2011-02-02February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
February 2, 2011, at 9:00 a.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, Mr. Duane E. Snow and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Recognitions. (Remove from agenda)
__________________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Dorrier reported that the Biscuit Run Advisory Committee recently met and should have some
interesting proposals to bring forth.
Mr. Rooker asked if the committee had indicated there was any money in the pipeline to fulfill a
plan.
Mr. Dorrier responded that they did not say they would spend the money right away, but plan to
put some money into it. It is going to be competitive with other parks in the state.
Ms. Mallek commented that outside funds would depend upon the parks bond issue that is
supposed to go forward in 2012, adding that there would be lots of naming opportunities for local pavilions.
Mr. Rooker said that the key to making this a benefit to the community is to have a good plan, and
perhaps having the committee find out what funding is available for the park and when it might be realized.
Mr. Boyd stated that some of the follow-up to that meeting including a discussion of having a bond
issue every 10 years, and certainly an allocation for Biscuit Run would be sought.
Mr. Rooker asked when the next bond issue is proposed. Mr. Boyd responded that he thinks the
normal cycle is this year.
Ms. Mallek commented that the next interval is in about six months, adding that she was pleased
to hear that the Parks Department‘s operation mode is to have sustainable facilities, including LEED-
certified structures and an interest in demonstration projects. She said she mentioned to the Department
of Conservation and Recreation officials that since this is an urban-boundary park, there may be different
features needed such as a street going through to provide access.
Mr. Thomas noted that there had been some inquiries about locating the County Fair in the Biscuit
Run site, and asked if anyone else had heard about this.
Ms. Mallek responded that the timeframe would be too short for this year, but she is mindful of the
County Fair‘s need as well as the interest by others in using a multi-use facility there.
Mr. Boyd said that he has had some discussions at the State level about using it for the County
Fair, and it is definitely a topic that will be raised in future conversations.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that things like playing fields are not typically associated with State parks,
but since Biscuit Run has 1,200 acres perhaps there would be a possibility of having some of the land
leased to the County for this purpose as there had been past efforts to put fields in this general area.
Mr. Boyd stated that that was a good point for the committee to consider.
__________
Mr. Thomas said that he recently attended a meeting that residents of Stonehenge had called,
and a person that owns some land leading down to Brookway has polled his neighbors as to what he
might do with that property. He noted that it was a positive meeting. Mr. Thomas said that Ms. Judy
Wiegand of County Planning attended, along with Mr. Don Franco from the Planning Commission. The
property is approximately 10 acres, with two houses on it currently.
__________
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
In terms of economic development, Mr. Boyd said he recently had a very productive meeting with
Mr. Mark Crowell of UVA, who has been hired to step up their efforts in providing for innovative technology
and entrepreneurship in the County.
__________
Mr. Boyd reported that at the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority meeting last week, the Authority
Board agreed to move forward with the permitting process to build a 42-foot earthen dam with a 30-foot
pool.
__________
Ms. Mallek provided Board members with a copy of an email from Mr. Barbara Hutchinson, from
the Airport, regarding a proposal by Virginia‘s Governor to remove funds that have supported the
operation of Commonwealth airports and put the funds into a general economic development fund. She
asked fellow Board members to consider sending a letter on behalf of the regional airport.
__________
Ms. Mallek said that she recently met with a professor from JMU who is studying wind energy and
projects funded by the state for this technology. If the Board‘s schedule will permit, she has asked him to
make a presentation in March as to the status of these efforts. They will also be discussing the possibility
of the County allowing test stations.
__________
Mr. Rooker reported that there was an email circulated regarding a Constitutional Amendment
regarding Eminent Domain. After discussing it with Mr. Boyd, they found that the issues to be considered
should be raised and carefully considered before action was taken on legislation. He said that unintended
consequences could result from any broad constitutional provision that is not well thought out.
Mr. Boyd agreed and suggested that a letter from the Board be drafted to the legislators.
Mr. Rooker suggested staff edit the proposed letter and express the Board‘s concern that the
following factors (outlined in the letter) need to be carefully looked at before such legislation is passed
leading to a potential constitutional amendment.
Board members concurred with staff drafting the letter.
(Note: The following letter was drafted and forwarded Senator Creigh Deed and Senator
Emmett Hanger:)
―The Senate will soon be considering HJ693 proposing a constitutional amendment regarding
eminent domain. We understand this bill will be heard by the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee.
This bill incorporates the basic provisions of the 2007 statutory revisions that addressed eminent
domain, but also greatly expands the definition of damages to include the loss of goodwill, loss of access
and other economic losses. Because the 2007 revisions have not been time tested, please consider
whether an amendment to the constitution incorporating these provisions is timely. In addition, there have
been concerns raised about whether this amendment would add significant costs to acquiring property
that is necessary for public purposes, particularly road improvements.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors recognizes that this is a significant bill that may have
important property rights impacts as well as significant cost implications for the state and for local
governments. The Board requests that the impacts of this bill be seriously considered prior to any action
that advances this constitutional amendment.
Thank you for your attention to this bill and your continuing service to the citizens of Albemarle
County.‖
__________
Ms. Mallek reported that the recent Mayor & Chairs meeting focused primarily on the possible
results of bills related to the state retirement system. Due to public outcry the proposed changes to the
Extension Services budget for next year have been overturned. They are not looking at the loss of four
staff people. She said that there have been some successes in the onsite sewage system measures, with
the most damaging bill withdrawn, a measure that would have removed the Board of Health from having
any possible role in the permitting process. Ms. Mallek added that there is another bill being considered
this week that would give waivers to anyone with a failing system and allow them to live there until their
property is sold, before they are forced to bring their systems in to compliance.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that this is closely linked to the new TMDL legislation, and the County
needs to be careful about things that are going to make it very difficult to meet the requirements that are
ultimately overlaid on us.
Ms. Mallek added that a proponent of one of the bills represents people in Virginia Beach which
has high water tables and where these systems are failing everywhere. His response is to give everyone
a waiver.
__________________
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
Agenda Item No. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Charles Battig said he has provided Board members with a packet which includes
documentation on his talking points. The presentation is called ―Defund ICLEI/Cool Counties. In 2007 the
Board adopted the U.S. Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration with a pledge to reduce
greenhouse gases countywide by 80% by 2050, setting into motion the ICLEI defined Five Milestone
Approach in order to reach this fictitious goal. Mr. Battig said that for just $1,200 ICLEI climate
carpetbaggers have brought themselves and their U.N. Agenda 21 dogma a place in County government.
ICLEI conveniently provides its own clean air and climate protection software to do a baseline analysis of
County CO2 production. There is a built-in assumption that manmade CO2 levels are the primary drivers
of climate. Mr. Battig said there is no scientific proof of this; this is the same fallacy of the U.N.‘s IPCC.
The County pledged to reduce 2010 emissions by 2%. Perhaps increased emissions should be looked
upon as a measure of increased productive economic activity. Instead the ICLEI 80% reduction goal
would return us to the standard of living last seen in the U.S. colonial days.
Mr. Batting said that climate science, like every other science, is not settled. CO2 continues to
rise even as the Earth is in a ten to twenty year cooling trend which began in 1998. He provided a copy of
one of Time Magazines’ cover which illustrated the climate panic of the 1970s…Global Cooling. The
computer-generated climate scare stories of Al Gore, Michael Mann and NASA James Hansen in 1988
have not occurred. A more recent article about the influence of cosmic rays questions the role of CO2
and attributes 40% of climate change to solar activity.
He asked why the County entered into this arbitrary agreement. Perhaps the Board of
Supervisors did not realize the U.N. Agenda21/ICLEI socialist concept of sustainability, social justice and
forced redistribution of private property. He also provided a copy of ICLEI‘s agenda for the Board. Mr.
Battig said the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, the County of Albemarle‘s Emissions
Baseline Report, and the ICLEI defined Local Climate Action Planning Process are all unelected
committees and technocrats. He pointed out that the Board of Supervisors of Carroll County, Maryland
severed ties with ICLEI with one member stating that ―the doctrine held by ICLEI organization states that
land should not be viewed as a resource for private property owners, but rather the land needs to be
controlled by the government‖. He also noted that ―the organization advocates a form of
environmentalism that intersects environmentalism and socialism injecting government into all forms of
people‘s lives‖. Thomas Jefferson would have noted the same things. The Board can defund ICLEI. He
added that this subject deserves more than three minutes from the public.
__________
Mr. Greg Quinn said that the whole sustainability and environmental issue is a way to redistribute
wealth and control what he does with his land. Mr. Quinn said that it is his land and is deeded in his
name, and until the County owns it, it is his business what he does with it, providing it is not harmful to
others. He believes in environmental common sense. He stated that he is getting sick and tired of being
told what to do, especially by the international community. The United Nations and foreign leaders have
nothing to do United States business. He believes the EPA needs to be defunded and eliminated. He
added that we have enough common sense in this community to clean our own environment up. Mr.
Quinn said this community does not need a bunch of Washington communist bureaucrats telling us what
to do. He encouraged the Board to fight against state and federal legislation that tells them what to do.
__________
Mr. Kirk Bowers said that he and his family moved to the County in 1988 so they could be closer
to families in Salem and Bluefield, West Virginia, and to escape the congestion of urban living. They
moved here to raise their family in a culturally rich, semi-urban area near the mountains. Mr. Bowers said
that the first 12 years they lived here, the environment was relatively clean with little traffic and pollution
and it was a great place to live. But, since the early 2000s there has been significant growth, especially
north of Charlottesville, and his quality of life has decreased. The environment is degraded and the
Rivanna River is polluted.
Mr. Bowers said that he does not support the expansion of the Route 29 growth areas, including
the acreage across from Ashwood Boulevard and Piney Ridge, because this will increase traffic in the
Forest Lakes area and commercial retail development offers low to medium wage jobs and few career
opportunities for advancement to higher levels of pay. Mr. Bowers stated that while proffers will aid in
funding road projects, it will come at a big price. He added there are no free rides or free lunches as far
as he knows, in anybody giving us free money for road construction. The people who pay for these
services will pay a hidden tax so that developers can recoup the money from their proffers.
__________
Ms. Meredith Richards addressed the Board, reminding them of a forum to be held at the Omni
Hotel in Charlottesville on Friday, February 4th, 10:00 a.m., to discuss the future of passenger rail service
on the US-29 corridor and throughout the state. Ms. Richards said that there would be people speaking
who are experts in state law and state funding for passenger rail, and who are advocates at the state level.
There are upcoming issues for the future funding of the region‘s train, a new Richmond to Washington
stated-supported service and other services that are currently in service in Virginia. Federal law will have
a major impact on Virginia‘s ability to continue some of the current regional services. She added that two
top Amtrak officials will also be present to address how that agency partners with states to offer
passenger rail services. She explained that several years ago, localities and interested parties got
together as a corridor in the Piedmont Rail Coalition to work together to bring new passenger service to
communities along the US 29 corridor. Ms. Richards said that the group then worked to get funding, and
last year got the state legislature to pass a study resolution on how the state could fund inner-city and
high-speed passenger rail for the future, with assistance from some Board members. The report came
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
out in November. She stated that there is currently legislation moving through the General Assembly that
will hopefully provide some answers, including a sustained fund for passenger rail. This is the first time
passenger rail has a foot in the door in the State Code. Ms. Richards added that it is an important step; it
is not the last step. She again invited Board members to attend the forum on February 4th.
Mr. Boyd asked if there would be someone at the forum who would address why state and federal
funding is needed for a very popular train service.
Ms. Richards responded that the service is covering its operating costs, and she has not been
successful in getting someone from the Department of Rail and Public Transportation to address that
issue. She thinks that what they need to do is move past that and make sure that whatever has happened
does not happen again. She added that there needs to be some way to have a sustainable method of
funding the train even if it is not using state subsidies, which it apparently is not using at this time. She
added that there is potential for a second train on this corridor and currently the state is planning to extend
this service to Roanoke. It is entirely possible that there may be additional funding needed in the future for
the extension of this train.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that in one of Ms. Richards‘ presentations to the MPO, she indicated that
Amtrak requires a state appropriation for the operating expenses because they want a guarantee that they
would be paid. Ms. Richards likened it to an escrow-type arrangement, adding that costs such as fuel
would likely go up.
Mr. Thomas commented that the first time he met Ms. Richards she was serving as a Council
member and they were discussing the Eastern Connector. At that time she spoke with him about rail
service. Mr. Thomas added that he feels it is a worthwhile service; it needs to be chased it down and
made to work.
Ms. Mallek noted that that was about 15 years ago.
__________
Mr. John Martin, a resident of Free Union, distributed a copy of the latest U.S. Drought Monitor for
Virginia, which shows the state as being in a moderate drought. He said that he has shared these with Mr.
Tom Frederick and Mr. Scott Cutlass and asked if they had concerns for the upcoming summer, and they
both responded that they do, with low stream flows and below-normal precipitation. Mr. Martin also said
that Mr. Frederick indicated we are in a La Nina weather pattern, which brings the weather from the west
across the Midwest, up to the Northeast and m isses the mid-Atlantic and the South. He stated that the
idea of building a 42-foot earthen dam and only filling it to a 30-foot level means that the public will pay for
a bigger dam but will get 40% less for their money. He said that he does not think that makes sense. If
there is a drought this summer, the Board can expect public outrage and if they do not have the full benefit
of the use benefit safety and security of the safe yield supply which they are paying for. Mr. Martin added
that the only reason to partially fill it is to appease the City and stop them from obstructing progress of the
water supply plan. At a recent RWSA meeting he felt the discussion of the lower pool was a contract
administration matter, not a formal decision from the Board. He asked the Board to not be an appeaser.
Mr. Boyd clarified that it was indeed a contract matter and not a statement of Board position.
__________
Mr. Morgan Butler, of the Southern Environmental Law Center, said that he would be focusing on
Places29 in his comments, which is scheduled to be voted on by the Board today. Mr. Butler said that he
attended the Hollymead public forum meeting to learn more about the growth area expansion being
considered as part of Places29. He appreciated Mr. Boyd‘s willingness to make himself available to
explore the pros and cons of the proposal. He stated that one of the arguments made in favor of adding it
to the growth area is that it is the only way to bring the owner to the table to discuss a rezoning and get a
better idea of what might be proffered. Mr. Butler said that deciding not to include this in the growth area
does not preclude the owner from submitting a rezoning and engaging the County in that proffer
discussion, as the county would have to consider it anyway. He emphasized that growth area designation
allows the owner to argue that the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the single most
important factor that the Board is required by State law to consider when evaluating rezoning requests. In
his experience, it is also the first factor that staff and the Commission look to when determining approval.
Mr. Butler said that a growth area designation shifts a presumption in favor of granting a rezoning
on the underlying parcels. He thinks residents recognize that and is the reason they are so concerned
about adding this to the growth area at this time even with any qualifying language that might be attached.
Mr. Butler pointed out that the County has not even begun preliminary planning and location study for the
parallel road that almost everyone acknowledges must be built if new development is to be approved
along this stretch of Route 29. If all of the money were to appear tomorrow, the beginning of construction
would be years away. It is also important to recognize that one developer is not likely to proffer the full
parallel road and the bridge, much less all the other improvements needed along this stretch of route 29.
It is more likely that this development would provide the piece of the parallel road that would directly serve
this development. He also noted that the last piece to be put in place is the strip accessing a major traffic
generator like a big box. He added that over two million square feet of retail and commercial space has
already been approved and is still waiting to be built just in the Places29 area of the County. There is also
a major retail development approved south of the City that appears to be waiting for the economy to pick
up steam. There is simply no need to designate more land for retail at this time.
In light of all this, Mr. Butler said, they think any presumption for the foreseeable future should
continue to be against approving a rezoning in this area, and that presumption is best maintained by
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
keeping this land out of the growth area, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. SELC urges the
Board to not include this growth area expansion as part of Places29.
__________
Mr. Jack Marshall, on behalf of Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population, said that at the
Hollymead meeting Mr. Boyd explained that a growth area expansion does not really signify that the
property under consideration would be commercially developed and he assured the public that until it is
rezoned no construction would occur. Mr. Marshall emphasized that while this is technically correct, the
effort to reassure us that they need not worry struck many in the audience as disingenuous. He pointed
out that when land is designated in the Comp Plan as located with the growth area boundaries, it gets
rezoned, and often quickly, as there is money to be made.
Mr. Marshall said that a rezoning of this property, preceded by placing it in an expanded growth
area, would provide a significant financial gain for the landowner, but would do little to improve the quality
of life for the rest of the residents. This community does not need any more retail and commercial space;
there is already over two million square feet of approved but not yet built commercial area in the Route 29
North growth area and many empty buildings.
Mr. Marshall said that Mr. Boyd argued that only when the property is rezoned will the landowner
suggest proffers to help pay for the necessary infrastructure to handle the increased traffic generated by
the development. This is true, but even then proffers will cover only a sm all portion of the real costs and
the infrastructure would not be in place until long after the congestion becomes worse.
To many of the residents, it looks like a vote to expand this growth area supports more unneeded
commercial space and exacerbates traffic problems, until essential infrastructure is in place that would be
paid for largely by County taxpayers, not by the grateful landowner. In addition a vote to expand the
growth area would set into motion the environment destruction of open space that today provides
important ecosystem services for the whole community, as ASAP research has shown. This open space
is being eaten away as houses and stores replace fields and forests.
Mr. Marshall said that because the Board values the quality of life of ordinary citizens more than
the gains of one developer, it should oppose this growth area expansion.
__________
Mr. Jeff Werner, on behalf of Piedmont Environmental Council, said that his comments also relate
to Places29. He stated that Biscuit Run is still in the growth area. He said that between Rio Road and
Proffit Road there are 258 acres of unzoned land (RA), with 141 vacant acres already zoned for
development purposes. It seems that both growth area expansions in Places29 will primarily benefit one
single developer. Mr. Werner said that it seems unfair to the developers that have already gone through
the process and followed the Comp Plan for their projects that another one would be added to that. He
added those folks followed the rules. He stated that it is not the developer‘s fault as he is a businessman
that follows the rules as set by the County. Mr. Werner stated it is up to Board members, not the
developer. He referenced all of the emails County residents had sent and they include a lot of very
thoughtful comments about the amount of development already approved and the lack of adequate
infrastructure. Many emails suggest that the Route 29 growth area not be expanded until current traffic
problems are addressed.
__________
Ms. Mary Barrick, a County resident, asked the Board to look into State ordinances pertaining to
animal welfare codes. She said that she supports improvements to animal welfare codes including shelter
amendments and increasing restrictions on tethering and breeding. She added that she supports forming
an advisory committee to continue to discuss these topics.
Mr. Rooker noted that the Board would probably be amending the ordinances today to accomplish
a lot of what she has suggested.
__________
Mr. Neil Williamson, speaking on behalf of the Free Enterprise Forum, said that Mr. Werner
brought up a good observation in examining existing development areas. He said that the Forum would
suggest having Biscuit Run State Park in the growth area is a mistake, as it probably will not build out. Mr.
Williamson said that there have been significant changes over the past several years regarding stream
buffers, critical slopes, and other restrictions for the development, all capable of being mapped through
GIS. He added it would be most interesting to see how large or small the County‘s development area is
today based on these regulations.
__________
Ms. Audrey Wellborn, a resident of the Jack Jouett District, said that she has been reading about
the Agenda 21 and the ICLEI organization, and she is concerned about what she read. Ms. Wellborn
stated that she is concerned about bills in the legislature that impact private property rights. She is
concerned about Albemarle County‘s involvement with ICLE. She encouraged the Board to be cautious
when moving forward with ICLEI, adding that when more citizens become aware they will be concerned
about their private property rights.
__________
Mr. Boyd commented that he has heard a number of complaints about ICLE, and perhaps this
should be discussed during the upcoming budget work sessions; the pros and cons of the County‘s
involvement and what it means to the County. Mr. Foley said staff would be providing that information.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
Ms. Mallek noted that there would be a meeting regarding the three-jurisdiction study on February
24th, in the Auditorium, and people would learn about the improvements made in energy efficiency.
Mr. Rooker said that Albemarle is not taking its lead and instructions from any international
organization. The Board has made decisions here that are County decisions, not international decisions.
He added that he has never received any information from an international group trying to sway Board
decisions one way or another, and whether or not you believe in global warming is a different matter.
Mr. Boyd said that U.N. Agenda 21 says that you infiltrate local governments through this ICLEI
organization and help direct their decisions. He does not think this Board would ever be influenced by an
international agenda, but it is worth looking at but it is worth looking at because ICLEI does have an
agenda.
Mr. Rooker stated that there are many organizations that attempt to infiltrate local governments.
The Tea Party has expressed an interest in becoming active and infiltrating local government. Every
organization that has an interest in public affairs tries to push its agenda, sometimes by putting out
information and other times by training people at lower levels to move in and run for office.
Mr. Boyd said he supports the County being energy efficient and conducting its own affairs, but he
wants to make sure that this is a Board-driven initiative and not a staff-driven initiative.
Ms. Mallek commented that it is a community-driven initiative that involved a painstaking process
with many different groups weighing in. The LCAP committee has representatives from businesses,
Chamber of Commerce, etc., and everyone has weighed in effectively.
Mr. Rooker mentioned the strategy from oil companies and car manufacturers where they went
from city to town, approaching city councils to advocate for doing away with the streetcar system. He said
that there was an expert who testified in front of the L.A. City Council who said that breathing exhaust was
good for your health. The Council voted later that night to eliminate the streetcar system and today they
would love to have it back. He added you cannot necessarily believe anything that you hear on any side of
an issue. Mr. Rooker stated you have to make up your own mind based on your own observations.
Ms. Mallek added that it also helps to do your homework.
Mr. Boyd commented that growing up inner-city Washington D.C., he was very familiar with what
happened to the streetcar system.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Mr. Rooker moved to approve Items 7.1 through 7.7 on
the Consent Agenda and to accept the remaining items as information. Mr. Thomas seconded the
motion. (Discussions on items are included with the individual item.) Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item No. 7.1. Cancel February 9, 2011, Regular Night Meeting.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board cancelled the February 9, 2011 regular night
meeting.
__________
Item No. 7.2. Resolution to Accept Innovation Drive in UVA Research Park at North Fork
into
the State Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County Engineer, and by the above-recorded vote, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 2nd day of
February 2011, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in University Research Park at North Fork, as described on the attached
Additions Form AM-4.3 dated February 2, 2011, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in University Research Park at North Fork, as
described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated February 2, 2011, to the secondary system of state
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer
for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Innovation Drive (Route 1654) from Route 649 (Airport Road) to 0.45 miles north to end of
state maintenance, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 3415, pages 455-462, with a 100-foot right-of-way width, for
a length of 0.45 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.45
__________
Item No. 7.3. FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
The executive summary states that Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the
currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a
notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to
all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
With the exception of appropriation #2011064 which moves funding within the FY 2011 budget,
the total of the requested FY 2011 appropriations itemized below is $953,807.29. A budget amendment
public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not exceed one
percent of the currently adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of five (5) FY 2011 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2011049) totaling $60,577.00 for a Program Coordinator with the
Foothills Child Advocacy Center; these costs will be 100% reimbursed by Foothills;
One (1) appropriation (#2011060) totaling $5,000.00 for a contribution to the Sheriff‘s
department;
One (1) appropriation (#2011061) totaling $712,500.00 in Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funding for the installation of a sanitary sewer system in the Oak Hill
neighborhood;
One (1) appropriation (#2011063) totaling $175,730.29 in received proffers and CDBG
funds for affordable housing programs; and
One (1) appropriation (#2011064) totaling $3,000.00 from the Board‘s contingency
reserve to the Board of Supervisors for legislative services provided by the Virginia
Association of Counties during the 2011 General Assembly session. (This appropriation
will not increase the total County budget.)
Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $953,807.29 and the
approval of Appropriation #2011049, #2011060, #2011061, #2011063 and #2011064.
*****
Appropriation #2011049 $60,577.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 60,577.00
This appropriation request provides funding for a Program Coordinator for the Foothills Child Advocacy
Center (―Foothills‖) pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding with Foothills and the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families, which is being presented to the Board for
approval on its February 2, 2011 consent agenda under a separate executive summary. The
Memorandum recognizes the Program Coordinator as an employee of Albemarle County and establishes
the roles and responsibilities of the parties regarding the funding and employment of the Foothills Program
Coordinator, including that Foothills will reimburse the County for 100% of the Program Coordinator‘s
salary and benefits and that the County will submit invoices on at least a quarterly basis to Foothills for the
reimbursement of these costs.
Appropriation #2011060 $5,000.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 5,000.00
This request is for an appropriation of a contribution that the Albemarle County Sheriff's Office received
from Royce Publications, Inc. in the amount of $5,000.00. These monies will assist in the funding of
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
programs such as Search and Rescue, Project Lifesaver, and Senior Triad. The Sheriff's Reserves
handle these programs.
Appropriation #2011061 $712,500.00
Revenue Source: CDBG Revenue $ 712,500.00
This request is for the appropriation of a Community Development Block Grant received by the County to
support the installation of a sanitary sewer system in the Oak Hill neighborhood serving 58 residential
units. The County has completed all pre-grant requirements and executed an agreement with the Virginia
Department of Housing and Community Development dated December 14, 2010.
Appropriation #2011063 $ 175,730.29
Revenue Source: Proffer Fund Revenues $ 111,385.21
CDBG Revenues $ 64,345.08
This request allocates the Belvedere, North Point and Poplar Glen proffers dedicated to affordable
housing and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds totaling $ 175,730.29 to the Office of
Housing‘s Community Development Loan Fund for affordable housing programs. On January 12, 2011,
the Board approved contributions to the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP), Jordan
Development/Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA), and Habitat for Humanity contingent upon the Office of
Housing negotiating and executing agreements with each agency for the use of the funds.
Appropriation #2011064 $ 0.00
Revenue Source: Board Contingency Reserve $ 3,000.00
This appropriation provides $3,000 from the Board of Supervisors‘ Contingency Reserve to the Board of
Supervisors for legislative services provided by the Virginia Association of Counties during the 2011
General Assembly session to help protect the current standard of proof in real estate and property
assessment. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the budget amendment in the amount of
$953,807.29 and approved Appropriations #2011049, #2011060, #2011061, #2011063 and #2011064:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2011049
APPROPRIATION DATE 2/2/2011
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Foothills Child Advocacy Center
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1569 19000 190248 Recovered Costs -
Foothills
J 2 60,577.00
1 1569 53157 110000 Salaries - Regular J 1 43,350.00
1 1569 53157 210000 FICA J 1 3,282.00
1 1569 53157 221000 VRS J 1 6,512.00
1 1569 53157 231000 Health Insurance J 1 7,044.00
1 1569 53157 232000 Dental Insurance J 1 265.00
1 1569 53157 241000 VRS Group Life J 1 124.00
1569 0501 Est. Revenue 60,577.00
0701 Appropriation 60,577.00
TOTAL 121,154.00 60,577.00 60,577.00
*****
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2011060
APPROPRIATION DATE 2/2/2011
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Sheriff Contributions
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 8408 18110 181116 Contributions J 2 5,000.00
1 8408 93010 930009 Trns to Gen Fund J 1 5,000.00
8408 0501 Est. Revenue 5,000.00
0701 Appropriation 5,000.00
2 1000 51000 512020 Trns. Sheriff
Contribution
J 2 5,000.00
1 1000 21070 301230 Contributions - Reserve
Prog
J 1 5,000.00
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 5,000.00
0701 Appropriation 5,000.00
TOTAL 20,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00
*****
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2011061
APPROPRIATION DATE 2/2/2011
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: CDBG Block Grant – Oak Hill
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 CDBG -
Commonwealth of
Virginia
J 2 712,500.00
1 Oak Hill Sewer J 1 662,500.00
1 Administrative Services J 1 50,000.00
0501 Est. Revenue 712,500.00
0701 Appropriation 712,500.00
TOTAL 1,425,000.00 712,500.00 712,500.00
*****
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2011063
APPROPRIATION DATE 2/2/2011
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Affordable Housing Proffers and Community Development Loan Fund
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1000 51000 512068 Trs - Belvedere
Proffers
J 2 58,009.66
2 1000 51000 512069 Trs - North Point on
Proffers
J 2 20,359.50
2 1000 51000 512070 Trs - Poplar Glen
Proffers
J 2 33,016.05
2 1000 51000 512080 Trs - CDBG
Repayments - Program
Income
J 2 64,345.08
1 1000 81030 563150 Community
Development Loan
Fund
J 1 175,730.29
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 175,730.29
0701 Appropriation 175,730.29
2 8536 51000 510100 Belvedere Proffers-
Approp F/B
J 2 54,487.69
2 8536 18936 189923 Belvedere - Proffer
Revenue
J 2 3,500.00
2 8536 15000 150101 Belvedere- Interest J 2 21.97
1 8536 93010 930009 Belvedere Proffers -
Trsf to General Fund
J 1 58,009.66
8536 0501 Est. Revenue 58,009.66
0701 Appropriation 58,009.66
2 8538 51000 510100 North Point Proffers-
Approp F/B
J 2 20,359.50
1 8538 93010 930009 North Point Proffers -
Trsf to General Fund
J 1 20,359.50
8538 0501 Est. Revenue 20,359.50
0701 Appropriation 20,359.50
2 8546 51000 510100 Poplar Glen Proffers-
Approp F/B
J 2 33,016.05
1 8546 93010 930009 Poplar Glen Proffers-
Trsf to General Fund
J 1 33,016.05
8546 0501 Est. Revenue 33,016.05
0701 Appropriation 33,016.05
2 1224 51000 510100 CDBG-Approp F/B J 2 64,345.08
1 1224 93010 930009 CDBG - Trsf to General
Fund
J 1 64,345.08
1224 0501 Est. Revenue 64,345.08
0701 Appropriation 64,345.08
TOTAL 702,921.16 351,460.58 351,460.58
*****
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2011064
APPROPRIATION DATE 2/2/2011
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: VACo Legislative Services
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 11010 580100 Dues & Memberships J 1 3,000.00
1 1000 95000 999990 BOS Contingency J 1 (3,000.00)
TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00
__________
Item No. 7.4. Resolution supporting the temporary closure of Jarmans Gap Road (Route 691)
during construction of improvements.
The executive summary states that the scope of work for the Jarmans Gap Road (Route 691)
project includes improvements to the horizontal and vertical alignment of the road section and storm
drainage system as well as construction of bike lanes and a sidewalk. The Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) has advertised this project for bids and anticipates that results will be available in
February 2011. Based on this schedule, construction of these improvements could commence in late
spring 2011.
VDOT is recommending a complete closure of Jarmans Gap Road to traffic for approximately
sixty (60) days during the construction project to allow for the installation of a precast box culvert at
Powell‘s Creek. The road closure would be coordinated with the summertime public school closing. VDOT
advises that during the school year, Jarmans Gap Road will be reduced to one lane of traffic, as
necessary. Complete closure of the road would expedite the installation of the culvert and shorten the
overall length of the project.
If the project proceeds with a partial road closure, a cast-in-place box culvert would have to be
used. The installation of a cast-in-place box culvert would require a significant lengthening of the
construction period for the project. Moreover, additional right of way would have to be acquired to provide
sufficient area to maintain traffic flow during the construction of the culvert, resulting in more
environmental and construction impacts and costs than if the road were closed to traffic.
Reasonable alternative routes are available to serve as detours around the closed portion of the
projects, including Old Trail Drive, Half Mile Branch Road, Lanetown Road, Railroad Avenue, and Crozet
Avenue (see Attachment A).
Staff concurs with VDOT‘s recommendation to close the road to traffic in order to install the box
culvert at Powell Creek and recommends that the Board support the closure of Jarmans Gap Road for this
purpose.
Adoption of the attached Resolution would not directly impact the County‘s budget. VDOT will
avoid additional project costs if Jarmans Gap Road can be completely closed for the installation of the
box culvert.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) supporting the
closure of Jarmans Gap Road (Route 691) for approximately sixty (60) days for box culvert installation
during the months of June 2011 through August 2011 so as only to close the road for school bus access
on Jarmans Gap Road during the summer session of the Albemarle County School year.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution supporting the
closure of Jarmans Gap Road (Route 691) for approximately sixty (60) days for box culvert
installation during the months of June 2011 through August 2011 so as only to close the road for
school bus access on Jarmans Gap Road during the summer session of the Albemarle County
School year:
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING
THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S INTENT
TO TEMPORARILY CLOSE JARMANS GAP ROAD (ROUTE 691)
DURING CONSTRUCTION PERIOD
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors concurs with the Virginia Department of
Transportation‘s (VDOT) intent to reconstruct Jarmans Gap Road (Route 691) in Crozet, Virginia as presented
at the public hearing on March 30, 2006 at Western Albemarle High School; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County agrees to the closure of Jarmans Gap Road (Route 691) for
approximately sixty (60) days for box culvert installation during the months of June, 2011 through August,
2011 consistent with VDOT‘s plan to close the road for school bus access on Jarmans Gap Road only during
the summer session of the Albemarle County School year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, for purposes of public necessity, convenience and
general welfare, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby supports VDOT‘s intent to reconstruct
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
Jarmans Gap Road (Route 691), including the closure of Jarman‘s Gap Road for approximately sixty (60)
days for box culvert installation during the months of June, 2011 through August, 2011, which will close the
road for school bus access on Jarmans Gap Road during the summer session of the Albemarle County
School year but will provide at least one open lane on Jarmans Gap Road for school buses during the spring,
2011 and fall, 2011 sessions of the Albemarle County School year.
__________
Item No. 7.5. Resolution to Designate Byrom Park Entrance as Open-Space Land and a Public
Park.
The executive summary states that Byrom Park consists of 213.923 acres of land located in the
northwest region of the County. It was made possible through the donation of 198.53 acres of land made by
Robert M. and Patricia A. Byrom to the County in 2004 subject to an existing ACE conservation easement.
The remaining 15.393 acres (Tract Z or the Byrom Park Entrance) that comprise the Park were sold to the
County by James Kevin and Xiao Yin Byrom in December 2008. This tract was acquired by the County to
provide appropriate public access to Byrom Park from Blackwells Hollow Road. Although limited, park -related
improvements are planned for Tract Z, it is not currently subject to the existing ACE conservation easement
for the original acreage and has not been formally designated by the Board as a County park for public
recreational use. By Resolution dated July 2, 2008, the Board formally designated the original acreage as a
public park.
Chapter 11, Parks and Recreation Facilities, of the Albemarle County Code establishes and
authorizes the enforcement of rules and regulations necessary to properly manage public park property.
