a County Executive‟s committee, not a committee established by the
Board.
Mr. Rooker said that he doesn‟t know how it originally got created, but he would like to see some
additional representation.)
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve Item 7.2, as
amended with the changes. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance includes regulations pertaining to the location,
size, height, number and, along entrance corridors, the design, of signs; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors‟ “2010 Albemarle County Action Plan,” dated January 6, 2010,
included as one of its objectives the re-examination of the County‟s sign regulations “to ensure they do not
overly restrict economic vitality of area businesses” with the goal of developing new regulations that “will help
promote good business practices as well as maintaining quality aesthetic values;” and
WHEREAS, the issues identified for study and action include the sign review and approval process,
regulations pertaining to temporary signs, sign height, and signs within business centers, industrial parks and
business parks, and definitions; and
WHEREAS, it may be desirable to amend the County‟s sign regulations to address the issues
identified above and other related issues pertaining to the regulation of signs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to consider amending Albemarle County Code § 18-4.15, Signs, and any other sections of
the Zoning Ordinance deemed to be appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the
Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
__________
Item No. 7.3. Resolution Commemorating the Life of Paul Goodloe McIntire on the Occasion of
the 150th Anniversary of His Birth.
At the request of Mr. Steven Meeks and the Historical Society, the Board adopted the
following resolution Commemorating the Life of Paul Goodloe McIntire on the Occasion of the
150th Anniversary of His Birth:
RESOLUTION
Commemorating the life of Paul Goodloe McIntire on the Occasion
of the 150th Anniversary of his Birth
WHEREAS, Paul Goodloe McIntire, son of George M. McIntire and Catherine Clark McIntire, was born in
Charlottesville, Virginia, on May 28, 1860, and graciously enriched the Charlottesville and
Albemarle County community with many generous gifts until his death on July 1, 1952; and
WHEREAS, Mr. McIntire attended the University of Virginia for the 1878-79 session and in 1880 moved to
Chicago to work as a coffee salesman, beginning his successful career in finance; and
WHEREAS, in 1891 Mr. McIntire married Edith Clark and in 1896 purchased a seat on the Chicago Stock
Exchange working as a commission broker for customers, trading in his own interest, and
attaining a reputation as a specialist in rail stocks; and
WHEREAS, Mr. McIntire welcomed the birth of his only child, Charlotte Virginia McIntire, in 1901; and he
moved to New York, purchasing a seat on the New York Stock Exchange; and
WHEREAS, in 1918 Mr. McIntire left active business to retire to Charlottesville, and in 1919 endowed the
University of Virginia with a School of Fine Arts, consisting of a School of Art and Architecture
and a School of Music; and in 1921, the same year that he married Anna Dearing Rhodes, he
donated funds for the establishment of a School of Commerce and Finance at the University;
and
WHEREAS, Mr. McIntire desired to share his fortune and his passion for international culture, reading,
and learning with the citizens and children of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, he did so
with a gift of rare books to Alderman Library at the University of Virginia that included works
from the 14th through 17th centuries; a donation of 473 art objects to the Museum of Fine Arts
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
at the University; the gift of a public library building and collection to Charlottesville; and
numerous contributions of books, scholarships, and maps to Charlottesville and Albemarle
County schools; and
WHEREAS, Mr. McIntire is fondly remembered as one of our community’s greatest benefactors, who
shaped the Charlottesville cityscape with five public parks (Lee, Jackson, Belmont,
Washington, and McIntire); statues of Robert E. Lee in Lee Park; Stonewall Jackson in
Jackson Park; Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and Sacajawea at the intersection of McIntire
Road and Ridge Street; and George Rogers Clark at the intersection of West Main Street and
Jefferson Park Avenue; and the amphitheater at the University of Virginia, as a site for
concerts and lectures; and
WHEREAS, Mr. McIntire contributed heavily to Albemarle County’s 4-H Clubs and public schools,
providing aid for the building of new County schools in Crozet and Scottsville; provided
educational materials (maps, lithographs, and records) for all County schools from the high
schools to one-room elementary schools; and established scholarships for an outstanding
graduating boy and girl from each high school each year; and
WHEREAS, Mr. McIntire received the Algernon Sydney Sullivan Award for his service to mankind in 1928,
was awarded the honor of Chevalier of the French Legion of Honor in 1929 for his generous
gifts to the education of World War I orphans, served on the University of Virginia Board of
Visitors from 1922 to 1934, returned to New York following the death of his wife in 1933,
married Hilda Berkel Hall in 1934, and was honored by the City of Charlottesville in the first
Paul Goodloe McIntire Day on May 20, 1942;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that it commend
Paul Goodloe McIntire on the 150th Anniversary of his birth for his unfailing generosity to the
community of his birth, the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors prepare a copy
of this resolution for presentation to the Albemarle Charlottesville Historical Society as an
expression of respect for Paul Goodloe McIntire’s memory and contributions, in honor of the
150th anniversary of his birth.
Signed and sealed this 12th day of May, 2010.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: SP-2009-00009. BB&T (Charlottesville) – ATM (Sign
#39).
PROPOSED: Additional drive thru lane and ATM kiosk.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: CO - Commercial Office. SECTION: 23.2.2(5) Special
Use Permit, which allows for drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service - community-scale retail
wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment
services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre); and Regional Service - regional-scale retail,
wholesale, business and/or employment centers, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in
Neighborhood 2.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: Southeast side of Seminole Trail (Route 29N), approximately 300 feet south of the
entrance to Fashion Square Mall.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61/134.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 26 and May 3, 2010.)
Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development, said that this is a special use permit for a drive-
through. BB&T is proposing to relocate the ATM machine. This property is located on Route 29. He said
that the entrance coming in off of Route 29 will remain unchanged, as will the parking lot and main
building. Mr. Fritz pointed out the location of the existing ATM and the new location on the site plan.
There are minor alterations proposed to the site. He said that staff has reviewed the request for its impact
on the Entrance Corridor, community, and area, and found it to be consistent with Zoning Ordinance
requirements. The staff recommended the request for approval. T he Planning Commission considered
the proposal on April 6, 2010, and voted 5-0 to recommend approval with one condition. There was no
public comment at the meeting. Mr. Fritz stated that the site plan was originally approved in 1977, and
was the fourth site plan the county ever had.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bryan Thomas, the local area executive for BB&T, asked the Board to approve this request.
He said that the reason the Bank wants to move the ATM is for the safety of its employees. Presently the
employees must go out to the ATM daily to transport cash, pick up deposits, and bring them back into the
office. Moving the ATM to the fourth drive-through will allow for a newer machine that will be able to
transport cash and deposits back into the office.
Mr. Ron Manslow said that his firm is handling the technical aspects of this application and he
would be happy to answer any questions.
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the
Board.
Mr. Boyd asked why this is coming before the Board, commenting that this is exactly what is
wrong with the County‟s process.
Mr. Fritz replied that this is one of the simplest drive-throughs the County has ever had, and the
reason it‟s before the Board is because drive-throughs in the Commercial Office district require a special
use permit. It is a category of use that could not be acted on administratively.
Mr. Boyd said that it just doesn‟t seem to be an effective use of staff and Commission time.
Ms. Mallek suggested having a checklist that can be used in evaluating the applications
administratively.
Mr. Rooker agreed, stating that it could be similar to the cell tower process.
Mr. Rooker then moved for approval of SP-2009-0009 subject to the one condition presented.
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas.
(Note: The condition of approval is set out below:)
1. Development of the site will be in general accord with the site plan drawing titled Proposed Site
Layout revisions for new ATM Bldg, dated 08.18.09, and initialed SEF(copy on file in Clerk‟s
office).
__________________
Agenda Item No. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: ZTA-2009-0009. Entrance Corridor Overlay District
("ECOD").
Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 4.15.2, Definitions, 4.15.15, Regulations applicable to the entrance
corridor overlay district, and 30.6.8, Appeals; Amend and rename Secs. 30.6.1, Intent, 30.6.2,
Application, 30.6.3, Permitted uses, 30.6.4, Area and bulk regulations; minimum yards and
setback requirements; height regulations; landscaping and screening; preservation of natural
features, and 30.6.7, Administration; Amend, renumber and rename Secs. 30.6.3.1, By right,
30.6.3.2, By special use permit, 30.6.6, Nonconformities; exemptions, 30.6.6.1, Untitled, 30.6.6.2,
Repair and maintenance of structures, 30.6.6.3, Exemptions; Add Secs. 30.6.6, Submittal, review
and action on application; preliminary review, and 30.6.9, Public health or safety considered; and
repeal Sec. 30.6.5, Signs, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance
would amend and reorganize the regulations pertaining to lands within the ECOD by adding and
amending definitions related to the ECOD ((All references are to new Sec. numbers) 3.1 and
4.15.2); amending the regulation of signs in the ECOD by requiring certain sign styles to have
opaque backgrounds and moving the sign review regulations to Sec. 30.6 (4.15.15); amending the
stated purpose and intent of the ECOD (30.6.1); restating the existing boundaries of the ECOD
(30.6.2); amending the permitted uses and applicable standards for development in the ECOD,
and combining those regulations in a single section (30.6.3); clarifying the types of development
for which a certificate of appropriateness (“CA”) is required, establishing a new class of CA – the
county-wide CA – to allow expedited review of certain classes of development, and delineating the
scope and authority of the architectural review board (“ARB”) in reviewing an application for a CA
(30.6.4); expanding the types of development exempt from the requirements of Sec. 30.6 (30.6.5);
delineating the procedures for the submittal, review and action on an application for a CA, for both
preliminary (30.6.6) and final review (30.6.7); restating the procedure to appeal a decision of the
ARB to the Board of Supervisors (30.6.8); and, amending the authority of the planning
commission to supersede any condition or requirement of a CA for any public health or safety
reason, and expanding that authority to the agent and the zoning administrator under prescribed
circumstances (30.6.9). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 26 and May 3, 2010.)
Ms. Margaret Maliszewski, Principal Planner, reported that the Board last looked at this in March
2010 at a work session and recommended at that time that the categories of the County-wide certificates
be included in the text of the amendment. She said that in April, staff went back to the ARB with a list of
proposed categories, and they approved it with two modifications.
Ms. Maliszewski explained that the County-wide certificate would be available for 1) structures
located 750 feet or more from an Entrance Corridor; 2) structures proposed to be located behind another
structure that fronts the EC; 3) personal wireless service facilities; 4) wall signs for buildings that have a
single occupant; 5) fencing; 6) equipment; 7) additions to structures that have already had an approved
certificate of appropriateness; 8) lighting; 9) minor amendments to plans; 10) building permits when the
change occupies 50% or less of the altered elevation; and 11) sub-permits, such as mechanical, electrical,
and plumbing permits that are associated with new buildings that have been approved by the ARB.
Ms. Maliszewski noted the categories that have been discussed throughout this process as being
possible categories for this type of action, from 2008-09 when the Board had joint meetings with the
Planning Commission and ARB. She also mentioned the categories of fencing, equipment, and lighting –
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
which were added more recently because the ARB has already established specific design guidelines for
those types of elements or are in the process of doing so.
Ms. Maliszewski said that the ARB had two recommendations on the list, which are related to the
structures located behind another structure and additions to structures. She explained that for the
structures located behind another structure, the ARB‟s recommendation was to add a height limit to avoid
the appearance of an over-towering building behind the building in front – and that is incorporated into the
text – “where the rear structure is no more than twice the height of the front structure.” Ms. Maliszewski
noted that staff added no further limiting factors to the ARB‟s second recommendation related to additions
to buildings, which reads “where the design of the addition is consistent with the architectural design
approved with the certificate of appropriateness. She added that the two small changes in the text are the
additional of agricultural product signs as an exempt class of signs, added to coordinate with the work the
Board completed last week on farm stands and wineries; the other change is the addition of a cross-
reference regarding the Zoning Administrator‟s authority and certificates of occupancy.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is a limitation on agricultural signs. Ms. Mallek responded that the size
is limited to 2‟x2‟.
Ms. Mallek asked if there is any ongoing work on elevation changes, such as where a building at
the top of a hill provides more impact than one on street level. Ms. Maliszewski said that situations like
that would need to be taken into consideration and if staff isn‟t comfortable with approving it as eligible for
the county-wide certificate, it would be forwarded to the ARB.
Mr. Snow asked if any of these changes have an impact on the quality of the buildings in this
community, noting that people are concerned about diluting of quality. Ms. Maliszewski responded that
they would not, as the entire purpose is just to streamline the process and speed it up.
Mr. Snow asked how much staff time this would save. Ms. Maliszewski said it should save a lot of
staff time. The staff wouldn‟t have to write staff reports, which can be time consuming, and these items
wouldn‟t have to go through an ARB meeting.
Ms. Mallek said that the reason she supports this is the amount of work that‟s gone into
delineating the categories ahead of time, and commented that it is the applicant‟s job to figure out what
they want and make sure it meets requirements.
Mr. Rooker stated that this is an example of something being done the right way, noting that this is
codifying the things that the ARB has seen over the years as being important.
Mr. Snow commented that the County should continue to look for opportunities such as this to
streamline processes.
Ms. Mallek emphasized that the staff has made recommendations on streamlining, and
encouraged them to continue doing so.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Fred Missel said that he is the Acting Chair of the ARB and has been serving on that Board for
about six years. Mr. Missel complimented staff on the amount of work they‟ve put into this, noting that
they were very careful about including the Board and documenting changes. The ARB appreciates that
and is very supportive of this proposal.
Mr. Neil Williamson said that the Free Enterprise Forum agrees that the streamlining here is
commendable. He thanked staff for bringing them forward. He also thanked staff for providing
information that he used in his “Eye of the Beholder” report. Staff provided him with a great deal of
resources in terms of old minutes that were critical to the success of writing the report. He added that he
doesn‟t believe these measures go far enough, but that‟s not a reason not to go forward with this
important step.