Section 11-100 defines ―Park‖ as land owned or controlled by the County which is used or designated to be
used by the public for recreational purposes. Moreover, the Open-Space Land Act authorizes the Board to
designate property acquired by the County as open-space land. The significance of this designation is that
after such designation the property cannot be converted or diverted from open-space land use unless:
1. The Board determines the conversion or diversion is:
a. Essential to the orderly growth of the County; and
b. In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. There is substituted other real property which is:
a. Of at least equal fair market value; and
b. Of greater value as permanent open-space land; and
c. Of as nearly as feasible equivalent usefulness and location for use as permanent open
space land.
The responsibility for assuring such substitution is upon the Board at the time of conversion or
diversion of the property. The Board can designate the Byrom Park Entrance as open-space land to
assure that the entire combined Byrom Park property will function as a park consistent with its open space
designation and that the property will be in complete conformance with the ACE conservation easement
on the original park acreage. The proposed Resolution (Attachment A) to designate the Byrom Park
Entrance as open-space land would subject it to substantially equivalent conditions as the park‘s original
acreage.
The Parks and Recreation Department is currently responsible for the management of Byrom
Park. In order to clarify the authority for management of the Byrom Park Entrance property prior to it
being open for public use, the Parks and Recreation Director is requesting that the Board formally
designate the Byrom Park Entrance property (Tract Z) as a ―Park‖ for public recreational use consistent
with the balance of the Byrom Park property.
No budget impact is anticipated.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution to designate the Byrom Park
Entrance (Tract Z) as open space land pursuant to the Open Space Land Act and to designate this parcel
as a public park.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution to designate the
Byrom Park Entrance (Tract Z) as open space land pursuant to the Open Space Land Act and to
designate this parcel as a public park:
RESOLUTION TO DESIGNATE BYROM PARK ENTRANCE
PROPERTY AS OPEN-SPACE LANDAND AS A PUBLIC PARK
WHEREAS, the Open Space Land Act (Virginia Code § 10.1-1700 et seq.) provides for the
preservation of land for park and recreational purposes; and
WHEREAS, by Deed of Easement dated July 24, 2003 and recorded in Albemarle County Deed Book
2531, pages 341-351, the County and the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority (the
―PRFA‖) acquired a conservation easement over approximately 600 acres, then designated as Tax Map
Parcels 6-16, 6-28D, and 6-29 (the ―Byrom Park‖); and
WHEREAS, by Deed of Gift dated November 1, 2004 and recorded in Albemarle County Deed Book
2897, pages 283-289, the County acquired fee simple title over the same approximately 600 acres, designated
as Tax Map Parcels 6-16, 6-28D, and 6-29, subject to the existing conservation easement; and
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
WHEREAS, by Deed of Bargain and Sale dated November 21, 2008 and recorded in Albemarle
County Deed Book 3671, pages 155-160, the County acquired fee simple title over an additional 15.393 acres
(the ―Byrom Park Entrance‖), previously from Tax Map Parcel 6-28B, necessary to provide public access to
the remainder of Byrom Park; and
WHEREAS, because the Byrom Park Entrance property came from a separate parcel, it had not been
subject to the same conservation easement as the remainder of Byrom Park; and
WHEREAS, the Byrom Park Entrance property is a unique and valuable park and recreational
resource within the County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to designate the Byrom Park Entrance property as
open-space land and to preserve and protect this valuable resource by making it subject to a substantially
equivalent conservation easement as the remainder of Byrom Park; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors further desires to establish a public park on the Byrom Park
Entrance property; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 11, Parks and Recreation Facilities, of the Albemarle County Code establishes
and authorizes the enforcement of rules and regulations necessary to properly manage public park property;
and
WHEREAS, in order to manage properties under Chapter 11 of the County Code, the Byrom Park
Entrance property must be used or designated to be used by the public for recreational purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors pursuant to
the Open-Space Land Act (Virginia Code § 10.1-1700 et seq.) hereby designates the Byrom Park Entrance
property as open-space land. The Byrom Park Entrance property, referred to herein, shall include the following
more particularly described property:
All that certain tract or parcel of land situated in the White Hall District of Albemarle County, Virginia,
containing 15.393 acres, more or less, being more particularly described as Tract ―Z‖ on a plat by
Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc., dated June 23, 2008 (the ―Plat‖) and recorded with that
certain Deed from James Kevin Byrom and Xiao Yin Byrom, husband and wife, to the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, dated November 21, 2008, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 3671, Page 155.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Byrom Park Entrance property shall be subject to all the
applicable terms and conditions contained in that certain Deed of Easement dated July 24, 2003 and recorded
in Albemarle County Deed Book 2531, pages 341-351, except as follows:
In lieu of Section 2(B)(2) of said Deed of Easement, unless a structure or improvement is on
the Byrom Park Entrance Property as of the date of this Resolution, no other permanent or
temporary building or structure shall be built or maintained on said property other than
buildings and/or structures customarily incidental to public park use.
In lieu of Section 2(B)(4) of said Deed of Easement, the following may be constructed,
installed, located or placed on the Byrom Park Entrance property, provided they are
otherwise consistent with said Easement: (a) driveways and other improvements and facilities
customary and related to the use of a public park; and (b) improvements and facilities related
to a public park, including, but not limited to, public roads, and drainage and other utility
facilities required by the County.
In lieu of Section 2(D) of said Deed of Easement, the provisions of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code) shall govern the size and
placement of signs on the Byrom Park Entrance property.
In lieu of Section 2(E) of said Deed of Easement, grading, blasting and/or earth removal shall
be allowed on the Byrom Park Entrance property for public park structures and associated
improvements, and during the construction of such permitted structures or associated
improvements, provided that such activities employ applicable Best Management Practices.
Any restriction contained in said Deed of Easement or herein on the Byrom Park Entrance
property shall be subject to all easements currently of record including, but not limited to, that
certain Shared Driveway Easement and Family Use Trail Easement shown in the Plat of
record.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby designates
said Byrom Park Entrance property as park property to be used by the public for recreational purposes.
__________
Item No. 7.6. Memorandum of Understanding Between Foothills Child Advocacy Center, Inc.,
Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families and the County of Albemarle, Virginia.
The executive summary states that the Foothills Child Advocacy Center (―Foothills‖) works in
partnership with the Albemarle County Police Department, the Department of Social Services, the
Commonwealth‘s Attorney, and the Victim/Witness Office, along with other organizations to provide
forensic interviews and multidisciplinary case management for children who are victims of sexual
abuse/assault or
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
serious physical abuse or neglect. The Children‘s Advocacy Center model is a national best practice that
is proven to decrease trauma for children and improve prosecution of perpetrators.
Foothills was started as a grant-funded pilot project of the Family Violence Work Group of the
Charlottesville/ Albemarle Commission on Children and Families. As such, the initial staff were hired as
County employees. In 2007, Foothills became a stand-alone non-profit organization in order to be able to
solicit individual donations and certain grant funding not available to local governments. At that time, the
Program Coordinator continued as a County employee and provides core services including forensic
interviewing and case coordination for child victims.
A Memorandum of Understanding was prepared by the County‘s Attorney‘s Office and approved
by the Foothills Child Advocacy Center Board on January 18, 2011. The Memorandum formally
recognizes the Program Coordinator as an employee of Albemarle County under the supervision of
Director of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families. Under the Memorandum,
Foothills will continue to reimburse the County for 100% of the Program Coordinator‘s salary and benefits.
Currently, Foothills has sufficient sustainable resources to meet this obligation on a quarterly basis. The
Memorandum will terminate at any time that Foothills is unable to meet this obligation or upon the
termination of the current Program Coordinator. This Agreement does not create any County commitment
to maintain the employment of a Program Coordinator or to hire a replacement for the current employee
upon termination, or to fund any future employment of a Foothills Program Coordinator. The County will
appropriate funding for the position through its regular appropriation process and will submit invoices on at
least a quarterly basis to Foothills for the reimbursement of costs.
There is no budget impact to the County. 100% of the costs associated with the Program
Coordinator position will be reimbursed by the Foothills Child Advocacy Center.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to sign a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Foothills Child Advocacy Center Board of Directors and the Charlottesville/
Albemarle Commission on Children and Families, that establishes the roles and responsibilities of the
parties regarding the funding and employment of the Foothills Program Coordinator.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to sign a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Foothills Child Advocacy Center Board of Directors and
the Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families, that establishes the roles and
responsibilities of the parties regarding the funding and employment of the Foothills Program
Coordinator.
__________
Item No. 7.7. ACE; Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services grant for
easement acquisition.
The executive summary states that the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services‘ (―VDACS‖), Office of Farmland Preservation, has awarded a grant in the amount of $12,500 to
the County under a program established by the 2007 General Assembly to provide funds for the
preservation of working farms and forest lands.
The County was awarded similar grants of $93,932.19 in 2010, $49,900.00 in 2009 and
$403,219.75 in 2008. The 2010 General Assembly reduced the total pool of funding for this grant program
for FY11 to $100,000 statewide and Albemarle County is only one of eight localities to receive such a
grant this year.
VDACS has requested that the County enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement (the
―Agreement‖) as a condition for receiving this grant. While the County has yet to identify the specific
easement(s) to which it would apply these funds, it intends to apply them toward the acquisition of the next
qualifying easement. This grant will remain available to (partially) reimburse any qualifying purchase for
up to two years from the date of the Agreement. The key provisions of the Agreement are summarized
below.
The Agreement would obligate VDACS to set aside the grant amount in a restricted account and
reimburse the County for its eligible costs for the purchase of conservation easement(s). The County‘s
funds would be restricted exclusively for the County‘s qualifying costs for a period of up to two years.
The Agreement also would restrict conversion or diversion of a subject property from open-space
use, unless the conversion or diversion satisfied the requirements of the Open Space Land Act.
Conversion or diversion of land is permitted under the Open-Space Land Act in limited circumstances
upon the concurrence of the County and the Public Recreational Facilities Authority and upon the
placement of substitute land of equal or greater value and quality under an open-space easement. The
Agreement would entitle VDACS to reimbursement of its pro rata share of the market value of the
easement if conversion or diversion ever occurred.
In exchange for the state‘s grant commitment, the Agreement would obligate the County:
to appropriate matching funds equal to the grant amount for the purchase of a subject
easement,
to apply the grant funds to the purchase of the easement,
to provide VDACS with annual progress reports (while the grant Agreement is in force)
describing the County‘s efforts to obtain easements on other working farms, and its
programs for public outreach, stewardship and monitoring, and measuring the
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
effectiveness of the County‘s efforts to bring working farms under easement.
to maintain sufficient title insurance for the subject easement(s), which is already a
standard County practice,
to allow VDACS the opportunity to review easement instruments and the title insurance
policy prior to closing,
to receive copies of the recorded easement instrument after closing,
to provide notice to VDACS if the County receives an application to convert or divert a
subject easement from its permitted easement uses, and
to enforce the terms and conditions of the deed of easement.
Staff has reviewed the terms of this year‘s proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between
VDACS and the County, and finds its terms acceptable.
The County‘s execution of the Intergovernmental Agreement would allow the County to receive
$12,500 in state funding to apply to the ACE program. In order for the County to receive these funds, it must
appropriate matching funds of $12,500. That local match is available through funds previously appropriated
for ACE by the Board.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the Agreement on behalf
of the County, provided that it is first approved as to form and content by the County Attorney.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute the
Agreement on behalf of the County, provided that it is first approved as to form and content by the
County Attorney
__________
Item No. 7.8. Report on the Jefferson Madison Regional Library System (JMRL), was received
for information.
The executive summary states that on June 30, 2010 the Board conducted a strategic planning
session which resulted in the development of a succinct two-year action plan that focuses staff and Board
efforts on the County‘s most immediate and critical needs. On August 4, 2010 the Board formally
approved this action plan and associated five (5) goals including the following related to library services:
Goal 4: By June 30, 2012, The County will explore options and identify the most desirable
library system structure for the future.
At the Board‘s October 6, 2010 meeting, staff presented the scope of work for this analysis for the
Board‘s review and information. Staff confirmed that the desired outcomes for the work were to provide
the Board with detailed information on the current JMRL agreement as well as identify and evaluate
alternative service delivery model(s) for the Board to consider in determining the most desirable library
system structure for the County in the future. Specific elements of this study were to include:
Background information on the current JMRL agreement,
Contractual obligations of the County and level of service afforded by JMRL to County citizens.
A review of federal, state and local mandates/requirements regarding library service specifically
related to the receipt of state financial assistance
Comparison of the current JMRL contract and operating model with models employed by peer
communities
An overview of potential CIP and operating budget impacts of library projects
Options for Board consideration
Staff indicated at that time that a work session would be scheduled with the Board in the 1st
quarter of 2011 to review the findings and recommendation of this analysis.
Attachment A of this Executive Summary presents this analysis reflective of the above scope of
work and the desires of the Board. It is organized around eight (8) discussion areas including the
historical overview of JMRL, its organizational structure, identification of peer communities utilized in the
study, data on both operating characteristics and service levels by JMRL/these peers, identification of
budget reductions achieved by peer communities, the distribution methodology for State Aid to Localities
for Library Services and Capital Needs. The report presents a total of nine recommendations for the
Board‘s consideration. This analysis, along with its recommendations, will be the subject of a Board work
session on February 9, 2011.
The County‘s adopted FY2010-11 Operating Budget includes an appropriation totaling $3,173,138
for JMRL. It is anticipated that the FY2012 funding request for JMRL will be evaluated consistent with the
terms and conditions of the existing operating agreement and/or availability of County funds. It is expected
that the results of this analysis will be utilized by the Board to consider future funding requests.
This report is for information only. A February 9, 2011 work session is scheduled for the Board to
formally consider the findings of this analysis. Albemarle representatives of the JMRL Board, along with its
Director, have been invited to attend this work session.
(Discussion: Mr. Dorrier asked if the upcoming meeting on the library to be held on February 9,
and asked if the document in the Board packets is intended to be the final information on this matter.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Foley responded ―yes‖ and it is intended to be the final document to be used in discussions
with Library Board representatives.)
__________
Item No. 7.9. FY 2011 2nd Quarterly Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report, was received for
information.
The executive summary states that beginning in 2007, the Board directed staff to provide a
quarterly update on the status of cash proffers. Since that time, the report has been expanded to include
updates on non-cash proffer improvements that benefit the County and that mitigate impacts of
development. This report includes proffer activity (both cash and non-cash improvements) for the months
of October through December of 2010 (FY2011 2nd quarter).
Cash Proffers October-December 2010 (2nd Quarter Fiscal Year 2011)
Proffered: There were no rezoning requests approved in this quarter that provided new cash
proffers.
A. Total Obligated Cash Proffers: Since no new rezonings that increased obligated cash
proffers were approved during the 2nd quarter, the total obligated cash proffers remains
the same as last quarter ($38,851,330).
B. Revenue: The County received a total of $47,126 from existing cash proffers during this
quarter. The contributions are from Old Trail ($4,000 for Schools/Parks CIP projects
serving Crozet), Poplar Glen ($22,400 for CIP projects and $16,500 for Affordable
Housing), Belvedere ($1,000 for Affordable Housing) and Wickham Pond ($3,226 for
Capital Improvement Projects serving Crozet). Additionally, $9,000 in non-proffered funds
was received from Kenridge as required by the conditions of the special use permit
approval for the development.
C. Total Interest Earnings: The amount of interest earned during this quarter from collected
cash proffers totaled $231 bringing the total amount of interest earned on all proffers to
$317,743.
D. Expenditures: There were no appropriations of proffer revenue during this quarter.
E. Current Available Funds: As of December 31, 2010, the available cash proffer fund
balance is $1,176,854. Some of those funds were proffered for specific projects while
others may be used for general projects within the CIP (see Attachment A).
Non-Cash Proffers
Proffered: ZMA 2010-00006 Hollymead Town Center, Area A-2, approved on November 10,
2010, was the only rezoning approved during this quarter. The original rezoning included cash proffers
and a number of non-cash proffers that were not revised with this rezoning approval. The rezoning
amended the Code of Development and Application Plan to add an indoor movie theater as a permitted
use and to revise internal circulation with only minor amendments made to the proffers.
Staff will continue to keep the Board informed on non-cash proffers, including Transportation,
Affordable Housing, Parks, Fire Rescue, Schools and other land dedications. Staff will also include the
estimated cash value of non-cash proffers when reporting to the Board.
During this reporting quarter, the plat for Old Trail Village Block 19, adjacent to the west side of
the Brownsville Elementary and Henley Middle Schools, was approved. This approval triggered a proffer
that requires completion of two connections as shown on the rezoning plan, including a pedestrian
pathway and a road/sidewalk connection to the schools. These connections must be made by June 21,
2011 since the proffer specifies completion within six months of the first plat or site plan approval. Once
the proffer has been completely satisfied, staff will provide the Board with an update and associated cash
value of these improvements.
Cash proffers are a valuable source of revenue that help fund important County projects that
would otherwise be funded by general tax revenue. Non-cash proffers provide improvements that might
otherwise be funded by general tax revenue. One dedicated full-time staff person continues to monitor and
collect proffered funds, improvements and land dedications with the assistance of other County staff and
outside agencies.
This summary is provided for information on proffer activity and no action is required. Staff
welcomes any comments for improvements from the Board that they may wish to see in the future.
__________
Item No. 7.10. Memorandum from V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary to Planning Commission, re:
Planning Commission Annual Reports for 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009, was received
for information.
__________
Item No. 7.11. Copy of letter dated January 27, 2011, to Marcia Joseph, from David Benish,
Chief of Planning, re: CPA-2010-00001 Redfields, was received for information.
The letter states that the Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting its meeting on
November 30, 2010, by a vote of 4:2 vote, approved the further study of the above noted proposal as part
of the with the Comprehensive Plan update that staff will undertake beginning of 2011. On December 21,
2010, the Commission approved a Resolution of Intent reflecting their prior action on November 30th.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
(Discussion: Ms. Mallek asked if it would be reasonable to combine this with another zoning
application that she was told might be coming forward rather than doing them separately.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that this is purely informational from the Planning Commission‘s action,
and it can be decided during the zoning application whether the CPA is brought along with it.)
__________
Item No. 7.12. Albemarle County Monthly VDoT Report, February 2011, was received for
information.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend section 4-100, Definitions, of
Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, of the Albemarle County Code. The proposed ordinance amends the
definitions of ―adequate shelter‖, ―adequate space‖, and ―treatment/adequate treatment‖, to provide more
clarity to the definition of ―adequate shelter‖ for animals, to place additional restrictions on the tethering of
animals, and to establish regulations for the transport of animals in an open-bed truck. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on January 17 and January 24, 2011.)
Mr. Bryan Elliott, Assistant Executive, summarized the following executive summary which was
forwarded to Board members:
On July 8, 2009 the Board adopted a comprehensive amendment to Chapter 4, Animals and
Fowl, of the Albemarle County Code to bring the County‘s animal laws into conformance with State law.
The comprehensive amendment included the adoption of animal welfare laws.
Last year, Board members received requests and petitions from the public to consider adopting
an ordinance to regulate the number of hours a dog may be tethered. On October 6, 2010, staff
recommended that the Board amend specific definitions of the animal ordinance to better address the
reported welfare concerns, rather than adopt a tethering ordinance. See the attached October 6 executive
summary (Attachment B). The Board decided not to pursue adopting a tethering ordinance. Instead, the
Board directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance to amend the definitions of ―adequate shelter‖, ―adequate
space‖, and ―treatment/adequate treatment‖. The Board also asked staff to look into requiring a ―pulley-
only‖ system for dogs that are tethered. A proposed ordinance was presented to the Board on January 5,
2011 for its review and comment. The Board authorized the proposed ordinance be set for public hearing.
The attached ordinance (Attachment A) amends Section 4-100 Definitions, of Chapter 4, Animals
and Fowl of the Albemarle County Code. Specifically, the ordinance amends the definitions of ―adequate
shelter‖, ―adequate space‖, and ―treatment/adequate treatment‖ as follows:
4-100(5) Adequate shelter—amended to provide examples of structures that are not
adequate shelters. Such inadequate shelters include metal barrels, plastic barrels, airline
crates, carrying crates, and dog houses with no floors. This amendment addresses
reported animal shelter concerns.
4-100(6) Adequate space—amended to further define the length and weight of a tether
and/or a running line. Specifically, the allowable length of a tether for an animal is
increased from three (3) times the length of the animal to five (5) times the length of the
animal, and such tether must have a swivel at both ends, weigh no more than 1/8 the
animals‘ weight, and multiple animals shall have their own tether. A pulley or running line
shall be at least fifteen (15) feet in length, and less than seven (7) feet above the ground
in such a manner to protect the animal from injury and prevent the line from becoming
entangled with other objects or animals. When there is more than one animal on a pulley
or running line, than each animal shall have its own tether on the pulley or running line.
This amendment addresses reported animal welfare concerns.
4-100(38) Treatment or adequate treatment—amended to state that tethering a dog six
months old or younger, and tethering a female dog in heat is not deemed to be adequate
treatment. It is also amended to include ways in which an animal may be transported in
an open-bed truck in order for such transportation to be deemed adequate treatment of
the animal. This amendment addresses reported animal welfare concerns.
While the Animal Control Officers (ACOs) can adequately handle most reported welfare concerns
under the existing County animal laws, amendments to these definitions would provide the ACOs
additional tools when responding to animal welfare calls and greater clarity to animal owners and
concerned citizens.
In order to gather more comprehensive data regarding the various animal welfare calls received,
the ACO‘s have updated their call-in logs and report sheets. Staff will provide a report to the Board at the
end of the year identifying the number of animal welfare calls received, the specific types of animal welfare
concerns reported, and the outcome of the animal welfare concerns after investigation. Prior to
submission of the report to the Board, staff will mak e such collected information available to the public and
seek public feedback.
Staff anticipates limited additional enforcement by ACOs under the proposed ordinance and,
therefore, does not anticipate a significant budget impact.
Mr. Elliott said staff recommends that after the public hearing, the Board adopt the proposed
ordinance.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Thomas asked if there are any volunteer organizations that can assist with monitoring of
animals that are tethered.
Mr. Elliott responded that there are, but the issues of coordination and calls for service remain.
He said that these changes provide better clarification of what is adequate space and shelter, and with just
four ACOs, even with volunteers, there is that enforcement question.
Mr. Snow asked how this part of the ordinance is different than what was put forth last October,
which would have cost $94,000 to implement.
Mr. Elliott responded that if these changes were exceeded or went to a stricter standard, there
may be a requirement for additional staffing, and staff was quoting at that time the cost for providing
human resources to enforce this. In development areas, there is the restriction of running at large, but not
in the rural areas. He said that part of the concern by the ACOs is enactment of this ordinance without a
further redefinition of what is running at large for dogs.
Mr. Snow asked about the restriction on having a dog in the back of a truck. It is his
understanding that if the dog is under the age of six months, it would have to be confined. Mr. Elliott
responded that the intent of that part of the ordinance is to ensure the safety of the animal.
Mr. Davis explained that the intent was to have the dog in a secured container or secured in some
fashion other than being tethered by the neck on the back of the truck. He added that this ordinance does
not restrict a dog from being unsecured in the back of a pickup truck.
At this time the Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Beth Bailey, a resident of Keswick, said that she strongly supports all of the measures
included in this ordinance amendment. She said that it is difficult for people who have to drive by and see
these dogs living in these conditions every day. Ms. Bailey added that the Animal Control Officers do a
terrific job, although they are understaffed. She believes that the ACOs hands have been tied by a
weakness in the animal welfare laws in the County. She also said that having a dog tied or chained onto a
tree reduces property values in those neighborhoods. This ordinance would help provide better humane
care of animals that are in the neighborhoods.
Ms. Rebecca Chaitin, a resident of Charlottesville, said is very much an animal lover, and is an
owner of three rescue cats. She emphasized that even when dogs have adequate shelter they can be tied
up and ignored, and they are social beings that need human contact. Ms. Chaitin urged the Board to do
anything that will help the dogs.
Mr. Jim Brown addressed the Board, stating that he supports the actions being taken for
amendment to animal welfare codes. Mr. Brown said that he has been helping out the SPCA with hound
rescue and there is a need in the County for these changes.
Ms. Julia Gremer asked the Board to consider the least among them and support the anti-
tethering ordinance. Dogs need food, water, space, warmth and companionship. She asked the Board to
support anti-tethering of dogs.
Ms. Sharon Ackerman said that she supports the amendments to shelter and space for County
dogs, as they are in keeping with the public support for better animal laws as evidenced by the
correspondence they have seen from the community. The amendments are a reasonable response to the
photographs that Board members have seen of neglected dogs. Ms. Ackerman said that hundreds of
localities have enacted model shelter and space laws, while only six states have enacted tethering
restrictions. She stated that ideally, services and laws work collaboratively and she hopes that the County
will ultimately consider a breeding permit requirement. Ms. Ackerman commended Animal Control‘s
willingness to log the tethering calls over the coming work. She also appreciates their work, as they
answer every call and come whenever they are called. She said that Albemarle is the first county in the
state to enact model shelter revisions, which is a lot of progress for ten months work.
Ms. Stacey Norris thanked the Board and staff for recognizing and acting on the problem of
neglect and suffering of companion animals in Albemarle County.
Ms. Norris reported that in 2010 the House Project has helped 97 dogs, with 60% not spayed or
neutered, 60% confined to areas so small they were forced to walk in their own feces and urine, 34% were
chained and one dog‘s collar had been embedded in his neck, 16 dogs were living in plastic or metal
barrels, 24 dogs were living in non-insulated plastic shells, 9 dogs were living in rotted-out wooded houses
missing some or all sides, 2 dogs were living in plastic dog carriers, 2 dogs were living in makeshift covers
with no bottoms, 2 dogs were living under their owners‘ trailers, and 11 dogs spent more than half the day
outside with no outdoor shelter. Ms. Norris quoted a 2009 article in The Hook, written about the House
Project, ―according to Veterinarian Mr. John Anderson at Monticello Animal Hospital, a dog‘s ability to
tolerate cold depends somewhat on breed. Sadly, most are like hounds. They are short-haired dogs and
most do not have an undercoat. Such dogs are about as equipped to deal with cold weather as a human
outside in a long sleeve tee shirt or thin fleece.‖
Ms. Norris said that almost all of the distribution of the houses and bedding is done from mid-
October to December each year, and 97% of the dogs they helped last year were short-haired dogs, and
86% of the dogs had no form of bedding prior to the project. Ms. Norris said that these dogs need help,
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
and there are many more still out there. She stated that only 14 dogs out of the 97 dogs they helped
would have been considered as being kept in illegal conditions under the current County ordinance.
Mr. Dorrier asked if these dogs Ms. Norris referred to are housed in Albemarle County. Ms. Norris
responded that at least 50% of them are located in Albemarle. They also cater to Greene, Albemarle, and
Fluvanna. They also delivered three houses to Cumberland County this year.
Mr. Dorrier asked if all the situations have been cleared up. Ms. Norris responded that they have
been cleared up to what can be considered legal. She would not consider any of the dogs to be in a good
situation. She was also able to assist in adoption of two of the dogs to homes with loving caretakers.
Mr. Jason Pollock addressed the Board and encouraged the Board to adopt the ordinance
amendments. He added that he thinks the County should match what Ms. Norris does with house
construction.
Ms. Boo Barnett, a County resident, said that any tool that can be provided for the hard-working
Animal Control Officers is worth everything the County can put toward it. Ms. Barnett said that there are a
variety of organizations and volunteers that are willing to build and deliver houses to animals in need.
Ms. Eleanor Matano asked the Board to vote for this ordinance amendment. She said that she
has volunteered with the Albemarle SPCA since 1988 and is licensed by the State of Virginia to help
transport wildlife to the Wildlife Center. She said that the County could also call her to help out with
animals.
Ms. Lynette Laver said that she has been with animal rescue for many years. Ms. Laver said that
most of this problem is due to animal breeders, because they are motivated by money that can be made.
She stated that by being in rescue, they get the byproduct of it. She added that perhaps there is a way to
go after the breeders.
Ms. Becky Barlow, a resident of the White Hall District, asked the Board to support these changes
in the animal laws although they do not go far enough. She presented the Board members with a copy of
a book by Mr. Jim Cormin about Michael Vick‘s dog, which includes a description of the life of a chained
dog.
Mr. James Barrett, a resident of Ivy, said he was here to represent the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Kennel Club, which has 40-50 members who are dog lovers. On behalf of the Club, he asked Board
members to support the ordinance amendment. He cautioned about the use of volunteers with ACOs to
respond to calls but encouraged the use of volunteers as well as the Kennel Club for educational capacity.
Mr. Barrett thanked staff, especially Jenny Lyttle and Kim Maddox, for their help with the ordinance
amendment.
Ms. Allison Wilson said that she is a dog trainer in the County. She has seen that under-
socialized dogs are a public safety issue, with the animals even being aggressive with the people they live
with. It is important that these dogs are part of the family unit. Living outside they become a public
problem. If they get loose from the tree they have been chained, they will hurt someone because they
have not been socialized. She commented that the public is not aware of how many dogs are kept
outside, and if a dog is just chained up they only have the fight response and not the flight response. She
added they are reactive animals. Ms. Wilson said that they react to children because they do not realize
they are not a threat. She stated that we as humans say it is the dog‘s fault, but it is actually the human‘s
fault that created the problem in the first place. She added that she would be happy to be part of any
educational group to get this information out to the public.
Ms. Sheri Hanson, a resident of Greene County, said that she goes by a dog every day that is
tethered to a tree. She also mentioned that in December the Dog Whisperer had a show on the most
dangerous breeds, but the conclusion was that humans are the most vicious breed as it is the humans
who raise their dogs.
There being no further public comments, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Mr. Thomas said that he supports the amendments, and asked if they cover other animals.
Mr. Davis responded that the adequate space and shelter requirements are only dealing with
companion animals, and not livestock or horses.
Mr. Rooker said that he asked Mr. Davis the same question earlier in the week. He also thanked
the citizens who have been engaged in this process, and staff has done a great job in working with them
and Animal Control Officers to come forward with an ordinance that improves the situation dramatically
and also makes good common sense.
Ms. Mallek commented that this is a step forward, but not necessarily the end. She encouraged
people to be the eyes and ears of the Animal Control Officers and help them get information about where
the most need is for action.
Mr. Dorrier then moved to adopt the proposed ordinance to amend Section 4-100, Definitions, of
Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, of the County Code. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 11-4(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL, OF THE CODE OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BY AMENDING ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, SECTION 4-100,
DEFINITIONS.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 4, Animals
and Fowl, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Article I, In General, Section 4-100, Definitions, as
follows:
CHAPTER 4. ANIMALS AND FOWL
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
Sec. 4-100 Definitions.
The following words as used in this chapter shall have the following meanings:
(1) Abandon. The term "abandon" means to desert, forsake, or absolutely give up an animal without
having secured another owner or custodian for the animal or by failing to provide the elements of basic care as
set forth in Virginia Code § 3.2-6503 for a period of five (5) consecutive days.
(2) Adequate care or care. The term "adequate care" or "care" means the responsible practice of
good animal husbandry, handling, production, management, confinement, feeding, watering, protection,
shelter, transportation, treatment, and, when necessary, euthanasia, appropriate for the age, species,
condition, size and type of the animal and the provision of veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering or
impairment of health.
(3) Adequate exercise. The term "adequate exercise" or "exercise" means the opportunity for the
animal to move sufficiently to maintain normal muscle tone and mass for the age, species, size, and condition
of the animal.
(4) Adequate feed. The term "adequate feed" means access to and the provision of food which is of
sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain each animal in good health; is accessible to each animal; is
prepared so as to permit ease of consumption for the age, species, condition, size and type of each animal; is
provided in a clean and sanitary manner; is placed so as to minimize contamination by excrement and pests;
and is provided at suitable intervals for the species, age, and condition of the animal, but at least once daily,
except as prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally occurring states of hibernation or fa sting
normal for the species.
(5) Adequate shelter. The term "adequate shelter" means provision of and access to shelter that is
suitable for the species, age, condition, size, and type of each animal; provides adequate space for each
animal; is safe and protects each animal from injury, rain, sleet, snow, hail, direct sunlight, the adverse effects
of heat or cold, physical suffering, and impairment of health; is properly lighted; is properly cleaned; enables
each animal to be clean and dry, except when detrimental to the species; and, for dogs and cats, provides a
solid surface, resting platform, pad, floormat, or similar device that is large enough for the animal to lie on in a
normal manner and can be maintained in a sanitary manner. Under this chapter, shelters whose wire, grid, or
slat floors (i) permit the animals' feet to pass through the openings, (ii) sag under the animals' weight, or (iii)
otherwise do not protect the animals' feet or toes from injury are not adequate shelter. In additio n, the
following are also deemed to be inadequate shelters: (i) metal or plastic barrels, (ii) airline crates or carrying
crates, (iii) dog houses with no floors.
(6) Adequate space. The term "adequate space" means sufficient space to allow each animal to (i)
easily stand, sit, lie, turn about, and make all other normal body movements in a comfortable, normal position
for the animal and (ii) interact safely with other animals in the enclosure. When an animal is tethered,
"adequate space" means a tether that permits the above actions and is appropriate to the age and size of the
animal; is attached to the animal by a properly applied collar, halter, or harness configured so as to protect the
animal from injury and prevent the animal or tether from becoming entangled with other objects or animals, or
from extending over an object or edge that could result in the strangulation or injury of the animal; and is at
least five times the length of the animal, as measured from the tip of its nose to the base of i ts tail, and
terminates at both ends with a swivel, and weighs no more than 1/8 of the animal‘s weight, and if multiple
animals, each animal shall be on its own tether, except when the animal is being walked on a leash or is
attached by a tether to a lead line. When freedom of movement would endanger the animal, temporarily and
appropriately restricting movement of the animal according to professionally accepted standards for the
species is considered provision of adequate space. When an animal is on a pulley or running line, ―adequate
space‖ means a pulley or running line that permits the above actions and is appropriate to the age and size of
the animal; is attached to the animal by a properly applied collar and is at least fifteen feet in length and less
than seven feet above the ground and configured so as to protect the animal from injury, and prevent the line
from becoming entangled with other objects or animals or resulting in strangulation or injury of the animal, and
if multiple animals, each animal shall be on its own tether.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
(7) Adequate water. The term "adequate water" means provision of and access to clean, fresh,
potable water of a drinkable temperature which is provided in a suitable manner, in sufficient volume, and at
suitable intervals, but at least once every twelve (12) hours, to maintain normal hydration for the age, species,
condition, size and type of each animal, except as prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally
occurring states of hibernation or fasting normal for the species; and is provided in clean, durable receptacles
which are accessible to each animal and are placed so as to minimize contamination of the water by
excrement and pests or an alternative source of hydration consistent with generally accepted husbandry
practices.