Mr. Morgan Butler, of the Southern Environmental Law Center, commended staff on their work
and for the openness of the process. He added that the preliminary review process mapped out in the
ordinance can actually lead to approval, and the process is much clearer as well as providing some new
exemptions for certain types of structures. Mr. Butler noted that this is a positive step in addressing the
concerns in Mr. Williamson‟s report, and one item in the report that isn‟t addressed here is better
distribution of ARB materials to the public. He asked about the 750-foot distance in the new provisions, as
every staff report where this idea has been mentioned before refers to 2,000 feet. He would like to know
why that was cut by so much. He would like for the Board to move it back closer to 2,000 feet.
With regard to the sign ordinance, Mr. Butler added that the SELC would be happy to provide a
roundtable representative from the environmental community, as Mr. Rooker suggested.
Ms. Maliszewski noted that staff recommended a reduction in that distance so they could do more
with it – as there isn‟t much that will come up as 2,000 feet or more. She said that they went out and put
together some of the distances of different buildings from the EC, and looking at those, it seemed that 750
feet was enough distance to reduce the visual impact. Ms. Maliszewski emphasized that each of these
categories would involve specific guidelines, citing the buildings at Old Trail as an example of those too far
away to merit further review.
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
At this time, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Mr. Davis provided information regarding the agricultural product signs, stating that the regulation
the Board adopted last week limits signs to one or two onsite signs that do not exceed an aggregate of 32
square feet in sign area. He said that those signs are not subject to sign permit requirements, and would
be unregulated except if they are put up improperly. Mr. Davis noted that temporary signs are similar, but
depending on the zoning district, they can be anywhere from 24 to 32 square feet. He added that they are
regulated in size and in terms of number of signs and duration of display.
Mr. Rooker then moved to adopt ZTA-2009-009 as presented. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas.
ORDINANCE NO. 10-18(5)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II,
BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, 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, and Article III, District Regulations, of the Code of
the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
Sec. 4.15.15 Regulations applicable in the entrance corridor overlay district
Sec. 30.6.8 Appeals
By Amending and Renaming:
Sec. 30.6.1 Purpose and intent
Sec. 30.6.2 Boundaries of the district
Sec. 30.6.3 Permitted uses and applicable standards
Sec. 30.6.4 Certificates of appropriateness
Sec. 30.6.7 Submittal, review and action on application; final review
By Amending, Renumbering and Renaming (old section number first, followed by name, followed by
new section number):
Sec. 30.6.3.1 By right Sec. 30.6.3 (part)
Sec. 30.6.3.2 By special use permit Sec. 30.6.3 (part)
Sec. 30.6.6 Development exempt from requirement
to obtain certificate of appropriateness Sec. 30.6.5
Sec. 30.6.6.1 Untitled Sec. 30.6.5 (part)
Sec. 30.6.6.2 Repair and maintenance of structures Sec. 30.6.5 (part)
Sec. 30.6.6.3 Exemptions
By Adding:
Sec. 30.6.6 Submittal, review and action on application; preliminary review
Sec. 30.6.9 Public health or safety considered
By Repealing:
Sec. 30.6.5 Signs
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
. . .
Certificate of appropriateness: A decision made by the architectural review board or, on appeal, by the board
of supervisors, certifying that a proposed structure and/or site improvements located within the entrance
corridor overlay district, as may be modified by terms and conditions of the certificate, are consistent with the
applicable design guidelines.
Certificate of appropriateness, county-wide: A decision made by the architectural review board establishing
specific design criteria consistent with applicable design guidelines for a class of structures, sites,
improvements, or architectural elements. The decision applies to any structure, site, improvement or
architectural element within that class that complies with the specific design criteria.
. . .
Nonconforming Structure: The term “nonconforming structure” means a lawful structure existing on the
effective date of the zoning regulations applicable to the district, including any overlay district, in which the
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
structure is located, that does not comply with the minimum applicable bulk, height, setback, floor area or
other structure requirements of that district. (Amended 6-14-00)
. . .
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
(36.1) Opaque background: The term “opaque background” means the portion of the face of a sign that lies
behind the message portion of the sign, made of a material through which light cannot pass when the sign is
internally illuminated at night.
. . .
Sec. 4.15.15 Regulations applicable in the entrance corridor overlay district
In addition to all other regulations set forth in this section 4.15, the following regulations shall apply within the
entrance corridor overlay zoning district:
a. Certificate of appropriateness required. Prior to the erection of a sign that would be visible from an
entrance corridor street, including a sign erected on or visible through a window on a structure, the
owner or lessee of the lot on which the sign will be located shall obtain a certificate of appropriateness
for that sign unless the sign is exempt under section 30.6.5.
b. Authority and procedure for acting upon application for certificate of appropriateness. The authority
and procedure for acting upon an application for a certificate of appropriateness for a sign shall be as
set forth in section 30.6.
c. Opaque backgrounds. All internally illuminated box-style and cabinet-style signs shall have an
opaque background.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.8; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 30.6 Entrance corridor overlay district - EC (Added 10-3-90)
Sec. 30.6.1 Purpose and intent
The purpose of this section 30.6 is to implement the enabling authority in Virginia Code § 15.2-2306(A) by
identifying those arterial streets and highways found to be significant routes of tourist access to the county and
to designated historic landmarks, structures or districts within the county or in contiguous localities, and to
require that the erection, reconstruction, alteration or restoration of structures, including signs, on parcels
contiguous to those streets and highways as provided herein, be architecturally compatible with those historic
landmarks or structures.
The comprehensive plan provides that scenic resources contribute to the community‟s desirability as a place
to live, enhance and protect property values, and contribute to the overall quality of life for the county‟s
residents. The comprehensive plan also acknowledges that scenic resources are important to visitors as well
as the county‟s residents, and that visitors to the Blue Ridge Mountains and the county‟s rural historic
structures gather a lasting impression of the county as they travel the county‟s scenic roadways. The
significant routes of tourist access within the entrance corridor overlay district provide access to the cou nty
and to many of the county‟s historic landmarks, structures and districts including, but not limited to Monticello,
the home of Thomas Jefferson, which is on the World Heritage List administered by the United Nations and a
National Historic Landmark, Ash Lawn-Highland, the home of James Monroe, the University of Virginia, whose
Rotunda is on the World Heritage List and a National Historic Landmark, and whose academical village is on
the World Heritage List, a National Historic Landmark and a National Register Historic District, and the
county‟s eight historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places, including the Southwest Mountains
Rural Historic District and the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District.
The entrance corridor overlay district is intended to implement the comprehensive plan‟s goal to preserve the
county‟s scenic resources because they are essential to the county‟s character, economic vitality and quality of
life. An objective of this goal is to maintain the visual integrity of the county‟s roadways by using design
guidelines. The entrance corridor overlay district will ensure that development is compatible with the county‟s
natural, scenic, historic and architectural resources by providing for review of new construction along the
identified significant routes of tourist access by an architectural review board under design guidelines
promulgated by that board and ratified by the board of supervisors.
Sec. 30.6.2 Boundaries of the district
The entrance corridor overlay district is established upon and comprised of those parcels contiguous to
significant routes of tourist access, regardless of the underlying zoning district or the existence of other
applicable overlay districts, as provided in section 30.6.2(b) as follows:
a. Significant routes of tourist access. The following arterial streets and highway are found to be
significant routes of tourist access and are hereinafter referred to in section 30.6 as “EC streets”:
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
1. U.S. Route 250 East (Richmond Road).
2. U.S. Route 29 North (Seminole Trail).
3. U.S. Route 29 South (Monacan Trail).
4. Virginia Route 20 South (Monticello Avenue and Scottsville Road).
5. Virginia Route 631 (5th Street and Old Lynchburg Road) from Charlottesville City limits to
Route 708 (Red Hill Road) and Virginia Route 631 (Rio Road West) from U.S. Route 29
North (Seminole Trail) to Route 743 (Earlysville Road). (Amended 11-14-90; Amended 4-12-
00)
6. U.S. Route 250 West (Ivy Road and Rockfish Gap Turnpike).
7. Virginia Route 6 (Irish Road).
8. Virginia Route 151 (Critzers Shop Road).
9. Interstate Route 64.
10. Virginia Route 20 North (Stony Point Road).
11. Virginia Route 22 (Louisa Road).
12. Virginia Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway).
13. Virginia Route 231 (Gordonsville Road).
14. Virginia Route 240 (Three Notch‟d Road).
15. U.S. Route 29 Business (Fontaine Avenue)
16. U.S. Route 29/250 Bypass.
17. Virginia Route 654 (Barracks Road). (Added 11-14-90)
18. Virginia Route 742 (Avon Street). (Added 11-14-90)
19. Virginia Route 649 (Airport Road) from U.S. Route 29 North (Seminole Trail) to Virginia Route
606 (Dickerson Road). (Added 4-12-00)
20. Virginia Route 743 (Hydraulic Road and Earlysville Road) from U.S. Route 29 North
(Seminole Trail) to Virginia Route 676 (Woodlands Road). (Added 4-12-00)
21. Virginia Route 631 (Rio Road) from U.S. Route 29 North (Seminole Trail) easterly to the
Norfolk Southern Railway tracks. (Added 11-2-05)
b. Parcels contiguous to EC streets. Parcels contiguous to EC streets are:
1. Parcels sharing boundary with an EC street on reference date. Each parcel that had a
boundary that was shared at any point with the right-of-way of an EC street on one of the
following applicable reference dates: (i) on October 3, 1990 for those parcels sharing a
boundary with an EC street identified in section 30.6.2(a)(1) through (16); (ii) on November
14, 1990 for those parcels sharing a boundary with an EC street identified in section
30.6.2(a)(17) and (18); (iii) on April 12, 2000 for those parcels sharing a boundary with an EC
street identified in section 30.6.2(a)(19) and (20); and (iv) on November 2, 2005 for those
parcels sharing a boundary with an EC street identified in section 30.6.2(a)(21) (hereinafter,
the “applicable reference date”).
2. Parcels not sharing boundary with an EC street. Each parcel within five hundred (500) feet of
the right-of-way of an EC street that did not share at any point a boundary with the right-of-
way of an EC street on the applicable reference date.
c. Extent of overlay district. The overlay district extends across the entire width of each parcel
contiguous to an EC street. The overlay district extends to the depth of each parcel as follows:
1. Parcels sharing boundary with an EC street on reference date. If the parcel shared a
boundary with an EC street on the applicable reference date as provided in section
30.6.2(b)(1), the overlay district extends to the full depth of the parcel.
2. Parcels not sharing boundary with an EC street. If the parcel is within five hundred (500) feet
of an EC street and did not share a boundary with an EC street on the applicable reference
date as provided in section 30.6.2(b)(2), the overlay district extends to a depth of five
hundred (500) feet from the right-of-way of the EC street.
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
d. Effect of subsequent change to parcel boundaries. The subdivision, boundary line adjustment, or any
other change to the boundaries of a parcel after the applicable reference date shall not reduce the
area subject to this section 30.6 without a zoning map amendment that changes the boundaries to the
entrance corridor overlay district.
(12-10-80, § 30.6.2; 11-14-90; 9-9-92; Ord. 00-18(4), 4-12-00; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(9), 11-2-05)
Sec. 30.6.3 Permitted uses and applicable standards
Within the EC overlay district:
a. Uses. The following uses may be permitted within the EC overlay district in accordance with the
applicable requirements of this section 30.6 and the underlying zoning district:
1. By right. Uses permitted by right in the underlying zoning district shall be permitted by right in
the EC overlay district, except as otherwise provided in section 30.6.
2. By special use permit. The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the EC
overlay district:
a. Uses authorized by special use permit in the underlying zoning district.
b. Outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or associated with a permitted use,
other than a residential, agricultural or forestal use, any portion of which would be
visible from the EC street to which it is contiguous or from any other EC street which
is located within five hundred (500) feet; provided that review shall be limited to
determining whether the outdoor storage, display and/or sales is consistent with the
applicable design guidelines. (Amended 9-9-92)
c. The construction or location of any structure, including any subdivision sign or sign
identifying a planned development as provided in section 4.15.16(I), upon the
superjacent and subjacent airspace of an EC street that is not required for the
purpose of travel or other public use by the Commonwealth of Virginia or other
political jurisdiction owning such street.
b. Area and bulk and other regulations. The area and bulk, minimum yard and setback requirements,
and maximum building height requirements of the underlying zoning district shall apply to all uses and
structures in the EC overlay district.
c. Bonus factors. A condition of a certificate of appropriateness that requires improvements or design
features for which a bonus might otherwise be permitted under the applicable district regulations shall
not affect the eligibility for the bonus.
d. Grading or land disturbing activity. No grading or other land disturbing activity (including trenching or
tunneling), except as necessary for the construction of tree wells or tree walls, shall occur within the
drip line of any trees or wooded areas designated on the site plan to be preserved, nor intrude upon
any other existing features designated in the certificate of appropriateness for preservation.
e. Method for preserving designated features. An applicant for a development subject to the provisions
of section 30.6 shall sign a conservation checklist provided by the director of planning or his or her
designee (the “director of planning”) specifying the method for preserving the designated features,
and the method shall conform to the specifications contained in Standard and Specification 3.38 at
pages III-393 through III-413 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook; provided that
the architectural review board, or the director of planning, may require alternative methods of tree
protection if greater protection is deemed necessary.
f. Designating and protecting preserved features. Areas on a site containing features to be preserved
shall be identified on approved site plans and building plans and shall be clearly and visibly delineated
on the site prior to commencing grading or other land disturbing activity, including trenching or
tunneling. No grading, other land disturbing activity, or movement of heavy equipment shall occur
within the delineated areas. The visible delineation of the boundaries of the areas to be preserved
shall be maintained until a certificate of occupancy is issued by the county. All features designated for
preservation shall be protected during development.
(12-10-80, § 30.6.3.2; 9-9-92; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
Sec. 30.6.4 Certificates of appropriateness
The architectural review board is authorized to issue certificates of appropriateness for any structure, and
associated improvements, or any portion thereof, that are visible from the EC street to which the parcel is
contiguous, as follows:
a. Development requiring a certificate of appropriateness. The following developments require a
certificate of appropriateness:
1. Building permits required. Each structure and/or site improvement for which a building permit
is required, even though it is not a development for which a site plan is required, unless the
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
structure and/or site improvement is exempt under section 30.6.5. No building permit shall
be approved until the certificate of appropriateness is obtained.