(8) Adoption. The term "adoption" means the transfer of ownership of a dog or cat, or any other
companion animal, from a releasing agency to an individual.
(9) Agricultural animals. The term "agricultural animals" means all livestock and poultry.
(10) Ambient temperature. The term "ambient temperature" means the temperature surrounding the
animal.
(11) Animal. The term "animal" means any nonhuman vertebrate species except fish. For the
purposes of Article IV, Rabies Control, animal shall mean any species susceptible to rabies. For the purposes
of section 4-109, animal shall mean any nonhuman vertebrate species including fish captured and killed or
disposed of in a reasonable customary manner.
(12) Animal control officer. The term "animal control officer" means any person employed, contracted,
or appointed by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision for the purpose of aiding in the enforcement of
any other law or ordinance relating to the licensing of dogs, control of dogs and cats, cruelty to animals, or
seizure and impoundment of companion animals and includes any state or county police officer, animal control
officer, sheriff or other employee whose duties in whole or in part include assignments which involve seizure or
taking into custody of any dog or other animal.
(13) Animal shelter. The term "animal shelter" means a facility, other than a private residential
dwelling and its surrounding grounds, which is used to house or contain animals and which is owned,
operated, or maintained by a non-governmental entity, duly incorporated humane society, animal welfare
society, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or other nonprofit organization devoted to the welfare,
protection, and humane treatment of animals.
(14) Boarding establishment. The term "boarding establishment" means a place or establishment
other than a pound or animal shelter where companion animals not owned by the proprietor are sheltered, fed,
and watered in exchange for a fee.
(15) Clearly visible sign. The term ―clearly visible sign‖ means a sign that is (i) unobstructed from
view, (ii) contains legible writing, and (iii) may be read by any person without assistance while standing ten feet
away from the sign.
(16) Collar. The term "collar" means a well-fitted device, appropriate to the age and size of the
animal, attached to the animal's neck in such a way as to prevent trauma or injury to the animal.
(17) Commercial dog breeder. The term ―commercial dog breeder‖ means any person who, during
any twelve (12) month period, maintains thirty (30) or more adult female dogs for the primary purpose of the
sale of their offspring as companion animals.
(18) Companion animal. The term "companion animal" means any domestic or feral dog, domestic or
feral cat, non-human primate, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit not raised for human food or fiber, exotic or native
animal, reptile, exotic or native bird, or any feral animal or any animal under the care, custody, or ownership of
a person or any animal which is bought, sold, traded, or bartered by any person. Agricultural animals, game
species, or any animals regulated under federal law as research animals shall not be considered companion
animals for the purposes of this chapter.
(19) Emergency veterinary treatment. The term ―emergency veterinary treatment‖ means veterinary
treatment to stabilize a life-threatening condition, alleviate suffering, prevent further disease transmission, or
prevent further disease progression.
(20) Enclosure. The term "enclosure" means a structure used to house or restrict animals from
running at large.
(21) Euthanasia. The term "euthanasia" means the humane destruction of an animal accomplished
by a method that involves instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death or by a method that involves
anesthesia, produced by an agent which causes painless loss of consciousness, and death during such loss
of consciousness.
(22) Foster care provider. The term ―foster care provider‖ means an individual who provides care or
rehabilitation for companion animals through an affiliation with a pound, animal shelter, or other releasing
agency.
(23) Hearing dog. The term ―hearing dog‖ means a dog trained to alert its owner by touch to sounds
of danger and sounds to which the owner should respond.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
(24) Injury to a person. The term ―injury to a person‖ means any superficial cut, scratch, scrape, or
minor tear to the skin, or any bruise to bone or skin area resulting from an unfriendly encounter. An injury
shall be presumed to have occurred when a dog knocks a person to the ground or tears that person's clothing
or any possession on his or her person.
(25) Kennel. The term ―kennel‖ means any establishment in which five (5) or more canines, felines,
or hybrids of either are kept for the purposes of breeding, hunting, training, renting, buying, boarding, selling,
or showing.
(26) Leash. The term ―leash‖ means any rope, strap, chain, or other material not exceeding four (4)
feet in length, being held in the hand of a person capable of controlling the dog to which it is attached.
(27) Livestock. The term "livestock" includes all domestic or domesticated: bovine animals; equine
animals; ovine animals; porcine animals; cervidae animals; capradae animals; animals of the genus Lama;
ratites; fish or shellfish in aquaculture facilities, as defined in Virginia Code § 3.2-2600; enclosed
domesticated rabbits or hares raised for human food or fiber; or any other individual animal specifically raised
for food or fiber, except companion animals.
(28) Owner. The term "owner" means any person who: (i) has a right of property in an animal, (ii)
keeps or harbors an animal, (iii) has an animal in his care, or (iv) acts as a custodian of an animal.
(29) Person. The term "person" means any individual, partnership, firm, joint-stock company,
corporation, association, trust, estate, or other legal entity.
(30) Poultry. The term ―poultry" includes all domestic fowl and game birds raised in captivity.
(31) Pound. The term "pound" means a facility operated by the Commonwealth, or county for the
purpose of impounding or harboring seized, stray, homeless, abandoned, or unwanted animals; or a facility
operated for the same purpose under a contract with any county, city, town, or incorporated society for the
prevention of cruelty to animals.
(32) Primary enclosure. The term "primary enclosure" means any structure used to immediately
restrict an animal or animals to a limited amount of space, such as a room, pen, cage, compartment, or hutch.
For tethered animals, the term includes the shelter and the area within reach of the tether.
(33) Properly cleaned. The term ―properly cleaned‖ means that carcass, debris, food waste and
excrement are removed from the primary enclosure with sufficient frequency to minimize the animals‘ contact
with the above-mentioned contaminants; the primary enclosure is sanitized with sufficient frequency to
minimize odors and the hazards of disease; and the primary enclosure is cleaned so as to prevent the animals
confined therein from being directly or indirectly sprayed with the stream of water, or directly or indirectly
exposed to hazardous chemicals or disinfectants.
(34) Releasing agency. The term ―releasing agency‖ means a pound, animal shelter, humane
society, animal welfare organization, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or other similar entity or
home-based rescue that releases companion animals for adoption.
(35) Serious injury to a person. The term ―serious injury to a person‖ means any bodily injury for
which medical attention was sought and obtained, which involves a serious laceration requiring stitches to
more than one puncture wound or which is serious in the opinion of a licensed physician.
(36) Service dog. The term ―service dog‖ means a dog trained to accompany its owner for the
purpose of carrying items, retrieving objects, pulling a wheelchair or other such activities of service or support.
(37) Sterilize or sterilization. The term "sterilize" or "sterilization" means a surgical or chemical
procedure performed by a licensed veterinarian that renders a dog or cat permanently incapable of
reproducing.
(38) Treatment or adequate treatment. The term "treatment" or "adequate treatment" means the
responsible handling or transportation of animals in the person's ownership, custody or charge, appropriate for
the age, species, condition, size and type of the animal. When any such animal is being transported in an
open-bed truck or similar vehicle, such carrier shall be secured to the vehicle so as to be immovable, and shall
permit normal postural movements of the animal. The following shall not be deemed ―adequate treatment‖: (i)
tethering of a dog six months old or younger; (ii) the tying up or tethering of a female dog in heat; (iii)
transporting an animal in the back of an open-bed truck or similar vehicle in an unsecured carrier and/or
tethered to a collar.
(39) Veterinary treatment. The term "veterinary treatment" means treatment by or on the order of a
duly licensed veterinarian.
(Code 1967, § 4-4; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 4-4; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 09-4(1), 7-8-09; Ord. 11-4(1), 2-2-
11)
State law reference—Va. Code §§ 3.2-6500, 6528.
__________________
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 22)
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend Article III, Dealers in Precious
Metals, of Chapter 12, Regulated Enterprises, of the Albemarle County Code by amending sections 12-
300, Definitions; 12-302, Permit-Procedure for obtaining; term; renewal; 12-307, Penalties; and 12-311,
Dealer to retain purchases. The proposed ordinance adds the definition of ―fixed and permanent location;‖
adds a number of requirements to the dealer‘s license application; requires a zoning clearance for the
dealer‘s place of business; mandates a two-year license revocation for a second conviction for violating
any provisions of the ordinance to parallel Virginia Code § 54.1-4110; clarifies where in the jurisdiction all
precious metals or gems purchased be retained; and requires that those retained items be made available
for inspection by law enforcement. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 17 and January 24,
2011.)
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
―During its July 7, 2010 meeting, the Board heard concerns from a citizen regarding itinerant
dealers of precious metals operating at temporary locations in the County. Based on this input, the Board
requested staff to review the County Code as it relates to the sale/exchange of precious metals and offer
suggested amendments to address itinerant dealers. During the Board‘s January 5, 2011 meeting, staff
submitted a proposed ordinance addressing these changes and the Board authorized advertising the
proposed ordinance for public hearing at its February 2, 2011 meeting.
Although precious metals dealers are regulated by state law, localities can adopt ordinances that
parallel state requirements or impose more stringent rules. Consistent with the provisions of Virginia
Code § 54.1-4108(E), the County‘s existing ordinance requires that dealers conduct their business
exclusively from a fixed and permanent location specified in their application for a permit. However, the
County‘s current ordinance does not clearly specify whether only the location itself must be fixed and
permanent, or whether the dealer‘s operations there must likewise be fixed and permanent. This question
arises when, for example, an itinerant dealer holds a weekend event in a hotel conference room. While
the hotel building itself is fixed and permanent, the dealer‘s operations there are not.
Staff proposes that the Board amend County Code to conform with the intent of Virginia Code by
clearly stating that a dealers‘ operations, not just their location, be fixed and permanent. One indication of
that intent is that Virginia Code § 54.1-4104(A) already requires dealers to retain all purchased precious
metals or gems, and not remove them from the jurisdiction, for a minimum of ten calendar days.
The revised ordinance (Attachment A) recommends revisions to four sections of the Albemarle
County Code, Chapter 12, Regulated Enterprises, Article III, Dealers in Precious Metals:
1. Definition of ―fixed and permanent location‖ (§ 12-300(3)) – The proposed ordinance would make
―fixed and permanent location‖ a defined term, meaning a location in the county at which the
dealer conducts a regular and continuous course of dealing for thirty consecutive days or more,
with Saturdays, Sundays and recognized holidays excepted. A fixed and perm anent location may
include a location leased or otherwise obtained from another person on a temporary or seasonal
basis. This language is patterned after the term ―definite place of business‖ in Virginia Code §
58.1-3700.1 applicable to business licenses.
2. New application requirements (§ 12-302(A)) – The proposed ordinance would add a number of
requirements to the dealer‘s license application, namely:
a. Requiring the full name, any aliases, address, age, date of birth, sex and fingerprints of
not just the dealer (as currently required), but also of any agents of the dealer doing
business in the County.
b. Specifying the dealer‘s hours of operations – to facilitate enforcement
c. Specifying the location in the County where all precious metals or gems purchased will be
retained, as required.
d. Furnishing a zoning clearance to verify that the dealer‘s business is permitted under the
applicable county zoning regulations.
3. Notification of business closings; location of business (§ 12-302(D)) – Additionally, to facilitate
enforcement, the proposed ordinance would require the dealer to notify the chief of police of all
closings and re-openings of the business of the dealer if the business were not open for business
to conduct purchases without interruption, with Saturdays, Sundays and recognized holidays
excepted. This section would also restate the requirement that the dealer‘s use must be
permitted under the applicable county zoning regulations.
4. Mandatory two-year revocation following a second conviction (§ 12-307) – The proposed
ordinance would follow a 2010 amendment to Virginia Code § 54.1-4110, requiring a mandatory
two-year revocation of a dealer‘s license following a second conviction for violating any provisions
of the ordinance.
5. Retention and accessibility of all precious metals or gems purchased (§ 12-311(C)) – The
proposed ordinance would re-emphasize the requirement that all precious metals or gems
purchased be retained in the jurisdiction, and would require the dealer to make them available for
inspection by law enforcement.
The complete Article regulating dealers in precious metals is attached for reference and
information (Attachment B).
Though the proposed ordinance would require the Police Department to revise the license
application for precious metals dealers, the Police are already responsible for enforcing the existing
precious metals ordinance. Staff does not foresee the cost of enforcement increasing under the proposed
ordinance especially in light of the fact that over the last two years the County‘s Police Department has
issued a total of ten permits to dealers doing business in Albemarle County.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 23)
Staff recommends that after the public hearing, the Board adopt the attached ordinance
(Attachment A).‖
Mr. Davis said that last summer a question was raised as to whether or not the County permitting
process for dealers in precious metals was being properly executed consistent with State law requirement
and the County ordinance requirement. Since the 1980s State law has regulated dealers in precious
metals, and the County adopted a parallel ordinance back in the 1980s. Mr. Davis stated that the Police
Department issues an average of seven or eight of these permits per year, and some in the past have
been issued to dealers who have permanent locations in the County, but others have been issued to
people that have a statewide or regional presence and operate only on a weekend at a hotel or motel. He
noted that the question was raised as to whether or not this met the State law requirement and County
Code requirement of having a business conducted only from a fixed and permanent location specified in
the permit. Mr. Davis said that a committee of members from the Police Department and other staff met
to research the issue, and the conclusion was that the County had not been properly interpreting that
requirement. He stated that they surveyed other jurisdictions and found a wide range of approaches, but
cities like Roanoke, Chesapeake, and Virginia Beach required at least a presence of 30 consecutive days.
Henrico County is in the process of implementing a 60-day requirement and the City of Norfolk requires
90 days of permanent location prior to a permit being issued. Mr. Davis added that other localities such as
the County of Roanoke, have a policy of not issuing a permit without the business having a permanent
location in the county.
Mr. Davis said that this is not on the radar screen for many localities as they have not had many of
these applications, and simply have ordinances that parallel State law. The City of Charlottesville has a
requirement for a permanent location for 30 days in a calendar year, but the County opted not to
recommend that as it would create an enforcement issue for the Police Department. He stated that the
approach the County did take was to model a definition of fixed and permanent not being the most
restrictive with an established business, but a defined presence in the County of continuous operation.
Mr. Davis said that the definition of definite place of business, which is found in the business licensing
sections of the State Code, incorporated 30 consecutive days of continuous operation and was felt to be
an appropriate compromise position. He stated that the ordinance before the Board today addresses the
definition of fixed and permanent, which is otherwise not defined in the ordinance. The Police Department
has changed its interpretation from being very loose to requiring operations to be fixed and permanent.
Staff believes this definition change will give the Police Department more clarity in how they interpret what
permit should or should not be issued. Mr. Davis pointed out that the other amendments are simply
requirements that deal with the application itself, and in working with the Police Department there was
some additional information they felt they needed in order to property administer these regulations. He
added that there is some concern given the recession that there is an increase in activity in these types of
sales, and the intent of State law was to provide some protection to the community that the sales be
regulated. Mr. Davis said the changes to the application requirements will give Police the information they
need to appropriately monitor these operations as intended by the State and County Code.
Mr. Davis said staff asks that the Board adopt the proposed ordinance following the public
hearing.
Ms. Mallek commented that one of the goals is to protect individuals from being robbed. Mr.
Davis responded that there is a retention requirement in State law that the precious metals have to stay in
the jurisdiction for a fixed amount of time, and this ordinance provides some clarity as to where that would
be and who would be contacted in order to find that metal.
Mr. Snow asked if there had been com plaints about this type of activity. Mr. Davis responded that
there have been few reported problems other than complaints from established dealers in the community
who object to the itinerant competition. The Police Department has not had an active role beyond the
permitting process and the compliance issues. He noted that the issues that arise for Police are the
possibility that metals may be stolen and the problem that tracking of dealers is less than expected under
State and County Code. He added that representatives of the Police Department are present and can
speak to specific issues. He is not aware of any dramatic enforcement problems.
Mr. Boyd asked if this ordinance applies only to precious metal or if it also covers jewelry. Mr.
Davis responded that it is defined in the ordinance as any item except for coins, containing as part of its
composition any degree of gold, silver, platinum, or platinum alloys.
Mr. Boyd said that he raised the issue because of the seasonal kiosks at Fashion Square Mall.
Mr. Davis explained that it does not impact them unless they are purchasing from the public.
Mr. Snow asked if metals have been leaving after the 10-day period. Mr. Davis said that under
current requirements there is no certainty as to whether it has been in the jurisdiction for ten days or not.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that this legal area has been singled out by State law for special treatment,
and this ordinance is somewhat a response to dealing with the State law, which requires goods to remain
in the jurisdiction for 10 days.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to hear from the Police Department as to whether this would put any
additional burden on their staff.
Lt. Greg Jenkins, of the Albemarle Police Department, said that this would add just a little bit more
because of the need to recreate documents used in the application process as well as fingerprinting for all
staff instead of just the applicant/owner. He stated that anyone who would be handling that property would
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 24)
have to be processed as well. He added it is a little bit more work, they feel that it is probably worth it to
make sure that everyone that is handling it is legitimate.
Mr. Davis commented that one other issue has been the zoning requirement issue, as the practice
of the Police Department in the past has been to issue the permit without coordination with the Zoning
Department. Like any activity, this activity is subject to zoning requirements. He said this ordinance
amendment seeks assurance that before the Police issue a permit it is in a location that is permitted by
zoning, and the zoning clearance requirement is routinely done in the County for an established use but
not an accessory use. Mr. Davis stated that this will require Zoning to make a determination as to whether
it is an accessory use, but the requirement for a fixed location would ensure that the licensed operations
are appropriate.
Mr. Boyd asked how many of these permits have been issued in the last few years. Lt. Jenkins
responded that about five per year average are issued, and the permits are good for one year.
Mr. Davis said that some of the permits are for year-round operations, not itinerant merchants.
Mr. Dorrier asked if one difficulty with enforcement has been identification of items that have been
sold. Lt. Jenkins responded that when these companies hold weekends to buy precious metals they are
required by State Code to furnish documents, and they are required to provide a description of who they
buy it from, and they do forward that information routinely.
Mr. Dorrier wondered if it would strengthen the ordinance to require pictures to be taken of items
sold, noting that his home had recently been burglarized with jewelry stolen. Lt. Jenkins said that it is not
in this ordinance but could be looked into in the future. He added that it does make it difficult if there are
not photographs provided by the victims.
Ms. Mallek asked if taking photographs could be part of the County‘s permitting policy. Mr. Davis
explained that the current ordinance already requires that a complete description of the metals be
provided, including the weight of the gems, any names, initials, or serial numbers, or identifying marks or
monograms, and also requires complete documentation of the person selling it. He said that it does not
require a photograph but the County ordinance could be amended to require that. He added that the
dealers should probably be asked their opinion on this.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks that should be pursued.
Mr. Rooker commented that the photograph idea sounds great to him, as the real issue here is
receipt of stolen goods and subsequent prosecution.
Ms. Mallek asked what type of registration verification is required from the person bringing in the
jewelry.
Mr. Davis explained that the person must provide full name, residence address, workplace, work
and home telephone numbers, date of birth, sex, race, weight, height, hair and eye color, and legible
handwritten signature.
Ms. Mallek said that a copy of the driver‘s license would cover a lot of that information.
Lt. Jenkins stated that some of the dealers will take a photocopy of the driver‘s license or
identification and send it with the paperwork, but the majority do not.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Pete Caramanis said he is a local attorney present representing National Redemption, a
Virginia precious metals dealer that has been doing business in the County. National Redemption is doing
business in the County under a permit they received a year ago, and nothing changed between the time
they got the permit and the time they sought to renew it within the Code, but they were denied a renewal
because of a new interpretation of the ordinance that had occurred in the interim. Mr. Caramanis said that
the reason this amendment has gone forth is because a competitor made a complaint, not because
National Redemption was doing business improperly. He emphasized that there have been no citizen
complaints, and the discussion today reveals it is not a big criminal problem either. Mr. Caramanis stated
that National Redemption is run by a County resident when it operates in Charlottesville, although the
company itself does not have a permanent location here. He noted that the reason they are a competitor
is because they do not have this overhead and can offer better prices. He stated there is no real problem
here, other than competition in the market. Mr. Caramanis said they do not have a permanent location
because they do not need it and not having it allows them to provide better offers to people trying to sell
precious metals. Mr. Caramanis said that he would recommend elimination of the 30 consecutive day rule
because there is no business reason to do that. He previously sent Board members a letter setting forth
very specific proposals for how to make the ordinance better able to allow business competition that
benefits everyone and still allows citizens to be protected. He does not think a complete change in the
ordinance is necessary.
Mr. Rooker noted that one of Mr. Caramanis‘ recommendations is removing compliance with
zoning. Mr. Caramanis responded that there is no provision in the Zoning ordinance for a precious metals
dealer, adding that the permitting process that is in place is enough. He also objects to the requirement
for a zoning clearance.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 25)
Mr. Rooker said that there is nothing that prohibits a sale, and many dealers like this buy and sell
items onsite. Mr. Caramanis stated that selling and buying are two completely different things, and they
present different problems. He added that the definition of dealer talks about purchasing precious metals
and loaning on their value. Mr. Caramanis said that his client does not do any selling.
Mr. Davis said that the zoning issue is an entirely separate matter, and this ordinance does not
create a zoning problem. He added that requiring a zoning clearance is simply a coordination; not a new
requirement.
Mr. Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning, said that typically a zoning clearance would be required for any
new use or even a change in ownership in use. The Zoning Department would simply look to ensure that
a dealer was in the proper zoning category to conduct business. He said that similar uses are listed in the
ordinance, adding that hotels are located in various zoning districts and all the Department would do is
confirm that the use is permitted in the district and coordinate the activity. Mr. Higgins added that it would
be treated as a new use and the use would have to be accommodated on the site. If this particular use
was going to be located permanently there, Zoning would make sure there was adequate parking to cover
it. He stated that happens all the time. Mr. Higgins added that parking is something that is looked at with
every clearance, and that would include opening of a new permanent location for an operation.
Mr. Boyd asked about the issue of the 30 consecutive day requirement. Mr. Davis responded that
staff felt that would pertain to more of a fixed, permanent location than 30 random days throughout a
calendar year. More importantly, it was to accommodate enforcement by the Police Department as it is
much more practical to know that a dealer is established for 30 consecutive days rather than trying to
track them for 30 days throughout the year.
Mr. Caramanis added that there is a requirement that the dealer notify the Police if the business is
not going to be continuous throughout the year so the Police do not have to figure it out, and that burden is
on the dealer.
Mr. Davis stated that the other jurisdictions that have regulated in this manner have all
implemented a 30 consecutive day requirement, other than the City of Charlottesville.
Ms. Kara Luck said that she is a local resident and businessperson, and what is being brought
today is not about controlling competition, but is about complying with the precious metals permit. She
said that the main thing that needs to be defined is permanent and fixed location.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Mr. Davis clarified that this ordinance only regulates the selling of precious metals in a narrow
way, and the selling of precious metals or gems removed from manufactured articles requires a permit as
well.
Mr. Rooker then moved to adopt the proposed ordinance as drafted. He said that on balance it
seems to be a reasonable approach to what is mandated by State law. Mr. Snow seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 11-12(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 12, REGULATED ENTERPRISES, ARTICLE III, DEALERS IN
PRECIOUS METALS, 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 12,
Regulated Enterprises, Article III, Dealers in Precious Metals, is hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 12-300 Definitions.
Sec. 12-302 Permit--Procedure for obtaining; term; renewal.
Sec. 12-307 Penalties.
Sec. 12-311 Dealer to retain purchases.
CHAPTER 12. REGULATED ENTERPRISES
ARTICLE III. DEALERS IN PRECIOUS METALS
State law reference—Regarding dealers in precious metals generally, see Va. Code §§ 54.1-4100 et
seq.; authority of county to enact ordinance regulating dealers in precious metals and gems, see Va. Code §
54.1-4111.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 26)
Sec. 12-300 Definitions.
For the purposes of this article, the following words shall have the meanings ascribed to them by this
section, unless the context requires a different meaning:
(1) Coin. The term "coin" shall mean any piece of gold, silver or other metal fashioned into a
prescribed shape, weight and degree of fineness, stamped by authority of a government with certain marks
and devices, and having a certain fixed value as money.
(2) Dealer. The term "dealer" shall mean any person engaged at any location in the county in the
business of (a) purchasing precious metals or gems, (b) making loans for which precious metals or gems are
received and held as security, (c) removing in any manner precious metals or gems from manufactured
articles not then owned by such person or (d) buying, acquiring or selling precious metals or gems removed
from such manufactured articles. As used herein, "dealer" includes employers and principals on whose behalf
a purchase or loan is made and all employees and agents who make such purc hases and loans for or on
behalf of their employers or principals.
This definition shall not be construed so as to include persons engaged in the following:
(a) Purchases of precious metals or gems directly from other dealers, manufacturers or
wholesalers for retail or wholesale inventories, provided the selling dealer has complied with the provisions of
this chapter, if applicable.
(b) Purchases of precious metals or gems directly from a qualified fiduciary who is
disposing of the assets of an estate being administered by such fiduciary.
(c) Acceptance by a retail merchant of trade-in merchandise previously sold by such
retail merchant to the person presenting that merchandise for trade in.
(d) Repairing, restoring or designing of jewelry by a retail merchant, if such activities are
within the normal course of such merchant's business.
(e) Purchases of precious metals or gems by industrial refiners and manufacturers
insofar as such purchases are made directly from retail merchants, wholesalers or dealers or by mail
originating outside the county.
(f) Regular purchasing and processing of nonprecious scrap metals which incidentally
may contain traces of precious metals recoverable as a by product.
(3) Fixed and permanent location. The term ―fixed and permanent location‖ shall mean a location in
the county at which the dealer conducts a regular and continuous course of dealing for thirty consecutive days
or more, with Saturdays, Sundays and recognized holidays excepted. A fixed and permanent location may
include a location leased or otherwise obtained from another person on a temporary or seasonal basis.
(4) Gems. The term "gems" shall mean any item containing or having any precious or semiprecious
stones customarily used in jewelry or ornamentation.
(5) Precious metals. The term "precious metals" shall mean any item, except coins, containing as
part of its composition in any degree gold, silver, platinum or platinum alloys.
(11-12-80, § 1; 7-8-81; Code 1988, § 5.1-1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 11-12(1), 2-2-11)
State law reference--Similar provisions, Va. Code §§ 54.1-4100.
Sec. 12-302 Permit--Procedure for obtaining; term; renewal.
A. Application; issuance; fee. To obtain a permit, the dealer shall file with the chief of police an
application form which shall include the full name, any aliases, address, age, date of birth, sex and fingerprints
of both the dealer and any agents of the dealer doing business in the county; the name, address and
telephone number of the applicant's employer, if any, the location and hours of operation of the dealer's place
of business, and the location in the county of all items to be retained pursuant to section 12-311 herein. In
addition, the dealer shall furnish a zoning clearance verifying that the dealer‘s business is permitted under the
applicable county zoning regulations. Upon filing this application and the payment of a two hundred dollar
($200) application fee, the dealer shall be issued a permit by the chief of police; provided, that the applicant
had not been convicted of a felony or crime of moral turpitude within seven years prior to the date of
application, and that the dealer meets all other applicable requirements. The permit shall be denied if the
applicant has been denied a permit or, within the preceding twelve months, has had a permit revoked under
any ordinance or law similar in substance to the provisions of this chapter.
B. Inspection of weighing devices. Before a permit may be issued, the dealer must have all
weighing devices to be used in the business inspected and approved by local or state weights and measures
officials and must present written evidence of such approval to the chief of police.
C. Duration; renewal. A permit shall be valid for one year from the date of issuance and may be
renewed for one-year periods in the same manner as the initial permit is obtained, with an annual permit fee of
two hundred dollars ($200).
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 27)
D. Notification of business closings; location of business. If the business of the dealer is not
open for business to conduct purchases without interruption, with Saturdays, Sundays and recognized
holidays excepted, the dealer shall notify the chief of police of all closings and reopenings of such business.
The business of a dealer shall be conducted only fr om a fixed and permanent location specified in such
dealer's application for a permit, and only if such business is permitted at that location under the applicable
county zoning regulations.
(11-12-80, § 1; 7-8-81; 11-14-84; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 5.1-3; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 11-12(1), 2-2-11)
State law reference--Similar provisions, Va. Code § 54.1-4108.
Sec. 12-307 Penalties.
A. Any person convicted of violating any of the provisions of this article shall be guilty of a class 2
misdemeanor for the first offense. Upon conviction of any subsequent offense, such person shall be guilty of
a class l misdemeanor.
B. Upon the first conviction by any court of a dealer for violation of any provision of this article,
the chief of police may revoke his permit to engage in business as a dealer under this chapter for a period of
one full year from the date the conviction becomes final. Such revocation shall be mandatory for two full years
from the date the conviction becomes final upon a second conviction.
(11-12-80, § 1; 7-8-81; 11-14-84; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 5.1-13; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 11-12(1), 2-2-11)
State law reference--Similar provisions, Va. Code § 54.1-4110; as to punishment for class 1 and 2
misdemeanors, see Va. Code § 18.2-11.
Sec. 12-311 Dealer to retain purchases.
A. The dealer shall retain all precious metals or gems in the condition in which purchased for a
minimum of ten calendar days from the time of filing the bill of sale for their purchase with the chief of police.
During such period of time, the dealer shall not sell, alter or dispose of a purchased item in whole or in part, or
remove it from the county.
B. If a dealer performs the service of removing precious metals and gems, such dealer shall
retain the precious metals or gems removed and the article from which such removal was made for a period of
ten calendar days after receiving such article and precious metals or gems.
C. All items required to be retained hereunder shall be retained in the county at the locatio n
specified in the dealer‘s permit application. An agent of the dealer shall be readily accessible throughout the
applicable retention period to make the retained items available for inspection by the chief of police or any law
enforcement official of the state or federal government.
(11-12-80, § 1; 7-8-81; 11-14-84; Code 1988, § 5.1-9; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 11-12(1), 2-2-11)
State law reference--Similar provisions, Va. Code § 54.1-4104.
__________________
(NonAgenda: At 11:08 a.m., the Board took a recess and then reconvened at 11:20 a.m.)
__________________
Agenda Item No. 10. Rural Health Initiative Program, Gary Pond, Lead Health Educator.
Mr. Pond said that he and his colleague Mr. Theo Collins are here today from the McGuire VA
Medical Center in Richmond to talk about the Rural Health Initiative Program. Mr. Pond said that their
facility opened up in the 1940s and has served veterans ever since. The medic facility is the second
largest building in Virginia after the Pentagon, with over 200,000 veterans served. He stated that the
center is part of the Veterans Integrative Service Network (VISN), comprised of eight medical centers,
each with a rural health initiative program. Mr. Pond explained that the purpose of this program is to take
health education and services to veterans in the rural community. The Richmond site has been broken
out into three different regions, - Eastern Shore (Region 1), South (Region 3), and Region Two, which is
his region. Mr. Pond said he has contacted every County boards of supervisors to get out and meet the
folks, find out where the veterans are and link their program with the veteran‘s needs.
Mr. Pond said their core service package includes determining whether the veterans are eligible to
come into their health system. They have an enrollment and registration piece, and then a mid-level
provider gives the veteran a physical and gets them into the system. He explained that there is a means
test that includes income criteria, so a higher income would put someone into a lower qualification
category. He stated that his Department focuses on health education and services on issues such as
diabetes, high blood pressure, etc., and goes into veterans‘ homes to help them better manage their
disease.
Mr. Pond noted that their goal is to partner or network with localities to help find veterans, adding
that they already worked through American Legions, VFWs, Wounded Warrior Programs, etc. He
commented that once they are located, it is hoped that there will be job fairs and other activities to help
them.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Rooker asked if there is an idea of how many veterans live in Albemarle. Mr. Pond responded
that he does not have that information. They have the veterans who are enrolled, not the non-enrolled
ones.
Mr. Dorrier said that he has Parkinson‘s Disease and goes to McGuire for care, which he feels is
excellent. He said that he sees a female doctor from MCV who is one of the best in the country.
Mr. Pond pointed out that every VA medical center partners with a health education university,
which helps both organizations.
Mr. Dorrier also complimented him on the new small facility in Charlottesville.
Mr. Pond said that those smaller facilities are called CBOC, community-based outreach centers,
and there is one in Charlottesville, one in Fredericksburg and one in Emporia. He stated that the trend is
to move the healthcare system out into the community.
Mr. Dorrier commented that it has not been broadcast much.
Ms. Mallek asked if the medical center is connected to the veterans‘ services program at the One-
Stop Workforce Center.
Mr. Pond responded that they have started partnering with the VEC Center to do that, and he met
last week with the VEC Commissioner to discuss hosting some job fairs. He added that his office is
funded through the Veterans Administration.
Mr. Pond explained that the center is very engaged in women‘s health and wants to disseminate
information on osteoporosis, breast and pap education, etc. He also said that mental hygiene – PTSD - is
a major issue across the board with veteran. They have the OIF/OEF personnel address this outside of
the RHIP, and address issues dealing with depression, alcohol addiction, etc. Mr. Pond said that he and
Mr. Collins focus primarily on disease management – hypertension, diabetes, obesity, weight
management, etc. They have literature about My Healthy Vet – an online program that can be accessed
24 hours per day where veterans can keep personal records on their health and eventually will enable
veterans to access their medical records. He noted that RHIP has a social worker, nurses, and
pharmacists who work with medication management. Mr. Pond commented that RHIP focuses on the
complete picture, the bio/psycho/social/spiritual aspect of that person, and based on their needs tailor a
program accordingly. Mr. Pond said that they also have a public affairs person on staff, adding that the
hope is a better partnership with the County for various activities.
In terms of additional opportunities, Mr. Pond said they want to know how they can better serve
the County‘s veterans. He asked that they let them know when something is going on such as a job fair
and they would link to that event.
Mr. Rooker suggested providing a link from Albemarle County‘s website to their program.
Mr. Pond said that would be a good step. He added that he would be presenting to UVA rural
health nursing staff in the next several weeks. He added that RHIP would soon be getting a new rural
outreach van. They also have a separate Native American initiative that is under the same rural health
program.
Mr. Boyd suggested that RHIP display at the County fair. Mr. Pond responded that this past year
they did participate in the State Fair in partnership with the Wounded Warrior Program.