2. Site plans required. Each structure and/or site improvement for which a building permit is
required in a development for which a site plan is required, unless the improvement is
exempt under section 30.6.5. No site plan shall be approved until the certificate of
appropriateness is obtained.
b. Types of certificates of appropriateness. The architectural review board is authorized to issue the
following types of certificates of appropriateness:
1. Specific developments. For specific developments associated with one or more building
permits or a single site plan.
2. Signs in a new multi-business complex or shopping center. For all of the signs in a new
multi-business complex or shopping center, where the architectural review board first
conducts a comprehensive sign review. Once a certificate of appropriateness for signs in a
new multi-business complex or shopping center is issued, the director of planning is
authorized to determine whether a particular sign satisfies the conditions of the certificate of
appropriateness.
3. County-wide certificates of appropriateness. County-wide certificates of appropriateness may
be issued for classes of structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements, subject to
the applicable design criteria and procedures, as follows:
a. Categories of structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements eligible for
county-wide certificates of appropriateness. The following categories of structures,
sites, improvements, or architectural elements shall be eligible for county-wide
certificates of appropriateness:
1. Structures located seven hundred fifty (750) feet or more from an EC street
that are not more than five (5) stories tall.
2. Structures that are proposed to be located behind another structure that
fronts an EC street as viewed from the EC street, where the rear structure is
no more than twice the height of the front structure.
3. Personal wireless service facilities.
4. Wall signs proposed for structures having a single occupant.
5. Safety fencing and screening fencing.
6. New or replacement rooftop-mounted or ground-mounted equipment.
7. Additions to structures or improvements for which a certificate of
appropriateness was issued, where the design of the addition to the
structure or improvement is consistent with the architectural design
approved with the certificate of appropriateness.
8. New structure or site lighting or changes to existing structure or site lighting.
9. Minor amendments to site plans and architectural plans.
10. Building permits for which the proposed change occupies fifty (50) percent
or less of the altered elevation of an existing structure.
11. Permits classified in sections 5-202, 5-203, 5-204 and 5-208(A) not
otherwise exempt under section 30.6.5(k).
b. Design criteria. The board may establish appropriate architectural or design features
under the design guidelines that a structure, site, improvement or architectural
element must be found to be consistent with in order to be eligible to be subject to a
county-wide certificate of appropriateness. The architectural or design features may
include, but are not limited to: (i) building and structure height; (ii) building and
structure size; (iii) scale or mass; (iv) appropriate roof forms; (v) appropriate building
materials and/or colors; (vi) minimum planting requirements; (vii) minimum screening
requirements; (viii) building, structure and/or site improvement locations; and (ix) the
structural and design details of signs.
c. Determination of compliance by director of planning. Once a county-wide certificate
of appropriateness is issued, the director of planning is authorized to determine
whether a particular structure, site, improvement or architectural element satisfies
the specific design criteria of the county-wide certificate of appropriateness. The
director or a member of the architectural review board may request at an upcoming
meeting that the architectural review board, instead of the director, determine
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
whether a particular structure, site, improvement or architectural element satisfies
the specific design criteria of the county-wide certificate of appropriateness.
d. Action and appeal. Any person requesting a determination whether a proposed
structure, site, improvement or architectural element satisfies the specific design
criteria of a county-wide certificate of appropriateness shall submit a request to the
director of planning providing the information required by the director. The
procedure for submittal and action under section 30.6.6(b), (c), (d) and (f) shall
apply.
1. By the director. If the director determines that the proposed structure, site,
improvement or architectural element does not satisfy the specific design
criteria of the county-wide certificate of appropriateness, the director shall
send notice to the person requesting the determination of his decision. The
person requesting the determination may either: (1) appeal the director‟s
decision to the architectural review board by filing an appeal with the director
within ten (10) days after the date of the director‟s notice of decision; or (2)
file an application and proceed under sections 30.6.6 and 30.6.7.
2. By the board. If the board determines in its own review or on an appeal of
the director‟s decision that the proposed structure, site, improvement or
architectural element does not satisfy the specific design criteria of the
county-wide certificate of appropriateness, the board shall send notice to the
person requesting the determination of its decision. The person requesting
the determination may either: (1) appeal the board‟s decision to the board of
supervisors under the procedure in section 30.6.8(b), (c) and (d); or (2) file
an application and proceed under sections 30.6.6 and 30.6.7.
c. Authority to assure consistency with applicable design guidelines. In determining whether a structure
or associated improvements are consistent with the applicable design guidelines, the architectural
review board may specify the following, which are in addition to the requirements of the underlying
zoning district or of section 32, provided that the board may not authorize any maximum standard to
be exceeded, or any minimum standard to not be met:
1. Architectural features. The appearance of any architectural feature including, but not limited
to, its form and style, color, texture and materials.
2. Size and arrangement of structures. The configuration, orientation and other limitations as to
the mass, shape, area, bulk, height and location of structures. In considering the
arrangement and location of structures, the architectural review board may require that the
existing vegetation and natural features be used to screen structures and associated
improvements from one or more EC streets to which the parcel is contiguous as
provided in section 30.6.2(b).
3. Location and configuration of parking areas and landscaping. The location and configuration
of parking areas and landscaping and buffering requirements.
4. Landscaping measures. In addition to the requirements of section 32.7.9, landscaping
measures determined to be appropriate to assure that the structures and associated
improvements are consistent with the applicable design guidelines.
5. Preservation of existing vegetation and natural features. The preservation of existing trees,
wooded areas and natural features.
6. Appearance of signs. In addition to the applicable requirements of section 4.15, the
appropriate style, size, colors, materials, illumination and location of all proposed signs, and
any other applicable design guidelines. Each application for a certificate of appropriateness
for one or more signs shall be accompanied by a site plan or sketch plan that shows the
location of all signs proposed to be erected on the lot or lots subject to the site plan or sketch
plan.
7. Fencing. The location, type and color of all fencing, including safety fencing.
d. Authority to impose conditions to assure development is consistent with the applicable design
guidelines. The architectural review board is authorized to impose reasonable conditions in
conjunction with any approved certificate of appropriateness to assure that the development is
consistent with the applicable design guidelines. The architectural review board also is authorized to
approve plans showing, or identifying in a certificate of appropriateness, existing trees, wooded areas
and natural areas to be preserved, the limits of grading or other land disturbing activity including
trenching and tunneling, in order to, among other things, protect existing features, and grade changes
requiring tree wells or tree walls.
e. Authority of zoning administrator to determine compliance with certificate of appropriateness. The
zoning administrator is authorized to determine whether a development, including a sign, satisfies the
terms and conditions of the certificate of appropriateness.
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
f. Effect of certificate of appropriateness. Each structure or associated improvement for which a
certificate of appropriateness was issued shall be established and maintained in accordance with the
terms, conditions and requirements of the certificate. Each site plan and building permit shall
demonstrate that the structures and associated site improvements will satisfy the terms, conditions
and requirements of the certificate.
(12-10-80, § 30.6.3.2; 7-8-92; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
Sec. 30.6.5 Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness
The following development is exempt from the requirements of section 30.6:
a. Primary and accessory dwelling units if no site plan is required by this chapter.
b. Structures for agricultural or forestal uses if no site plan is required by this chapter.
c. Temporary construction headquarters (section 5.1.18(a)), temporary construction yards (section
5.1.18(b)), and temporary mobile homes (section 5.7).
d. Agricultural product signs, temporary signs and sandwich board signs.
e. The repair and maintenance of structures and site improvements where there is no substantial
change in design or materials.
f. The repair and maintenance of nonconforming structures or site improvements as authorized by
section 6.3(B).
g. Additions or modifications to structures or site improvements where there is no substantial change in
design or materials.
h. Additions or modifications to structures to the extent necessary to comply with the minimum
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, or any other similar federal
or state law providing for the reasonable accommodation of persons with disabilities.
i. Additions or modifications to nonconforming structures as authorized by sections 6.3(A)(3) and
6.3(A)(5).
j. Interior alterations to structures where there is no change in the exterior appearance of the structures.
k. Issuance of permits classified in sections 5-202, 5-203, 5-204 and 5-208(A) if a building permit has
also been issued and the work authorized by the permit classified in those sections does not change
the external appearance of the structure.
Sec. 30.6.6 Submittal, review and action on application; preliminary review
Applications for preliminary review under section 30.6 shall be subject to the following:
a. Applications. An application for preliminary review shall contain a completed county-provided
application form and supplemental information required by the director of planning (the “application”).
The application may be filed with the department of community development by the owner, the
owner‟s agent, or a contract purchaser with the owner‟s written consent (the “applicant”). Eight (8)
collated copies of the application and all other information required by the application form for a
preliminary review shall be filed. The application shall be accompanied by the fee required by section
35 at the time of its filing.
b. Determination of complete application; rejection of incomplete application. An application that
provides the information required by section 30.6.6(a) shall be accepted for review and decision. The
agent shall make a determination as to whether an application is complete within ten (10) days after
the submittal deadline.
1. Complete application; date deemed to be officially submitted. The date of the next
application deadline following the submittal of a complete application shall be deemed to be
the date upon which the application was officially submitted.
2. Incomplete application; notice to applicant. An application omitting information required by
section 30.6.6(a) shall be deemed to be incomplete and shall not be accepted. The agent
shall inform the applicant in writing of the reasons why the application was rejected as being
incomplete. If the agent does not deliver the notice within the ten (10) day period, the
application shall be accepted for review, provided that the agent may require the applicant to
later provide omitted information within a period specified by the agent of not less than ten
(10) days, and further provided that if the applicant fails to timely provide the omitted
information the agent may deem the application to be incomplete and reject the application
as provided herein.
c. Resubmittal of application originally determined to be incomplete. Within fifteen (15) days after the
date the notice of rejection was mailed or delivered by the agent as provided in section 30.6.6(b), the
applicant may resubmit the application with all of the information required by section 30.6.6(a)
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
together with payment of the fee for the reinstatement of review. The date of the next application
deadline following the resubmittal of the application shall be deemed to be the date upon which the
application was officially submitted. If the applicant fails to resubmit the application within the fifteen
(15) day period, the application shall be deemed to be denied and a new application and fee shall be
required to submit the new application.
d. Resubmittal of revised application originally determined to be complete. During the review process of
a complete application, the director of planning (for county-wide certificates of appropriateness) or the
architectural review board may request further revisions to the application in order to find that the
application is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, or the applicant may revise the
application on its own initiative in the absence of such a request, subject to the following:
1. Request for revision. The director of planning or the architectural review board shall inform
the applicant in writing of the requested revisions to the application. The letter shall inform
the applicant that if it chooses to make some or all of the requested revisions, it shall notify
the director of planning within fifteen (15) days of the date of the writing. The letter shall also
inform the applicant that it may choose to proceed to action on the application without further
revisions, and request that the applicant notify the director of planning within fifteen (15) days
of the date of the letter if it desires to do so. The failure of the applicant to respond to the
letter shall be presumed to be a request by the applicant to proceed to action on the
application without further revisions, provided that an untimely notification by the applicant
that it desires to make some or all of the requested revisions shall not preclude the applicant
from doing so.
2. Revision on applicant’s initiative. The applicant may revise the application at any time,
provided that the applicant should inform the director of planning of it doing so when that
decision is made.
3. Suspension of decision date. The receipt by the director of planning of a writing from the
applicant stating that it will revise its application shall suspend the sixty (60) day period in
which a decision must be made on the application under subsection 30.6.6(f).
4. Date revised application deemed to be officially resubmitted. The date of the next application
deadline following the resubmittal of a revised and complete application shall be deemed to
be the date upon which the application was officially resubmitted and the sixty (60) day period
in which a decision must be made on the application shall recommence.
e. Notice of submitted application. The director of planning shall send a notice to each member of the
board of supervisors, the commission and the architectural review board that an application has been
officially submitted. The notice shall be sent within five (5) days after the application is determined to
be complete. The notice shall provide the location of the development by street address and
magisterial district, identify the proposed use(s), state that the application may be reviewed in the
offices of the department of community development, and provide the date of the architectural review
board meeting at which the application will be considered.
f. Time for decision. An application shall be acted on within sixty (60) days after the date the original
application was officially submitted or by a later date requested by or agreed to by the applicant
(collectively, the “decision date”).
g. Recommendations and decisions. The architectural review board shall review the application for
consistency with the applicable design guidelines as follows:
1. Recommendation and decision on preliminary review. In making its recommendations on
applications for preliminary review, the board shall consider the recommendations of the
agent, the statements and information provided by the applicant, and any other information
pertaining to the compliance of the application with the requirements of section 30.6. In
making a decision on the application for preliminary review, the board also may make any
recommendations it deems appropriate. The board shall send notice to the applicant of its
decision on the preliminary review.
2. Decision as action on final review. The board, in its discretion, may determine that additional
review of the application is not necessary and make a decision on the application under
section 30.6.7(g).
h. Modes of sending notices, letters and other writings. Notices, letters and other writings required by
subsections 30.6.6(b), (d), (e) and (g) shall be mailed to the identified recipients by first class mail, be
personally delivered to the applicant, or be sent by email.
i. Application defined. For the purposes of sections 30.6.6 and 30.6.7, the term “application” means an
application for a certificate of appropriateness and a review to determine whether submitted drawings
satisfy the conditions of a certificate of appropriateness, and any other request by an applicant for
review.
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Sec. 30.6.7 Submittal, review and action on application; final review
Applications for final review under section 30.6 shall be subject to the following:
a. Applications. An application for final review shall contain a completed county-provided application
form and supplemental information required by the director of planning (the “application”). The
application may be filed by the owner, the owner‟s agent, or a contract purchaser with the owner‟s
written consent (the “applicant”), with the department of community development. Eight (8) collated
copies of the application and all other information required by the application form for a final review
shall be filed. The application shall be accompanied by the fee required by section 35 at the time of
its filing.
b. Determination of complete application; rejection of incomplete application. An application that
provides the information required by section 30.6.7(a) shall be accepted for review and decision. The
agent shall make a determination as to whether an application is complete within ten (10) days after
the submittal deadline.