Mr. Dorrier commented that he does not think many veterans are aware if they are eligible for the
programs. Mr. Pond agreed, adding that he also served in the military and found that most people think
you have to be retired in order to participate, which is not the case.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 11. FY 2009-2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
Mr. David Hughes, of Robinson, Farmer and Cox, said that the Auditors met with the Audit
Committee last week and went through the report in detail, with no findings of significance. Mr. Hughes
stated that the report was prepared with Finance Director, Richard Wiggins, who retired yesterday, and the
turnover of the office and assets on hand have occurred. The Finance Department and staff have worked
hard and done an excellent job assisting them in preparation of the audit report, along with help from the
School Board and other County staff.
Mr. Hughes said the role of the Auditor is to issue opinions on the County‘s financial statements.
They have three opinions – a report on the basic financial statements; a report on compliance with laws
and regulations, and a report on federal programs. Mr. Hughes stated that all reports are unqualified,
which is the cleanest opinion that can be given.
In summarizing the report, Mr. Hughes said the introduction section includes a Transmittal Letter
(pages vii-xiii); the financial section includes management‘s discussion and analysis (pages 3-14); and
Exhibit 5 on page 25 is a summary statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balance for
all governmental funds. He added that it was nice to see is an increase in the General Fund balance for
FY10 which was not easy to accomplish in this environment. Mr. Hughes said that the Capital Projects
Fund was not as successful. In the notes to financial statements on pages 33-75, Mr. Hughes said there is
one note of significance on page 54, which is a snapshot of the County‘s general long-term obligations.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 29)
They had a few increases but a lot of decreases which is important to stay in focus on during budget
presentations.
Mr. Hughes said Exhibit 12, pages 79-81, is the General Fund budgetary comparison schedule,
which shows the original budget, final budget and actual results. On page 80 there is a 4.7% increase
with all the functions of government. The School information is provided on pages 109-114 and there are
a number of School Funds. Page 111 is combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes
in Fund Balances for School Funds. The Statistical section is something that gives a good analysis of the
last ten years in a lot of different components (pages 115-134). In the compliance section, there is a
schedule of expenditures of federal awards (pages 139-141). This the County received a total of 15
ARRA grants totaling $6.5 million, which was a contributing factor in helping the County through the year,
and there were no findings in the audit, which means management has met all grant requirements.
Mr. Rooker said that when the Audit meeting was held, it was mentioned that most localities were
having trouble in some of those areas because of the difficulty of accounting for federal grants. Mr.
Hughes agreed, stating that the feds kept changing the rules, which made it even more difficult.
Mr. Hughes said that staff has been integrating various components of Access Albemarle into the
new year, and with that comes a lot of hard work and changes in procedures.
Mr. Hughes reported that there is a new GASB 54 statement dealing with reporting of fund
balances into various components, which will have some impact on the County‘s Undesignated Fund
Balance.
Mr. Snow asked if there is anything that jumps out at him related to possible changes in County
processes that would really help.
Ms. Mallek said that in their management letter, the Auditors talked about how the credit card
process may save a lot of money. State government has gone completely to that kind of card instead of
having as many purchase orders.
Mr. Hughes stated that if they come across something they will mention it to management, and
they do audit a lot of other governments. He said he does not have anything specific that he can give the
Board at this point.
Mr. Rooker mentioned the Auditors‘ letter of December 15, 2010 to the Audit Committee, which
sets out a number of recommendations. He said that one finding made says,‖ the current Finance
Department appears to be understaffed in relation to other Virginia localities of similar size. The loss of
one key employee could be detrimental to the County‘s ability to perform any financial-related tasks in a
timely manner‖. Mr. Rooker encouraged the Board to read that and the next page, noting that the County
is falling behind in areas such as reconciliation of statements, etc., because Finance is understaffed. He
added it is something in an operation the size of the County you do not want to see. He noted that Mr.
Foley has a plan for dealing with this that he would discuss during budget work sessions. He thinks it is
something that the Board needs to address.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Hughes how the new finance system has been working for the County. Mr.
Hughes responded that the Auditors‘ role was only through June 30 so they don‘t really have a good feel
for how that is working.
Mr. Foley said that they are working through the process now with Access Albemarle and there
have been some struggles, although it is expected that there will be some efficiencies gained. Staff did
work closely with the Auditors during this process and are working on the suggestions. He stated that
there would be a request coming during the budget process that would likely be a reallocation of staff
versus adding new staff, but if a new position is deemed necessary that would also be discussed.
Mr. Rooker commented that it is important that some of these issues be addressed and not fall
through the cracks.
Mr. Boyd noted that part of that additional workload is coming from Access Albemarle
implementation. Mr. Foley said that dropping the parallel system should happen within the week.
Mr. Boyd said hopefully the fixed asset system is an asset to the Auditors in terms of their audit.
Mr. Hughes said it is and is working well.
Mr. Rooker commented that hopefully there will be other staff reassigned from Access Albemarle,
but they need to be result-oriented here. Mr. Boyd agreed.
Mr. Foley stated that this would be brought forth as part of future Audit Committee meetings, but
also in broader budget discussions.
Mr. Rooker said the Audit Committee will have another meeting in about three to four months to
address these issues.
Mr. Boyd moved to approve the FY2008-2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Mr.
Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 30)
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 12. ARB-2010-126. Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines Update.
(Due to time constraints, the Board moved this discussion until the afternoon portion of
the meeting.)
__________________
Agenda Item No. 13. CPA-2005-010. Places29 Master Plan.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, said that on January 5, 2011, the Board reviewed a round of
fairly significant text changes based on Board directive, primarily related to cleaning up language related
to transportation recommendations. He stated that the new information is two statements that were added
to Chapters Four and Eight, which is a transitional statement from the transportation study recommenda-
tions to the actual recommendations in the Places 29 Master Plan. Regarding the potential expansion
areas, he said, the draft of the plan has included the Piney Mountain expansion area but final direction is
needed on Hollymead. Mr. Benish noted that if the Hollymead area is to be expanded, a reference to the
staff report attachments would need to be made. He said that staff recommends adoption of the master
plan, and is available to respond to any questions from Board members.
Mr. Rooker noted that there was a 4-2 vote taken on the Piney Mountain expansion area and
some discussion about contacting DIA about any concerns they might have. He asked if anyone had
changed their mind about their vote.
Mr. Snow said that he has not changed his mind. The County has essentially created that traffic
because of the plan to have a 5% growth area with a 95% rural area. He stated that the County has
brought its traffic and everything right along the corridors. He commented that the traffic is unbearable at
certain times and is only going to get worse, with NGIC and DIA continuing to expand, and several
approved subdivisions, etc. Mr. Snow stated that they need the Berkmar Extension as quickly as possible.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that he is referring to Hollymead, and this discussion is about Piney
Mountain.
Mr. Snow stated that he would continue talking about Hollymead, and to alleviate the traffic a
Berkmar Extension and widening of Route 29 are two of their top priorities. He said that there should not
be any additional building in that area until private and government dollars are put together to get the road
and bridge built.
Mr. Rooker said that if no one has changed their mind on the Piney Mountain expansion despite
concerns he expressed about hemming in DIA, the Board should just move on.
Mr. Dorrier said that he has not changed his mind. He thinks the designation is in keeping with
the surroundings.
Ms. Mallek said that Rivanna Station could expand over into that property without any changes in
the Comp Plan or zoning that would elevate its standing. Both Phil Roberts at DIA and General Burgess
have indicated they would like to expand but are concerned about growth around their borders. She
added that she wish the Board not put it into the growth area.
Mr. Snow said he has heard the complete opposite.
Mr. Dorrier commented that if it becomes an issue later, the County can deal with it.
Mr. Thomas said that it is just a designation; it is in the development area.
Mr. Rooker said that it will just run up the price of the land where they will ultimately expand, which
will be paid for by public tax dollars.
Mr. Thomas said he does not think that is the Board‘s problem.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the Board needs to deal with the five issues raised by the Chamber of
Commerce.
Mr. Rooker said those are the focus transportation issues as the doables in the Master Plan.
Mr. Rooker commented that expansion of Piney Mountain is in the plan and will go forward.
Regarding Hollymead, Mr. Thomas said that this area is located in his magisterial district. He has
not received a single call on the matter and supports it being in the growth area. He stated that he is in
favor of getting Berkmar Extended put in, but at this time it may be rushed just a little bit. Mr. Thomas said
that he prefers to wait a while to include Hollymead in the growth area, and doesn‘t want to move forward
with putting it in at this time.
Mr. Boyd said that ultimately it will take private investment to get Berkmar built, but after meeting
with his constituents this past week there is no interest in doing anything until there is a plan in place to
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 31)
make all of the infrastructure available. He added that he thinks that is a reasonable expectation of
people. He will not support expanding the Hollymead growth area. Mr. Boyd stated that he would like to
see it come back when all those pieces are in place, including private, public, VDoT and even federal
investment. He further stated those improvements are definitely needed, which is going to include the
private sector.
Mr. Dorrier commented that the growth area changed when Biscuit Run was pulled out, with an
estimate of 1,000-3,000 houses that were planned to be built in that area. He said that if the County is
going to stick to its plan that number is going to need to be made up somewhere. He added that he thinks
it is shortsighted to ignore the fact they have lost 3,000 sites for growth in Albemarle County and they are
not going to give them back. The master plan is supposed to be a guide for the County, and if Hollymead
is designated and fits in with the required zoning, it is a good decision to approve it. He will support the
expansion.
Ms. Mallek said that the current zoning for Hollymead is rural area, stating that she recently got a
call from a constituent in Covesville who asked why all the growth was focused in the northern part of the
County and not the southern part. She added that if the Board is going to be thinking about replacing
something having to do with Biscuit Run‘s effect, it really should be in the same part of the County
because there are a lot of residents there who feel they do not have the services. Ms. Mallek stated that
putting more and more on Route 29 North only exacerbates the problems with transportation and requires
southern urban ring residents to travel either into the City or a long way around to get their services.
Mr. Snow agreed, but said that Berkmar Extended must be built to handle the traffic on Route 29
or it is just going to be a major safety and access issue.
Ms. Mallek said that when she served on CHART, Berkmar Drive was created and there was
great interest back then when they had money to actually lay out the locations of where that road would
be. She said that her main concern with doing the Hollymead expansion now, in addition to the fact that
they do not need it, is that the math does not work. They are not getting enough to pay for significant
improvements. Ms. Mallek stated that someone asked her two years ago if she would support a rezoning
if the bridge were built by private sources but if it is still missing $30 million, then that is a big hole that the
citizens would be faced to pick up.
Mr. Thomas commented that the topography on the south side near Covesville is more
challenging, and any development would need to be put in closer to I-64.
Ms. Mallek agreed, stating that Avon Park could serve that function for residents on the south
side.
Mr. Thomas commented that there are not many property owners in the area from south
Hollymead Towncenter down to the river. There are a couple of large tracts. Two of the property owners
are concerned about eminent domain on portions of their property.
Mr. Rooker said those property owners are not that interested in having this done on their
property. The question of whether the County would exercise eminent domain in order to make that
connection is a significant issue. Mr. Rooker said that he supports balancing commer cial retail around the
County. He is not in favor of Hollymead extension at this point, noting that there is a development
approved by I-64 in order to balance the retail to prevent people from the southern part of the County from
driving north.
Ms. Mallek noted that these commercial areas are waiting for tenants; they are ready to go.
Mr. Rooker stated that the Comp Plan does not say that 95% will be rural and 5% will be urban, it
has just worked out that way. He also agrees with replacing growth area parcels that have been lost, but
at a time when it is needed. Mr. Rooker noted that there is two million square feet of commercial space
that is unbuilt right now, and part of that is on the south side. He thinks it is unwise to be increasing the
growth area for retail at times when they have this huge overhang out there, some of which everyone
agrees would be better located perhaps out of the Route 29 area closer to where some of the people are
who do not have those services. He also said that not everyone will be on the Board forever, and putting it
into the Comp Plan under a designation such as Highway Commercial would mean that a plan could come
in for a big box a few years from now that would likely be approved.
Mr. Rooker said, when you look at the balance of all these things, he does not think it is not wise
at this time to include that property in the growth area. He added that he is not convinced there is going to
be any huge contribution toward building a bridge at this point, or even making the full connections
through that area where property is owned by other people.
Mr. Snow stated that he felt it would send a message to private funders to get it built. He said that
he is not looking for an opportunity to build more buildings without the infrastructure.
Mr. Rooker commented that all of the traffic modeling and cost benefit analyses showed that the
widening of Route 29 was the most important improvement in that area, and is also important to the
people who live in the Hollymead area.
Mr. Boyd said that the five high priority projects should be emphasized in this plan. He added that
he is voting against including the Hollymead expansion because of constituent concerns.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 32)
Mr. Rooker then moved not to include the proposed Hollymead expansion area in the Places 29
Master Plan. Mr. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Snow.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff is also asking for Board action on the Master Plan.
Mr. Boyd suggested that the word ―ultimate‖ be removed from its placement before grade-
separated interchange.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that was only in reference to the transportation study, not in referencing
to you believing that was the ―ultimate‖ need.
Mr. Benish said there is no problem with deleting the wording. Mr. Rooker agreed with the
change.
Mr. Rooker then presented a list of all of the meetings pertaining to Places 29, noting that there
have been 74 meetings over five and one-half years. He said that there were 20 meetings with the Board
of Supervisors present, 26 meetings with the Planning Commission, seven separate meetings with the
NCBC and Chamber of Commerce, and many meetings that included neighborhoods and one with the
Free Enterprise Forum. Mr. Rooker emphasized that staff has put a significant amount of time on this and
has made a tremendous effort with the plan. This is the largest growth area in the County. He thinks the
Board needs to go ahead and move forward with this plan. He noted that the plan is revised every five
years and this is a very long-term guide for the community and the area and it is important the Board get it
in place. Mr. Rooker also said that it is important that the advisory group meets and hopefully provide
feedback and recommendations over time.
Mr. Thomas said that he had a conversation with a constituent in that area who said that no one
contacted him in reference to Berkmar Crossing or Places 29 and his property. He noted that the public
does receive notices although they do not always read them. He added that he would like to see more
notification. Mr. Thomas stated that he is going to make an effort to contact his constituents in that area
to ensure they know what is going on.
Mr. Snow then moved to approve the Master Plan. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Mr. Dorrier said there have been a number of plans before the Board; which one are they
approving.
Mr. Rooker commented that there has not really been that number of plans; Board members have
just made incremental changes along the way.
Mr. Benish stated that the Board is approving Places 29, A Master Plan for the Northern
Development Areas, dated February 2, 2011.
Mr. Davis clarified that the motion is to approve the plan before them, including all of the changes
they have recommended and the Piney Mountain expansion area, but not the Hollymead expansion area.
Mr. Benish said that it would also include the deletion of the word ultimate on pages A2 and 4-27.
Mr. Snow accepted that as his motion.
Mr. Boyd stated that the Chamber of Commerce has requested having the Board consider
mention of a W estern Bypass. He has always felt it should be included in consideration for future planning
for Places 29 and should not have been excluded in the first place. He asked fellow Board members if
they are in favor of including this mention in the plan so that it can be addressed in the five year updates in
the plan.
Mr. Rooker said that it is pretty complicated to just add that in without any language, noting that
Mr. Boyd has raised the issue throughout the process and the Board has not gone with it. He has a
problem when five and one-half years later and the Board is ready to vote on the plan, and the issue is
brought up during the vote.
Mr. Snow suggested talking about that issue in five years with the update.
Mr. Thomas said he would like to see it considered.
Mr. Boyd asked if the $40 million invested in right of way was just something the County would
ignore. He asked when the Board is going to address that.
Mr. Thomas said he has been told that the Board would need to reach consensus to move that
forward.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that it is VDoT‘s decision about what to do with that right of way, and the
only money that has been in the long-range plan and has been since 2005 is for completion of court cases
having to do with those purchases. She said that the Commonwealth Transportation Board took the
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 33)
project out of the long-range plan at the State level because it was not found to meet the requirements
that they had, but it can certainly come back around through the MPO. Ms. Mallek stated that she does
not see any reason to stop this process for Places 29 and do even more rework on this particular issue.
She added just like Rivanna Station, this other item can come back up at will, of its own accord.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the MPO is just starting their next regional transportation plan process,
and the logical course would be that this topic be addressed by the MPO because they ultimately make
the decision of whether the bypass is part of a regional plan. He stated that the staff would know that in
the next review of Places 29.
Mr. Thomas said that he discussed it with Steve Williams of the TJPDC, and that is the same
thing he was told.
Mr. Boyd said he has no problem with the issue being addressed in that manner and not making it
a part of Places 29, but it is an issue that should not be ignored.
Mr. Rooker said there is a lot of misinformation. The State could have built the bypass a long time
ago, but State transportation officials have determined that it does not pass any reasonable cost-benefit
analysis for the investment of state money in a transportation project. He stated that the last two
Secretaries of Transportation, including Whit Clement, who was originally in favor of the project, do not
think it is a wise investment.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees, that in its present form it is true, but the bypass has not been addressed
in other forms. He does not want to go over that territory again at this time.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that Mr. Ken White, the CTB member from Lynchburg, said that anybody
who has studied that project will understand that it does not make sense for the State to invest its money
in it. Again, those have been State determinations; not local determinations.
Mr. Thomas commented that there are already discussions with local officials and the MPO, and
that process should continue going forward.
Ms. Mallek accepted the changes previously stated and reseconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
Board members thanked staff for doing a good job.
(Places29 Master Plan is set out below:)
Places29: A Master Plan for the Northern Development Areas
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1-1
The Places29 Master Plan 1-1
The Places29 Vision and Timeframe 1-4
Implementation of the Places29 Master Plan 1-4
Organization of This Master Plan 1-5
Two Important Notes 1-6
How to Use the Maps and Tables in this Master Plan 1-6
2. The Vision and Guiding Principles 2-1
Vision Statement 2-1
Guiding Principles 2-1
Development 2-1
Transportation 2-2
Open Space and Community Facilities & Amenities 2-3
3. Existing Conditions and Future Trends 3-1
Population of the Northern Development Areas 3-1
Existing Conditions and Community Structure 3-2
Land Use Patterns in the Places29 Area 3-2
Planned Development 3-6
Existing and Planned Utilities Infrastructure 3-6
Boundary Conditions 3-6
Open Space and Natural Resources 3-6
Historic and Archaeological Resources 3-8
Existing Transportation Network 3-8
Existing Conditions 3-8
Commute Patterns 3-9
Future Trends 3-10
Economic Framework 3-13
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 34)
Regional Demographic and Economic Trends 3-13
Economic Framework Conclusions and Projections 3-14
Market Analysis 3-15
Residential Market Analysis 3-15
Retail Market Analysis 3-16
Office Market Analysis 3-18
Industrial Uses 3-20
4. Future Land Use Plan and Transportation Network 4-1
Introduction 4-1
Definitions 4-1
Future Land Use Plan 4-3
Relationship of Existing and Future Uses 4-3
Land Use Designations 4-4
Primary and Secondary Uses 4-8
Description of the Future Land Use Map 4-13
Streets and Roads Shown on the Future Land Use Map 4-14
Key Subareas of the Future Land Use Plan 4-14
Areas Recommended for Small Area Plans 4-19
Land Use Tables 4-20
Parks & Green Systems 4-22
Open Space Defined 4-22
The Parks & Green Systems Map 4-24
Future Transportation Network 4-27
Roadway Elements 4-29
Transit Elements 4-29
Bicycle and Pedestrian Elements 4-30
Cross Sections for Key Network Roads 4-31
Neighborhood Streets and Block Patterns 4-37
Transit-Oriented Development 4-43
Potential Transportation Improvements beyond 2025 4-43
Development Capacity 4-44
Future Land Use Map South after 4-46
Future Land Use Map North after 4-46
Table LU 1: Land Uses in Centers and the Uptown after 4-46
Table LU 2: Land Use Designations in Areas Around Centers after 4-46
Parks and Green Systems Map South after 4-46
Parks and Green Systems Map North after 4-46
5. Place Types 5-1
Introduction 5-1
The Structure of Neighborhoods 5-1
Residential Neighborhood 5-2
Employment Neighborhood 5-3
Mixed Use Neighborhood 5-5
Airport District 5-6
Center Types 5-6
Neighborhood Service Center 5-7
Community Center 5-9
Destination Center 5-11
Uptown 5-13
The Areas Around Centers 5-14
6. Community Facilities and Services 6-1
Introduction 6-1
Parks 6-1
Police 6-4
Fire-Rescue 6-4
Schools 6-5
Library 6-5
Solid Waste Management 6-6
Water & Sewer 6-7
Water Service 6-7
Sewer Service 6-8
7. Design Guidelines for the Places29 Area 7-1
Introduction 7-1
Design Guidelines for Development Areas—An Appendix 7-1
Frontage Conditions for Entrance Corridors and Proffit Road 7-1
Types of Frontage Conditions 7-1
Urban Frontage 7-2
Landscaped Development Frontage 7-6
Landscaped Residential Yard Frontage 7 12
Open Landscape Frontage 7-13
Forested Buffer Frontage 7-14
Situations Specific to US 29 7-15
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 35)
Proffit Road—Not an Entrance Corridor 7-16
Creating Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas 7-17
8. Implementation of the Master Plan 8-1
Introduction 8-1
Transportation Projects 8-2
Land Use & Development Projects 8-3
Community Facilities & Services Projects 8-4
Parks & Green Systems Projects 8-4
Implementation Priorities 8-4
Priority 1: Transportation Improvements in the US 29 Corridor 8-5
Priority 2: Areas for Redevelopment & Approved New Development 8-6
Private Development & Public Investment in Non-Priority Areas 8-8
Small Area Plans 8-11
Funding the Implementation Projects 8-12
Types of Costs and Source of Estimates 8-12
Funding Strategies 8-13
Partners in Implementation 8-16
Places29 Community Advisory Council 8-16
Implementation Monitoring 8-17
Monitoring Projects 8-17
Master Plan Review 8-17
List of Implementation Projects after 8-18
Appendices
1. Glossary of Terms Used in the Master Plan
2. Implementation Project Descriptions
3. Roadway Cross Sections
4. Access Management Report for US 29, dated May 25, 2007
5. The US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study Final Report, dated August 18, 2008
6. The 29H250 Phase 2 Report, dated September 15, 2004
List of Maps & Illustrations
1.1 Albemarle County‘s eleven Development Areas 1-2
1.2 The four Northern Development Areas included in Places29 1-3
2.1 A photosimulation illustrating several development guiding principles 2-2
2.2 A photosimulation illustrating several transportation guiding principles 2-3
2.3 A photograph of a public open space with pedestrian amenities 2-4
4.1 A photosimulation of a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over US 29 4-15
4.2 A concept plan of a pedestrian bridge over US 29 at Berkmar Drive 4-16
4.3 A photosimulation of a mixed-use neighborhood—existing conditions 4-17
4.4 A photosimulation of a mixed-use neighborhood—initial development 4-17
4.5 A photosimulation of a mixed-use neighborhood—redevelopment 4-17
4.6 An example of a smaller urban open space 4-22
4.7 An example of a larger urban open space 4-23
4.8 Future Transportation Network Map after 4-28
4.9 An example of a Recommended Transit Network after 4-30
4.10 US 29 A Cross Section 4-32
4.11 US 29 B Cross Section 4-33
4.12 US 29 C Cross Section 4-33
4.13 US 29 D Cross Section 4-34
4.14 A Representative Cross Section of a Four-Lane Road (12) 4-34
4.15 A Representative Cross Section of a Two-Lane Road (6) 4-36
4.16 A Local Access Lane 4-38
4.17 A cross section showing local access lanes 4-38
4.18 A photosimulation showing a local access lane along US 29 4-39
4.19 A local access lane … in the Gasoline Alley area 4-40
4.20 A cross section illustrating how the side median of a local access lane 4-40
4.21 A Loop Road 4-41
4.22 A perpendicular Main Street 4-42
Future Land Use Map-South after 4-46
Future Land Use Map-North after 4-46
Parks & Green Systems Map-South after 4-46
Parks & Green Systems Map-North after 4-46
5.1 Place Types after 5-2
5.2 Concept Diagram of a Residential Neighborhood with a Neighborhood
Service Center 5-2
5.3 Example of a Residential Neighborhood with an urban open space 5-3
5.4 Example of a Residential Neighborhood with onstreet parking & shallow
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 36)
front setbacks 5-3
5.5 Concept Diagram of an Employment Neighborhood with a Neighborhood
Service Center 5-4
5.6 Example of a building in an Employment Neighborhood 5-4
5.7 Concept Diagram of a Mixed Use Neighborhood with a central public
open space 5-5
5.8 Example of buildings in a Mixed Use Neighborhood 5-5
5.9 Concept diagram of a Neighborhood Service Center 5-7
5.10 An Example of a Neighborhood Service Center with a Plaza 5-7
5.11 An Example of a Neighborhood Service Center with a Pocket Park 5-8
5.12 A Photosimulation of a Neighborhood Service Center serving an
Employment Neighborhood 5-8
5.13 A Concept Diagram of a Community Center 5-10
5.14 A Photosimulation of a Community Center 5-10
5.15 A Concept Diagram of a Destination Center 5-11
5.16 An Example of a Destination Center with Mixed Use Buildings—street view 5-12
5.17 An Aerial View of a Destination Center with mixed use buildings 5-12
5.18 A Concept Diagram of the Uptown showing a mix of uses 5-14
5.19 An example of the type of development envisioned for the Uptown 5-14
7.1 A photosimulation of an urban frontage condition 7-2
7.2 A cross section showing a two-lane road with an Urban Frontage
Condition 7-2
Recommended Entrance Corridor Frontage Conditions after 7-2
7.3 A cross section of US 29 showing an Urban Frontage 7-3
7.4 The three functional pedestrian zones of the Urban Frontage Condition 7-3
7.5 A sidewalk in an urban environment showing all three zones 7-4
7.6 An example of a wide urban sidewalk showing all three zones, with
café tables in the transition zone 7-4
7.7 An illustration of surface parking with a landscaped buffer 7-7
7.8 An illustration of structured parking with a landscaped buffer 7-8
7.9 A photsimulation showing a surface parking lot with landscaped buffer 7-8
7.10 An illustration of parking with a landscaped buffer and a grade difference 7-10
7.11 An illustration of surface parking with a larger grade difference 7-11
7.12 An example of Landscaped Development Frontage 7-11
7.13 An urban density residential area with landscaped front yards 7-12
7.14 A neighborhood density residential area with landscaped front yards 7-13
7.15 An example of the Open Landscape frontage condition 7-14
7.16 A cross section showing a deep Forested Buffer 7-15
7.17 An example of a potential grade-separated crossing of US 29 7-16
Recommended Boundary Conditions after 7-18
Places29 Priority 1: Transportation Improvements 8-7
Places29 Priority 2-South: Public Investment & Land Use Decision Making 8-9
Places29 Priority 2-North: Public Investment & Land Use Decision Making 8-10
List of Tables
Population of the Northern Development Areas (2009) 3-1
Existing US 29 Cross Sections 3-8
Top 10 Places Residents Are Commuting to from Albemarle County 3-10
Top 10 Places Residents Are Commuting From 3-10
4.1 Overview of US 29 Cross Sections 4-32
4.2 Existing and Projected (2025) Development Capacity for Residential
Units and Employment 4-45
LU1: Land Uses in Centers and the Uptown after 4-46
LU2: Land Use Designations in Areas Around Centers after 4-46
County Parks 6-1
District Parks 6-1
Community Parks 6-2
Nature Parks 6-2
7.1 Planting & Furnishings Zone Widths Along Entrance Corridors/Proffit Road 7-5
7.2 Recommended Widths for the Three Pedestrian Zones 7-6
7.3 Recommended Landscaped Development Characteristics 7-9
List of Implementation Projects after 8-18
1. Introduction
Albemarle County has a longstanding commitment to growth management. Since the adoption of the first
Comprehensive Plan in 1971, County policy has been to direct growth into the 11 designated Development
Areas, as shown in Figure 1.1. Directing this growth into the Development Areas conserves the balance of the
County as Rural Areas and enables the County to protect the agricultural and scenic resources found in those
Rural Areas.
The County recognizes the Development Areas as places where a variety of land uses, facilities, and services
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 37)
exist and are planned to support the County‘s future growth. Of the County‘s 726 square miles, only 35—or
about 5 percent—are included in the Development Areas. Planning efforts channel growth into these
Development Areas in order to facilitate economical service delivery and to promote neighborhood-style
development as the preferred design.
In 2001, the County adopted the Neighborhood Model to guide the form of development. The Neighborhood
Model recommends that both new development and redevelopment in the Development Areas follow these 12
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. Buildings 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 the Rural Areas
The Neighborhood Model also recommends that a master plan be prepared for each of the County‘s 11
Development Areas. Further discussion of the Neighborhood Model can be found in the Land Use Plan
Section of the Comprehensive Plan (page 204).
The Places29 Master Plan
The Master Plan covers the four Development Areas north of the City of Charlottesville: Neighborhood 1,
Neighborhood 2, the Community of Hollymead, and the Community of Piney Mountain, as shown in Figure
1.2. This Master Plan is an adopted component of the Land Use section of the County‘s Comprehensive
Plan.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 38)
Figure 1.1. Albemarle County‘s eleven Development Areas.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 39)
The Places29 Vision and Timeframe
The Master Plan guides development of the Places29 area by setting forth a vision of the desired ultimate
future condition for the area. There is no timeframe for the vision; in fact it may be decades before the area
builds out in fulfillment of it.
However, to implement specific Plan recommendations, such as the recommended tr ansportation
improvements and community facilities, the plan relies on a 20-year planning horizon. This 20-year period is
based, in part, on the longest realistic population projections available to the County. A 20-year period is also
consistent with state requirements, the County‘s Comprehensive Plan, and established planning practice. The
Master Plan includes an implementation program that groups recommendations into those that will begin
during the first five years, those that will begin during the second five years, and those that will begin during
the second ten years of the 20-year implementation timeframe.
The Future Land Use Map is based on the very long-term vision of the community‘s future, setting out
possibilities that may not be realized until decades after the plan is adopted—in some cases, well beyond the
original 20-year timeframe. The Future Land Use Map shows how the area ultimately should develop,
recognizing that some elements of the plan will be implemented many years in the future. The timing of these
elements depends on how market demands and other circumstances influence the pace of development. Figure 1.2. The four Northern Development Areas included in Places29: Neighborhood 1, Neighborhood 2, Hollymead, and Piney Mountain.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 40)
Implementation of the Places29 Master Plan
The Master Plan‘s implementation program involves a variety of public and private sector groups and sets
priorities so the Plan can evolve in a logical and sequential fashion. Some of these recommendations may
include new or expanded community facilities and services, changes to regulations, new or expanded utilities,
different types of open space and recreational opportunities, and transportation connections throughout the
community that could take the form of roads, sidewalks, or trails. The implementation program will be used as
a general guide to determine when and in what order the different plan elements will be realized. It is important
to recognize that these improvements and facilities would be needed whether there was a Places29 Master
Plan or not. The Plan provides the organization and coordination that will help ensure the improvements and
facilities are ready when they are needed.
Implementation of the recommendations in this Master Plan will take place in several different forms: through
County capital expenditures, public-private partnerships, land use decisions, private sector investments,
community initiatives, and programs and services provided by the County. It is also important to recognize that
implementation of this Plan begins during a period of fiscal difficulty and restricted funding for many of the
projects needed to support existing, approved, and expected future growth in the Places29 area.
Given the limited resources available at the time of plan adoption, the County has identified four (4)
transportation improvement projects that are essential to move forward on over the n ext five years. These
projects are:
1. Design and construct improvements to US 29 from Hydraulic Road to the 250 Bypass and
pursue sources of funding for construction of Hillsdale Drive Extended (both projects are in
the City)
2. Design/engineering for the widening of US 29 from 4 to 6 lanes between Polo Grounds Road
and Towncenter Drive
3. Design of Berkmar Drive Extended, including the bridge over the South Fork of the Rivanna
River
4. Expansion of transit service (including hours of operation, headways, extension of service to
unserved areas, and supporting infrastructure, such as sidewalks, crosswalks, and shelters)
It should be noted that all of the transportation improvements recommended in this Plan are considered
necessary, based on the latest traffic modeling, in order to maintain and improve the flow of traffic through the
Places29 area over the 20 years of Plan implementation. With each five-year Plan update, the need for these
improvements will be revaluated through an update of the transportation modeling. The focus of Plan
implementation will be on the projects in the first five years, as well as the ―Ongoing‖ projects.
Organization of This Master Plan
Following this introductory chapter, the Master Plan continues with the Vision and Guiding Principles
presented in Chapter 2.
Chapter 3, Existing Conditions and Future Trends, presents the background information on demographics
and projections that form the foundation of the Master Plan. It describes current land use patterns and the
current status of the transportation network.
In Chapter 4, Future Land Use Plan and Transportation Network, the land use designations are defined,
integrated with the transportation network, and shown on the Future Land Use Map. The role of Parks &
Green Systems is explained and related to the map. The chapter continues with a description of the future
transportation network and the development capacity that results from the land uses and transportation
linkage.
Chapter 5, Place Types, introduces the concepts of Neighborhoods, Centers, and areas around Centers that
are used throughout this Plan.
Chapter 6, Community Facilities and Services, describes the current status of schools, libraries, water and
sewer, parks, utilities, and other facilities, and how they will be provided to support the Northern Development
Areas.
Chapter 7, Design Guidelines for the Places29 Area, provides direction for the appearance of the Entrance
Corridors and for boundary conditions.
Chapter 8, Implementation, outlines how this Master Plan will be carried out. This chapter addresses
implementation strategies and priorities for the provision of needed infrastructure over the Master Plan‘s 20-
year timeframe. It concludes with a List of Implementation Projects that serves as a master list of those
projects needed to support development in the Places29 area.
Appendix 1, Glossary of Terms Used in the Master Plan will include definitions of planning terms and any
other terms needed to understand the Plan.
Appendix 2, Implementation Project Descriptions is a list describing each of the improvements included in
the List of Implementation Projects in Chapter 8. The additional information about each improvement will
enable readers of the plan to understand what each improvement is and how it differs from others with similar
names or locations.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 41)
Appendix 3, Roadway Cross Sections shows road cross sections for each segment of US 29, for
boulevards/four-lane roads, and for avenues/two-lane roads.
The documents listed below are incorporated into this Master Plan by reference and are available separately:
Appendix 4, The Access Management Report for US 29 (Transportation Study Technical Memo 7), dated
May 25, 2007.