1. Complete application; date deemed to be officially submitted. The date of the next
application deadline following the submittal of a complete application shall be deemed to be
the date upon which the application was officially submitted.
2. Incomplete application; notice to applicant. An application omitting information required by
section 30.6.7(a) shall be deemed to be incomplete and shall not be accepted. The agent
shall inform the applicant in writing of the reasons why the application was rejected as being
incomplete. If the agent does not deliver the notice within the ten (10) day period, the
application shall be accepted for review, provided that the agent may require the applicant to
later provide omitted information within a period specified by the agent of not less than ten
(10) days, and further provided that if the applicant fails to timely provide the omitted
information the agent may deem the application to be incomplete and reject the application
as provided herein.
c. Resubmittal of application originally determined to be incomplete. Within fifteen (15) days after the
date the notice of rejection was mailed or delivered by the agent as provided in section 30.6.7(b), the
applicant may resubmit the application with all of the information required by section 30.6.7(a)
together with payment of the fee for the reinstatement of review. The date of the next application
deadline following the resubmittal of the application shall be deemed to be the date upon which the
application was officially submitted. If the applicant fails to resubmit the application within the fifteen
(15) day period, the application shall be deemed to be denied and a new application and fee shall be
required to submit the new application.
d. Resubmittal of revised application originally determined to be complete. During the review process of
a complete application, the director of planning (for county-wide certificates of appropriateness) or the
architectural review board may request further revisions to the application in order to find that the
application is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, or the applicant may revise the
application on its own initiative in the absence of such a request, subject to the following:
1. Request for revision. The director of planning or the architectural review board shall inform
the applicant in writing of the requested revisions to the application. The letter shall inform
the applicant that if it chooses to make some or all of the requested revisions, it shall notify
the director of planning within fifteen (15) days of the date of the writing. The letter shall also
inform the applicant that it may choose to proceed to action on the application without further
revisions, and request that the applicant notify the director of planning within fifteen (15) days
of the date of the letter if it desires to do so. The failure of the applicant to respond to the
letter shall be presumed to be a request by the applicant to proceed to action on the
application without further revisions, provided that an untimely notification by the applicant
that it desires to make some or all of the requested revisions shall not preclude the applicant
from doing so.
2. Revision on applicant’s initiative. The applicant may revise the application at any time,
provided that the applicant should inform the director of planning of it doing so when that
decision is made.
3. Suspension of decision date. The receipt by the director of planning of a writing from the
applicant stating that it will revise its application shall suspend the sixty (60) day period in
which a decision must be made on the application under subsection 30.6.7(f).
4. Date revised application deemed to be officially resubmitted. The date of the next application
deadline following the resubmittal of a revised and complete application shall be deemed to
be the date upon which the application was officially resubmitted and the sixty (60) day period
in which a decision must be made on the application shall recommence.
e. Notice of submitted application. The director of planning shall send a notice to each member of the
board of supervisors, the commission and the architectural review board that an application has been
officially submitted. The notice shall be sent within five (5) days after the application is determined to
be complete. The notice shall provide the location of the development by street address and
magisterial district, identify the proposed use(s), state that the application may be reviewed in the
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
offices of the department of community development, and provide the date of the architectural review
board meeting at which the application will be considered.
f. Time for decision. An application shall be acted on within sixty (60) days after the date the original
application was officially submitted or by a later date requested by or agreed to by the applicant
(collectively, the “decision date”).
1. When application may be deemed approved. If the decision date has passed without the
application being acted upon, the applicant may make a written demand for action that is
delivered to the director of planning. If the board fails to act on the application within twenty-
one (21) days after the receipt of the written demand, the application shall be deemed to be
approved.
2. Notice if application deemed approved. If an application is deemed approved, the agent shall
send notice that the application was deemed approved to the applicant, the zoning
administrator and the county executive. The notice shall be sent within five (5) days after the
expiration of the twenty-one (21) day period in which the architectural review board had to
act.
3. Consent to extend time for decision. The applicant may consent to extend the time for a
decision.
g. Decisions. The architectural review board shall review the application for consistency with the
applicable design guidelines, exercising the authority granted by section 30.6. In making a decision
on an application for a certificate of appropriateness and other applications for review, the board shall
consider the recommendations of the agent, the statements and information provided by the
applicant, and any other information pertaining to the compliance of the application with the
requirements of section 30.6.
1. Issue or deny. In making a decision on an application for a certificate of appropriateness, the
board may issue the certificate of appropriateness and impose conditions and grant
modifications if it finds that the application is consistent with the applicable design guidelines,
or would be consistent with the applicable design guidelines subject to conditions of approval
or specified modifications. The board shall send notice to the applicant of its decision on the
final review.
2. Recommendations. In lieu of issuing or denying a certificate of appropriateness, the board
may make any recommendations it deems appropriate to the applicant to revise the
application so that it is consistent with the applicable design guidelines before the board acts
to issue or deny the application. If the time for a decision under section 30.6.7(f) would
expire before the application could be thereafter considered by the board, the board must
obtain the applicant‟s consent to extend the time for decision.
h. Period of validity of certificate of appropriateness. A certificate of appropriateness shall be valid for
the same period that the site plan is valid or, if no site plan is required for the structure or site
improvements, for three (3) years. The architectural review board may extend the period of validity of
a certificate of appropriateness upon the written request of the applicant. The written request must be
received by the director of planning before the certificate‟s period of validity expires and, upon receipt,
the running of the period of validity shall be suspended until the architectural review board acts on the
request. The board may grant an extension determined to be reasonable, taking into consideration
the size and phasing of the proposed developm ent and the laws, ordinances, regulations and design
guidelines in effect at the time of the request for an extension and changes thereto since the
certificate of appropriateness was originally issued.
i. Resubmittal of similar denied application. An applicant may not submit an application that is
substantially the same as the denied application within one (1) year after the date of denial.
j. Modes of sending notices, letters and other writings. Notices, letters and other writings required by
subsections 30.6.7(b), (d), (e), (f) and (g) shall be mailed to the identified recipients by first class mail,
be personally delivered to the applicant, or be sent by email.
Sec. 30.6.8 Appeals
A decision of the architectural review board on an application for a certificate of appropriateness and other
applications for review, and an application deemed approved under section 30.6.7(f), may be appealed to the
board of supervisors as follows:
a. Persons and entities having right to appeal. An appeal may be filed by the applicant, any person
aggrieved, the zoning administrator, or the county executive.
b. Written appeal required; timing for filing. An appeal shall be in writing and be filed with the clerk of the
board of supervisors within ten (10) days after the date of the architectural review board‟s decision
under section 30.6.7(g), or within ten (10) days after the date of the required notice if the application is
deemed approved under section 30.6.7(f). The appeal shall state the grounds for the appeal.
c. Consideration of appeal by board of supervisors. The board of supervisors may affirm, reverse, or
modify in whole or in part the issuing, the issuing with conditions or modifications, or the denial of the
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
certificate of appropriateness. In so doing, the board shall give due consideration to the
recommendations of the architectural review board together with any other information it deems
necessary for a proper review of the appeal. When considering an appeal pertaining to a public
safety facility, the board may issue a certificate of appropriateness if it finds that the facility is a public
necessity.
d. Appeal of board of supervisors’ decision. The applicant or any person aggrieved may appeal the final
decision of the board of supervisors to the circuit court by filing a petition setting forth the alleged
illegality of the action of the board of supervisors. The petition shall be filed within thirty (30) days
after the date of the final decision.
Sec. 30.6.9 Public health or safety considered
Where the public health or safety and any requirement of this section 30.6 or any term or condition of a
certificate of appropriateness conflict, the public health or safety shall prevail. In addition:
a. Nothing in section 30.6 shall be deemed to compromise, limit, or otherwise impair the agent or the
commission in their review of a preliminary or final site plan under section 32. In their review of any
preliminary or final site plan, the agent or the commission may modify, vary or waive any term or
condition of a certificate of appropriateness upon finding that such action would better serve the public
health or safety; provided that the agent may modify, vary or waive any such a term or condition only
after consulting with the building official, the county engineer, a representative of the department of
fire rescue or other public official who advises the agent that the public health or safety would be at
risk if the condition is not modified, varied or waived.
b. Nothing in section 30.6 shall be deemed to impair the authority of the zoning administrator under
section 31.4(d).
__________________
Agenda Item No. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: CPA-2008-00003. Village of Rivanna Master Plan.
Amend the Land Use Plan section of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan by replacing the
existing profile of the Village of Rivanna with the Village of Rivanna Master Plan, which
establishes new policies, guidelines, recommendations, goals and strategies for future
development within the master plan area. The master plan would establish the following for the
master plan area: a vision for the area, which would be a distinct small community surrounded by
rural Albemarle, and guiding principles; a description of existing conditions pertaining to natural,
scenic and historic assets, demographics, land uses, community facilities and the transportation
network; a framework for future land use, transportation, and parks and green systems; and a
plan for implementing the master plan, including a list of implementation projects. The master
plan would provide that residential uses will be the most prominent use in the plan area with a mix
of housing types. The master plan proposes to retain the density, design and character of existing
residential neighborhoods in the plan area as the area further develops. The existing golf course
and recreational facilities within Glenmore and a new Village Center will be the two major focal
points for the plan area. Density would diminish as the distance increases from the Village Center,
with the lowest densities at the edges of the plan area. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April
26 and May 3, 2010.)
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the next work program item for Ms. Maliszewski and the EC staff is to
work on design guidelines, which has already been in the works for quite some time.
Ms. Elaine Echols, Principal Planner, reported that the key points related to the Village of Rivanna
Master Plan are that the existing neighborhood character be retained, they would apply to new
development only after transportation improvements are made and if sewer capacity exists. She said that
there is density closest to the center of the village and on the east side of Carroll Creek low density is
proposed. Ms. Echols explained that one of the Plan‟s features is concurrency – whereby certain
improvements would need to be in place before new development could be approved. She said that
sewer capacity is an issue, but a more pressing issue is the transportation needs on Route 250 East – as
listed in her report. Ms. Echols emphasized that the Plan recommends that no new development take
place until the improvements have been made.
Mr. Rooker asked if new development meant just new rezonings. Ms. Echols confirmed that
that‟s the case.
Mr. Dorrier asked for clarification about lanes on Free Bridge. Mr. Cilimberg responded that there
are four lanes, including two through lanes and two turn lanes.
Mr. Rooker said that none of these improvements are in any of the transportation plans as there is
no funding.
Mr. Boyd commented that Rivanna Village is an already approved rezoning, and this doesn‟t
impact that rezoning. He added that a lot of the traffic being created there is beyond Albemarle‟s control
as it is from Louisa and Fluvanna counties.
Mr. Rooker said the Board does not have the legal capacity to prevent development on property
already zoned because of lack of off-site infrastructure.
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
Mr. Davis clarified that the County does not have the authority to impose adequate public facility
requirements on by-right development.
Mr. Cilimberg said that this is about the maximum authority the County has, and that‟s through the
Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Mallek emphasized that one common concern from citizens is that nothing should be rezoned
without adequate transportation infrastructure. She said that as a pattern for a way to address other
master plans, this is a good example as to how to proceed.
Mr. Boyd stated that these are just guidelines, not any kind of ordinance.
Mr. Rooker responded that the Master Plan doesn‟t take away the Board‟s discretion, but there is
certainly a strong argument for sticking with the Comp Plan – with the Master Plan being a component of
that. Mr. Boyd agreed.
Mr. Davis noted that as required by State Code, the Master Plan would be reviewed every five
years and is always subject to change.
Mr. Dorrier asked who owns most of the developable land here.
Ms. Echols replied that there are three different areas. There is one small area owned by about
five people. She pointed out the location of Rivanna Village at Glenmore, which has a commercial
component and about 512 units and 125,000 square feet of non-residential units; she also noted parcels
with two primary owners, and Running Deer Drive properties with lots of different owners. There are no
plans to develop anything other than the two Glenmore rezoned properties – which are the Leake and the
Livengood properties – and the Rivanna Village at Glenmore properties. She added that these provided
for about 600 more units including the Village center, and the rezoning is set in place. Ms. Echols added
that there is another by-right development that is outside of the development areas and is now reduced in
the number of lots. She said that this “Glen Oaks” development was to be added to Glenmore, but not
part of the Glenmore rezoning and instead a rural rezoning with a two-acre minimum depending on
development rights. Ms. Echols said that from a practical standpoint, the number of units here will take a
while to development anyway and she is hopeful that traffic flow will improve by then.
Ms. Mallek mentioned the Eastern Plan initiative to help relieve traffic through alternate
transportation, etc. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the Eastern Plan initiative also promoted the idea of
centers, and this is an example of one – the same concept was promoted for Louisa and Fluvanna to
allow people to shop and work close to where they live.
Mr. Rooker said that this is an example of commercial development actually helping remove traffic
from Route 250, especially further to the west, because people will a destination place to make purchases
without having to go all the way into Pantops.
There being no other Board discussion at this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
Dr. William Orr said that he lives near Shadwell in the Scottsville District. He owns 20.5 acres
between Route 250 and I-64, almost directly across the road from the entrance to Glenmore. He
expressed his frustrations with the Rivanna Village process, stating that in 1948 a man named Clyde
Royal subdivided his dairy farm near Shadwell and called it “Royal Acres”. His 20.5 acres consists of 19
of these lots or partial lots that have never been changed and continue to be carried on the County tax
books as such. Dr. Orr said that this property is attractive with southwest mountain views.
He explained that in 1989, Frank and Peggy Kessler bought the Clay Camp horse farm across the
road and built Glenmore. In 1992 there was a lot more water and trash coming onto his pasture forming
gullies and found that water runoff from the widening of Route 250 and the Glenmore entrance had been
directed onto his pasture. Dr. Orr said that after a lot of effort – including approaching the Governor of
Virginia – VDOT finally agreed to build a ditch along Route 250 on his side of the road.