Appendix 5, The US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study Final Report, dated August 18, 2008.
Appendix 6, 29H250 Phase 2 Report, Draft, prepared by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission, dated September 15, 2004.
The report, Intersections Study, prepared by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, dated May
2003, was also used in the development of this Master Plan.
Two Important Notes
Places29 and the US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study
The Master Plan is the result of a public process and technical work, which were undertaken in combination
with the US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study. The Master Plan and transportation study were
collectively known as ―Places29‖ during the planning process. Work on the US 29 North Corridor
Transportation Study was jointly sponsored by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), Albemarle
County, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), and the City of Charlottesville. The text
incorporated in the Places29 logo, ―Places29: Creating and Connecting Communities in Northern Albemarle‖
was chosen to emphasize the importance of linking transportation and land use planning in shaping the future
of the Northern Development Areas. Places29 also recognizes that US 29 is a Highway of National
Significance and plays an important role as a major regional and national travel corridor. The US 29 North
Corridor Transportation Study is based on and incorporates the 29H250 Studies (Phases 1 and 2). These two
studies were conducted by the same partners and focused on similar multimodal goals for the areas around
the US 29, Hydraulic Road, and US 250 intersections. The 29H250 studies are incorporated by reference into
this Master Plan (and are available separately from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission).
Map Format
Most of the maps included in the Master Plan do not use the standard orientation in which North is at the top
of the page. Instead, because of the shape and size of the Master Plan area, maps in this document have
North to the right. In other words, when the entire Plan area is shown on a single page, the City of
Charlottesville is to the left and Greene County is to the right.
How to Use the Maps and Tables in this Master Plan
The Future Land Use Map and Parks & Green Systems Map should be used to understand the desired
community structure for the Places29 area. Together with the Land Use Tables, the maps provide the
information needed to determine what land use designations and densities/intensities are recommended in a
given location. Both the maps and the tables give County staff, developers, property owners, elected officials,
and the public the information to determine land uses and intensities by following three steps:
Step 1: Use the Future Land Use Map to determine:
1. The Land Use designation assigned to a specific property
2. Whether the property is located in a Center, in the area around a Center, or in the Uptown. If
the property is located in a Center, the type of Center (Neighborhood Service, Community, or
Destination) also needs to be noted.
Step 2: Use the appropriate Land Use Table to determine which primary and secondary land uses are
recommended within a given Land Use designation. Use Table LU1 for property located in
Centers and the Uptown and Table LU2 for property in areas around Centers. In some cases,
certain primary or secondary uses may only be recommended for properties larger than a certain
size. Other conditions may include maximum sizes (in square feet) for a use or building footprint.
To use Land Use Table 1 (for property located in Centers), locate the type of Center across the
top of the table. Then, look for the desired use on the left hand side of the table. The information
in the box at the intersection of the appropriate column and row gives the requirements for the
type of use in that Center type.
To use Land Use Table 2 (for property located in areas around Centers), locate the land use
designation across the top of the table. Then, look for the desired use on the left hand side of the
table. The information in the box at the intersection of the column and row gives the requirements
for that type of use in that land use designation.
On the Land Use tables, the term ―by exception‖ means that a larger building footprint or single
land use might be supported for one of the Centers or areas around a Center if the larger building
or use will fulfill the goals of the Master Plan and the Neighborhood Model, including walkability,
compact development, interconnected streets, block and lot sizes, and so on. The decision on
whether to allow a larger footprint building or allow other changes to building form or use will be
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 42)
made as part of the rezoning process; property owners seeking to rezone will need to include the
request for larger footprint buildings in their application narratives and concept/application plans.
Step 3: Refer to the Parks & Green Systems Map to determine whether an additional open space may be
required on or near the subject property. Whether an additional open space will be required as
part of development on the subject property depends on the size of the individual property or
overall project and the proximity of the property to a mixed-use center.
The Parks & Green Systems Map also provides information about stream buffers, areas of steep
slopes, 100-year floodplains, and existing or proposed Greenways, bicycle facilities, and trails that
may be recommended for the property.
After completing the steps above, the applicant should refer to Chapter 7, Design Guidelines for the Places29
Area to determine what other standards and guidelines, if any, apply to the site design and other physical
aspects of developing the property.
2. The Vision and Guiding Principles
The Vision Statement and Guiding Principles for the County‘s four Northern Development Areas are an
essential part of the Places29 Master Plan. Both the vision and the principles were developed from a
combination of community input and policies set forth in the County‘s Comprehensive Plan. Incorporating both
public input and County policy anchors the Master Plan in established County policy and in the local
community‘s desires for its future. The vision and principles are to be used in conjunction with the County‘s
Comprehensive Plan. The County recognizes the impact of the vision and guiding principles on its neighbors,
the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia, as well as on the region as a whole.
Vision Statement
Albemarle County‘s four Northern Development Areas will feature compact development consisting of
residential and employment neighborhoods that are organized around centers. These neighborhoods and their
centers will be pedestrian-oriented and mixed-use; they will offer a variety of housing choices, retail
environments, office types, and employment opportunities. They will be connected by an attractive, efficient,
and accessible multimodal transportation system. Integrated into this urban-style development, parks and
open spaces will provide a sense of respite and contribute to an overall excellent quality of life.
Guiding Principles
Development
1. As stated in the Comprehensive Plan, the County has chosen to direct future development into the
Development Areas in order to lessen development pressure on the Rural Areas. New development
in the four Northern Development Areas is intended to follow the Neighborhood Model, so that those
areas will include lively, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly centers.
2. The four Northern Development Areas form a corridor centered on US 29 North. As development in
the corridor and elsewhere increases, the additional traffic it generates must be addressed by this
Master Plan.
3. By improving the current configuration of neighborhoods, places of employment, and shopping areas,
the community seeks to create a pattern of walkable places with a diverse range of uses. Trans it,
pedestrian, and bicycle connections and facilities should improve access and ensure safety.
4. The Master Plan recognizes the need for land and infrastructure to accommodate sustainable levels
of business and industry.
5. The Northern Development Areas can expect a combination of new development, infill development,
and redevelopment to take place subject to this Master Plan. It is essential for this development to
follow the principles of the County‘s Neighborhood Model; to respect and work with the terrain.
6. Preserving the character of existing neighborhoods while improving the quality, diversity, and
affordability of new housing is important. Housing, including workforce housing, located close to
employment centers, shopping areas, transportation, and recreation is important for the Northern
Development Areas.
7. The community of the Northern Development Areas values creative, effective design, which respects
the scale and character of existing development and adjacent planned open space.
8. It is important to provide infrastructure at or before the time it is needed to serve new development.
Infrastructure may be funded by local government, the private sector, or a combination of funding
sources.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 43)
Figure 2.1. A photosimulation illustrating several developme nt guiding principles: a mixed-use, pedestrian-
friendly Center with onstreet parking, pedestrian amenities, a public plaza, and buildings facing the street.
Transportation
9. An efficient, effective, and accessible transportation system will serve users acr oss the entire
spectrum, from local trips to regional ones, and it will be multimodal—including vehicular, transit,
pedestrian, and bicycle access. In particular, improvements to the US 29 corridor should recognize
and address the road‘s multiple purposes. The system will also address the movement of freight by
truck, train, and air.
10. Future improvements to the transportation system are an opportunity to increase the connectivity of
places and land uses currently separated by US 29 and other high-traffic roads, such as Hydraulic
and Rio roads. The future transportation system can also enhance the connectivity between
neighborhoods, mixed-use centers, recreational amenities, and community facilities throughout the
area. In certain instances, connections for pedestrian and bicycle access may be made where road
connections would be inappropriate or would disturb established neighborhoods. The road network
that will best serve the Northern Development Areas includes US 29, roads that are parallel to US 29,
and good east-west connecting roads.
11. Safety and aesthetics are important for new and existing streets.
12. Public transit is now available in some parts of the Northern Development Areas and is an important
alternative form of transportation that should be planned for, expanded, and enhanced in the future.
New development and transportation improvements should be transit-ready.
Figure 2.2. A photosimulation illustrating several transportation guiding principles: a transit -friendly
neighborhood street with bicycle lanes, and parked cars separating traffic from the sidewalk.
Open Space and Community Facilities & Amenities
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 44)
13. The community values the expansive views of the Blue Ridge Mountains and other vistas; they add to
the quality of life. They should be preserved through careful delineation and protection of viewsheds.
14. The community of the Northern Development Areas values a well-connected network of accessible
public open spaces, greenways, and trails. This network will be created by preserving the existing
open spaces and adding new ones, and by making connections between open spaces in the
Development Areas, the surrounding Rural Areas, and the City of Charlottesville.
15. The County‘s public facilities, such as libraries and schools, are both a source of pride a nd a
resource. These facilities should be convenient and accessible to neighborhoods and employment
centers.
Figure 2.3. A photograph of a public open space with pedestrian amenities.
3. Existing Conditions and Future Trends
This chapter provides some of the basic background information used to prepare this Master Plan; it identifies
and explains those conditions and trends on which the Plan is based. These conditions and trends have a
direct impact on the desired Places29 community structure because they form the starting point for future
planning. The existing conditions and future trends are presented in the following order:
1. Population and demographics of the Northern Development Areas
2. Existing Conditions and Community Structure, including land use patterns, planned
development, open space and natural resources, and historic and archaeological resources
3. The Existing Transportation Network, future trends, and travel patterns
4. The Economic Framework
5. Market Analyses
Population of the Northern Development Areas
According to estimates prepared by the County‘s Geographic Data Services Department, there are between
23,000 and 24,000 people residing in the Northern Development Areas, which means that about one-quarter
of all of the residents in the County live in the Northern Development Areas. The breakdown by Development
Area is:
Population of the Northern Development Areas
2009
Development Area Population
Neighborhood 1 7,219 - 8,046
Neighborhood 2 8,222 - 8,406
Community of Hollymead 6,239 - 7,077
Community of Piney Mountain 965 - 997
Total: Northern Development Areas 23,472 - 23,699
Total: All 11 County Development Areas 53,650 - 54,170
Total Albemarle County (2009) 93,402 - 101,300
Northern Development Areas as a
Percentage of All 11 Development Areas 43.75 – 53.47%
Northern Development Areas as a 23.39 - 25.13%
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 45)
Percentage of Albemarle County
Source: US Census, Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, and Albemarle County Office of Geographic
Data Services.
From 2000 – 2008, the Weldon Cooper Center has estimated an average annual population growth rate for
Albemarle County of approximately 1.35% per year and the Northern Development Areas accommodates a
significant portion of that growth. Over three-fourths of the County‘s population growth is a result of in-
migration.
The Virginia Employment Commission projects that Albemarle County will have 107,760 people in 2020 and
120,456 in 2030. If the proportion of the population living in the Northern Development Areas were to remain
constant relative to total County population, the expected total residents in the Northern Development Areas
would be 26,509 in 2020 and 29,632 in 2030. The actual population will depend on many factors, including
growth elsewhere in the County.
Existing Conditions and Community Structure
The Northern Development Areas encompass almost 14.5 square miles (9,233 acres). Neighborhoods 1 and
2 are separated from Hollymead and Piney Mountain by an undeveloped area of land that is dominated by the
floodplain of the South Fork of the Rivanna and adjacent land of mostly rural character. Neighborhoods 1 and
2 are characterized by intense development along both sides of US 29 and are among the most urban areas
in Albemarle County. By contrast, significant undeveloped portions of land currently remain in Hollymead and
Piney Mountain.
Community structure is shaped by the relationships of existing residential areas, retail and commercial uses,
employment areas, civic facilities, open spaces, and the network of streets that provide access. An analysis of
these existing patterns and their spatial relationships is important because they have a great impact on
people‘s quality of life. For instance, the relationship between where people live and where they work will
determine their transportation choices and how much time they have to spend traveling between their homes
and places of work, as well as to other destinations.
The existing land use patterns and community structure provide the context and opportunities that are the
foundation of future land uses; they serve as the basis for the Future Land Use Map and Transportation
Network in Chapter 4. The existing pattern also shows where new uses must respect existing uses and
structures.
Land Use Patterns in the Places29 Area
Two major elements establish the overall structure of the Places29 area: the South Fork of the Rivanna River
and US 29 (Seminole Trail). The South Fork of the Rivanna divides the Communities of Hollymead and Piney
Mountain, which have a more suburban character, from the more urbanized Development Areas,
Neighborhood 1 and Neighborhood 2. ―More urbanized‖ means that the majority of the land is developed and
both the residential densities and the intensities of nonresidential uses are higher—similar to urban areas like
the City of Charlottesville.
US 29 acts as a strong spine connecting all four of the Northern Development Areas. At present, the design of
US 29 generally reflects the differences in character that exist between the southern and northern
Development Areas. Further, the frontage conditions along US 29 affect the overall character of the adjacent
development. However, this ―spine‖ also acts as a major impediment to connectivity for any travel mode other
than the auto. This barrier effect needs to be overcome in the long range planning for the area.
South of the South Fork, substantial and nearly continuous commercial development faces US 29 on both
sides of the road. Most commercial development along US 29 relies on access directly from US 29, as no
significant system of parallel roads exists.
In contrast, north of the South Fork, most commercial activity now occurs in the Hollymead Town Center,
which does not have a direct orientation to US 29, although there is some commercial activity at the Airport
Road/Proffit Road/US 29 intersection that is oriented toward US 29.
Other key elements of the overall community structure are the many residential neighborhoods that already
exist in the Places29 area, the undulating terrain, the pockets of forest and fields, the many small streams and
drainages, and the views of the adjacent Rural Areas.
The distribution of employment areas is another important component of community structure. The location of
employment areas relative to residential areas has a significant impact on the transportation (commute)
patterns in the area. If the community wants workplaces, residences, and retail and service areas located
closer together, the distribution of employment areas is critical. Piney Mountain and the northern half o f
Hollymead are important centers for employment in the Places29 area. Here, higher concentrations of
employment are related to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, the University of Virginia Research Park, the
Rivanna Station Military Base, GE, and other industrial/light industrial uses. South of the South Fork of the
Rivanna, employment is clearly focused along the US 29 corridor.
Neighborhood 1
Neighborhood 1 encompasses 1,183 acres and is bounded by the South Fork of the Rivanna River to the
north and US 29 to the east. The north-south segments of Hydraulic Road, Rio Road West, and Woodburn
Road form its western boundary, which separates it from Rural Area 1. A small portion of Neighborhood 1 is
located south of Hydraulic Road just north of Neighborhood 7.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 46)
Neighborhood 1 is the most urbanized of the Northern Development Areas and includes residential
neighborhoods such as Westfield, Berkeley, and Four Seasons, as well as substantial retail and commercial
development along US 29. It has the most multifamily housing, the least amount of remaining vacant land, a
diversity of housing types (single family, townhome, and multifamily), a range of retail and service uses, and
some fairly significant employment uses, such as Sperry Marine.
Based on land area, about two-thirds of the development in Neighborhood 1 is residential, the remaining third
is retail and commercial. About one-third of the residential development is single-family homes and two-thirds
is multifamily. Almost all of the existing retail is located along and oriented toward US 29. There are a few
small pockets of employment and service uses along Rio Road, Hydraulic Road, and Greenbrier Drive. With
the exception of a few smaller sites and the site of the future Albemarle Place development (at the intersection
of Hydraulic Road and US 29), Neighborhood 1 is largely built out.
Agnor-Hurt Elementary School on Berkmar Drive is the only school located within Neighborhood 1. Greer
Elementary School, Jouett Middle School, and Albemarle High School are located immediately to the west of
Neighborhood 1 in the Rural Areas. The playfields at the schools are important public open spaces that are
accessible to residents in the area. Humphris Park is also a public open space. The Ivy Creek Natural Area is
a large-scale natural area for hiking and passive recreation located in the Rural Areas within one-half mile of
Neighborhood 1. These public open spaces are complemented by the private open space around single-family
homes and the semi-public greens around some of the multifamily housing.
The majority of land uses in Neighborhood 1 rely on three major roads for access: US 29, Hydraulic/Rio Road,
and Berkmar Drive. The remaining roadway network in Neighborhood 1 consists largely of local loop roads or
cul-de-sacs that, with few exceptions, provide few connections between adjacent developments. Without
supplemental bicycle and pedestrian connections, this street pattern separates residences and other uses
even if they are located close to one another. The typical trip pattern in this type of environment requires travel
out onto the nearest arterial (Hydraulic Road, Rio Road West, or US 29) and back into another part of the
neighborhood. This limited connectivity affects the opportunities for travel among resid ential areas, open
spaces, and retail, employment, and civic uses. It also requires that local trips be made all or in part on US 29.
Neighborhood 2
With 2,981 acres, Neighborhood 2 is the second largest of the Northern Development Areas. The eastern and
northern boundaries are the Rivanna River/South Fork of the Rivanna River, US 29 is the western boundary,
and the southern boundary is the City limits.
With the exception of a band of retail and commercial uses along US 29, Neighborhood 2 is predominantly
residential. The area immediately east of the retail and commercial uses consists of a number of multifamily
and senior housing complexes. Residential neighborhoods of predominantly single-family homes are located
north of Rio Road, including Dunlora, Raintree, Westmoreland, Woodbrook, and Carrsbrook. Development
east of the railroad tracks includes neighborhoods of both neighborhood and urban density levels (Stonehenge
and Riverrun). These are interspersed with clusters of estates at lower densities. This area also contains a
number of larger un- or underdeveloped tracts of land north of Dunlora and south of the CATEC vocational
school. A large area immediately east of the railroad tracks is currently being developed into the Belvedere
residential neighborhood.
The only retail area not oriented toward US 29 is located along Rio Road East in the area known as ―Gasoline
Alley.‖ This small area includes a series of gas stations with convenience stores and several commercial
properties. There is also a street named ―Gasoline Alley‖ in this area.
Except for the recreational facilities located at Woodbrook Elementary School, Neighborhood 2 does not have
any public open space. However, a considerable amount of public open space will be built as part of the
Meadow Creek Parkway—Phase I. In addition, residents of Neighborhood 2 have access to Pen Park, which
is located in the City of Charlottesville just south of Neighborhood 2. Finally, the Belvedere development will
include several small neighborhood parks and a soccer complex.
The South Fork of the Rivanna, Meadow Creek, Town Branch, and several unnamed intermittent streams flow
through several of these residential neighborhoods. These streams are a major asset for Neighborhood 2. The
estate east of Belvedere, known as Dunlora Farm, includes large tracts of private, forested land.
Two major roads, US 29 and Rio Road East, provide all the principal arterial access to development in
Neighborhood 2. Beyond these two roads, access to most residential areas is by a combination of loop roads
and a branch-like roadway network. This network ultimately focuses neighborhood traffic onto a few
intersections that connect with through roads, such as Rio Road and US 29. This system of roads is similar to
the one that exists in Neighborhood 1 and results in similar trip patterns. Rio Road East is the area‘s principal
arterial, providing access to most subdivisions east and west of the railroad tracks. Local roads provide
minimal connections between residential areas and other destinations.
The retail and commercial uses along US 29 and the residential uses in close proximity to US 29 have access
either directly off of US 29 or from the perpendicular roads.
Community of Hollymead
The Community of Hollymead is the largest of the Northern Development Areas (4,396 acres) and is located
north of the South Fork of the Rivanna on both sides of US 29. Its eastern boundary is formed by a
combination of Pritchett Lane, Proffit Road, Powell Creek, and the railroad tracks. Polo Grounds Road and a
creek near Templeton Acres form its southern boundary, while the North Fork of the Rivanna is its northern
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 47)
limit. Its western edge, shared with the Rural Areas, is formed by Earlysville Road, the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airport, and Dickerson Road.
The pattern of land uses east of US 29 is dominated by three suburban residential neighborhoods, Forest
Lakes North and South, and the Hollymead development. These are separated from US 29 by substantial
forested buffers. All three neighborhoods center around the Hollymead Elementary School and Sutherland
Middle School and their public playfields and open space. Larger forested areas and agricultural fields east
and west of US 29 are still undeveloped, including vacant land between Polo Grounds Road and Forest Lakes
South, in the North Pointe area, in the University of Virginia Research Park, and in areas located west and
south of Hollymead Town Center.
The complex of Hollymead Elementary School and Sutherland Middle School is an important community focal
point for Forest Lakes. Additional private recreation centers are owned by the Forest Lakes North and South
neighborhood associations.
The Hollymead area includes a number of light industrial and heavy industrial uses. These are concentrated in
the Airport Center, the Airport Industrial Park, and the Northside Industrial Park. The University of Virginia
Research Park, with 562 acres, is the largest individual employment center in the Places29 area and is still
largely undeveloped. The Park includes research and development, light industrial, and industrial uses.
As in Neighborhoods 1 and 2, the roadway network in Hollymead east of US 29 is a combination of loop roads
and cul-de-sacs. Connectivity between adjacent residential developments is minimal. For instance, aside from
US 29, only Timberwood Parkway connects Forest Lakes North and South. West of US 29, the network of
roads is limited because there is less existing urban development.
Community of Piney Mountain
The Community of Piney Mountain, with 607 acres, is the smallest of the Northern Development Areas. It is
bounded by the North Fork of the Rivanna to the south and Dickerson Road to the west and northwest. Its
eastern and northern boundaries follow the alignment of smaller streams.
GE and the National Governmental Intelligence Center (NGIC)/Rivanna Station Military Base, two major
County employers, are both located in Piney Mountain.
The western half of Piney Mountain is largely built out with suburban-style residential development and the GE
campus. These residential and light industrial land uses are separated from one another and from US 29 by
forested buffers. The adjacent developments of Briarwood and Camelot currently lack a local road connection
to each other.
The area east of US 29 includes a number of light industrial uses located adjacent to the street, as well as the
NGIC facility that is accessed via Boulders Road, the only local road in this area. The eastern portion of Piney
Mountain is otherwise undeveloped and forested. The area around and including NGIC has been designated
the Rivanna Station Military Base. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) will be joining NGIC in this area over
the next few years.
Planned Development
Already approved developments are an important component of planning for the Places29 area. This is
particularly true because several recently approved proposals, including Albemarle Place, Hollymead Town
Center, and North Pointe, are large scale developments and will account for a significant share of g rowth
during the timeframe of this Plan. As of December 2008, over 4,000 dwelling units and over 3,000,000 square
feet of commercial/retail/office had been approved, but not yet developed in the Places29 area. These figures
do not include developments that may be built based on the by-right zoning.
Existing and Planned Utilities Infrastructure
The Places29 area is served by a number of utilities. Both the existing conditions and recommendations are
included in Chapter 6, Community Facilities & Services.
Boundary Conditions
In Albemarle County‘s Comprehensive Plan, Principle 12 of the Neighborhood Model calls for ―Clear
boundaries with the Rural Areas.‖ The Northern Development Area boundaries include natural barriers, such
as the Rivanna River; political boundaries, such as the City of Charlottesville; watershed boundaries; and
existing property lines. Also, some Development Area boundaries are streets that are also Entrance Corridors.
Conditions at these edges vary from fully developed to agricultural lands to undeveloped natural areas.
The boundary conditions are discussed in more detail and shown on a map (see Figure 9. Edge Conditions in
the Assets, Needs, and Opportunities Report). Future boundary treatment is especially important along
Entrance Corridors and also where other streets constitute the edge of the Development Area. A key goal of
the Master Plan is to establish a pattern of consistent boundary conditions for the entire Places 29 area. The
recommended boundary conditions are given in Chapter 7, Design Guidelines for the Places29 Area.
Open Space and Natural Resources
Open Space
Planning for future growth in the Places29 area requires a thorough understanding of the existing open space
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 48)
and natural resources. This understanding will help determine what type and quantity of open space will be
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 49)
needed to support new development. It is also important to determine the level of protection that may needed
to preserve the area‘s natural environment.
The Urban Open Spaces chapter of the Comprehensive Plan‘s Natural Resources and Cultural Assets section
identifies two strategies that are important to this Master Plan.
1. Evaluate all Development Area proposals for their contribution to the urban open space
network.
2. Seize opportunities for urban parks.
These two strategies underline the importance of identifying and preserving natural and open space resources
that are significant natural habitats, offer opportunities for stormwater management, are areas of natural
beauty, and/or are an asset for recreational uses. A critical aspect of this planning effort is a focus on
opportunities to connect these urban open spaces with a system of Greenways.
A discussion of existing public open spaces and parks, including recommendations for additional facilities, is
included in Chapter 6, Community Facilities & Services.
Water Resources
The Natural Resources and Cultural Assets section of the Comprehensive Plan addresses the protection,
conservation, and management of a variety of water resources in the County, including both surface water and
groundwater. The Plan also emphasizes the ―functional interrelationship of stormwater hydrology, stream
buffers, flood plains, wetlands, and human management practices.‖
The North and South Forks of the Rivanna River represent the most prominent surface water resources in the
Places29 area. Both are drinking water resources for northern Albemarle County. A number of streams and
lakes add further diversity to the hydraulic, habitat, scenic, and recreational assets provided by water bodies in
the Places29 area. Generally, the County prohibits development in the floodplain areas that are part of these
river systems, but where such development would serve a County purpose, it is conditionally allowed and
regulated through the County‘s special use permit process. The latter is required in order to remain under
coverage of the National Flood Insurance Program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The locations of individual wetlands were not specifically mapped for this Master Plan. However, wetlands may
be present in the Places29 area, especially near the many streams in the area. Applicants for development
proposals have the responsibility to ensure that wetlands are properly identified and addressed as per
applicable Federal and State requirements. The County can support this process with its access to the
National Wetland Inventory.
Sites with Importance for Biodiversity
The Natural Resources and Cultural Assets section of the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the importance of
protecting biological diversity in both the Rural Areas and the Development Areas for their ecological,
aesthetic, and economic benefits to the community.
As a first step toward addressing this objective, the County established the Biodiversity Working Group
(BWG). In October 2004, this group published an initial list of Important Biodiversity Sites in Albemarle County
Biodiversity – A Report on History, Current Conditions, and Threats, with Strategies for Future Protection. This
report is meant to serve as a starting point to which data can be added or amended. Once this database is
created, the sites can be identified in the Comprehensive Plan as important sites to be considered in policy
development, land use planning, and development reviews. In the absence of a final and adopted database,
this Master Plan uses information contained in the report‘s initial list of important sites. At this time, two
Important Sites are located in the Places29 area: a small portion of an Important Site reaches into the
westernmost section of Piney Mountain. Another small site of importance for biodiversity is located at the
southernmost tip of the Hollymead area.
The BWG is now a standing committee known as the Natural Heritage Committee.
Historic and Archaeological Resources
A review of maps and data maintained by the County and the Department of Historic Resources (DHR)
indicates that the Places29 area includes a variety of historic and archeological resources. This includes a few
sites that are listed on the National or State register for historic places. These sites are not identified or shown
on a map in order to protect them from possible damage. It is the responsibility of developers to work with the
County and the Department of Historic Resources to identify any historically or archaeologically significant
sites in a proposed development.
Existing Transportation Network
A multimodal transportation system supports the Northern Development Areas and provides for the movement
of people and goods to and through the County. A ―mode‖ refers to a means of travel, such as cars, trucks,
bus and rail transit, bicycles, pedestrians, air passenger and freight service, and railroads. ―Multimodal‖ means
that several modes serve the same area and may share the same road or path.
The transportation system in the Places29 area is made up of several networks: streets, transit, bicycle,
pedestrian, railroad, and air. The first four of these networks share the street network. A system of offstreet
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 50)
trails also supports the bicycle and pedestrian network. Rail and air are independent networks that have
terminals connected to the street network.
Existing Conditions
US 29 (Seminole Trail) is a multi-lane principal arterial that transitions from urban to rural as it traverses the
corridor. US 29 is characterized by the following four basic cross sections:
Segment Basic Cross Section
1. US 250 Bypass to Hydraulic
Road
Six lanes with median and curb and gutter, right and left turn
lanes, no parking, no bike lanes, sidewalks on both sides of the
roadway.
2. Hydraulic Road to the South
Fork of the Rivanna River
Eight lanes with median and curb and gutter, right and left turn
lanes, no parking, no bike lanes, sidewalks on both sides of the
roadway.
3. North of the South Fork of the
Rivanna River (except
Hollymead Town Center)
Four lanes with wide median, narrow shoulders, side swales, no
parking, no bike lanes, no sidewalks.
4. Hollymead Town Center
(Timberwood Blvd to Airport
Rd)
Six lanes with median and curb and gutter, right and left turn
lanes, no parking, no bike lanes, no sidewalks.
Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on US 29 range from about 35,000 vehicles per day (vpd) at the Greene
County boundary to about 50,000 vpd near Polo Grounds Road and over 60,000 vpd near the US 250 Bypass.
At the 250 Bypass, traffic on US 29 heads in both directions on the Bypass, which substantially reduces the
volume of traffic on US 29 as it becomes Emmet Street in the City of Charlottesville.
Traffic volumes on other streets in the Northern Development Areas vary widely. Major roadways such as Rio
Road, Hydraulic Road, and a segment of Berkmar Drive carry volumes that range from about 15,000 vpd to
over 30,000 vpd. A second group of roads carry ADT volumes in the range of 5,000 to 10,000 vpd, including
Airport Road, Berkmar Drive (north of Woodbrook Drive), Hilton Heights Road, Greenbrier Road, and
Earlysville Road. Other roads and streets in the Northern Development Areas carry less than 5,000 vpd and
many carry less than 1,000 vpd.
The signalized intersections on US 29 North operate in acceptable conditions during the peak periods, except
for the locations from Hydraulic Road to the 250 Bypass. In the northern portion of US 29, where more of the
intersections are unsignalized, traffic on the side street approaches at these intersections experiences long
delays during peak periods, but otherwise traffic can access US 29. There are congested intersections on
Hydraulic Road between US 29 and the US 250 Bypass. Travel time data collected for the corridor indicates
that peak period travel on northbound and southbound US 29 north of Polo Grounds Road is at or near the
posted speed limit. South of Polo Grounds Road, peak period travel is also at or near the speed limit, except
near Rio Road and from Hydraulic Road to the 250 Bypass. There is a high volume of large vehicles in the
traffic stream on US 29. Truck volumes on US 29 range from 2% to 13% of total traffic and average about 6%
of total traffic. This volume of heavy vehicles, when combined with the rolling terrain present in the US 29
corridor, causes periodic queuing upstream of intersections. This queuing is due to the longer time taken by
trucks on an upgrade to start up after stopping for a traffic signal. The travel time observations show that such
queuing does occur, but not on a regular basis, except at the congested intersections noted above.
Several factors contribute to the traffic volume pattern noted above. The primary factor is that Albemarle
County—and the US 29 North Corridor in particular—attracts regional travel from neighboring areas.
Commuting patterns from the 2000 Census indicate that people from neighboring counties and cities come to
work in Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville. Similarly, among workers who reside in Albemarle
County, a vast majority of residents commute to jobs in either Albemarle County or Charlottesville. Few
commute to the Richmond or Washington Metro Areas. This means that there is a concentration of traffic
along destination corridors where em ployment, retail, and residential land uses are located. The developed
portions of Albemarle County adjacent to US 29 are both a major attractor of regional and local travel, as well
as a generator of trips by residents living in these areas.
A review of the travel patterns on US 29 shows that about 10 percent of the daily trips pass through the
corridor to destinations outside the Charlottesville Metro Area. Another 25 percent of the daily travel is people
commuting from neighboring counties into and out of the corridor. The local trips that originate within the
corridor and the City of Charlottesville and that travel to jobs, services, and shopping also within in the corridor
represent about 65 percent of the traffic on US 29.
Traffic volumes will grow in the other major road corridors, but not to the same extent that they are projected
to grow on US 29. This is due to several factors, primarily the addition in the future of several alternate routes
that would help disperse the future traffic over more routes than are available today. The Meadow Creek
Parkway and Hillsdale Drive Extended are two of these routes. Hydraulic Road and Rio Road East would see
growth of between 5,000 and 10,000 vpd by 2025 under the forecasts prepared for the regional plan.
Commute Patterns
The Virginia Employment Commission has developed information on commute patterns, based on residents
commuting out of the County and on workers coming into the County.
Top 10 Places Residents Are Commuting To from Albemarle County
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 51)
Area Workers
Charlottesville, VA 13,886
Greene County, VA 545
Orange County, VA 326
Fluvanna County,. VA 325
Waynesboro, VA 288
Louisa County, VA 287
Augusta County, VA 245
Nelson County, VA 208
Henrico County, VA 129
Madison County, VA 128
Total County Residents Leaving County 16,367
ZHA; US Census Bureau, 2000
Top 10 Places Albemarle County Workers Are Commuting From
Area Workers
Charlottesville, VA 7,990
Fluvanna County, VA 3,413
Greene County, VA 2,956
Nelson County, VA 1,543
Louisa County, VA 1,248
Orange County, VA 877
Augusta County, VA 782
Buckingham County, VA 701
Waynesboro, VA 535
Madison County, VA 525
Total Incoming Workers 20,570
ZHA; US Census Bureau, 2000
Future Trends
Significantly, as growth occurs in the region, the pattern of activity that focuses travel in the US 29 corridor will
continue to intensify. The travel demand forecasts prepared for the UnJAM 2025 regional plan indicate that
traffic growth on US 29 north of the 250 Bypass will add approximately 20,000 vpd to the existing traffic
counts. In 2025, the UnJAM Plan projects that volumes on US 29 near the 250 Bypass will be approximately
80,000 vpd. North of Airport Road, volumes of over 50,000 vpd are projected. The projected future traffic in
2025 will more than triple existing travel times in the corridor and is expected to congest peak period
intersection operations throughout the corridor. The UnJAM 2025 Plan is currently being updated.
From a traffic operations standpoint, these travel patterns combine so that US 29 carries very high northbound
and southbound volumes of traffic at all intersections. The current design of the roadway is organized to
accommodate these traffic volumes reasonably efficiently—at the expense of delaying the turning and
crossing multimodal traffic at intersections. As long as the turning and crossing traffic volumes are sufficiently
small, the system functions. However, where turning or crossing traffic movements increase (e.g., at the 250
Bypass, Hydraulic Road, and Rio Road), the resulting conflict between them and the high northbound and
southbound volumes on US 29 causes substantial peak period queues to develop at these locations. As traffic
continues to intensify in the US 29 North Corridor, locations that are currently functioning well will reach a
tipping point and begin to experience similar queuing during peak periods.