W hen the concept of Rivanna Village was introduced, he asked one of the Board members how
his property could be included, as it had been listed as a subdivision since 1948. He was told to write a
letter asking for inclusion which he did in 2002. A committee was appointed at that time to develop the
Rivanna Village concept, which was chaired by the President of the Kessler Group developers. Dr. Orr
stated that he was excluded from Rivanna Village, and other parcels were added to Glenmore and
subsequently Rivanna Village. The developers even bought three additional farms: Livengood, Leake
and Glen Oaks, which were added to Glenmore and subsequently to Rivanna Village. His property is
much closer to the proposed village center than any of these areas but was not included. Dr. Orr said that
he became a Rivanna Village stakeholder, went to a number of meetings, and asked that some of the
surrounding properties other than Glenmore be a part of Rivanna Village, but this fell on deaf ears from
the County Planning staff, and particularly from the consultants hired for the process.
Dr. Orr said that it seems to him that if Albemarle County is to designate an area as a Village, it
should contain more than the property of one developer, otherwise call it Glenmore Village. A true village
should contain a variety of properties, such as churches, schools, inns and green space. T he best use of
his land should probably be green space as a park, horse facility or Par 3 golf course, but its value in
subdivision lots should be considered.
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
Dr. Orr said that if the Board decides to add Rivanna Village to the Master Plan that it consider
adding some of the surrounding properties that were in the study area. Rivanna Village should also
probably not become a reality until Route 250 is four lanes, and he can only imagine whose land is going
to be taken for that project.
Ms. Linda Porterfield, Planning Commissioner for the Scottsville District, addressed the Board and
said she recommends that this Plan be adopted tonight. Ms. Porterfield said that over the last two years
the Commission tried as hard as it could with this master plan. She understands Dr. Orr‟s concerns as
the Commission did look at extending the confines of the Village of Rivanna – but the homeowners on the
east side of Running Deer Drive asked not to be included. She stated that that was the only side the
majority of Commissioners were willing to extend, and were not willing at the time to go north of I-64. Ms.
Porterfield said that Glen Oaks is in the rural area, and the plan is that it will connect to Glenmore – but it
is not in the Village of Rivanna. She emphasized that the only properties currently that have been rezoned
but not built on yet are Livengood, Leake, and Rivanna Village properties; the other properties Ms. Echols
mentioned are what will be affected in rezonings by this plan. Ms. Porterfield said that in five years, Dr.
Orr may come back to the County, and many things may have changed by then. It was the unanimous
vote of the Planning Commission to adopt the Master Plan as presented.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that Dr. Orr‟s property is south of I-64. Ms. Porterfield said that the
property is south of I-64 but north of Route 250, and there has been discussion about the land “trapped”
between the two roads. She stated that if you are coming out of the Glenmore entrance, Dr. Orr‟s
property is to the left.
Mr. Boyd asked the zoning on Dr. Orr‟s property.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the decision was not to change the growth area boundaries. This is
a master plan for the growth area out there, and they did not bring in properties that were not currently in
the growth area.
Ms. Porterfield said that was the majority opinion on the Commission. The only section they were
willing to expand was to pick up the land on the east side of Running Deer and the reason was those
people have significant water problems. Again, the residents came to the stakeholders and to the
Commission meeting and said they did not want to be included.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this plan was going to sit on the shelf for a while. Ms. Porterfield replied that
when this is adopted, the Plan would be reviewed every five years. Until then, this would be the guiding
principles for the area.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the Crozet Master Plan is currently in its five-year review.
Mr. Boyd asked for clarification of Dr. Orr‟s property. Mr. Davis said that there are 19 subdivided
lots on Dr. Orr‟s property, which were established in the 1940s. The lots exist, but they still have to meet
the development requirements that are applicable and they are zoned Rural Area. He noted that there is
no sewer available to them, and they would not have the lot size capable of having a drainfield and well –
without combining lots.
Mr. Rooker said that it would be difficult to just sit here and decide to expand the growth area
based on this.
Mr. Snow commented that if the property were designated as part of the Rivanna development, he
would have access to sewer and water at that point. Ms. Porterfield said all the development areas have
access to water and sewer.
Mr. Snow asked if the taxes Dr. Orr takes into account these benefits or that it has no sewer and
water. Mr. Cilimberg responded that Dr. Orr is in the Land Use Taxation program.
Mr. Davis said the assessed value would not be important for taxation purposes as long as he
keeps it as a cow pasture because he is paying minimal taxes based on land use value.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Board has considered water and sewer outside of the development
areas when it is a health/safety issue – such as a well or failing septic problem. He added that any
expansion of the boundaries would be relatively meaningless because they could not rezone the property
for development at this point, without improvements to the transportation network.
Mr. Snow commented that in all likelihood nothing will be done for 10 or 15 years. Mr. Cilimberg
agreed.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that when Pantops was considered, the lines were somewhat maneuvered.
Ms. Mallek said they also made some changes in Crozet where it was appropriate at the request
of landowners.
Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that you can reduce boundaries, but you cannot expand them. He
noted that there was an area advertised for the Comp Plan change; if the Board wanted to expand it, this
would have to go back through the Commission.
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Dorrier mentioned that installation of a new traffic light at the intersection of Route 250. Ms.
Porterfield noted that the traffic light at the east side is going in shortly.
Mr. Boyd said that there are some mixed emotions about that light by the residents of Glenmore.
Ms. Porterfield commented that she has a very good friend who was in a bad accident there
several years ago, and the light was called for by the County and VDOT. It does need to be installed.
Ms. Porterfield then commended Ms. Echols and Mr. Bill Wanner, of the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission, for their work on this.
Mr. Dorrier complimented Ms. Porterfield for her work as well.
Mr. Neil Williamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum, asked the Board to look carefully at the
restrictions placed on new rezonings and the language used in the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive
Plan language usually is a guide and has language along the lines of “will be considered” or “will be looked
upon more favorably if these things occur” whereas if you place in language that it “will not happen”
causes him concern. He is not certain the Board wishes to forbid all rezoning for the next five years. The
Board needs to consider if this is a precedent for other master plans and whether the same language
would be included based on the state transportation situation and lack of funding.
In response to Mr. Williamson, Ms. Mallek said the Board has already discussed the language
and concluded that it is a guideline and appropriate.
Ms. Cindy Burton said that she attended all of the Village meetings as she participated in the
stakeholders group. She never heard another person asking to expand the growth area – so it was not
just the planners, as Dr. Orr has indicated. She said that her family also owns land from Royal Acres –
about 35 acres in 20 subdivision lots. She found that most of these lots are nonconforming because of I-
64 cutting through. She thanked those involved with the planning process here, as everyone came
together and pretty much wanted the same thing – especially resolution of the transportation issues.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Mr. Rooker said that his observation over the years is without the language regarding
transportation and future rezoning, it would not have had the support of the people in the area. He pointed
out that there is not a single property owner who has come out and said that the provision shouldn‟t be in
there.
Ms. Mallek said it is important as the Board looks forward that it is dealing with a new reality with
regard to infrastructure, and the Board needs to think about it step-by-step as it makes decisions.
Mr. Dorrier then moved to adopt CPA-2008-0003 - Village of Rivanna Master Plan. Ms. Mallek
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas.
Noting that some attendees have difficulty hearing, Mr. Snow asked if it would be possible to get
some of the portable wireless hearing devices. Ms. Jordan responded that they are available at every
meeting.
Mr. Rooker said that part of the problem is that the Board members sometimes sit back away
from the microphones, making it hard to hear.
Village of Rivanna Master Plan
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
Village of Rivanna Master Plan
Contents
Executive Summary………………………………………………...………………………………….......2
Chapter 1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………..5
Chapter 2 Vision & Guiding Principles ……………………………………………..………..……..…..9
Chapter 3 Existing Conditions …………………………………….……………………………………..11
Chapter 4 Future Land Use and Transportation Framework ……………………….………….……..19
Chapter 5 Implementation…..………………………………………………..…………………………..31
Maps
Environmental Features ............................................................................................................... ..12
Historical Resources ...................................................................................................................... 13
Future Land Use Context ............................................................................................................... 24
Future Land Use Detail .................................................................................................................. 25
Parks and Green Systems ............................................................................................................. 30
Executive Summary
Vision
Developed by citizens within the Village, the vision for the Village of Rivanna is for a distinct small
community surrounded by rural Albemarle. Medium and low density residential neighborhoods will
have easy access to the Village Center through multiple modes of travel. The community will preserve
historic features, provide open spaces for recreation, and focus commercial activity within the Village
Center.
The Village of Rivanna Master Plan is intended to provide guidance on where and how new residential and
nonresidential uses should develop in the Village of Rivanna Development Area. It is further intended to make
recommendations on the future of US 250 East across the northern boundary of the Development Area.
Finally, its purpose is to guide the timing of new development in the Village.
The key recommendations of this Master Plan are:
Residential Uses and Mixture of Housing Types
Residential uses will be the most prominent use in this Development Area.
A mix of housing types will be provided with the greatest variety of types being in the Village Center.
Density will radiate from the Village Center with the lowest densities at the edges of the Development
Area.
Existing neighborhoods of the Glenmore development, Running Deer, and the Magruder subdivision
are expected to retain their low-density character.
The Glenmore development is expected to remain unchanged, except for orderly future expansion of
additions approved through rezonings.
Developed land on the east side of Carroll Creek is not expected to change in character, as it
provides for a transition to the Rural Areas.
Future residential development between the Village Center and Carroll Creek will transition from the
highest density near the Center to no more than 3 units per acre near Carroll Creek. Density near the
Village Center adjacent to the proposed park can be higher if it is compensated for with lower density
closer to Carroll Creek.
Future development is expected to be at a size and scale compatible with existing neighborhoods
within the Village of Rivanna.
Future residential development should only be approved if and when transportation improvements to
US 250 have been made and sufficient sewer capacity is in place to support that development.
Mixed-Use Center
The only commercial uses allowed in the Village are to be located in the Village Center. Inclusive of
the Fire Station, this area should not have more than 125,000 square feet of non-residential uses.
Historic and Environmental Resources
Historic resources should be preserved within the Village including Glenmore Manor and its
Dependencies along the Rivanna River.
Development inside the Village should respect historic resources outside of the Village.
Developers should coordinate with Monticello to prevent negative impacts on the Monticello viewshed.
Parks and Green Systems
A naturalistic landscape buffer approximately 50 feet in depth should remain or be provided across
the southern frontage of US 250 to screen development in the Village from US 250.
A Rivanna greenway trail will be provided along the Rivanna River.
A community park will be developed within the Village Center to serve the Development Area and the
eastern part of the County.
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
Centralized amenities such as pocket parks and neighborhood greens should be expected with new
development.
Floodplains, wetlands, stream valleys, and slopes should be preserved and enhanced as important
features of the Village.
Open space in existing neighborhoods should be preserved.
Transportation
Regional transportation improvements should include interchange improvements at I-64 and US 250;
six-lanes on US 250 from Free Bridge to the I-64 interchange; four-lanes on US 250 from the US
250/I-64 interchange to Route 729 (Milton Road) and, possibly, Glenmore Way; intersection
improvements at US 250 and Route 729 (Milton Road); bridge improvement or replacement over
railroad at Route 22 (Louisa Road); and addition of eastbound left turn and westbound right turn lanes
on US 250 at Route 616 (Black Cat Road)
Only two additional points of access from US 250 into the Village should be provided. These
additional access points are Hacktown Road and at or near Breezy Hill Lane.
A signal or roundabout at Hacktown Road should be provided when warrants are met.
Except for the area near Ashton Road, no additional development should be added to the Glenmore
development without a second entrance.
Consideration should be given to replacing the proffered signal at Glenmore Way with a roundabout.
Paths
A pedestrian crossing should be provided over Carroll Creek to link the residential area of Running
Deer Drive to the Village Center. Development in this area should not preclude a future vehicular
crossing, if viewed as desirable in the future.
Pedestrian connections to the Glenmore development and other nearby residential developments
from the Village Center should be made.
A hard-surfaced pedestrian path should be provided across the frontage of the Development Area
which abuts US 250 to connect Glenmore Way with Running Deer and all intervening streets.
Transit
Transit should be provided to the Village of Rivanna when and where feasible.
New development should be transit-ready.
Timing of Development
Approval of future development proposals should occur simultaneously with or follow provision of
adequate infrastructure.
Approval of future development should be monitored in conjunction with improvements to US 250 and
available sewer capacity so that approval of new units or uses does not exceed capacity of the
sewage treatment plant or the road system.
Chapter 1 Introduction
Area Included in this Master Plan
The Village of Rivanna is located east of the City of
Charlottesville and south of US 250 East.
The Development Area is formed by the Rivanna River to the
southwest, US 250 to the north, an unnamed stream east of
Camp Branch forms the western boundary, and the drainage
area for Carroll Creek/Route 808 (Running Deer Drive) forms
the eastern boundary.
As part of the development of the plan a larger area was
studied, which included additional territory to the east, to
the north and to the west. The larger area was studied to see if any conditions had changed since adoption of
the prior land use plan for the area. It was also studied to assess the impacts of the Development Area on the
adjacent Rural Area fringe. If conditions had changed, boundary area expansions would be considered. As no
significant conditions had changed, no boundary expansions were recommended with the adoption of the
I-64 US 250
Glenmore
Way
Village of
Rivanna
Running
Deer Dr.
Albemarle County with
Village in context
US 250
Rivanna
River
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
Master Plan. The Rural Areas outside of the Village are to remain rural, including the areas between US 250
and Interstate 64. No expansion of the Development Area east of Running Deer Drive is to occur.
Purpose of the Plan
The plan is intended to provide guidance on where and how new residential and nonresidential uses should
develop. It is further intended to make recommendations on the future of US 250 East across the northern
boundary of the Development Area. Finally, its purpose is to guide the timing of public investments and of new
development in the Village.
Planning in Albemarle County’s Development Areas
Albemarle County has a long-standing goal of directing development into designated Development Areas. To
further County growth management goals, the current Development Area concept remains a critical planning
component. The Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Neighborhood Model, presents
mechanisms that provide the best opportunity for the County to achieve the goals of having compact livable
development in designated Development Areas and keeping the Rural Areas rural.