Simply put, the US 29 North Corridor is a place that people not only want to go through, but want to go to. At
this time, US 29 is the only continuous north-south roadway in the Northern Development Areas, which
creates a heavy reliance on this one road for many of the local trips in the US 29 corridor. This trend of making
local trips on US 29 will continue in the future.
Transit Network
Two Charlottesville Transit System (CTS) routes serve portions of the Northern Development Areas.
Scheduled transit service is available via Routes 5 and 7, extending from the City of Charlottesville as far north
as the Wal-Mart near Hilton Heights Road. The routes run along US 29, Hillsdale Drive, Commonwealth Drive,
and Rio Road. They have 30-minute headways and run until 11:45 in the evenings, Monday through Saturday.
Sunday service is available on Route 7. Demand-responsive transit service is provided by Albemarle County
via the Jaunt system.
Bicycle Network
The bicycle network in the Northern Development Areas includes bicycle lanes and routes on the streets and
offstreet paths/trails. Onstreet bicycle lanes are delineated by pavement markings. Bike routes are indicated
by signs, but do not provide a marked bike lane. Multi-use trails serve multiple user groups, including in-line
skaters, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Bicycle lanes are present on Hydraulic Road, Rio Road, Hillsdale Drive,
and a portion of Berkmar Drive. The existing bicycle network is mapped in the UnJAM 2025 regional plan. It is
also incorporated into the Parks & Green Systems Map in Chapter 4.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 52)
Pedestrian Network
The pedestrian network in the Northern Development Areas consists primarily of sidewalks adjacent to streets
and recreational trails in some neighborhoods. Multi-use trails, described in the section on bicycle networks
above, also serve pedestrians. Sidewalks are present along both sides of portions of US 29, extending from
the vicinity of the 250 Bypass north to approximately the South Fork of the Rivanna River. Sidewalks are also
present along several of the cross streets (Hydraulic Road, Seminole Court, Greenbrier Drive, Rio Road, and
Airport Road).
Provisions for pedestrians to cross US 29 are largely absent. There is one crosswalk and one pedestrian
signal head on US 29 between Barracks Road and the South Fork of the Rivanna River, but they are not at the
same location. The lack of delineated pedestrian crossings on US 29 is an impediment to pedestrian travel
within the corridor. In addition to the lack of marked crosswalks, signal timing generally does not provide for a
separate pedestrian signal phase.
Rail Service
Norfolk Southern, which is the second largest railroad system in Virginia and one of the four largest railroads
in the United States, operates a north/south running line for freight service that traverses Albemarle County
east of the Northern Development Areas. The Norfolk Southern tracks are inside the Northern Developm ent
Areas only south of the South Fork of the Rivanna River. There are currently no railroad spurs in the Northern
Development Areas. The nearest one is in the Proffit Road area (serves Better Living Building Supply).
AMTRAK service for passengers is provided in and out of the City of Charlottesville‘s Union Station on West
Main Street; both City and County users access the train from this station. There are no AMTRAK stops in
Albemarle County. Charlottesville is served by two lines, the Crescent, which runs from New Orleans to New
York, and the Cardinal, which runs from Washington, DC to Chicago.
The Virginia State Rail Plan refers to a proposal for passenger service from Bristol to Richmond and
Washington, D.C. that would use the Norfolk Southern line. This proposal is called The TransDominion
Express (TDX) and would run from Bristol to Richmond and Washington, DC. It would link Southwestern
Virginia to Richmond via Lynchburg and Southwestern Virginia to Washington, DC via Lynchburg and
Charlottesville. The proposal also includes improvements to the Norfolk Southern tracks to accommodate a
high level of service with European style cars and amenities. The TDX organizers have been working toward
qualifying the Bristol to Richmond demonstration route for eligibility for funding from the Rail Enhancement
Fund. In addition, recent efforts have looked at the potential for increasing the frequency of AMTRAK service
between Lynchburg and Charlottesville to Washington, DC.
Air Travel
The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport (CHO), located in the Northern Development Areas, is a non-hub,
commercial service airport offering 60 daily nonstop flights to and from Charlotte, NC; Philadelphia, PA; New
York/LaGuardia, NY; Washington/Dulles; Cincinnati, OH; Detroit, MI; and Atlanta, GA. CHO is served by Delta
Connection, United Express (Atlantic Coast Airlines), Northwest Airlines, and US Airways Express (Piedmont
Airlines). The Airport also serves General Aviation uses. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport has grown from
65,600 passengers departing on commercial flights in 1980 to 132,400 in 1990. In 2003, it served 163,400
passengers.
The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Master Plan, adopted in 2004, notes that the vast majority of customers
reach the airport by car. This fact emphasizes the importance of the street system that serves the airport.
Traffic delays on the access roads (US 29, in particular) have an impact on the convenience of using the
airport and, therefore, its economic vitality. Maintaining a predictable, reasonable travel time from the
population and employment centers in Charlottesville and Albemarle County to the airport is vital to its
continued success.
Additional information about the transportation network may be found in the US 29 North Corridor
Transportation Study Final Report, dated August 18, 2008, and also in the eleven Technical Memos.
Economic Framework
In order to plan for the future of the Northern Development Areas, it is important to understand the role that the
Northern Development Areas currently play in the regional economy. Based on current trends, the likely role of
the Northern Development Areas can be projected into the future. This Economic Framework summarizes
economic trends for the Charlottesville Metropolitan Area and Albemarle County. It is based on demographics,
such as rates of population growth, existing and future household characteristics, and employment trends.
The full Economic Framework and Market Analyses are available in the Places29: Assets, Needs &
Opportunities Report, which was last updated in June 2007. The information included below is a summary of
the full report. The market for future residential, retail, and office development in the Northern Development
Areas is set out in detail in the market analysis. A m arket analysis projects the amount of a land use that
market demand will support.
The following terms are used in the Economic Framework and Market Analysis:
Charlottesville Metropolitan Area, Charlottesville CBSA: The Charlottesville Metropolitan Area (Metro Area) is
another name for the Charlottesville Core Based Statistical Area or Charlottesville CBSA, which is a Census
designation. The Charlottesville Metro Area includes Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, and
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 53)
Fluvanna, Greene, and Nelson counties.
Household: A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence.
Head of Household: The person, or one of the people, in whose name the home is owned, being purchased,
or rented.
Regional Demographic and Economic Trends
The demographic, employment, and economic trends summarized below will help users of this Master Plan
understand how Albemarle County is changing. This information was accurate as of January 1, 2007; it
predates the 2008 economic downturn and reflects a long-range approach to economic trends and
projections.
Household Characteristics and Projections
Albemarle County-Charlottesville has a greater proportion of households headed by 15 to 24 year-
olds and a lower share of households headed by persons 35 to 44 years of age than either the state
or the nation. The presence of the University of Virginia likely accounts for the high share of
households headed by persons aged 15 to 24.
The share of households headed by 45 to 64 year-olds has increased, along with households headed
by someone over 70 years of age. Albemarle County-Charlottesville‘s increasing share of households
aged 45 and over is both a national phenomenon (the baby boomers getting older) and a likely
function of in-migration. The result of these changes has been an increase in the County‘s median
head of household age.
Based on nationwide trends, the number of Albemarle County-Charlottesville households in the 55- to
70-year-old range will increase. This group typically contains many ―empty nester‖ households. Empty
nesters are parents whose children have left home. This life change has a significant impact on how
these households spend their time and money, and where they live.
Income and Employment Characteristics
The average per capita income in Albemarle County-Charlottesville is higher than the state and
national averages. There is significant buying power in Albemarle County. Over 20,000 UVA students
also help to fuel the economy.
The cost of living index indicates that the Charlottesville Metro Area is an expensive place to live,
since the cost of living here is 7 percent higher than the national average.
Albemarle County has experienced explosive job growth. From 1995 to 2003, the number of jobs in
the County increased by over one-third. In 1995, there were more jobs in the City than in the County.
There are about as many jobs in the County as there are households.
With over 70,000 jobs available in Charlottesville and Albemarle County, the two areas supplied 82
percent of the Metro Area‘s jobs in 2003. The City and County are the commercial and marketing
center of the region.
As of September 2005, the Charlottesville Metro Area‘s unemployment rate was among the lowest in
the country. Only 3 percent of the Metro Area‘s labor force was out of work.
An issue in the region is underemployment. Underemployed workers are those who have the
education and skills to occupy higher paying jobs, but occupy lower paying ones.
Over the last five years (2000-2005), Charlottesville Metro Area housing prices have escalated by
71.78 percent. Over the same period, the median household income in the Charlottesville Metro Area
increased by only 13.9 percent.
Area Employers
The area‘s economic base is composed primarily of government service providers and the following
industries: manufacturing, education, technology, retail trade, travel trade, construction, and services.
The region‘s economy is anchored by the University of Virginia (UVA). With over 12,500 employees at
the University and an additional 5,500 at the University Medical Center, UVA accounts for over 15
percent of the employment in the City and County.
The travel industry is a major component of the local economy. Travel spending in the area exceeds
$307 million annually and generates more than 2,600 jobs in the City and 2,400 jobs in the County.
The wholesale and retail industries account for the greatest share of County employment after State
government.
The area‘s economy is changing as it grows. Between 1995 and 2003, the County gained
employment across all industry sectors except manufacturing. Many manufacturing jobs have been
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 54)
replaced by jobs in the service and hospitality sectors—many of which do not pay as well as the
manufacturing positions they replaced.
NGIC and support industries are a growing part of the economy.
Economic Framework Conclusions and Projections
Because of the high cost of living in the area, diversifying industry to compensate for manufacturing
job losses should provide employment opportunities offering at least equivalent pay to the
manufacturing jobs.
Adequate housing for a wide range of household types and income levels will be needed to
accommodate the expected increase in population.
Albemarle County jobs in the technical and administration industry sector may increase substantially
as the University of Virginia Research Park continues to attract tenants and the Rivanna Station
Military Base continues to grow.
Market Analysis
Three market analyses—residential, retail, and office—evaluate trends and make projections to determine
what the market will demand in the future. Market analyses are useful because they provide information about
the magnitude and type of development the Albemarle County-Charlottesville market will support over the next
ten years. Because markets are complex and variable, projections are only made for the first ten years of the
Master Plan‘s 20-year implementation timeframe. These projections will be reviewed and updated, if
necessary, when the Master Plan is reviewed every five years. These three market analyses were prepared in
2005-2006. The three analyses presented below are summaries of the more detailed analyses included in the
Assets, Needs, and Opportunities Report.
The market analysis does not address whether a given land use or the magnitude of development is desirable;
that is the role of the planning process. The market analysis is a tool used during the planning process to
understand the magnitude and character of future development pressure. With this understanding, the
planning process results in strategies to manage this growth in a manner that is consistent with community
desires.
Residential Market Analysis
The residential market analysis identifies the demand for new housing in Albemarle County over the next ten
years. It also identifies the type of housing demanded (single family or multifamily). Finally, the market analysis
projects the market demand for single-family and multifamily housing units in the Northern Development
Areas, given County land use policies and the Northern Development Area‘s competitive advantages and
disadvantages for different types of housing.
Residential Market Findings
Almost three-quarters of Charlottesville Metro Area households reside in single-family detached or
attached houses.
As of 2005, almost 60 percent of Albemarle County-Charlottesville households owned their own
home.
Between 1990 and 2005, Albemarle County captured 51 percent of all new for-sale housing in the
Metro Area. Over this sam e period, the County captured 79 percent of all new rental units built in the
Charlottesville Metro Area. Prior to the economic downturn in 2008, market projections indicated that
the County could potentially support between 2,760 and 3,140 new rental units and between 2,120
and 2,590 new for-sale housing units over the next five years.
Growth in the number of households is projected to continue to be strong through 2010. The
Charlottesville Metropolitan Area is projected to grow by 5,700 households during the next five years.
With 4,010 units of for-sale housing and 1,690 units for rent, much of this demand will be met. Due to
the downturn, housing growth will be lower than initially projected. The County will continue to monitor
the growth.
The Northern Development Areas captured 28 percent of the County‘s new for-sale housing and 49
percent of the County‘s new rental housing between 1990 and 2005.
Using these capture rates as a proxy for the future, the Northern Development Areas have the
potential to capture between 1,770 and 2,640 new residential units over the next five years.
Household projections by income and household type are not available for 2010 to 2015. The best
approach to projecting demand for the 2010 – 2015 timeframe is to perform the same type of market
analysis as part of the five-year review and update in 2014. It can be assumed that the same
magnitude of demand for housing in the Northern Development Areas will likely exist from 2010 to
2015—approximately 1,770 to 2,640 units. What may change is the split between multifamily and
single family homes. As land becomes scarcer and land values increase, and as market dynamics
change (e.g., gas prices increase, households age, the median age of heads of households increase,
etc.), it is likely that more multifamily units will be constructed.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 55)
For planning purposes, it is assumed that the split between multifamily and single family demand will
change to 45 percent multifamily and 55 percent single family between 2010 and 2015. The single-
family home will continue to be the housing type a majority of the market will demand. However,
multifamily will become a more attractive housing type due to its affordability and ability to satisfy the
one- and two-person household market.
Residential Market Conclusions
If current trends continue, there will be significant residential development in the Northern
Development Areas over the next 10 years (2005-2015). The market for residential development will
be largely driven by singles and couples without children at home. New residential products will need
to be designed to serve these changing demographics. There are already over 4500 new housing
units approved through rezonings for development in the Northern Development Areas. Projected
needs, based on the economic conditions prior to 2008, were for approximately ¾ of these units
through the years 2015.
Condominium products, such as villas, townhomes, and flats, have potential in the Northern
Development Areas. However, to capture the market, these unit types must be developed in walkable,
neighborhood settings comfortable for older households and singles. In addition, mixed-use settings
with goods, services, jobs, and transit within walking distance have proven to be attractive to the
empty-nester market in other parts of Virginia and the country.
Retail Market Analysis
The retail industry provides goods and services to consumers. The demand for retail space increases when
the buying power in a market expands. Buying power is a function of the number of consumers and their
income.
Retail considered in this analysis typically includes the types of stores found in shopping centers, rather than
smaller, independently located retail businesses. These types of stores are called ―shopping center-inclined
retail‖ and can be bundled into four broad categories: 1) General Merchandise, Apparel, Furniture and Home
Furnishings and Other (GAFO); 2) Eating and Drinking Establishments; 3) Convenience Goods; and 4) Other.
These store types do not include motor vehicles and parts establishments, gasoline stations, and nonstore
retailers.
Each of the four classifications has very different market and location characteristics. GAFO tends to be either
in a ―big box‖ configuration like Wal-Mart or Target or clustered in a shopping center or downtown location.
GAFO stores thrive in environments where there is depth and breadth of merchandise to allow for comparison
shopping. For this reason, GAFO stores tend to capitalize on the economic principle of agglomeration.
Eating and drinking establishments also vary in their market and location characteristics. Limited service
restaurants, such as fast food, are attracted to locations with high market volume—whether it is pedestrians or
cars. Fast food depends on its convenience to the market. Full-service restaurants tend to be like GAFO; they
thrive where there is a depth and breadth of restaurants. Full-service restaurants are also attracted to
locations with a lunch and dinner market.
Convenience retail is attracted to locations with excellent access to strong markets. In a market environment
like the Northern Development Areas, convenience retail typically serves a market within a three- to seven-
minute drive. Convenience retail requires a density far in excess of a few hundred households or employees.
The market characteristics of home improvement-type stores depend on the store-type. There are generally
two store-types: the big box and the small hardware store. The small hardware store tends to locate like
convenience retail—close to a strong market. Big box stores tend to locate on major arterials that serve a
strong and growing market.
Retail Market Findings
The Charlottesville Metro Area is ranked 214th among 300 U.S. Metro Areas in terms of population.
However, with over $3.1 billion in total retail sales, it ranked 194th in retail sales.
The distribution of retail sales is not particularly balanced among Charlottesville Metro Area
municipalities. In 2005, retail located in Charlottesville and Albemarle County accounted for 90
percent of the Metro Area‘s retail sales. Fluvanna, Greene, and Nelson counties contained 30 percent
of the Metro Area‘s population, but only 10 percent of its retail sales. The data suggest (and interviews
confirm) that residents of Fluvanna, Greene, and Nelson counties come to Albemarle County and
Charlottesville to shop and dine.
County growth in both population and real income will generate demand for additional retail space.
Albemarle County population and income growth between 2005 and 2015 translates into $294 million
of additional shopping center-inclined retail expenditure potential.
Applying average sales of between $250 and $300 to support a square foot of new shopping center
retail, these new projected expenditures translate into between 991,000 and 1.177 million square feet
of shopping center retail potential between 2005 and 2015. This potential is based on County growth
alone.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 56)
Growth among surrounding Metro Area municipalities will also generate demand for new retail. Given
the critical mass of retail in both Charlottesville and Albemarle County, most of this expenditure
potential will likely be captured in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. However, it should also be
recognized that new commercial, retail growth in these surrounding markets may reduce some of the
capture in Charlottesville-Albemarle County over the long term.
Population and real income growth between 2005 and 2015 in the Metro Area outside of Albemarle
County (Charlottesville, and Greene, Fluvanna, and Nelson counties) will result in $141.9 million of
shopping center-inclined retail potential. Applying average sales of between $250 and $300 to support
a square foot of new shopping center retail, these new projected expenditures translate into between
473,100 and 567,700 square feet of shopping center retail potential between now and 2015 (in
addition to the potential growth from Albemarle County described above).
The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County are expected to capture the vast majority of the
nonconvenience store, shopping center-inclined retail expenditure potential derived from the Greene,
Fluvanna, and Nelson County growth over the next ten years. These capture rates have been
reduced to account for new retail development in Fluvanna, Greene, and Nelson counties. Between
2005 and 2015, Charlottesville and Albemarle County have the potential to capture $384 million of
additional retail expenditure from the Metro Area.
Albemarle County growth and land availability suggest that most of the projected new retail will be
built in Albemarle County, not the City of Charlottesville. It is assumed that the City will capture 25 to
35 percent of the eating and drinking expenditure potential because of the Downtown‘s critical mass
of restaurants and its role as an employment center.
Retail Market Conclusions
Where retail development occurs in the County depends on market factors and public policy. Given
Albemarle County‘s current land use plan, most new retail development will occur in the Northern
Development Areas. From a market perspective, it is an attractive retail investment location because
of high traffic volumes and market growth around it.
It is projected that between 1.0 and 1.4 million square feet of retail is supportable in the County
between 2005 and 2015. As of December 2008, projects under construction and approved rezonings
in the Northern Development Areas include approximately 1.838 million square feet of new retail. If
built over the next ten years, these approved projects will provide more retail space than the 1.0 to 1.4
million square feet that is supportable throughout the entire County between 2005 and 2015. Large
approved projects in the Northern Development Areas include Hollymead Town Center (Areas A1,
A2, B, and C), Albemarle Place, North Town Center, and North Pointe. It should be noted that other
projects with significant retail components are either under construction or have been approved in
other Development Areas as well, including the 5th Street-Avon Center, and Old Trail.
Office Market Analysis
Employment growth drives the office market. Private investors develop office space to satisfy increasing
demand and/or to address an undersupply of particular office types in the existing market. This office market
analysis analyzes employment projections among ―office-inclined‖ industries to project office demand. ―Office-
inclined‖ industries are:
Information (such as publishing and telecommunications)
Financial Activities (such as banking, insurance and real estate)
Professional and Business Services (such as accountants, lawyers, engineers and
management of companies)
Doctor‘s offices (not in hospitals)
Research & Development
Public sector employment is not included, because private investors rarely develop office space to hous e
government employees. Government employees are typically housed in buildings that are financed and owned
by the government.
Office Market Findings
In 2004 there were 20,790 jobs in office-inclined industries in the Charlottesville Metro Area. These
jobs represented 23 percent of the Metro Area‘s jobs.
The industry standard of 250 square feet of office space per employee applied to 2004 office-inclined
employment results in a demand for 5.2 million square feet of office space in the Metro Area. This
space may be owner-occupied or in rental office space.
There were 2.94 million square feet of multi-tenant, rental office space in the Charlottesville Metro
Area in 2004. Approximately 82 percent of this space was occupied (2.72 million square feet). There
was a 7.4% vacancy rate.
In the Charlottesville Metro Area, rental office space accounts for just over half of the office space
potential. This ratio reveals that the rental office market is relatively small compared to the total office
market. This office market includes a significant amount of owner-occupied office space.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 57)
The Charlottesville Metro Area office market area can be broken down into submarkets. The ―North‖
submarket includes the Northern Development Areas. ―UVA/Downtown‖ includes the Downtown and
the Fontaine Research Park. The other submarkets are to the east and west of Downtown
Charlottesville.
Employment in office-inclined industries drives office space demand. Charlottesville Metro Area
employment among office-inclined industries is projected to increase by 3,350 employees from 2004
to 2010. This represents a growth rate of 1.6 percent per year.
Between 2010 and 2015, Charlottesville Metro Area employment in office-inclined industries is
projected to increase by 2,820 or 2.2 percent per year. Using the industry standard of 250 square feet
per employee, office-inclined employment growth will support 837,500 square feet of additional office
space in the Metro Area by 2010 and 1.54 million square feet by 2015.
Albemarle County captured 88 percent of the employment in the Metro Area between 1995 and 2003.
Applying the same capture rate, the County‘s office potential totals 736,000 square feet between 2003
and 2010. This translates into an average absorption rate of approximately 123,000 square feet per
year. So, projected growth among office-inclined industries will support an additional 620,400 square
feet between 2010 and 2015.
Because of their excellent access, their central location, the commercial character of US 29, and the
UVA Research Park, the Northern Development Areas are well-positioned to capture office demand
from the professional and business service industry.
With significant residential and employment growth planned, Hollymead will also be an attractive
location for medical, finance, insurance, and real estate office space.
Given the land available in the UVA Research Park, the planned expansion at NGIC, and the existing
mix of land uses in the Northern Development Areas, it is reasonable to assume that the Northern
Development Areas may capture between 55 percent and 65 percent of the County office
development potential. Between 2004 and 2015, this amounts to between 746,000 and 881,660
square feet of office space.
In addition to the office space demand generated by office-inclined industries, there may be office
space demanded by government and other industries.
Office Market Conclusions
Office-inclined industries will likely demand between 746,000 and 881,660 square feet of office space
in the Northern Development Areas by 2015. In addition, other industries like NGIC may require
additional office space. It can be assumed that the market will demand approximately 1 million square
feet of office space in the Northern Development Areas by 2015.
Much of this demand can be accommodated within existing and approved projects in the Northern
Development Areas.
Industrial Uses
The Economic Framework and Market Analysis does not cover industrial uses, yet these uses play an
important role in the area‘s economy. The County‘s Economic Development policy recognizes the importance
of Albemarle‘s industries and the changes in industrial uses over the past few years. The Northern
Development Areas have been home to several major industrial users, including Comdial, GE, Badger -
Powhatan, and Sperry Marine. These firms are examples of more traditional research, development, and
manufacturing businesses, and the current status of these companies reflects the national trends away from
traditional manufacturing. Comdial is no longer in business in the County, Badger-Powhatan has moved its
operations outside the U.S., and GE is operating at a reduced size.
Instead of these traditional industrial users, the County is seeing more research & development (R&D),
scientific testing, and, in general, smaller development and production businesses trying to locate here in the
County. One of the challenges for the Northern Development Areas is how to reuse existing facilities for new
industrial and employment uses that are different from more traditional industrial uses. The challenge exists
because industrial buildings have been used primarily for research, development, service, production, storage,
and/or distribution of goods. They may or may not include office space. These facilities are less suitable for the
newer types of light industrial/office/research & development firms.
The challenge for small industrial users to find affordable properties in the County‘s Development Areas is
acute. While industrial uses need affordable land and buildings, they also require access and public services.
The County recognizes that, in order to sustain its long-term economic growth, it must be able to
accommodate industrial activity. Relevant goals of the County‘s Economic Development policy include
promoting:
Employment at higher wage levels than retail positions.
Diversification of the local economic base, which currently rests primarily on professional/
business services, retailing, government, and a wide range of service industries.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 58)
Bringing new wealth into the local economy; industrial businesses typically derive their
incomes from sources external to the local economy. Retailing, in contrast, typically attracts
local spending rather than exporting products or services.
Provision of supplies and services to existing businesses. Local sources for such supplies
and services contribute to the existing business environment. In addition, businesses
involved in professional services, such as research and development, scientific testing, and
health care often generate patents. These patents offer the potential for production of the
new device or service, which may be accommodated on industrial properties.
Industrial Uses—Findings
From a long-term perspective, the market for light industrial space offers significant development
potential. This potential is derived from local employment patterns.
The County‘s economy is growing. Employment growth in professional services, retail trade, health
care/social assistance, accommodation/food services, and government sectors has more than offset
a persistent and marked decline in manufacturing employment. These sectors are expected to
continue growing.
While the County‘s growth sectors are oriented primarily toward office rather than industrial space,
many businesses seek relatively inexpensive buildings with wide, flat floors, rather than more highly
finished office buildings. Such businesses include call centers and laboratories for research,
development, and testing. Of perhaps greater importance, professional services relating to
engineering, research, testing, and other such activities may generate new patents and new products,
which will require production facilities in new industrial properties.
Sole proprietors, partnerships, and corporations that do not employ workers provide another important
indicator of industrial development potential. These nonemployers typically conduct business in home
locations or in old, small, inexpensive spaces. As they grow, many such businesses hire employees
and seek to upgrade their business space—often to small office, industrial, or ―flex‖ spaces.
In Albemarle County, from 2000 to 2003 (the most recent data available), growth among nonemployer
businesses has proceeded at an annualized rate of 8.1 percent, far exceeding growth rates in overall
covered employment. More important, such businesses‘ gross receipts have grown even more
rapidly, at 11.6 percent. This strong performance may indicate a possible demand for additional
growth—with eventual conversions to ―employer‖ businesses seeking new space.
Industrial Uses—Conclusion
The Northern Development Areas are poised to respond to global changes in industrial uses.
However, properties and buildings for small industrial firms, as well as service uses that support
industrial development are not plentiful. This issue is currently being addressed on a countywide basis
through economic development analysis and policy development. The Future Land Use Map in
Chapter 4 responds to the land use needs currently identified, recognizing that modifications may be
needed after completion of the analysis now underway.
4. Future Land Use Plan and Transportation Network
Introduction
This chapter describes how the recommended future land use plan and multimodal transportation network
have been planned and coordinated to achieve the County‘s vision of a livable, desirable community. After
defining several important terms, the rest of the chapter is organized into three major sections, followed by two
shorter concluding sections. First, the Future Land Use Plan section defines the land use designations shown
on the Future Land Use Map. It continues with a description of how the land uses are distributed and several
key subareas. Then, a discussion of the land use tables and their relationship to urban form completes this
first section.
The second section, Parks & Green Systems, covers the open space network and related amenities, including
a description of the Parks & Green Systems Map.
The third section describes the multimodal future transportation network: how its design supports convenient
access to new and existing land uses and provides a broad range of transportation choices to residents,
workers, and visitors. The section addresses roadway elements, transit elements, and bicycle and pedestrian
elements. Next, it includes recommended cross sections for key network roads and discusses neighborhood
streets and block patterns. After a brief discussion of transit-oriented development, this section concludes with
information on potential road improvements beyond 2025.
The fourth section explains the difference between the 20-year implementation timeframe and ultimate
buildout illustrated on the Future Land Use Map. Then, it outlines the development capacity that results from
the designation and distribution of land uses.
The explanation of how to use the maps and tables in this Plan can be found at the end of Chapter 1. Please
note: the Future Land Use Map, Parks & Green Systems Map, and Land Use Tables 1 and 2 are located
at the end of this chapter.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 59)
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 60)
Definitions
The definitions for several terms used throughout this chapter are listed below:
―By Exception‖— a term used to identify uses or characteristics of uses or structures that are
evaluated for appropriateness on a site-specific basis, similar to ―special uses‖ in the
County‘s zoning ordinance.
―Flex‖—a term used to describe a use made up of two or more activities. In some instances,
such an activity may occur singularly in other locations. For example, a flex use might be one
where a business assembles small electronic devices, stores them onsite, ships them from
the same location, has a showroom where the devices are demonstrated and sold, and
includes an office where the business is administered.
Flex Space—A building designed for a variety of employment uses, which may include:
administrative or other office space, Research & Development (R&D), laboratories, and even
small assembly or manufacturing areas. The building is designed so space can be
reconfigured as uses change. ―Flex space‖ should not be confused with the ―Flex‖ use
designation (see the definition of ―Flex‖ under Land Use Designations above).
Large Format Retail or ―Big Box‖ —A retail establishment of at least 80,000 square feet and
as much as 250,000 square feet, usually one story in height, and surrounded by surface
parking. Examples include department or general merchandise stores, home
improvement/builder‘s supply stores, office supply stores, electronics/ appliance stores, and
others. Generally, the County‘s practice has been to exclude grocery stores from this retail
category. Several ―big boxes‖ may be located together in a development called a ―power
center.‖
Live/work Units—A primarily residential structure that, in addition to the residence, includes
commercial space for one small-scale business or office enterprise. The ―work‖ portion of the
unit usually faces the street and is most often located on the first floor of a two (or more) story
building or, if the building is a single story, the work portion is in front of the residence—closer
to the street. It is important to recognize the distinction between a live/work unit, which would
blend comfortably into a residential area, and larger commercial or retail businesses that
have apartments or other residential units on a second (or higher) floor. These larger
businesses with residential units above are more appropriately located among buildings of
similar size in commercial or mixed use areas.
Mixed Use— A term used to describe a development on a single parcel or several adjacent
parcels that incorporates different uses. These uses are designed to complement each other
and provide activity throughout the day. Uses can be mixed within a single structure (vertical
mixed use), such as ground floor retail and upper floor residential, or by mixing individual
single-use buildings on the same or adjacent sites (horizontal mixed use).
Mixed Use Centers—A cluster of compatible and complementary uses (horizontally and/or
vertically mixed), such as residential, commercial, industrial, office, and institutional in a
walkable, pedestrian-oriented urban environment. Mixed use centers vary in scale and can
range from ones with small neighborhood-serving uses to ones that serve the entire region.
(See Chapter 5, Place Types and Figure 5.1).
Place-making—Refers to the act of designing and arranging buildings, streets, landscaping,
and other elements of the community environment into a human-scaled, comfortable,
functional, and memorable place that invites people to be active there and supports their
activity.
Single Use—A building or parcel that accommodates only one type of use, such as
residential, commercial, or light industrial. An example is an office building that offers only
office space (it does not contain a restaurant, retail uses, or services for employees working
in the building or nearby buildings).
Single Use Area—A large parcel or group of parcels that accommodates only one type of
use, such as residential, commercial, or light industrial. The Neighborhood Model
discourages single-use areas, except where they are necessary for airports, large
manufacturing facilities, or similar uses that are not compatible with other uses. Single use
areas are called Districts in this Master Plan.
Urban Form (or Built Form)—The physical urban environment that results from a combination
of transportation infrastructure, buildings and other structures, and open spaces.
Future Land Use Plan
The Future Land Use Plan encompasses both the Master Plan text and the Future Land Use Map. The Future
Land Use Plan follows the principles of the Neighborhood Model and organizes new development and major
redevelopment into a pattern of mixed use centers, with surrounding land uses oriented toward the Centers. In
general, achieving the desired pattern of development would mean that all land in the Development Areas
would be within one-quarter (1/4) to one-half (1/2) mile of either a Center (Neighborhood Service, Community,
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 61)
or Destination) or the Uptown. However, established suburban neighborhoods like Forest Lakes, Raintree,
Dunlora, and Woodbrook retain their current land use pattern and do not include new mixed use centers.
The land use patterns shown on the Future Land Use Map, as well as the network of open spaces shown in
the Parks & Green Systems Map, are based on planning concepts outlined in the Neighborhood Model. The
Future Land Use Map is central to establishing the desired pattern of Centers and surrounding walkable areas
and is closely linked to the network of open spaces and transportation facilities for the area. The transportation
network consists of multimodal, interconnected roads and includes routes parallel and perpendicular to US 29.
This network of roads is an important prerequisite for Centers with an orientation toward the parallel and
perpendicular roads. The multimodal transportation network also includes transit, pedestrian pathways, bicycle
routes, and other amenities. The network of open spaces and public parks complements the higher intensity
of land uses in the Future Land Use Plan and is essential to creating the livable urban environments
envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan.
Relationship of Existing and Future Uses
In addition to preserving existing residential developments, care has been taken to balance existin g
development—both residential and commercial—with future needs and potential development.
The overall goal for existing residential neighborhoods within the Places29 area is to protect and enhance
them. With few exceptions, existing residential uses have the same designation on the Future Land Use Map
as they do in the 1996 Land Use Plan. Limited exceptions occur where changes were made to create a better
fit between a pattern of new land uses that surround an existing residential area and the residential area.
Changes from the existing use to the new use designated in the Master Plan are expected to be driven by the
real estate market and decisions made by property owners and developers.
The Community, Industrial, and Regional Service designations in the County‘s 1996 Land Use Plan that
dominate much of the Places29 area have been modified on the Future Land Use Map to accommodate
mixed use Centers and uses oriented toward them. These new Centers and surrounding uses would form new
Neighborhoods. Except for undeveloped areas, much of this transformation would occur through
redevelopment.
Further, the single Industrial Service designation used in the 1996 Land Use Plan has been divided in the
Places29 Master Plan into three employment-generating designations in order to recognize the changing
nature of industrial uses and the different impacts each type of industry or business may have on surrounding
uses. In the past, most industrial uses needed to be segregated because of potential impacts, such as odors,
noise, vibrations, and traffic, among others. Today, many industries, especially those located here in
Albemarle County, have only traffic impacts. These ―cleaner‖ industries can be located in the same proximity
to residential and commercial development as large office complexes and even large shopping centers; the
primary impact of these uses on surrounding property is traffic. The three new employment-generating
designations defined below and used on the Future Land Use Map are: Office/Research & Deve lopment
(R&D)/Flex/Light Industrial, Light Industrial, and Heavy Industrial. These three new land use designations
represent a continuum of industrial uses from Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial, which is expected to have
impacts similar to an office use; to Light Industrial, where the impacts may be greater; to Heavy Industrial,
where the impacts usually require that the use be segregated from other nonindustrial uses. It is important to
note that the Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial designation includes both industrial and commercial or business
uses.
Land Use Designations
This section gives the definitions of land use designations shown on the Future Land Use Map. Part of each
definition is a list of primary and secondary uses in that designation. The se ction after this one defines and
gives examples of those primary and secondary land uses. In general, the primary land uses listed under each
designation are the main focus of that particular designation; most of the development in that designation
should be one (or more) of these primary uses. Secondary land uses are intended as support uses for the
primary ones. While these secondary uses should represent a smaller proportion of the development or the
building, they are very important to ―place-making‖; adding them to a Center or the area around a Center
increases the mix of uses and makes the area a more complete Neighborhood. The determination of primary
and secondary uses is expected to be made over an entire contiguous designation, not an individual parcel
(unless the designation is restricted to a single parcel).
Some uses are also described as ―incidental,‖ which means that they are dependent on the primary use. For
example, a showroom where a light industrial business offers its products for sale would be considered a retail
use that is incidental to the light industrial use. The distinction between secondary and incidental uses is
important. Secondary uses are standalone uses that support the primary uses in an area. For example,
neighborhood-serving retail is a secondary land use in Urban Density Residential; mini-marts and small
restaurants serve or support the residents of a neighborhood. Another example would be an office supply
store located in an Office/Research & Development (R&D)/Flex/Light Industrial designation. On the other
hand, an incidental use, such as the showroom mentioned above, is part of an individual business.
There are two Land Use Tables located at the end of this chapter. The guidelines listed in each table, when
combined with the information in the land use definitions below, indicate what the urban form of a potential
development should be. Land Use Table 1 (LU1) lists the guidelines for the primary and secondary uses in the
Centers that are shown on the Future Land Use Map. All of the Centers are designated Urban Mixed Use.
Land Use Table 2 (LU2) gives the guidelines for primary and secondary uses in the areas around the Centers.
More information about how to use these two tables, the Future Land Use Map, and the Parks & Gree n
Systems Map is given in the section ―How to Use this Plan‖ located at the end of Chapter 1.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 62)
Urban Mixed Use. This designation is used both inside and outside of the Centers. In Centers and in the
Uptown, it includes a balanced mix of retail, housing, com mercial, employment, and office uses, along with
some institutional and open space uses. The types of retail and services, as well as dwelling unit types, vary
depending upon the type of Center (see Land Use Table LU1) and the land use designations in the area
around the Center (see Land Use Table LU2):
Primary uses: community and regional retail, commercial service, office, and other employment
generators, with a mix of residential types. At least two different types of dwelling units are
recommended. In the Uptown, office, research & development (R&D), and flex uses are also
considered primary uses.
Secondary uses: office, research & development (R&D), and flex (where appropriate in smaller
Centers), with open space and institutional uses that are essential to place-making within Centers.
In the areas around Centers (see Table LU2), there is also a limited amount of land designated Urban Mixed
Use. These designations are intended to provide space for uses that do not fit within a Center because the
use requires more land for larger buildings and/or parking lots. Auto commercial service uses are examples of
uses that may require more space than is available for a single use in a Center (see Land Use Table LU2).
Neighborhood Density Residential. This designation is used in areas around Centers where single-family
detached and attached housing with a gross density range between 3 – 6 units per acre is desired. This
designation is also applied to existing residential areas with densities within or below this range (see Land Use
Table LU2). This designation is essentially the same as the Neighborhood Density Residential designation in
the 1996 Land Use Plan.
Primary uses: single-family residential, including two or more housing types.
Secondary uses: retail, commercial, and office uses that support the neighborhood, live/work units,
open space, and institutional uses. Retail, commercial, office, and institutional uses are encouraged to
locate in Centers so they are accessible to residents throughout the surrounding area, and so they
benefit from co-location with other neighborhood-serving businesses. However, they may be located
by exception in areas around Centers designated Neighborhood Density Residential provided they are
compatible with surrounding uses.
Urban Density Residential. This designation is used in areas around Centers where multifamily housing with
a gross density range between 6.01 and 34 units per acre is desired. It is also applied to existing residential
areas with densities within this range (see Land Use Table LU2). This designation is essentially the same as
the Urban Density Residential designation in the 1996 Land Use Plan.
Primary uses: multifamily and single-family residential, including two or more housing types.
Secondary uses: retail, commercial, and office uses that support the neighborhood, live/work units,
open space, and institutional uses. Retail, commercial, office, and institutional uses are encouraged to
locate in Centers so they are accessible to residents throughout the surrounding area, and so they
benefit from co-location with other neighborhood-serving businesses. However, they may be located
by exception in areas around Centers designated Urban Density Residential provided they are
compatible with surrounding uses.
Commercial Mixed Use. This designation is applied only to areas that are already developed or that have
been approved for development as commercial shopping areas. This designation is used in the areas around
Centers (see Land Use Table LU2) and is intended to support the eventual conversion of these areas to a
more mixed-use type of development that would support adjacent mixed use centers. These areas have the
potential to integrate some nonretail uses, such as multifamily housing, office, or institutional uses, and to
develop stronger links with adjacent Centers. In the future, no new Commercial Mixed Use should be
designated; retail and other commercial activities would be focused instead into the mixed use Centers.
Primary uses: community and regional retail, commercial service, auto commercial service, and
office uses.
Secondary uses: office, research & development (R&D), flex, residential, open space, and
institutional uses.
Office/Research & Development (R & D)/Flex/Light Industrial. This designation allows a range of
employment-generating uses and is applied to the majority of the nonretail employment areas within the
Places29 area to create Employment Neighborhoods. These uses are the ―new‖ types of industrial uses that
are more employee-intensive and may be less involved with manufacturing. As such, these uses are expected
to have the fewest impacts on surrounding uses (e.g., noise, vibrations, odors), although they may have a
greater traffic impact due to the number of employees. The designation is used in the areas around Centers
(see Land Use Table LU2).
―Office‖ includes the typical commercial office buildings that may house a variety of users. It may also include
professional offices, such as medical or real estate offices, although these offices may also be located in
Commercial Mixed Use and Urban Mixed Use areas.
―Research & Development (R&D)‖ is applied to an administrative, engineering, and/or scientific research,
design, or experimentation facility that engages in research, or research and development, of innovative ideas
in technology-intensive fields. Examples include research and development of computer software, information
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 63)
systems, communication systems, transportation, geographic information systems, and multi-media and video
technology. Development, construction, and testing of prototypes may be associated with this use. Such a
business does not involve the mass manufacture, fabrication, processing, or sale of products. Many research
& development uses can locate in traditional office buildings or buildings that resemble office buildings, rather
than traditional industrial facilities.
―Flex‖ describes businesses that may include several uses, such as a manufacturing facility with warehouse
space for components and completed products, a showroom for sale of the products, and office space where
administrative duties for the business take place. Another example is a business ―incubator‖ that supports new
businesses. A Flex use may include: research & development, manuf acturing, warehousing, distribution,
office, retail, customer service, and showrooms, among others. Different businesses would have different
combinations of these uses and in varying percentages. Another feature of Flex uses is the need for space
that can be reconfigured as a business grows or adds products.
―Light Industrial‖ is described below. Light Industrial uses that are combined with Office/R&D/Flex uses would
not usually have impacts, other than traffic, on adjacent uses. Care needs to be taken that the impacts of light
industrial uses are compatible with surrounding uses and the character of the area.
Primary uses: office, research & development (R&D), and flex, light manufacturing/storage/
distribution uses.
Secondary uses: retail, commercial, and light manufacturing uses that are associated with the
primary uses, residential, open space, and institutional uses.
Light Industrial. This designation allows uses that involve manufacturing, predominately from previously
prepared materials, of products or parts, and may include processing, fabrication, assembly, treatment,
packaging, incidental storage, sales, and distribution of these products. It does not include basic industrial
processing (see Heavy Industrial). The Light Industrial designation allows for a range of employment and
commercial uses that may have impacts that would not be suitable in or adjacent to residential uses, retail
uses, commercial uses, or many types of commercial office or research activities. This designation is applied
to areas around Centers to create Employment Neighborhoods (see Land Use Table LU2).
Primary uses: light manufacturing/storage/distribution
Secondary uses: related offices and retail activities (particularly wholesale), research & development
(R&D), flex, and other commercial uses that are associated with the primary uses in the area, larger
auto commercial service uses, open space, and institutional uses.
Heavy Industrial. This designation allows for manufacturing or other enterprises with significant external
effects or which pose significant risks due to the involvement of hazardous materials. This designation applies
to a range of employment, production, and commercial uses that are likely to create impacts that are not
suitable adjacent to residential uses or many types of office or research activities. These impacts include, but
are not limited to, noise, vibration, odors, and heavy truck traffic. The impacts may be more intense or more
difficult to mitigate than those created by Light Industrial land uses. For example, a manufacturing facility for
production of modular homes would require deliveries of significant amounts of lumber, fixtures, appliances,
and other materials, all of which would arrive by truck. In addition, there would be employee traffic to and from
the plant. The completed modules would be shipped from the facility as ―wide loads,‖ requiring escort vehicles.
This type of manufacturing facility would have a much greater impact than a typical light industrial facility that
manufactured small appliances. Light industrial uses may also be located in this designation. This Heavy
Industrial designation is applied to areas around Centers to create Employment Neighborhoods (see Land Use
Table LU2).
Primary uses: heavy manufacturing/storage/distribution and warehousing/distribution.
Secondary uses: related offices and retail activities (particularly wholesale), and office, research &
development (R&D), flex, and other commercial uses that are associated with the primary uses in the
area, larger auto commercial service uses, open space and institutional uses.
Institutional. This designation allows for a range of civic uses, such as schools, libraries, parks, recreational
facilities, water treatment facilities, and other similar uses on County-owned properties (see Land Use Table
LU2).
Primary uses: schools, libraries, parks, recreational facilities, and water treatment, and similar
facilities.
Secondary uses: any related facilities that support the primary uses.
Parks and Public Open Space. This designation allows for a range of public recreation and open space
uses. This designation is used in Centers and the areas around Centers to provide for public activities. It is
also used in combination with Privately Owned Open Space to define the edges of some Neighborhoods (see
Land Use Table LU2). The Future Land Use Map shows Public Open Space as a lighter, brighter green (than
Privately Owned Open Space described below).
Primary uses: public open spaces, such as parks, greenways, trails, and other public open spaces.
Secondary uses: related institutional uses.
Privately Owned Open Space/Environmental Features. This designation includes open space that is
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 64)
owned and managed by private or semi-public entities, such as homeowners associations, private
homeowners, commercial or business park land owners, and others. These areas consist of recreational and
passive open space amenities, and may include floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands, and other areas with
environmental constraints where construction of buildings is discouraged (see Land Use Table LU2). The
Future Land Use map shows Privately Owned Open Space/Environmental Features in a darker green (than
the Public Open Space described above).
Primary uses: semi-public open spaces, such as semi-public parks, greenways, trails, and other
recreational and passive open spaces that are owned by homeowners associations or other similar
entities and are open to property owners and their guests.
Secondary uses: related institutional uses.
Primary and Secondary Uses
Each of the land use designations defined in the section above includes a list of primary and secondary uses
that may be found in the designation. As stated above, primary land uses are the main focus of the particular
designation; most of the development in that designation should be one (or more) of the primary uses.
Secondary land uses are intended as support uses for the primary ones. These secondary uses should
represent a smaller proportion of the whole development or the building. Approval of secondary land uses
should be based on the designation of the larger area, rather than on a per site or per parcel basis. The
following lists of examples are illustrative, not all-inclusive, of the primary and secondary land use
types that may be found within the designations:
Primary and secondary uses are listed along the left side of Land Use Tables 1 and 2 (LU1 and LU2).
Guidelines for developing each of these uses in each Center (Table LU1) are listed under the Center type.
These guidelines are intended to encourage development that would support a pedestrian-, bicycle-, and
transit-friendly mixed-use environment. Guidelines for areas around the Centers (Table LU2) are intended to
encourage development that would support a compact, walkable area. In a few instances, a larger building
footprint or use is allowed ―by exception.‖
Residential: includes a variety of homes with a variety of lot configurations. Buildings should not be taller
than four (4) stories, unless by exception. Exceptions may be granted where the taller residential building is
compatible with the surrounding uses.
Examples of primary and secondary residential uses include:
Single-family attached and detached homes
Semi-detached and attached single-family houses, such as duplexes, triplexes, quadriplexes,
townhouses, atrium houses, and patio houses
Accessory apartments
Apartments/condominiums in the form of garden units, street-front ―walkups,‖ mid-rise, and
similar configurations
Townhouses and rowhouses
Dwelling units above retail, office, and/or commercial uses
Mobile and modular homes
Neighborhood Retail: these businesses are intended to draw a significant portion of their clientele from the
surrounding neighborhood. Many customers or clients could walk to the business. These businesses may be
clustered. Except where noted otherwise on Land Use Table 2 (LU2), buildings should not be taller than three
(3) stories, unless by exception. Exceptions may be granted where a taller retail building is compatible with the
surrounding uses and the character of the neighborhood.
Examples of primary and secondary neighborhood retail uses include:
Local retail, such as florist, newsstand, or other similar uses
Small restaurant or café, or similar businesses serving prepared food and beverages
Small food sales businesses, such as bakery, deli, butcher, or other similar uses
Convenience store or small grocery store
Small pharmacy or drug store
Personal retail service, such as hair salon, barber shop, dry cleaner/laundry, laundromat,
tailor, seamstress, and similar uses
Community & Regional Retail: these retail businesses serve a wider market than a single neighborhood, so
the majority of their customers would drive (or take transit) to them. Generally, these businesses ar e also
larger than Neighborhood Retail ones. Groups of retail businesses may cluster with smaller neighborhood -
scale retail businesses into a shopping center or along a retail street and form the nucleus of a Center. Except
where noted otherwise on Land Use Table 2 (LU2), buildings should not be taller than three (3) stories, unless
by exception. Exceptions may be granted where a taller building is compatible with the surrounding uses and
the character of the neighborhood.
Examples of primary and secondary community and regional retail uses include:
Grocery store
Pharmacy or drug store
Department store
Clothing, book, antiques, gifts, jewelry, crafts, or other specialty retail business
Hardware store
Furniture, home appliance, and other household good sales and service
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 65)
Farmers‘ market
Restaurant, café, and other businesses serving prepared food and beverages
Feed and seed stores
Retail nurseries and greenhouses
―Big box‖ or large format retail stores: home improvement/builders‘ supply, office supply,
department or general retail, and other retail uses that are 80,000 square feet or larger
General Commercial Service: these are service businesses open to the general public that rely on
customers visiting the business, not primarily retail uses or office uses (with the exception of medical offices).
Except where noted otherwise on Land Use Table 2 (LU2), buildings should not be taller than three (3) stories,
unless by exception. Exceptions may be granted where a taller building is compatible with the surroun ding
uses and the character of the neighborhood.
Examples of primary and secondary general commercial service uses include:
Entertainment, such as cinemas, theatres, video arcades, night clubs, or similar uses
Hotel, motel, inn, or bed and breakfast
Hospitals, including emergency care/walk-in medical facilities
Indoor athletic facilities, such as ice skating rinks, laser-tag facilities
Recreation establishments, such as bowling alleys and pool halls
Health spas
Real estate, insurance, attorney, and other professional offices
Medical offices, including dental, medical, optical, and other similar uses with significant
numbers of patients
Financial institutions, such as banks, savings and loans, and credit unions.
Day care, child care, nursery
Reproduction and mailing services
Funeral homes and crematories
Veterinary office and hospital, kennel, animal shelter
Auction houses
Printing and publishing
Contractor‘s office and storage yards
Auto Commercial Sales & Service: these are the auto-oriented commercial uses that require a higher level
of review because of their tendency to create environments that are not walkable. Except where noted
otherwise on Land Use Table 2 (LU2), buildings should not be taller than two (2) stories, unless by exception.
Exceptions may be granted where a taller building is compatible with the surrounding uses and the character
of the neighborhood.
Examples of primary and secondary auto commercial service uses include:
Automobile, truck, recreational vehicle, and boat dealerships, sales, service, and/or rentals
Automobile service station, with or without repair services
Auto body/repair shop (fully contained in a building with appropriate ventilation and other
environmental controls)
Office: these are primarily employment uses that, except for the professional offices, involve a limited number
of customer visits.
Examples of primary and secondary office uses include:
Professional offices: medical, legal, architectural, engineering, accounting, and similar
professional businesses
Administrative and business offices, including software design and other high-tech related
businesses that do not require laboratory or assembly facilities
Call centers and data processing services
Research & Development (R&D): these uses are examples of the ―new‖ industry, with relatively few impacts
on surrounding properties, except for possible traffic impacts. Nearly all traffic would be employee vehicles,
with some customers and some delivery vehicles. Businesses that require a significant number of deliveries by
semi-trailer are considered light industrial uses. Buildings for R&D uses may also include ―flex‖ space that can
accommodate different types and sizes of businesses. These uses mix very well with support service uses,
such as retail, restaurants, drycleaners, and similar businesses. Except where noted otherwise on Land Use
Table 2 (LU2), buildings should not be taller than four (4) stories, unless by exception. Exceptions may be
granted where a taller building is compatible with the surrounding uses and the character of the neighborhood.
Examples of primary and secondary research & development (R&D) uses include:
Research laboratories (both wet and dry)
Research & development
Communication and information systems
Offices
Call centers
Assembly and fabrication facilities (all indoors, with no external noise, odor, or other nuisance
impacts)
Flex: a business that combines several uses, such as production of goods, storage, distribution, sales, and
office/showroom. Generally, these uses do not create impacts greater than a similarly sized office use. Except
where noted otherwise on Land Use Table 2 (LU2), buildings should not be taller than four (4) stories, unless
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 66)
by exception. Exceptions may be granted where a taller building is compatible with the surrounding uses and
the character of the neighborhood.
Examples of primary and secondary flex uses include:
Software development, testing, sales, and distribution
Assembly of a product, storage, sales, and distribution
Research, development, and testing of a prototype
Customer service centers/call centers
Light Manufacturing/Storage/Distribution: these uses may have some traffic impacts, but little or no noise,
fumes, or vibration impacts. In some instances, materials used may be hazardous, requir ing the segregation
of that use. Except where noted otherwise on Land Use Table 2 (LU2), buildings should not be taller than four
(4) stories, unless by exception. Exceptions may be granted where a taller building is compatible with the
surrounding uses and the character of the neighborhood.
Examples of primary and secondary light manufacturing/storage/distribution uses include:
Light manufacturing and assembly, such as jewelry, musical instruments; surgical, medical,
and dental instruments and supplies
Auto body shops (not fully contained in a building)
Compounding of drugs
Mini-storage warehouses
Accessory storage and distribution facilities that may be enclosed or in rear yards
Contractor‘s office and storage yards
Heavy Manufacturing/Storage/Distribution: these are heavy industrial uses that, because of traffic impacts
(particularly from larger trucks and more frequent access), and possibly noise, fumes, and vibration, may need
to be segregated from other uses based on potential impacts.
Examples of primary and secondary heavy manufacturing/storage/distribution uses include:
Manufacture, processing, fabrication, assembly, distribution of products
Engineering, engineering design, assembly, and fabrication of machinery and components
that may involve: machining, babbitting, welding, and sheet metal work
Concrete and brick manufacturing, and sand and gravel distribution facilities
Dry cleaning plants
Concrete mixing plant, storage, distribution
Machine shops, tool and die, blacksmithing, boiler shops, and similar uses
Manufacture of building components
Sawmills, planing mills, wood preserving operations, woodyards
Contractor‘s office and storage yards
Towing and storage of motor vehicles
Accessory storage and distribution facilities
Warehousing/Distribution: these are businesses that rely on semi-trailer trucks to deliver and pick up
goods, as well as storage. As a result, these businesses may need to be segregated from businesses that are
not compatible with heavy truck traffic.
Examples of primary and secondary warehousing/distribution uses include:
Moving businesses, including storage facilities (except mini-storage warehouses)
Regional or bulk warehouse facilities
Heavy or refrigerated distribution facilities
Truck terminals
Air cargo storage and distribution facilities
Institutional: these are public and private facilities, offices, and related facilities; and land reserves for future
such facilities.
Examples of primary and secondary institutional uses include:
Public Facilities, such as schools, libraries, parks, and community centers
Private Facilities, such as, educational, technical, fine arts, and trade schools; places of
worship; community centers; clubs, lodges, and civic and fraternal facilities
Hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and convalescent homes
Open Space: these are generally undeveloped areas for recreational, visual, and preservation purposes.
They may be heavily landscaped. These are areas owned and managed by a public or private entity, including
homeowners associations (HOAs).
Examples of primary and secondary open space uses include:
Public, semi-private, or private parks or recreational fields
Greenways and blueways
Trails and paths
Description of the Future Land Use Map
The Future Land Use Map (see the end of this chapter) defines the land use pattern and neighborhood
structure for the Places29 area. In addition to the location of individual land uses, the Future Land Use Map
recommends the distribution of Centers and the arrangement of uses in the areas around the Centers.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 67)
Additional information about Centers and the areas around Centers (Neighborhoods) is given in Chapter 5,
Place Types.
The boundaries of the land use designations shown on the Future Land Use Map were chosen based on
existing uses and projected needs. In Neighborhoods 1 and 2, where existing land uses dominate and future
development would occur primarily as redevelopment, existing property lines were primarily used to delineate
future land uses to the greatest extent possible. In some locations, physical features, such as floodplains,
streams, roads, and watershed boundaries were used. In the four corners around the Rio Road/US 29
intersection, stronger consideration was given to the potential shape of the Center than to specific pro perty
lines. In these four quadrants, redevelopment is expected to involve land assembly.
North of the South Fork of the Rivanna, the boundaries in largely undeveloped or ―greenfield‖ areas were
determined by using criteria related to the desired Center size, the one-quarter to one-half mile walkable areas
around Centers, and natural features such as stream valleys and ridges. The land use designations assigned
to existing residential neighborhoods, such as Forest Lakes and Airport Acres, are the same as those in the
1996 Land Use Plan, and are more closely based on existing neighborhood/property boundaries.
For areas with adopted zoning map amendments and/or approved site plans, the overall boundaries of these
plans were taken into account. Land uses shown within these areas on the Future Land Use Map allow for the
development of previously approved projects, but may suggest modifications to the distribution of uses on the
site and/or a more intensive set of uses.
Distribution of Mixed Use Centers
The distribution of Centers on the Future Land Use Map follows Neighborhood Model principles and
recommendations received from the public and stakeholders. This distribution is also consistent with two
major recommendations in the US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study: first, to develop a road network
that encourages local trips to occur on parallel and perpendicular routes rather than on US 29 and, second, to
employ access management strategies that orient the access to properties along US 29 to those parallel and
perpendicular roads. The extent and distribution of Centers is also supported by the market analysis
performed as a part of Places29.
Neighborhood Service Centers are spaced along major roadways to provide increased pedestrian and bicycle
access to the everyday goods and services offered in these Centers. This spacing also coincides with
potential transit stop locations. From a market perspective, these locations have a visual and physical
relationship to major roads that makes them accessible to additional customers from outside the immediate
neighborhood. Neighborhood Service Center locations recognize the availability of vacant or underutilized
sites and the desire to distribute these Centers throughout the area to maximize their accessibility. Some of
these Centers would serve residents who live in the areas around them. Other Centers would serve
employees whose workplaces are within walking distance. For example, the Centers would not only provide
restaurants that cater to employees at lunchtime, but would also provide opportunities to shop for daily needs.
This combination would help reduce the need for additional car trips.
There are two concentrations of Community and Destination Centers on the Future Land Use Map. First, the
concentration of Community and Destination centers around the intersection of Rio Road and US 29 reflects
the area‘s existing retail function and the potential for major redevelopment. The second concentration is in
the large area that includes the Hollymead Town Center, the proposed North Pointe development, the
proposed Uptown, and around the intersection of Airport Road and US 29. The Center designations for both
areas are consistent with already approved plans. Designating these areas as mixed use centers would help
integrate Centers with the surrounding residential and employment neighborhoods.
All of the Centers are designated Urban Mixed Use to allow development of a range of uses that would serve
the surrounding neighborhood (Neighborhood Service Centers), the Places29 community (Community
Centers), and the region beyond the Places29 area (Destination Centers and the Uptown).
Streets and Roads Shown on the Future Land Use Map
The transportation network shown on the Future Land Use Map includes existing roads and new roads
recommended in this Master Plan. It also shows recommended improvements to many existing roads. Where
an existing road is shown as a dashed black line, the existing road would be improved, but not necessarily
shifted from its existing alignment. The precise location of recommended new roads shown with dashed black
lines is flexible and would be determined at the time the road is designed.
Key Subareas of the Future Land Use Plan
There are several key subareas identified in this Master Plan that are particularly important to the community‘s
vision for the Places29 area. Some of these subareas have existing master plans or concept plans that have
been incorporated into this Master Plan. Other subareas would need further study and more detailed plans in
order to implement the land use patterns described in this Plan. In addition, it may be necessary to make
changes and adjustments to current policies and the administration of development activities in order to
achieve some of the Master Plan‘s goals in these subareas. These subareas are:
The Rio Road/US 29 area
The Meadow Creek Parkway
The Albemarle Place development
The Hollymead Town Center area
The Airport Road Corridor and the Uptown area
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 68)
The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport
The University of Virginia Research Park
The Rivanna Station Military Base (NGIC facility)
Rio Road/US 29. Over the life of this Plan, the area around the intersection of Rio Road and US 29 is
expected to redevelop into a vibrant mixed-use area. The southwestern quadrant of the intersection would
include a cluster of Community and Destination Centers and a larger Mixed Use Neighborhood.
The potential for the economic revitalization of this area will depend on the development of transportation
improvements in and around the Rio Road/US 29 intersection.. A pedestrian-bicycle bridge between the end of
Berkmar Drive and the western edge of the Fashion Square Mall property would increase connectivity
between the southeastern and southwestern portions of the intersection area (see a photo simulation of the
recommended bridge in Figure 4.1 and a concept plan in Figure 4.2).
Figure 4.1. A photosimulation of a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over US 29 at Berkmar Drive. The view is from
Berkmar Drive looking east toward Fashion Square Mall.
Figure 4.2. A concept plan of a pedestrian bridge over US 29 at Berkmar Drive.
The photo simulation in Figures 4.3 through 4.5 illustrates one possible transformation of the southwestern
quadrant of this intersection along Berkmar Drive. This transformation might occur incrementally and be driven
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 69)
by individual decisions made by various property owners. The specific character of the new development
would be guided by the design guidelines and by the Small Area Plan recommended for the area.
This area is also expected to be connected to Downtown Charlottesville and the University of Virginia with an
enhanced bus or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service, once a certain level of redevelopment and land use
intensification is reached.
Figure 4.3. A photosimulation of a mixed-use neighborhood along Berkmar Drive near US 29—existing
conditions.
Figure 4.4. A photosimulation showing a mixed-use neighborhood along Berkmar Drive near US 29—initial
development. The recommended pedestrian bridge is visible just above the center.
Figure 4.5. A photosimulation of a mixed-use neighborhood along Berkmar Drive near US 29—development
showing new streetscape, parking, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian amenities.
The Meadow Creek Parkway. This road is the subject of the Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report, May
2001, prepared by the consultants, Jones & Jones. Funding for the intersection of the Parkway and the 250
Bypass and for the County‘s portion of the Parkway has been identified and construction of the County‘s
portion of the Parkway is nearly complete. The Parkway will have a linear park area along each side. Land
uses shown on the Future Land Use Map in the immediate vicinity of the Parkway are derived from the Jones
& Jones study, which still provides guidance for development in the area immediately adjacent to the Parkway
and Rio Road corridor. The study recommendations should be considered during review of land use decisions.
Albemarle Place. The rezoning for this development in the northwest corner of Hydraulic Road and US 29
has been approved. The project is mixed use and will include retail, a hotel, offices, and residences. The
northern portion of the development (north of Sperry Marine) has been designed as a more conventional retail
development. The land use pattern approved during the rezoning has been incorporated into the Future Land
Use Map.
The Hollymead Town Center area. This area, south of Airport Road and west of US 29, has been the subject
of five separate rezonings, all now approved. Some of the proposed buildings, streets, and infrastructure have
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 70)
been constructed and are occupied. Others are still at the site plan stage. When built out, the area will include
retail, restaurants, offices, an assisted living facility, and residences.
The Airport Road Corridor & the Uptown. As the Hollymead/Piney Mountain area continues to grow, this
area, along with the Airport, has the potential to become a major destination with a broad mix of commercial,
residential, and employment uses. The Centers and residential areas in or near the Airport Road corridor will
act as major transit hubs to support the future transit network proposed for the Places29 area. The Uptown
would be a vibrant new urban center similar to a traditional downtown and intended to serve the needs of
many people in a relatively small area. People can walk throughout the area, patronizing various businesses
and amenities. The Uptown would take advantage of regional attractions, such as the Airport, the University of
Virginia Research Park, and the new regional retail activities in the Destination Centers at North Pointe and
Hollymead Town Center. This area may include a hotel and other uses that support living, working, and
entertainment in the Uptown area. The ability to walk to urban services and entertainment from the campus-
like setting of the Research Park should make it an even more attractive location for knowledge -based
businesses.
The Uptown is a long-term concept—it may take many years for the market to support such a concept in this
area. The properties in the area now designated Uptown are currently zoned for industrial uses and it is
recognized that these properties can, and may, develop as permitted under the existing zoning designations.
The size, location, and orientation of the buildings and infrastructure should be constructed to allow for the
ultimate evolution of the area to a more mixed use form. Any portion of the future Uptown owned by the
University Foundation is intended to serve as an employment area, which may include supporting commercial
uses, to be consistent with the opportunities and constraints of the Foundation‘s mission.
A more detailed assessment of the Uptown concept is recommended as part of the Small Area Plan process
in order to define the purpose, location, and use/design expectations more completely, as well as its market
feasibility and timing.
The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport will develop according to its own master plan. The plan should be
used as a guide in the review of land use/development decisions related to airport development and
expansion. However, integrating the airport into the Places29 area is critical, both with regard to the quality of
the transportation infrastructure and the synergy with surrounding land uses—particularly the Uptown.
Airport operations have impacts that require the Airport to be physically buffered from the surrounding areas.
For this reason, the Airport has been designated as a single-use district on the Future Land Use Map, which is
not required to follow the Neighborhood Model principles. However, it is important that the Airport be well -
connected to and integrated into the transportation network, the City of Charlottesville, and the larger region.
The Airport‘s continued growth will play an important role in the development of the Uptown, Hollymead, and
the County.
Over the longer term, the combination of the Uptown, the Airport, the University of Virginia Research Park, and
other activities in the area is expected to support the provision of transit service between this northern node of
activity and the southern parts of the County and the City of Charlottesville. This service would be available
once the necessary ridership levels in the larger Hollymead area have been reached.
The University of Virginia Research Park will continue to develop as a major employment center. This Plan
offers the University of Virginia Research Park the opportunity to include a more integrated amount of
residential and commercial uses.
The land uses in the Research Park that are shown on the Future Land Use Map are consistent with the
University of Virginia Foundation‘s long-term, conceptual site plan. Future development within the Research
Park may continue to develop in a campus-style form and with building footprints that are consistent with the
existing zoning.
The Rivanna Station Military Base will be home to some of the Defense Intelligence Agency‘s (DIA)
operations and will be co-located with the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC). Over the next few
years, several hundred employees are expected to join those now working at NGIC. With the addition of
contractors expected to locate in the area to support NGIC and DIA projects, the base will become a major
employment center. Those at the base will conduct intelligence, security, and information operations for
military commanders and national decisionmakers. (Environmental Assessment: Expansion of Rivanna
Station, Charlottesville, Virginia, December 2007)
Areas Recommended for Small Area Plans
Small Area Plans are a planning tool used to guide land use, zoning, transportation improvements, open
space, and other capital improvements at a higher level of detail than is possible in a master plan. Due to this
greater level of detail, a Small Area Plan can identify and address specific local conditions and opportunities
for commercial revitalization and mixed-use development. Small Area Plans are a recommended
implementation tool for subareas where significant redevelopment activity and transportation improvements
are anticipated in the Master Plan. The Small Area Plan would allow land uses and the design of road
improvements to be coordinated and for the business owners and residents of the planning area to participate
in the planning process. Prior to the preparation of a Small Area Plan, any development proposals that come
before the County for review and approval will be evaluated according to the Future Land Use Map in the
current Master Plan. Small Area Plans are recommended for two areas:
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 71)
1. The Rio Road and US 29 Intersection Study Area
The four quadrants around the intersection of Rio Road and US 29 are expected to
experience redevelopment. In particular, the southwestern quadrant with its multitude of
properties would be well-served by the level of planning and coordination that a Small Area
Plan can provide. In addition to encouraging and supporting redevelopment, the
recommended road improvements for the intersection of Rio Road and US 29 can be
designed during the same small area planning process. More information about the
coordination of a small area plan prepared by the County with VDOT‘s support is given in
Appendix 2, Implementation Project Descriptions in the description of Project Nos. 18 and 37,
the intersection improvements at US 29 and Rio Road.
2. The Airport Road Corridor and Uptown Study Area
The Airport Road Corridor and the Uptown include properties that would be redeveloped, as
well as properties where substantial new development is expected. Some portions of the area
show a pattern of small property ownership, similar to the pattern in the US 29/Rio Road
area, while other large areas are under single ownership. Coordination of land uses, interim
road improvements to prolong the life of the at-grade intersections, and the ultimate
improvements in and around the intersections of US 29/Timberwood Blvd. and Airport
Road/US 29 would be the major goal of this Small Area Plan. Easy access from US 29 to the
Airport and the University of Virginia Research Park is essential.
Land Use Tables
This section of the Master Plan describes the two tables that provide information about land uses and
development standards required for specific land uses. The tables are intended to encourage mixed -use
development and an urban form that supports the development character, transportation network, and
environmental goals outlined in the Vision and Guiding Principles. The Land Use Tables LU1 and LU2 (at the
end of the chapter) address the following key areas:
Mix of uses within Land Use designations
Building size, heights, and footprint recommendations
Retail and commercial size and specific use recommendations
Recommended limitations of some key uses
The following discussion of the intent of these development guidelines provides a framework for evaluating
uses according to the recommendations made in Tables LU1 and LU2.
Mix of Uses within Land Use Designations
The Master Plan defines a range of land use types, intensities, and sizes for each land use designation. These
recommendations attempt to ensure that uses within each designation complement each other and achieve
the purpose of the designation. For example, lower intensity employment uses and auto commercial service
uses are not allowed in the urban mixed use portions of the Uptown, because these uses do not support the
more active and urban character that is desired for the Uptown. At the same time, these uses are allowed
relatively close to the Uptown in nearby Centers and Light Industrial and Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial
designated areas.