The Comprehensive Plan establishes three types of Development Areas: Urban Areas (Neighborhoods 1 – 7),
Communities (Crozet, Hollymead, and Piney Mountain) and Villages (the Village of Rivanna). Villages provide
for a specialized opportunity to accommodate growth. Villages are places that combine the feeling of "country
living" with the amenities of a Development Area.
Villages consist of a variety of housing types including single-family, two-family, and townhouse units, with a
gross density not to exceed 6 dwellings per acre. They are to be served by a Village Center of mixed service
and residential uses at a neighborhood scale. They are also to be served by public water and sewer and
provide public facilities that support the Village and the immediate surrounding Rural Area.
Villages should reflect the principles of The Neighborhood Model. The Neighborhood Model is a County policy
and a component of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the Neighborhood Model is to create places,
following twelve principles:
1. Pedestrian orientation
2. Neighborhood friendly streets and paths
3. Interconnected streets and transportation networks
4. Parks and open space
5. Neighborhood centers
6. Building and spaces of human scale
7. Relegated parking
8. Mixture of uses
9. Mixture of housing types and affordability
10. Redevelopment
11. Site planning that respects terrain
12. Clear boundaries with Rural Areas
Development proposals to introduce mixed use development and add density to the Village in keeping with the
Comprehensive Plan goals raised concerns within the community. As a result, the master plan process was
applied to the Village to guide future development.
The Village of Rivanna as a Development Area
The County‟s designated Development Areas originally were established in 1971. Since that time, most of
those areas have been reduced in size. Some Development Areas were eliminated and one was created --
the Village of Rivanna.
The Village was approved as a Development Area on December 13, 1989, after application was made by a
private developer and studied by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The area designated for
the Village is exactly the same as in this Master Plan. Expected density was one unit per 1.3 acres. In 1996,
the County‟s Land Use Plan changed the density to match the desired minimum residential density for all
Development Areas, which was 3 – 6 units per acre. The 1996 Land Use Plan showed density in this area at
3 – 6 units per acre for neighborhood density residential uses.
In May of 2002, after application by a private developer and study by the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors, the Land Use Plan for the Village was changed to allow for a mixed use center. Residential
density for the Village did not change; however, the plan added a provision for non-residential uses, mostly in
small commercial, office, retail, and restaurant/inn uses.
Planning Process and Public Involvement
In 2005, citizens of the Village requested that the County‟s next Master Plan be developed for the Village of
Rivanna. The Board of Supervisors approved this request and the master planning process for the Village
began in July 2007. As with all Master Plans, the process began with a Citizens Planning Academy. The
objective of the Academy was to provide Albemarle citizens with the opportunity to understand the County‟s
growth management policy and the planning process.
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
The first community workshop on the Village of Rivanna Master Plan was held on July 30, 2007. The purpose
of this workshop was to begin to develop a vision for the Village of Rivanna Master Plan and to identify the
important elements of the Plan. Around 100 participants attended the public workshop. All participants were
asked to identify three key issues they felt were important to the Village of Rivanna Master Plan Vision.
Through small group exercises, citizens were given the opportunity to express themselves and hear what
others had to say. The following points represent the main ideas expressed at the meeting.
Preserve historic structures and the rural character of area
Improve the ability of residents to access US 250 and surrounding corridors and destinations
Increase the walkability of the Development Area
Develop new ways to get around and enhance existing ones
Maintain public safety
Install necessary water, sewer, and transportation infrastructure before constructing additional
development in the Development Area
Protect environmental resources
Maintain the rural character of US 250
Develop Rivanna Village at a neighborhood scale and a sense of character
Manage the location and style of commercial development
Create a “soft boundary” in edge neighborhoods, including Running Deer
The Stakeholders Work Group met between November 2007 and June 2008 to advise County staff and the
Master Plan consultant on how best to improve community engagement. They continued to provide guidance
to the Planning Commission after that period.
Public workshops were held on January 30, 2008, February 11, 2008, and March 3, 2008, to focus on the
vision, land use, and transportation. At the fourth public workshop, held on November 19, 2008, work-to-date
was reviewed, including the vision and guiding principles. At that workshop, participants also reviewed and
chose the preferred future land use arrangement. The Future Land Use Map in this Master Plan is a
refinement of the preferred alternative that was chosen by the public.
Chapter 2 Vision & Guiding Principles
Introduction
The visioning process was the first step toward recognizing the community‟s desires for the Village of Rivanna.
The vision has set the direction for the Village of Rivanna Master Plan. It builds on existing planning work and
County policy, such as the Neighborhood Model. Residents and property owners developed the vision as well
as the seven guiding principles, which capture what is most important for a high quality of life in the Village.
Vision
The Village of Rivanna will be a distinct small community surrounded by rural Albema rle.
Medium and low-density residential neighborhoods will have easy access to the Village Center
through multiple modes of travel. The community will preserve historic features, provide open
spaces for recreation, and focus commercial activity within the Village Center.
Village of Rivanna Master Plan Guiding Principles
1. The density, design, and character of existing residential neighborhoods will be protected as the
Village of Rivanna further develops.
2. The size and scale of new development will be compatible with existing neighborhoods within the
Village of Rivanna.
3. The Village of Rivanna will integrate the natural landscape and incorporate designs that
complement the area‟s rural ambiance. Development along the boundaries of the Village of
Rivanna will be sensitive to adjacent Rural Areas.
4. The Village of Rivanna will concentrate commercial uses in a pedestrian-friendly Village Center
where commercial and public services are at an appropriate scale for meeting the community‟s
common needs.
5. Street connections to and pedestrian paths between residential areas and the Village Center, and
between the Village of Rivanna and larger community, will be sensitive to existing development.
Options for different types of travel will be provided, including driving, walking, cycling, and public
transit. Street designs will promote good driver behavior and be appropriately sized for the volume
and speed of traffic.
6. Historic sites in the Village of Rivanna and surrounding area, including Glenmore Manor, the
Hacktown community, Clifton Inn, and Stump Island, will be respected.
7. Water, sewer, and streets will keep pace with changes and growth that occur within the Village of
Rivanna.
8. Public and private common space, parks, and sports fields will be provided and located to foster a
vibrant community
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
Chapter 3 Existing Conditions
Introduction
This chapter of the Master Plan provides a snapshot of the natural and built environment in the Development
Area and adjacent study area. It examines the existing demographics and the dem ographic trends. Existing
land uses, the transportation network, and current and planned infrastructure are discussed as well.
Natural, Scenic and Historic Assets
The Village of Rivanna lies within the Rivanna River watershed. The Rivanna River is the largest tributary of
the James River, flowing into the James at the Town of Columbia in Fluvanna County. The Rivanna River has
important historical, recreational and natural significance and is a key resource for water and wastewater
management. The Rivanna River offers recreational opportunities, such as boating and fishing. There are
County plans for a greenway trail along the Rivanna River. The Rivanna River and its tributaries, particularly
Carroll Creek, are home to a variety of wildlife. In 1975, the Rivanna River was designated a state scenic river
from the Woolen Mills area south of Pantops to its confluence with the James River. Virginia‟s scenic rivers
program is set up to identify, designate, and help protect rivers and streams that have outst anding scenic,
recreational, and natural characteristics of statewide significance. In 2009, the Virginia Scenic River
designation was extended upstream to the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir dam.
Within the Development Area, the Rivanna River is the most prominent environmental feature. It has a
significant floodplain and associated wetlands. Carroll Creek, as well as another tributary to the Rivanna River
near Milton Heights, flow into the Rivanna River. There are many smaller streams that also fe ed into the
Rivanna River within this Development Area. These streams have steep and shallow valleys, and some also
have associated floodplains and wetlands.
The Rivanna River has also played an important role in the history of the area. Used for navigation, it allowed
for economic growth of the communities of Shadwell and Milton. Thomas Jefferson had grist mill on the
Rivanna, and he helped to develop sluices, locks, and dams to help with navigation to his mill in the late 18th
and early 19th centuries. Ruins of a series of canals, dams, and locks exist along the Rivanna in and near the
Village. A full description of the series of locks and dams is provided in the 1995 report, “From the Monacans
to Monticello and Beyond: Prehistoric and Historic Contexts for Albemarle County, Virginia,” provided by
Garrow and Associates, Inc.
Environmental Features Map
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
The most significant historical resource in Albemarle County is Thomas Jefferson‟s home, Monticello.
Monticello was constructed between 1770 and 1809 and is located on Route 53 southwest of the Village of
Rivanna. Jefferson owned 5000 acres of land that included Monticello and portions of his holdings are to the
south and west of the Village. Protecting Monticello is an important theme throughout t he County‟s
Comprehensive Plan and is referenced in the Historic Preservation Plan, the Mountain Protection Plan, and
the Open Space Plan. It is a National Historic Landmark and the only home in America on the World Heritage
List. Monticello‟s elevated location provides broad vistas which the Thomas Jefferson Foundation and the
County seek to protect, although there are no formal County requirements to address the Monticello viewshed.
County staff works informally with Monticello staff to encourage viewshed protection.
There are other significant historical sites within or in close proximity to the Village of Rivanna. The Glenmore
Manor and its Dependencies, which lie within the Glenmore development, were built beginning circa 1750 with
extensive additions thereafter. The pre-Revolutionary Glenmore Manor originally was one room with a
basement hearth built of stone with mud mortar. Historically, much of the agrarian activity in the area occurred
on the Glenmore plantation. Like other Piedmont plantations, Glenmore Manor and its Dependencies date
back to a land grant of George II in 1732.
The Clifton estate, located east of the Development Area, was part of a 3,000 acre grant belonging to
Peter Jefferson. Approximately 350 acres of the estate was passed on to Thomas Jefferson‟s daughter
and her husband Thomas Mann Randolph. Today Clifton is a five-bedroom country inn with three historic
Dependencies, used as additional guest accommodations.
Significant areas nearby include the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District, the Southern Albemarle
Historic District, and a property to the east of Running Deer Drive which has a conservation easement.
The Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District is listed on the state and national registers. It is a 31,000-
acre historic district designated by the National Park Service for cultural, architectural, and landscape
features of the state and nation. The Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District is also listed on the state
and national registers. It includes over 83,000 acres. The conservation easement to the east of the
Village covers 466 acres and is held by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation.
Demographics
Over the past decade, growth in the Village of Rivanna has been steady, with almost all new permits being
issued in the Glenmore development. The Glenmore development has potential for 966 units and, as of
March 2009, had 686 dwellings.
Based on March 2009 estimates, there are 761 dwellings in the entire Village of Rivanna with an estimated
population of between 1617 and 1918 residents. The table below shows growth since the Village of Rivanna
Development Area was established.
Residential Units and Population Growth
Year Units Population
1990 75 211
2000 502 1,355
2009 761 1,617 – 1918
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
Source: 1990 and 2000 population from U.S. Census; 2009 estimate from Albemarle County
Geographic Data Services
Since 2007, up to 804 additional dwelling units were approved. Once occupied, these units will likely bring
between 1338 and 2026 new residents. The total of existing and approved units ranges from 1392 to 1565.
The total future population in existing and approved units ranges from 2955 to 3483.
Existing Land Use
Uses within the Development Area are mostly residential; however, there are several non-residential uses both
inside the Development Area and nearby. Some of these uses are area churches, the East Rivanna Volunteer
Fire Company (ERVFC), Stone Robinson Elementary School, the Moose Lodge, the American Legion Hall,
Keswick Hall, the Clifton Inn, the Luck Stone Quarry, and the Glenmore Country Club/Golf Course. The
Village of Rivanna is located approximately four miles from the closest major shopping center and other
commercial areas on Pantops Mountain.
The Development Area is approximately 2.7 square miles. The largest part of the Development Area is the
Glenmore development. Low density residential development is the primary land use in this Development
Area.
Areas with development potential are represented in the figure
to the right as tracts A, B, and C. There are approximately 233
acres of land which could be developed or further developed in
the Village. Area A has 94 acres, Area B has 115 acres, and
Area C has 24 acres.
As mentioned earlier in the Plan, the Village was designated for
development in late 1989. Approximately 85% of the land in the
Village has been developed or approved for development.
Although rapid growth has occurred over the last twenty years,
further development is limited by existing zoning. The existing
zoning would allow for 631 – 804 additional units, as well as a
small amount of retail, office, and service uses. Except for the Village Center and the Glenmore development,
the zoning on the remaining properties in the Village is zoned Rural Area (RA), which has a density of 1 unit
per 21 acres, where development rights have been already used.
Existing Community Facilities
Water and Sewer
Water comes from the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and the Sugar Hollow Reservoir. Water treatment takes
place at the South Rivanna and Observatory Water Treatment Plants. A waterline along US 250 from
Pantops is sized adequately to serve the entire Village.
Wastewater treatment is provided at the Glenmore development sewage treatment plant on Carroll Creek.
Capacity of the facility, including an upgrade to be provided by a private developer, is 381,000 gallons per day.
At present, average daily usage is approximately 120,000 gallons per day. The sewage treatment plant with
the upgrade has the capacity to serve the Village Center as well as undeveloped properties approved within
the Glenmore development.
Schools
The area is served by the Stone Robinson Elementary School, which is located nearby. Students then
matriculate to Burley Middle School and Monticello High School. There are no public schools located within
the Village.
Parks
The Glenmore development has private recreational facilities for Glenmore residents. These facilities include
a golf course, swimming pool, tennis courts, practice soccer field, and equestrian center.
A new public park has been planned for the Village Center. It will be an 18 acre park with amenities such as
tennis courts, play areas, restrooms, trails, and shelters. It will incorporate a quarry as a feature of the park, if
possible.
Outside of the Village, there is a public boat access to the Rivanna River at the Route 729 bridge. A public
greenway is planned along the Rivanna River in the Village.
Police
Police service is provided by the County from the Albemarle County Office Building on 5th Street south of
Charlottesville. A room at the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company provides an onsite office for police use
when needed. Police officers work on a sector/beat system and the Village of Rivanna is included as part of
the Rural Area‟s patrol program. Response times meet the standards for the Rural Areas, which is to respond
on first priority items within ten minutes of the call. The County‟s Community Facilities Plan calls for a
response time of five minutes or less to all emergency calls in the Development Areas.
Running
Deer Dr.
Glenmore
Way
Hacktown
Road
Carroll
Creek
US 250
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
Fire and Rescue
The East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company operates a joint County/Volunteer fire station near the Glenmore
development entrance. The facility serves the fire and rescue needs of the Village of Rivanna and the eastern
part of the County. The facility is also used by the community for civic events and fund -raising activities.
Currently response times do not meet standards.
Library
Public library services are provided to the County by the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library System.
Members of this regional system include Albemarle, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson counties and the City of
Charlottesville. The Downtown Charlottesville branch is the closest branch to the Village. State standards for
library service suggest 0.6 square feet of building space per resident. The County, as a whole, exceeds this
requirement and provides approximately 0.7 square feet of building space per resident. As a general target,
library facilities should be provided at a rate of one for every 20,000 residents. Desirable travel time to the
library facility for 75 percent of the service area should be ten minutes for Development Area residents and
twenty minutes for Rural Area residents. Although 75 percent of the users of the Downtown Charlottesville
branch of the library are covered in the ten minute travel time, travel time to the Village exceeds ten minutes.
Recycling
Several trash haulers in the County offer curbside recycling to the residents of the Glenmore community who
wish to pay for these services. Recycling centers are located throughout the County.
Existing Transportation Network
Streets and Roads
The Village of Rivanna is served by a network of private and public streets. The Glenmore development is
served by an extensive internal private road system with an entry/exit gate at Glenmore Way, which intersects
with US 250. Forming most of the eastern boundary of the Development Area, Running Deer Drive (Route
808) is a public road accessed directly off of US 250. There are also private accessways which serve rural
style development within the Development Areas. When developed, Rivanna Village at Glenmore will have a
network of internal roads connecting to development within the Village and to US 250.
US 250 serves the Village of Rivanna for trips outside the village. Destinations include Pantops, the City of
Charlottesville and Zion Crossroads. As the following table shows, US 250 traffic is heaviest from the eastern
City line to Route 20. Traffic volume decreases on US 250 east of Shadwell with an annual average daily
traffic count of approximately 5,500 vehicles from Route 22 to the Fluvanna County line.
Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume Estimates, 2007
Route Length From To
AADT
(Volume)
US 250
Richmond Rd. 0.20
East City Line
Charlottesville
Route 20
Stony Point Rd 52,000
US 250
Richmond Rd 1.64
Route 20
Stony Point Rd
I-64 East of
Charlottesville 37,000
US 250
Richmond Rd 2.16
I-64 East of
Charlottesville Route 22 Louisa Rd 23,000
US 250
Richmond Rd 4.40 Route 22 Louisa Rd
Fluvanna County
Line 5,500
Source: Virginia Department of Transportation
Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks
Pedestrian and bicycle accommodations are primarily
provided within the Glenmore development where there is a
network of internal asphalt and unpaved trails to serve the
residents of the Glenmore development. The trails extend
from the entrance to the development at Glenmore Way to
several destinations within the Glenmore development.
There are no other pedestrian or bicycle facilities within the
Village. The Rivanna Village at Glenmore will have
pedestrian and bicycle paths.
Transit
There is no transit service to or within the Village of Rivanna except for JAUNT service.
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
Chapter 4 Future Land Use and Transportation
Maps
The Future Land Use Map and the Future Land Use Map Detail identify the land use designations, the
standards regarding uses, the recommended densities and the Village Center. The Transportation Map
details the transportation network and makes recommendations for its improvement. A multimodal approach
is taken so all modes of travel – vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit are incorporated. Based on traffic
projections, improvements to the transportation network are recommended. The Parks and Green Systems
Map identifies existing and recommended parks, open space, and greenways. In addition, the Village of
Rivanna Master Plan recommends the preservation and protection of historical and cultural resources.
Future Land Use
Proposed land uses are shown on the Future Land Use Map on page 24. The Future Land Use Map reflects
an expectation that the density, design, and character of existing residential neighborhoods in the Village of
Rivanna will be retained as the Village of Rivanna develops further. A single Village Center will be one of the
two focal points for the Village. The other focal point is the recreational area of the Glenmore development,
which includes the swimming pools, tennis courts, and golf course.
Residential Areas
The following recommendations are made for residential areas in the Village:
As shown on the Future Land Use Map, residential uses will be the most prominent use in this
Development Area.
A mix of housing types will be provided with the greatest variety of types located in the Village Center.
Density will radiate from the Village Center with the lowest densities at the edges of the Development
Area.
The existing neighborhoods of the Glenmore development, Running Deer, and the Magruder
subdivision are expected to retain their low-density character.
The Glenmore development is expected to remain unchanged, except for orderly future expansion of
approved additions.
Developed land on the east side of Carroll Creek is not expected to change in character, as it
provides for a transition to the Rural Areas.
Future residential development between the Village Center and Carroll Creek will transition from the
highest density near the Center to no more than 3 units per acre near Carroll Creek. Density near the
Village Center adjacent to the proposed park can be higher if it is compensated for with lower density
closer to Carroll Creek. Such development should only be approved if and when adequate
infrastructure is in place.
Future development is expected to be at a size and scale compatible with existing neighborhoods
within the Village of Rivanna.
The expected number of new dwellings, in addition to units approved at the time of adoption of this
Master Plan, is between 300 and 400 units. In order to maintain this number of new dwellings, if
higher density development is focused in the area adjacent to the Village Center (Rivanna Village at
Glenmore), then a proportionately lower density in remaining areas must occur.
The Future Land Use Map in detail shows the areas in the Village where further development could be
expected. The insert below again shows these three areas: A, B, and C.
Area A is expected to have the greatest density, with the higher
density development being located near the Village Center and
lower density radiating away from the Center. Housing types
expected would be single-family detached dwellings on medium or
small lots, duplexes, townhouses, and low-rise garden apartments.
Senior living could be provided in this area. Area B will have the
lowest density of this Development Area. Single-family detached
homes on medium or small lots are expected. Area C could have
a density that resembles the density found in the Glenmore
development or it could have a density which more closely
resembles the density in the Village Center.
A possible mixture of density for these three areas is provided below:
Acres Density Dwellings Additional
Population
Area A 94 3 dwellings per acre 237 500
Area B 115 1 dwelling per acre 115 244
Hacktown
Road
Glenmore
Way US 250
Carroll
Creek
Running
Deer Dr.
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
Area C 24 2 dwellings per acre 48 102
Totals 233 400 846
Different mixtures and densities could take place in the future. Availability of utilities as well as the timing of
improvements on US 250 will affect the future rate of growth in the Village. The capacity for full development
of the Village would allow for a total of 1700 – 2000 units (including existing and approved development) which
represents a population of between 3604 and 4240 persons.
Density Illustrated
The Village currently has only single-family detached housing, but a variety of housing types is expected. The
images below, beginning with most dense to least dense represent the possible ways in which development
could occur, radiating from most dense near the Village Center to least dense near Running Deer Drive.
Parkside Village Townhouses – Crozet Parkside Village homes – Crozet
The illustration on the left shows townhouses at 9 dwellings per acre; however, half of the site has been
preserved as open space. The illustration on the right shows dwellings at 4 dwellings per acre. One quarter
of the site was preserved as open space.
The image on the left in the Glenmore development typifies homes at a density of two dwellings per acre. The
image on the right represents a subdivision built at less than two dwellings per acre on small lots facing a
street with sidewalks.
The Village Center
The Village Center (approved in 2007 as the Rivanna Village at Glenmore) will have a mixture of residential
and non-residential uses. Other characteristics include:
Neo-traditional streets characterized by narrow widths, on-street parking, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and
street trees.
A "main street" with retail and office buildings.
Street connections to Glenmore Way, US 250 East, and properties to the south and east of the
Village Center.
A variety of housing types that provide opportunities for all age groups, including senior housing and
housing for all socioeconomic levels, to live in the Village of Rivanna.
Non-residential uses, mostly in small commercial, office, retail and restaurant/inn uses. Total square
footage should not exceed 125,000 for retail, office, and institutional uses, inc luding the East Rivanna
Volunteer Fire Company. Automobile repair and self-storage areas are not considered appropriate uses
for the Village.
Design at a pedestrian scale that reflects the architectural tradition of Williamsburg and other historic
towns in Virginia.
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
A well-integrated pedestrian system, including sidewalks and paths.
A variety of park and recreational amenities, including open space appropriate to the residential needs
of the Village.
Development in a manner that is sensitive to its location within Monticello‟s viewshed, in accordance
with the Monticello Viewshed Guidelines for Developers.
Minimization of adverse impacts on residential properties adjoining the Village Center by preserving
mature vegetation, having residences abut adjoining residential properties; using buffers, screening
and berming; and using wide buffer strips.
Shared parking.
Historic Sites
Historic sites both inside and outside the Village are affected by development of the Village. Care should be
taken with new development that the size, scale, and visibility of new development complement surrounding
sites. The following recommendations are made:
Historic resources should be preserved within the Village, especially the Glenmore Manor and its
Dependencies along the Rivanna River.
Development inside the Village should respect historic resources outside of the Village.
Developers should coordinate with Monticello to prevent negative impacts on the Monticello viewshed.
Future Land Use Maps (Context)
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
Future Land Use Maps (Map Detail)
Future Transportation Framework
The future transportation network is divided into three sections: vehicular, transit and pedestrian/bicycle.
While vehicular travel is the dominant means of transportation, transit service and ac commodations for
pedestrians and cyclists are included with this plan.
Vehicular Travel
As included in the prior chapter, US 250 East is a state highway which extends from Richmond to West
Virginia. It is the northern boundary of the Village of Rivanna Development Area. As a regional thoroughfare,
it serves a much greater area than the Village of Rivanna. It is a major commuter route between Louisa and
Fluvanna counties and the City of Charlottesville. Because of its function in the larger network, traffic from the
Village is only a small portion of the overall volume.
Traffic on US 250 East overall is expected to grow significantly in the next 25 years as a result of growth east
of Albemarle County and other growth in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. Projections provided by the
Virginia Department of Transportation are:
2007 and Projected 2035 Average Annual Daily Traffic
Route Length From To
AADT
Volume
2007
AADT
Projected
2035
US 250
Richmond Rd. 0.20
East City Line
Charlottesville
SR 20
Stony Point Rd 52,000
78,747
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 40)
US 250
Richmond Rd 1.64
SR 20 Stony
Point Rd
I-64 East of
Charlottesville 37,000
79,384
US 250
Richmond Rd 2.16
I-64 East of
Charlottesville SR 22 Louisa Rd 23,000
42,185
US 250
Richmond Rd 4.40 SR 22 Louisa Rd
Fluvanna County
Line 5,500
24,400
Source: Virginia Department of Transportation
To deal with the additional traffic, several recommendations which affect the regional nature of US 250 East
are:
Interchange improvements at I-64 and US 250 East
Six-lane US 250 from Free Bridge east to the I-64 interchange
Four-lane US 250 from the US 250/I-64 interchange to Route 729 (Milton Road) and, possibly,
Glenmore Way
Intersection improvements at US 250 and Route 729 (Milton Road)
Bridge improvement or replacement over railroad at Route 22 (Louisa Road)
Addition of eastbound left turn and westbound right turn lanes on US 250 at Route 616 (Black Cat
Road)
Recommended Characteristics of US 250 East
The following recommendations relate to the character of the improvements on US 250 East as they affect the
Village of Rivanna.
Four-lane Section
US 250 should be a 4 lane rural section road from the US 250/I-64 Shadwell interchange to Route
729 (Milton Road) and, possibly, Glenmore Way. This road section should include a median and a
walking/bicycling path on the south side of US 250.
Two-lane Section
US 250 should be a two lane rural section of road from Route 729 (Milton Road) or Glenmore Way
eastward to Route 616 (Black Cat Road). Left turn lanes may be needed to accommodate existing
entrances. This road section should include a walking/bicycling path on the south side of US 250.
The road may have a median separation or not, as illustrated in the next two images. Also, a naturalistic
buffer should be established along the south side of US 250, so the commercial uses in the Village Center
are not visible from US 250.
Other Recommendations for Vehicular Transportation in Village
Walking/
biking path
Route 250 with median
Route 250 without median
Travel lanes Median Travel lanes Shoulder and
ditch
Walking/
biking path
Walking/
biking path
Median
Travel lanes
Travel
lane
Travel
lane
Shoulder and
ditch
Shoulder and
ditch
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 41)
Additional points of access from US 250 into the Development Area should be limited to Route 744
(Hacktown Road) and at or near Breezy Hill Lane. The intersection with Route 744 (Hacktown Road)
may require a roundabout or signal when warrants are met.
Except for the area around Ashton Road, no additional development should be added to the
Glenmore development unless it includes a second entrance.
For the long term, consideration should be given to replacing the proffered signal light at Glenmore
Way with a roundabout for improved traffic flow.
A Park and Ride lot should be established within the Village.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Network
A bicycle/pedestrian crossing over Carroll Creek should be provided to link new residential
development and the residential area of Running Deer to the Village Center.
Pedestrian connections to the Village Center should be established, linking the Glenmore
development and nearby residential development to the Village Center.
A hard-surface pedestrian/bicycle path should be provided across the frontage of the Development
Area, abutting US 250 between US 250 and the landscape buffer. Such a path would connect
Glenmore Way with Running Deer and all intervening streets
Transit Service
Fixed-route transit service should be provided to the Village of Rivanna when ridership levels can
support transit.
New development should be in a transit-ready design.
Parks and Green Systems
The Guiding Principles for the Village of Rivanna emphasize integration of the natural landscape and provision
of public and private common space, parks, and sports fields located to foster a vibrant community. These
principles are reflected in the following Parks and Green Systems map. It is especially important that the
Rivanna River corridor be protected and be available to the public. In addition to the need for park amenities
in future developments, a new public park is expected as part of the Rivanna Village at Glenmore
development.
The following recommendations are made for parks and green systems:
Ensure that the Rivanna River Corridor, Carroll Creek, and tributaries to both waterways are protected
by preserving floodplains, critical slopes, and riparian buffers adjacent to these resources.
The Rivanna River greenway trail, which will follow the northern side of the river and ultimately
become part of a larger Rivanna River trail system, should be developed.
The Glenmore golf course, the equestrian center, the series of trails and paths throughout the
development, and other Glenmore open space are important features of the Glenm ore community.
These features should continue to provide recreational and aesthetic amenities to that development.
Centralized amenities such as pocket parks and neighborhood greens are expected with new
development.
Ensure development of the public park in the Village Center.
Open spaces in existing neighborhoods should be preserved.
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 42)
Chapter 5 Implementation
The implementation initiatives of the Village of Rivanna Master Plan have been organized based on priority
needs identified by residents and stakeholders during the Master Plan process (Table below). Implementation
of these initiatives will take place in several different forms: through County capital expenditures, as part of
land use decisions, with private sector investment, by comm unity initiatives, and through programs and
services provided by the County. The County‟s Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is based on a two-year
financial cycle. The CIP represents the County‟s funding policy, including funding level, timing and sour ces
associated with specific improvements. The actual programming of projects in the CIP will be based on priority
needs and the availability of funding from the sources anticipated in this section. Service standards have been
established in the County‟s Community Facilities Plan. As in all Development Areas, with rezonings for new
development, community services and facilities are always evaluated to determine the adequacy of service
and impacts of the proposed development in relation to the service standards.
Population Capacity and Future Rezonings
Additional development in the Village currently is limited by Rural Areas zoning on most undeveloped parcels
and the capacity of the sewage treatment plant which was installed for the Village. Although the treatment
plant is currently operating at a little more than a third of its capacity, dwelling units which have already been
approved plus the non-residential uses in the Village Center will use much of the remaining capacity. The
actual number of additional units which may be approved for development in the future depends on the
capacity of the sewage treatment plant. An additional 300 to 400 new units may be possible, if water and
Parks and Green Systems Plan
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 43)
sewer usage in the Glenmore development continues at the same usage. Monitoring of available capacity is
essential for any future development. If in the future, the Board of Supervisors decides that additional capacity
is needed in this Development Area, then major upgrades will be needed for the sewage treatment facility. In
addition to sewer limitations, approval of any development by rezoning will be predicated on the completion of
a number of transportation improvements, which are identified in the tables in this chapter. These
improvements are needed to improve the volume to capacity ratio of US 250 between Route 22 (Louisa Road)
and the City of Charlottesville.
Transportation
Addressing traffic issues on US 250 is the highest priority for the Village of Rivanna. Several regional projects
identified in the next few pages are necessary to address future growth in a larger area, but also affect the
Village of Rivanna. It is essential that all of the US 250 improvements be constructed before new
development occurs in the Village.
Community Facilities
Water and Sewer
Because of limitations of the sewage treatment plant, monitoring of all new development is essential to ensure
that adequate capacity exists to serve existing and new homes, the Glenmore Country Club, and the additional
businesses expected in the Village. Monitoring of water availability is always necessary in Albemarle County.
Although it is adequate at present, additional water storage may be necessary to serve the Village in coming
years.
Schools
At present, schools which serve the Village are operating below capacity. Stone Robinson is at 76% capacity,
Burley Middle is at 67% capacity, and Monticello High is at 90% capacity. Monitoring of enrollment, which
occurs regularly by the Schools Division of Albemarle County, should be continued to ensure that the schools
meet County standards and do not become overcrowded.
Parks and Greenways
Public parks and greenways are expected to be built in the Village over the next several years. The
community park in the Village Center will be constructed by the developer of Rivanna Village at Glenmore.
After greenway dedication from the developer of the Glenmore development occurs, County trail-building can
begin. Other trails connecting different parts of the Village are expected with new development.
Police
Police service is provided on a sector/beat system to the Rural Areas standard. Response times should be
improved to meet urban service standards. Monitoring of response times should continue in order to ensure
adequate police protection to the Village.
Fire and Rescue
As identified previously, fire and rescue response times do not meet County standards of four minutes or less.
The County and the East Rivanna Fire and Rescue Company should work to improve response times to the
Glenmore development as well as new and existing homes in the rest of the Village.
Library
At present library service for the Village of Rivanna meets County standards for building space and number of
libraries per capita. The Village is part of the 25 percent of the service area which must travel greater than ten
minutes to get to the library. With growth in the rest of the County, the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library
Board and County staff will continue to regularly monitor growth trends and service needs within the eastern
part of Albemarle County. This area includes Pantops and the Village of Rivanna. A future library is planned
for the urban neighborhoods south of Charlottesville to be built within the next ten years. This library will also
be accessible to residents of the Village. While the Regional Library Board is not expected to provide a library
in the Village of Rivanna, other methods of providing service in the Village could be considered, such as
increased bookmobile service and kiosks.
Recycling
Curbside recycling exists in the Glenmore development, which is paid for by the homeowners. Recycling
options outside of the Glenmore development will be explored during the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority‟s Waste Management Plan update.
Historic Resources
As assets to the County, historic resources in and near the Village should be protected and preserved. To
educate residents and visitors on the historic assets of this part of the County, interpretive areas could be
designed and put in place. New development and redevelopment along US 250 East should be designed in a
manner that is sensitive to its location within Monticello‟s viewshed and along a designated Entrance Corridor
roadway. The County‟s voluntary guidelines for protection of the Monticello viewshed should be followed.
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 44)
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council (VORCAC)
As with other master-planned Development Areas, the County‟s Board of Supervisors will establish the Village
of Rivanna Community Advisory Council (VORCAC) to work with Staff to monitor the implementation of the
Village of Rivanna Master Plan. The form and composition of the RCAC will be determined after adoption of
the plan.
Implementation Plan
The Implementation Plan below outlines the various projects necessary to achieve the vision for the Village of
Rivanna. Transportation improvements recommended affect not only the Village, but other parts of eastern
Albemarle County. Public road projects are the responsibility of the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT). The County will take the lead in initiating non-public road projects and coordinating with other entities
and agencies. The County may need to partner with VDOT on some road improvement projects. In some
instances, initiatives will be joint projects and the project manager would not necessarily be the County.
However, a point person from the County will always be assigned to the project. The table below indicates who
would be anticipated as the project lead and then where necessary, who would be the liaison from the County
if the County is not the lead.
The projects needed to implement the plan are as follows:
Village of Rivanna Implementation Projects
Implementation
Strategy
Estimated
Cost/Funding
Responsible
Department/
Division
Issues to Be Addressed
Actions Required
Milestones Timing
Short-term (FY08 to FY12)
Mid-term (FY13 to FY17)
Long-term (FY18 and out)
TRANSPORTATION
US 250 East
I-64 at Shadwell
Interchange
improvements –
Regional – outside
of Village
$3.14 million VDOT and
developer
contributions
Install dual left-turn
lanes on southbound
exit ramps onto US 250
Design
Construct
Short-term
Four-lane from
Shadwell
Interchange to Milton
Road or Glenmore
Way entrance –
Regional – outside
of Village
$12 million VDOT Provide capacity/
maintain adequate level
of service
Design sensitivity
towards historic setting,
EC, adjacent historic
properties and
easements
Design for road sections
Construct
Design – mid-term
Construction – mid to long term;
construction with or after
improvement to US 250 in Pantops
Intersection
improvements/
optimize signal
timing at intersection
of US 250 and Route
729 (N. Milton Road)
- Regional – utside
of Village
$850,000 VDOT Improve capacity and
functionality of
intersection
Additional turn lanes on
Route 729
Lengthen turn lanes of
Route 729
Design
Construct
Coordinate with bridge
improvement project
Coordinate with bridge over
railroad at Route 22 – short or
mid-term
Bridge over railroad
at Route 22 to solve
short-term safety -
Regional – outside
of Village
TBD VDOT Address deteriorating
condition of bridge
Design/construct to
ultimate future need
Accommodate
pedestrians and bikes
Complete design
Construct
Short-term
Four-lane from Black
Cat Road Route 616
to County Line
Regional – outside
of Village
$450,000 VDOT Provide capacity/
maintain adequate level
of service
Design for road
sections
Construct
Design – mid-term
Construction – mid to long term;
construction with or after
improvement to US 250 in
Pantops
Possible
replacement of traffic
signal at Glenmore
Way and US 250
with roundabout
$350,000 VDOT Evaluate function/
capacity benefit of
roundabout over signal
Periodic monitoring and
evaluation of
intersection
Long - term
“Regional” Transit-
Express Bus
(Fluvanna Co. to City
on US 250) -
Regional – but
includes Village
Capital:
$305,000 to
$575,000
Operation:
$200,000 to
$400,000/yr
County/CTS/possi
bly JAUNT or
future
Transit Authority
or equivalent
organization
Provide alternatives to
auto travel, reduce
future auto trips on Rt
250
Establish RTA or an
equivalent planning/
management
organization
Implement service
Short term – establish regional
planning/management process
Short to Mid term priority (w/in
next 5-10 years), next regional
transit plan update.
Long-term Implementation (after
2017) depending on study
results.
PARKS AND GREEN SYSTEMS
Rivanna River
Greenway
completion
Cultural-Natural
Heritage Sites/Boat
Launch/complete
trails – Regional
$50,000 Parks and Rec/
Planning
Provide passive
recreation opportunity &
alternate pedestrian-
bike route.
Interpret cultural and
natural sites
Easements/Fee
obtained
Complete Trail
Construction
Short and mid-term timeframe.
Ongoing planning/ acquisition/
construction throughout length of
corridor in strategic locations
Upgrade to Rivanna
River Access Point
(Route 729 – Milton)
– Regional
TBD County/private
developer
contributions
Upgrade existing river
access point along old
road r.o.w. at Route 729
bridge
Acquire additional land
or easements
Construction
Mid-term
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 45)
Implementation
Strategy
Estimated
Cost/Funding
Responsible
Department/
Division
Issues to Be Addressed
Actions Required
Milestones Timing
Short-term (FY08 to FY12)
Mid-term (FY13 to FY17)
Long-term (FY18 and out)
Provide additional
parking
Construct shelter and
trail to river
Neighborhood
Trails Connect
Running Deer
neighborhood to
Village Center
Not known at
this time
Private developer
contributions with
rezoning Parks &
Rec./Planning/
neighborhood
assoc.’s
P & R/ Village of
Rivanna’s planner to
coordinate assistance to
neighborhoods to
construct trails
Connections made
between
neighborhoods and to
greenway/public lands
Ongoing, initiative; trails may be
public or private
Community Park Private
development/
Planning/Parks &
Rec.
Stormwater
management and
retention of quarry
P&R/ Village of
Rivanna’s planner to
coordinate assistance in
completion of plan
Intended to be publicly
owned/maintained
In conjunction with first phase of
Rivanna Village at the Glenmore
development
LAND USE & DESIGN
Residential density
near Village Center
Private
developers,
Village of Rivanna
Planner/ PC/BOS
Monitor capacity of
sewage treatment
plant. No additional
units unless sewer
capacity is available.
No additional units in
Village until
transportation
improvements are
made.
Short and mid-term
COMMUNITY FACILITIES & SERVICES
Recycling
Programs
$250,000-
$500,000 – to
be determined
on revised
regional solid
waste plan
RSWA/County
(General Services,
Planning)
Provide convenient
drop center. RSWA
Solid Waste Mgt Plan
Review may indicate
different approach to
recycle (curbside may
be considered)
Review w/ RSWA
during update of Solid
Waste Plan. Funding
requested in CIP.
Construction
Dependent on implementation
recommendations of Solid Waste
plan as recommended in adopted
plan
Fire/Rescue
Service – monitor
needs – region is
served by ERVFC
Village of Rivanna
Planner/Fire&
Rescue/ Facilities
staff
Improve response
times
Monitor need for
ambulance service
from ERVFC station
Evaluate facility needs
w/ yearly long range
planning process
Ongoing yearly evaluation of
growth in eastern part of County
and facility needs.
Police Service –
monitor needs
Village of Rivanna
Planner/Police,
Facilities staff
Improve response
times to meet
Development Area
standards
Evaluate future
facility/service needs
Evaluate facility needs
Monitor needs for
satellite office for beat
officer located in fire
station
Ongoing yearly evaluation of
population growth and facility
needs.
Library Service –
monitor needs
Village of Rivanna
Planner/JMRL
Board, Facilities
staff
Continue to consider
facility needs w/ long
range planning
process of the JMRL
Board.
Evaluate facility needs Ongoing yearly evaluation of
growth in eastern part of County
and facility needs.
Schools -- monitor
needs
Village of Rivanna
Planner/Dept of
Ed., Facilities staff
Continue to consider
facility needs w/ long
range Planning
Committee.
Evaluate facility needs Ongoing yearly evaluation of
school growth and facility needs
with long range Planning
Committee.
Historic/Cultural
Resources
programs
Interpretation
Opportunities
not known at
this time
Village of Rivanna
Planner/Historic
Pres
Comm./community
Evaluate opportunities
for interpretation of
area history
Investigate support to
provide locate history
interpretation at local
institutions
Short to mid-term
__________________
Agenda Item No. 11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
At 7:54 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Boyd, that the Board go into Closed Meeting pursuant to
Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia, under Subsection (1) to discuss an administrative evaluation;
under Subsection (3) to discuss the acquisition of property for a public parking area; and under Subsection
(7) to discuss pending litigation regarding a donation to a charitable organization. Ms. Mallek seconded
the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas.
__________
At 8:45 p.m., the Board reconvened into open meeting. Mr. Boyd moved that the Board certify by
a 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.
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Rooker said Board members received from the Burley High School Varsity Club requesting
donation towards a plaque for Burley High School Coaches. Burley High School was a City and County
School from 1951 to 1967. They have made a similar request to City Council. It was the consensus of the
Board to donate $200 for this purpose.
__________
May 12, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 46)
Mr. Dorrier provided Board members with a copy of a proposal for reuse of the Old County Jail by
the Albemarle Charlottesville Historical Society. It was the consensus of the Board that Mr. Bill Letteri,
Director of the Office of Facilities Development, report back to the Board on the proposal.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn.
At 8:50 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 07/07/2010
Initials: EWJ