Building Size and Footprint Recommendations
The land use tables define a maximum building footprint for primary and secondary uses in certain land use
designations. These limitations support the desired circulation network and block size in the Places29 area.
Single buildings should not be so large that they become a barrier to pedestrian circulation, particularly within
Centers. The building size recommendations are generally smallest in the Neighborhood Service Centers,
which complements the character of the residential neighborhoods that surround most of these Centers. The
tables allow larger building sizes in Community and Destination Centers. In the Uptown, the most intensive
part of the Places29 area, the desired building footprint sizes are somewhat smaller to encourage the smaller
block sizes that support pedestrian circulation—a very high priority in the Uptown.
Retail Commercial Size and Specific Use Recommendations
One reason to limit the size of retail/commercial building footprints is to support the development of a more
pedestrian-friendly circulation network. There are additional reasons for defining a desirable maximum size for
retail/commercial buildings or uses in some land use designations. These are related to the desired function
and urban design quality of particular places within the Places29 area. For example, under community and
regional retail land uses, grocery stores of up to 15,000 sq. ft. are allowed in Neighborhood Service Centers.
This recommendation would encourage grocery stores of the usual size (50,000-60,000 sq. ft.) to locate in
Community or Destination Centers, but allow smaller scale stores that are compatible with a Neighborhood
Service Center to locate there. A small grocery store would not dominate the Center or result in undesirable
levels of traffic.
Similarly, the size of single-building footprints in Community and Destination Centers is also restricted. Larger
buildings may be permitted by exception if they support the desired urban form of these centers. A smaller
building footprint also encourages the construction of multi-level retail buildings for larger retailers.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 72)
There are other uses that require special guidance. For example, auto commercial sales and service
businesses are required to serve the needs of Albemarle County residents and workers. The US 29 corridor
has areas where these uses are provided for today, and, given the high level of regional access to the
Places29 area, this is a logical location for auto sales and service activities. However, these uses often conflict
with the desired pedestrian environment, and they can be disruptive to the neighborhood character, because
they take up so much space. For these reasons, the land use tables limit the maximum size of single auto
commercial service uses in the Centers, in addition to limitations on activities that could be a nuisance to
adjacent uses.
Limitations Regarding Some Key Uses
There are some uses listed in Tables LU1 and LU2 that have criteria related to business practices and site
configuration. These are due to potential conflicts with surrounding uses and the potential for negative impacts
on the pedestrian and urban character of Centers and Neighborhoods. An example is the recommendation
that, in Centers, all auto commercial sales and service businesses be located within a building (except for
employee/customer parking and gas pumps).
Protection from Nuisance Effects: Some designations include a criterion intended to ensure that noise,
odor, vibrations, and other potential nuisances will not adversely affect the primary or surrounding uses.
Examples of this include some auto commercial service uses and light manufacturing/ storage/distribution
uses. Typical operating requirements would require that potential nuisance activities occur within buildings and
that hours of operation be restricted.
Protection from Potential Visual Effects: Some uses rely on storage yards or parking lots that are used for
storage of vehicles (e.g., auto sales and service uses). In some des ignations where the urban character is
pedestrian-oriented and creates value for adjacent development, these uses are confined or not allowed.
Parks & Green Systems
Open Space Defined
The County‘s Comprehensive Plan recognizes the important role of public open spaces in urban development
and their pivotal role in establishing the kind of urban environment envisioned for the Development Areas. For
Places29, parks and green systems are synonymous with the term ―open space.‖ The term open space has
multiple applications. Open spaces may be environmentally sensitive areas which need to be protected, such
as floodplain, steep slopes, wetlands, and streams. Created open spaces that are part of Neighborhoods,
such as parks, squares, pocket parks, and tot lots, provide an important contrast between built and natural
forms within the Places29 area. These open spaces also provide opportunities for social and recreational
activities in close proximity to residential, commercial, and employment uses. In addition, if these open spaces
are designed to provide a sense of arrival and place, open spaces can become community focal points with a
strong civic character. As civic areas, open space may be:
Landscaped parks, sometimes called village greens or village commons
Active recreational areas, such as tot lots or playing fields
Paved plazas with seating areas
Large parks with a combination of these features
Grassy lawns or play areas that adjoin institutional uses such as schools or libraries
Most importantly, a civic area is a feature of a Center or Neighborhood that is accessible to the public and/or
nearby residents, visitors, or clients (See Figures 4.6 and 4.7).
Figure 4.6. An example of a smaller urban open space.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 73)
Figure 4.7. An example of a larger urban open space, showing the relationship of buildings fronting on the
green.
As protected areas, open space may be:
Lakes, streams, or stands of trees
Natural features, which are not mowed or accessible
Passive recreational areas, such as greenway trails and overlooks
Paved trailheads
Paved access points for river activities
Protected areas are not usually a central feature of a neighborhood, although they can be. Public accessibility
is not required, unless the area contains greenway trails or public river access points. Although most of the
County‘s protected open space is outside of the Development Areas, inside the Development Areas the
purpose of this open space is to provide livability through protection of the network of streams and other
natural features. These protected open spaces often have the dual benefits of connecting habitats for plants
and wildlife and of supporting nonmotorized travel through greenway trail connections. Open space can also
be an effective transition between two different land uses. Finally, open space is an amenity that County
residents and property owners need and want.
Open space terms used in this section of the Plan (and in the General Design Guidelines for Development
Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan) include:
Parks
Plazas
Urban parks
Open spaces in neighborhoods
Open spaces of human scale
Urban open spaces
Public open spaces
Squares
Publicly accessible urban open space
Plazas
Pocket parks
Tot lots
Built and natural forms
Although the meanings of these terms are fairly well known, each of the terms is defined and described in the
Comprehensive Plan, General Design Guidelines for Development Areas.
Albemarle County‘s natural features and scenic areas are at the heart of the County‘s character and livability—
and have attracted many residents to the County. These open spaces also serve as a counterpoint to the
urban character of the Development Areas. Because some of the new neighborhoods in the Northern
Development Areas will be among the County‘s most urban places, it is important to maintain a sense of
connectedness to these natural features and open spaces. It is equally important to provide public parks that
meet the recreational needs of current and future residents. These parks and other elements of the County‘s
green systems are described in this section and illustrated on the Parks & Green Systems Map. Additional
information about types of spaces in the Development Areas is located in the Neighborhood Model part of the
Comprehensive Plan and the General Design Guidelines for Development Areas (also in the Comprehensive
Plan).
The Parks & Green Systems Map
The Parks & Green Systems Map (located at the end of the chapter) illustrates the recommended system of
public and private open spaces that will serve the active and passive recreation needs of residents, workers,
and visitors in the Places29 Area. The map shows a network of linear open spaces that connect the various
elements of the green systems in the Northern Development Areas. Such networks provide ecological benefits
to flora and fauna, can be integrated into stormwater management solutions, and may be used to create non-
roadway connections for pedestrians and bicyclists.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 74)
The map also shows the recommended network of existing and proposed trails, multi-use paths, and bicycling
facilities that would provide convenient non-vehicular connections between different parts of the Development
Areas, the recommended open space amenities located throughout the area, and the major recreational
facilities located in the Rural Areas, such as the North and South Forks of the Rivanna River, Ivy Creek
Natural Area, and Chris Greene Lake Park.
The map shows several types of environmental features that will require special consideration when planning
a new development or redeveloping an existing area. These features include floodplains, stream valleys, steep
slopes, wetlands, and other features. Property owners and developers must consult both the Future Land Use
Map and the Parks & Green Systems Map to understand fully the development potential of and constraints on
a property.
Finally, the Parks & Green Systems Map illustrates key community facilities, such as existing and planned
schools, fire stations, and libraries. Showing these facilities with the network of bicycle and trail connections
illustrates potential routes to schools and libraries.
Additional information about using these maps and the land use tables is given in Chapter 1, ―How to Use this
Plan.‖
Civic Areas: Public Open Space
Many of the existing public parks in the Places29 area are associated with public schools. Parks associated
with schools will continue to provide public playing fields and other facilities for active recreational use. Due to
the type of facilities provided, these parks have the potential to attract users from beyond the neighborhoods
that immediately surround them. The bicycle paths and trails network shown on the Parks & Green Systems
Map provides the necessary connections.
This Master Plan includes specific requirements for public open spaces in future developments. New public
open spaces are to be included in every Neighborhood Service Center, Community Center, Destination
Center, and the Uptown. Guidance on open space that should be included in civic areas in Centers is provided
in Land Use Table (LU1) located at the end of this chapter.
New Centers that are currently undeveloped should provide civic areas approximately in the middle of the
development. The illustrations in Chapter 5, Figures 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.7, 5.9, 5.13., 5.15, and 5.18, show the
desired relationship between the public open space and the rest of the Center. At least 10 percent of the total
area of new Centers should be devoted to civic areas/public open space, with emphasis on the civic area‘s
role in creating the sense of place. For this reason, a large part of the recommended 10 percent open space
should be contained in a single area.
Provision of parks and public open space will be more challenging when Centers are created during
redevelopment. Parcel-by-parcel development may not afford opportunities for large civic areas. In this event,
at least 10 percent of the area to be redeveloped should be devoted to civic areas. Where a large public
amenity, such as a County park, is already within walking distance of the Center and pedestrian access is or
will be provided to the amenity, the required open space may be reduced or even eliminated. However, the
amenity must correspond to needs generated by the development. For example, if a property is to be
developed as a retail use without any residential uses, a plaza may be more suitable to the development than
a public park one-half mile away.
Future Civic Spaces (Generalized Locations)
In addition to the open spaces listed above, the Parks & Green Systems Map gives approximate locations,
illustrated with green star shapes, for additional open spaces that are outside of Centers and the areas around
Centers. These open spaces are intended to be focal points for development that is further than one-half mile
from a Center and beyond the areas around the Centers. The final location of these future civic spaces will be
determined either during the planning stages of larger rezonings or during preparation of the Small Area
Plans. The approximate location of the open spaces will be determined by analyzing the extent of walkable
areas around all the Centers and the Uptown. Whenever new development falls outside the walkable areas,
this Master Plan recommends locating an open space to provide a focal point for the new Neighborhood.
Privately Owned Open Space and Other Open Space Network Elements
This designation on the Parks & Green Systems Map combines significant clusters and contiguous areas of
steep slopes, the 100-year floodplain, and stream buffers with larger areas of privately owned open space in
existing developments. Together, these features combine to create a significant and comprehensive open
space network, which may also include space for proposed multi-use paths and trails. Where this designation
extends onto private property, it indicates that steep slopes are present and disturbance should be avoided.
These slopes should be considered when the property is redeveloped.
Forested Buffers along US 29. Forested landscaped buffers, between 30 and 50 feet deep, are
recommended along both sides of US 29 north of the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Ashwood Blvd.,
where they will create a separation between the road and new development. The depth of the buffer will
depend on the topographic conditions along the sides of US 29. The character of the buffer is intended to
resemble the conditions along the side of the road today. Existing views of rural fields would be preserved and
forested areas maintained or replaced as needed to recreate the forested, rural appearance adjacent to the
road at the time this Plan is adopted. Maintaining this character would preserve the visual break that exists
today between Neighborhoods 1 and 2 and the Development Areas north of the South Fork of the Rivanna
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 75)
River. More information about the nature of this buffer is given in the Forested Buffer Frontage section and the
Situations Specific to US 29 section of Chapter 7, Design Guidelines for the Places29 Area.
Greenways and Blueways
The County‘s Greenways Plan contains a number of existing and proposed Greenways in the Places29 area.
Additional Greenways are proposed in this Master Plan in the form of multi-use paths and trails shown on the
Parks & Green Systems Map. The network of Greenways and Blueways will provide extensive access to
County parks, the Rural Areas, and other open spaces, as well as the two Forks of the Rivanna, with their
boating and other recreational opportunities.
The Parks & Green Systems Map also shows access points to the Greenway System. Additional locations for
access points should be determined during the next update of the Greenways Plan and/or during review of
proposals for new development.
The County‘s Greenways Plan defines the following three types of access points:
1. Major Public Access Points: are located at established activity centers, such as public parks.
These access points provide a full range of facilities and services, including restrooms and
public parking.
2. Minor Public Access Points: are located at schools, offices, or major commercial areas.
Typically, amenities other than public parking are not provided at Minor Public Access Points.
3. Neighborhood Access Points: These are located in or near residential or mixed use
development. The developer or neighborhood association will determine the level of
amenities and parking provided. Neighborhood Access Points may be located on public or
private land.
Future Transportation Network
At one level, the transportation needs in the Places29 area can be defined solely as a supply issue —not
having enough capacity on major roadways like US 29, Hydraulic Road, and Rio Road. A supply-side only
approach toward fixing this problem, while straightforward and easily understood, does not address the
complexity of the demand for transportation in the Places29 area and the potential for changing the demand
pattern by modifying the pattern of development.
The Places29 area consists of places that people want to go through and want to go to. Two elements of
urban form exacerbate this supply/demand interaction. One is the length of the Places29 corridor and the
other is the dispersed pattern of commercial land uses throughout the Places29 area. The US 29 North
Corridor is over 10 miles long, so trips to and from land uses in the southern portion of the Places29 area look
like ―through‖ trips in the northern portion. Similarly, trips to and from land uses in the northern portion of the
Places29 area look like ―through‖ trips in the southern portion.
The dispersed, low-density, single-use form of development that has occurred in the past along the US 29
Corridor increases travel times and the number of trips for travelers, residents, and employees in the corridor.
It also limits the potential effectiveness of transit service. Both of these conditions exacerbate the ―demand‖
portion of the transportation problem by reducing the effectiveness of alternate modes of travel and increasing
reliance on travel by autos.
The supply and demand issues are also complicated because US 29 is a National Highway of Significance—
the only continuous north-south roadway in the Places29 area; nearly all traffic in the Northern Development
Areas winds up on US 29, regardless of the length or destination of the trip. Additionally, US 29 serves a
relatively small number of trips that are passing through Albemarle County, and, even though their proportion
is small, they are important trips from a regional and statewide perspective.
Both supply and demand issues must be addressed by the transportation network for the Places29 area. This
future transportation network has to consider a more robust network of roadways that would support
multimodal travel together with an urban form that encourages transit, walking, and bicycling. So, while people
in the Places29 area will continue to drive, the transportation network needs to expand the choices for
movement within and through the area, while the pattern of development takes advantage of and facilitates
those expanded choices.
The process used to develop the recommended transportation network for Places29 reflects:
The urban structure (land use patterns and built form) of the corridor.
The potential for the corridor to accommodate future growth.
How the current traffic operations on US 29 influence travel patterns.
Potential roadway improvements on US 29 and parallel to it.
Potential future roadway connections in and to the Places29 area.
Completion of an extensive transportation study by VDOT that identified a number of short-
and long-term transportation projects, including grade separation of six (6) impacted
intersections.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 76)
A recognition of limited available resources to undertake transportation projects and a focus
on the ―doable‖ and most immediately essential projects in the short term.
Deferral of planning for more long-term transportation projects, including possible grade-
separated intersections, for further evaluation and consideration based on transportation
studies and new traffic modeling to be conducted as part of the Master Plan‘s future five-year
updates.
The Future Transportation Network, as illustrated in Figure 4.8, includes the following layers:
Improvements to US 29 and associated improvements to parallel and connecting roads that
are necessary to support the changes on US 29 (primarily in the areas where major
intersection improvements are recommended)
Improvements to a network of parallel roads (primarily Hillsdale and Berkmar Drives, and
Meadow Creek Parkway) that are needed independent of private development projects
Roadways supporting private development that should be integrated into the corridor network
to provide for continuity of movement (Shown in green)
Potential roadways projected beyond the 2025 planning horizon (Shown in blue)
The potential for transit, bike, and walk trips in the corridor was estimated using a series of factors that were
applied within the travel forecasting model. The model estimates that about 7,000 trips could occur on transit
and that about 9,000 trips could be sufficiently short that they could be accomplished with non-auto modes. In
the aggregate, this level of transit use would represent about 2 percent of the overall travel demand and the
non-auto potential would be a similar amount. The combined amounts would reduce the auto trip making by
about 5 percent, which could defer the timing of some of the improvements proposed for the corridor, but
would not ultimately preclude the need for the proposed improvements.
The Places29 transit evaluation is based on a forecasting methodology that focused more on the three D's
(design, density, and diversity of uses in the urban form) than on ridership forecasting techniques; it is
important to note that the "transit" numbers are not a ridership forecast—they are an indication of the potential
for transit use related to development patterns. The factors used in the transportation model to estimate the
number of transit and bicycle/pedestrian trips were very conservative so that the results of the modeling would
be valid for the roadway network in the event that transit was not extended beyond the current CTS service
and that little additional provision was made for cyclists and pedestrians. It is very likely that transit ridership
would be significantly higher once the area builds out in a transit-supportive urban form, and a useful,
attractive transit system is put in place. Similarly, as more walkable areas develop and are connected with
paths and trails, it is likely that more people will walk and bicycle to transit and/or to their final destinations.
So, in addition to the roadways shown in the Transportation Network, the network includes the following
provisions for multimodal travel:
Three types of transit service: first, an express bus or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service on
US 29 that initially connects the City to the Rio Road/US 29 intersection area and later
extends to the Uptown near Airport Road, with route extensions that serve the airport and the
employment concentrations near Boulders Road. The BRT service would be supplemented
with a second type of transit, a circulator service that connects to centers on the parallel road
system. The circulator service would integrate with the third type of transit service, the local
CTS bus routes in the southern portion of the Places29 area.
Sidewalks and paths for pedestrians: a network of conventional sidewalks and shared paths
that are integrated into the roadway network. Provisions for crossing US 29 are included as
signalized crosswalks and at least one pedestrian overcrossing (see Figures 4.1 and 4.2).
Bicycle lanes, paths, and trails: onstreet bicycle lanes are linked with a system of green
corridors that is integrated with the recommended land uses, a network of multi-use paths
and trails to provide for a connected system of bicycle routes.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 77)
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 78)
Roadway Elements
Neighborhoods 1 and 2. For the transportation network between the 250 Bypass and the South Fork of the
Rivanna River, efforts should be made to preserve at-grade intersections at Hydraulic Road, Rio Road, and
Hilton Heights Road. Parallel roadways in this area are Berkmar Drive and Hillsdale Drive, portions of which
currently exist. These roadways would be extended to provide a more complete road network parallel to US
29. A Small Area Planning process would be used to develop the ultimate land use and transportation
recommendations for this area.
Hollymead and Piney Mountain. US 29 from the South Fork of the Rivanna to Towncenter Drive would be
widened to three lanes in each direction, but would preserve the rural cross section (from the South Fork to
Ashwood Blvd.). A parallel road would be added on the west side of US 29 as an extension of Berkmar Drive
with a bridge across the South Fork of the Rivanna River to connect to the existing segment of Berkmar Drive.
Streets connecting US 29 to Earlysville Road would also be constructed.
From Hollymead Town Center to Lewis and Clark Drive, efforts should be made to preserve two existing
signalized at-grade intersections on US 29—Airport Road/Proffit Road and Timberwood Blvd. The small area
planning process would be used to develop the ultimate land use and transportation recommendations. A
signal would be added on US 29 at the intersection with Airport Acres North. North Pointe Boulevard would
provide a new parallel road on the east side of US 29. The roadway network in the Uptown would be expanded
to increase connectivity on the west side of US 29. A signal would be added on US 29 at the intersection of
Northside Drive. The six-lane cross section on US 29 would be extended through Lewis and Clark Drive, but
would transition back to the existing four-lane cross section at the North Fork of the Rivanna river crossing.
North of Lewis and Clark Drive, signals are recommended at the intersections of US 29 with Austin Drive and
Dickerson Road. The cross section of US 29 would remain a four-lane rural divided, except near the
signalized intersections where turn lanes would be necessary.
Transit Elements
The goal of the transit improvements recommended for the Places29 area is to provide an alternative form of
transportation for those who prefer transit, as well as those who cannot or choose not to drive. The
transportation modeling conducted as part of the US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study showed that, at a
minimum, two percent of the total daily trips would be by transit. This is a relatively small number when
compared to the levels of transit use found in other parts of the country that have extensive transit networks
with attractive service and amenities for riders.
The current transit system in the Charlottesville metropolitan area is a ―hub and spoke‖ system, where most of
the looped and overlapping routes serve the City itself. One primary spoke serves the southern portion of the
US 29 North corridor, requiring that all potential transit riders use that single route. Such a linear system is
much less efficient than one that offers multiple routes, permits riders to walk to the bus stop, and provides
amenities, such as benches and signs with route/time information. The current service in the Places29 area is
based on a more suburban form of development, rather than the more compact urban form that is proposed in
this Plan. So, the current service does not serve as a good basis for projecting the ridership of a new system;
any model built on current, observed data would not be an appropriate representation of what could be
achieved by a high quality transit system. The transit system recommended for the Places29 area, when
combined with the City‘s network, is intended to be attractive to a larger percentage of potential users. The
recommended service plan outlined in the Regional Transit Authority Final Report would increase the
attractiveness of transit by significantly improving the reliability of service, reducing travel time, and improving
transfers to other routes.
An example of the type of transit system recommended for the Places29 area is shown in Figure 4.9. Two
types of service are included in the recommended network. One service type would be express bus service or
bus rapid transit (BRT) that would operate on US 29 and would provide a rapid connection from Charlottesville
and UVA to Airport Road, the proposed Uptown, and the concentrations of employment at the UVA Research
Park, the Rivanna Station Military Base, and the GE facility. Widely spaced stops would be provided at
Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Road, and on either side of Rio Road. This rapid service would be supplemented
with local circulator routes that would operate either as bus or streetcar. Transit service will need to be
frequent and consistent. Stops will need to be developed with facilities adequate to encourage and support
frequent use. Shelters, benches, and route information should be provided at each stop. Service routes and
stops need to be well-connected to the community with sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and park and ride lots
where appropriate.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Elements
A strong pedestrian- and bicycle-oriented infrastructure that connects Neighborhoods and Centers is a critical
component of a healthy and livable com munity. Providing multi-use paths, trails, and bikeways encourages
Places29 area residents to complete more of their trips without getting into their cars, which would provide
health benefits, reduce the vehicular miles traveled (VMT), and result in a cleaner environment for the
community. The bicycle and trails network illustrated on the Parks & Green Systems Map builds upon the
existing and proposed trails in the County‘s Greenways Plan, as well as existing on and offstreet bicycle lanes,
multi-use paths, and trails.
Bicycle Lanes. The existing and proposed onstreet bike lanes are closely integrated with the greater network
of bicycle facilities formed by a combination of low-speed streets, multi-use paths, and trails. Within this overall
network, bicycle lanes provide onstreet facilities for bicyclists throughout a number of the neighborhoods along
US 29. The proposed bicycle lanes shown on the Parks & Green Systems Map would enhance the limited
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 79)
network of existing bicycle lanes and accommodate anticipated future increases in bicycle traffic as
redevelopment and new development take place in the area.
Multi-Use Paths. Multi-use paths are an essential component of the Places29 bicycle and pedestrian
network. Multi-use paths are included in the Places29 network primarily along major thoroughfares (e.g., US
29 and portions of Berkmar Drive Extended) where the safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists
requires a greater separation from moving traffic and/or where development along the street is dominat ed by
deeper landscaped setbacks and a lower intensity of development. Multi-use paths are also included along
major greenways and natural areas. Because of the destinations they serve and the natural character of
landscapes they traverse, multi-use paths would be used by bicycle commuters, recreational bikers, and
pedestrians. While they typically follow road alignments, in some cases they diverge and provide improved
access along natural features.
Trails. The network of trails shown on the Parks & Green Systems Map provides access to natural areas and
features, as well as recreational amenities throughout the Places29 area. Routed along streams and through
preserved areas, they provide residents with opportunities for passive recreation and for escape from the
faster pace of urban life. The trails also function as scenic route segments along pedestrian and bicycle trips
to shopping and employment destinations.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 80)
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 81)
Grade-Separated and At-Grade Crossings of US 29 for Pedestrians and Bicyclists. The ability to cross
US 29 safely is essential to the success of the bicycle and trails network. The Parks & Green Systems Map
identifies locations where adjacent grades support the construction of grade-separated bicycle-pedestrian
bridges or undercrossings and where at-grade crossings could be located. An additional overcrossing is
illustrated on pages 4-15 and 4-16. At the two river crossings, opportunities exist to route multi-use paths or
trails underneath US 29. Where pedestrians and bic yclists cross US 29 at at-grade crossings, additional
pedestrian refuges will be incorporated into the standard US 29 cross section.
Cross Sections for Key Network Roads
To support the creation of a multimodal transportation network, this section of the Plan provides guidance on
how to integrate all the transportation modes—walking, bicycling, transit, autos, and freight—into the design of
the roadway. This guidance is in the form of typical cross sections that illustrate the relationships among
modes and the overall lane requirements for key network roads. The cross sections illustrate recommended
dimensions for traffic, parking, bike lanes, sidewalks, and paths. Landscape strips, setbacks, and frontage
types are also shown on the diagrams. It is important to note that the dimensions shown on each of the cross
section diagrams are intended to reflect average conditions and may vary depending upon the right-of-way
available for a specific roadway or segment of a roadway. Turn lanes and parking bays are shown on the
diagrams to illustrate how these roadway elements fit into the cross section. Not all locations would have the
same elements as shown on the sample cross sections.
The responsibility for ongoing maintenance of these roadways is also a consideration. Typically, the Virginia
Dept. of Transportation (VDOT) maintains roadways in the County, including most sidewalks. The County has
accepted maintenance responsibility for the trees in landscaped strips and medians.
The cross sections recommended in this Master Plan are grouped according to the type of road: US 29,
boulevards and other four-lane roads, and avenues and other two-lane roads. The four cross sections for US
29 are repeated and additional cross sections for two-lane and four-lane roadways are provided in Appendix 3.
The caption for each cross section contains either a letter in a box or a number in parentheses. These show,
on the map at the end of Appendix 3, the roadway segments to which each cross section applies.
US 29. For US 29, there are three general cross sections: four-lane, six-lane, and eight-lane. US 29 will
continue to be a multi-lane principal arterial with a modified boulevard design that alternates between urban
and rural cross sections as it travels through the Places29 area. Table 4.1 lists the cross sections that occur
along US 29. Each cross section is illustrated after the table. The letters or numbers in squares beside the
captions correspond to the sections shown on the map at the end of Appendix 3. Roadway Cross Sections.
Table 4.1. Overview of US 29 Cross Sections
Segment Basic Cross Section
Hydraulic Road to Polo
Grounds Road
Eight through lanes with median, no onstreet parking or bike lanes,
urban drainage; sidewalk on one side of the roadway, multi-use
(pedestrian and bicycle) path on the other. (See Figure 4.10)
Polo Grounds Road to
Hollymead Town Center and
Airport Drive to the North Fork
of the Rivanna River
Six lanes with wide median, no onstreet parking or bike lanes, rural
drainage; pedestrians and bicycles on paths adjacent to the
roadway. (See Figure 4.11)
Hollymead Town Center to
Airport Road
Six lanes with median and right turn lanes, no onstreet parking or
bike lanes, urban drainage; sidewalk/path on one side of the
roadway, multi-use path on the other. (See Figure 4.12)
North of the North Fork of the
Rivanna River
Four lanes with wide median, no onstreet parking or bike lanes,
rural drainage; multi-use path on one side of the roadway. (See
Figure 4.13)
Figure 4.10. US 29, a typical eight-lane section, as used from Hydraulic Road to Polo Grounds
Road. Right turn lanes may be added, as necessary. Left turn lanes will be incorporated into the
median. The multi-use path may be placed on the other side of the street than shown.
A
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 82)
Figure 4.11. US 29, six-lane rural section from Polo Grounds Road to Towncenter Drive and from
Airport Road to the North Fork of the Rivanna River.
Figure 4.12. US 29 Six-Lane Section with Urban Frontage, from Hollymead Town
Center to Airport Road. Building setbacks will be 30 feet from the back of the curb. This
section shows noncontinuous right turn lanes.
Figure 4.13. US 29 Existing Conditions with Added Multi-Use Path and
Median Landscaping, located north of the North Fork of the Rivanna River.
Boulevards and Other Four-Lane Roadways
Four-lane roadways in the Places29 area are generally, but not always, boulevards with center medians and
include provisions for bike lanes, sidewalks, and onstreet parking. On some roads, the median is a two-way
C
s
e
t
B
D
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 83)
left turn lane. The cross section shown in Figure 4.14 is one example of a typical four -lane roadway. Where
the right-of-way is constrained, the median may be narrower, bike lanes may have to be eliminated, and/or
sidewalks and landscaped strips narrowed. Where there is sufficient right-of-way, onstreet parking may be
added. Where the topography is an issue, the two sides of the roadway may be constructed at different
elevations. Additional examples of four-lane road cross sections that incorporate a number of variations from
what is shown in Figure 4.14 are included in Appendix 3. The key four-lane roadways in the Places29 area and
their cross sections are described below Figure 4.14.
Figure 4.14. A representative cross section of a four-lane road (12).
Rio Road East. Rio Road east of US 29 to the Meadow Creek Parkway will continue as a four-lane boulevard
with a center turn lane, without onstreet parking, but with onstreet bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of
the roadway. Landscaped strips would separate the sidewalks from the roadway. Portions of this segment of
roadway would have an access lane adjacent to Rio Road, which would relocate the sidewalk to the outside of
the access lane on one side of Rio Road.
Hydraulic Road and Rio Road West. Hydraulic Road and Rio Road west of US 29 would continue as four-
lane boulevards with center turn lanes, without onstreet parking, but with onstreet bike lanes and sidewalks on
both sides of the roadway. Landscaped strips would separate the sidewalks from the roadway. A continuous
two-way left turn lane would be used in place of a median on some segments of Hydraulic Road.
Berkmar Drive. Berkmar Drive from Rio Road to Hilton Heights Road would be a four-lane boulevard with a
16-foot center median with onstreet bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the road. Landscaped strips
would separate the sidewalks from the roadway. Segments of Berkmar Drive would have onstreet parking.
There are constrained locations on Berkmar Drive where insufficient right-of-way is available to develop the
roadway according to the cross section described above. In those locations, the center median would be
reduced to a nominal 4 to 6 feet, and left turns would be made from the inside through lanes rather than from
dedicated left-turn lanes.
As Berkmar Drive extends north from Hilton Heights Road, the west side of the roadway might be modified to
provide bays for parking with landscaping between the parking pockets and the sidewalk. The onstreet bike
lane would be replaced with a multi-use path that would continue across the bridge over the South Fork of the
Rivanna River. North of the bridge, Berkmar would be a rural four-lane boulevard with multi-use trails on either
side of the roadway. Ultimately, Berkmar Drive would transition to a two-lane section with sidewalks when it
joins Meeting Street in Hollymead Town Center.
Airport Road. Airport Road will continue as a four-lane boulevard without onstreet parking, but with onstreet
bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides. Landscaped strips would separate the sidewalks from the roadway.
Innovation Drive/Lewis & Clark Drive. From Airport Road to US 29, this road will be a four-lane avenue with
a center median. One side will have a sidewalk with tree wells and the other side will have a landscaped strip
and a multi-use path.
Dickerson Road (portions). From Earlysville Road to Quail Run, Dickerson Road will be a four-lane split
section road. It will be rural on the west side. On the east side, it will have a curb, sidewalk, and street trees.
Boulders Road (portions closest to US 29), unnamed roads connecting US 29 to North Pointe Blvd.,
the portion of Towncenter Drive east of Meeting Street, and Timberwood Blvd. will also have a four-lane
section.
Avenues and Other Two-Lane Roadways
Two-lane roadways in the Places29 area are used for both short trips and access to adjacent land uses.
These roadways are multimodal; pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and vehicles all have access to the land
uses nearby. These roadways are also low-speed and tree-lined. They may include turn lanes and onstreet
parking and have buildings close to the street. A typical two-lane cross section is shown in Figure 4.15. In
many instances, an existing road has a constrained right-of-way, so some roadway elements in this cross
section may need to be narrowed or eliminated. Additional examples of two-lane roadways are included in
Appendix 3. The key two-lane roadways in the Places29 area and their cross sections are described below
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 84)
Figure 4.15.
Figure 4.15. A representative example of a two-lane road cross section (6). [Minor changes will be made in some
of the measurements for sidewalks, landscaped buffers, and multi -use paths]
Hillsdale Drive, Berkmar Drive (portions), New Streets in Mixed-Use Centers. Hillsdale Drive from
Greenbrier Drive to Road East, Berkmar Drive south of Rio Road, and several of the new streets in mixed-use
centers will be two-lane avenues (some with center medians), onstreet parking, bike lanes, and sidewalks with
tree wells on both sides.
Towncenter Drive (portions), Meeting Street (portions), the Uptown Main Street, Northside Drive,
Hollymead Drive Extended, Timberwood Blvd. Towncenter Drive west of Meeting Street would be a two-
lane avenue with sidewalks with tree wells on both sides. The main street in the Uptown will have a similar
cross section, but with wider sidewalks. Meeting Street south of Towncenter Drive will be convertible from two
lanes with onstreet parking to four lanes, if needed, by removing the onstreet parking. Northsi de Drive and
Hollymead Drive Extended will have the same traffic zone design, but the sidewalks with tree wells would be
replaced on one side by a sidewalk and a landscaped strip and on the other side by a landscaped strip and a
multi-use path.
Albemarle Place Drive Extended and Boulders Road/Piney Mountain Loop (portions). The Boulders
Road/Piney Mountain Loop road will be a two-lane avenue with onstreet parking and bike lanes on both sides.
If Albemarle Place Drive is extended north of Greenbrier Drive adjacent to existing residential uses, it will not
be expected to have a sidewalk. Buffering and screening will buffer the existing residences from the new
roadway.
North Pointe Boulevard. North Pointe Boulevard will be a two-lane avenue with a center median and bike
lanes and sidewalks on both sides. Landscaped strips will separate the sidewalk from the roadway. This street
could be converted to a four-lane section if it were ever required to carry greater traffic volumes.
Proffit Road. Proffit Road from Worth Crossing to Pritchett Lane will be a two-lane avenue, with a center turn
lane, but without onstreet parking. One side of the roadway will have a sidewalk and the other a multi -use
path, both separated from the roadway by landscaped strips. East of Pritchett, Proffit Road will transition to a
rural section and the sidewalk will be discontinued.
Dickerson Road. Dickerson Road north of Quail Run may be reconstructed to an urban section. However,
provision should be made for it to ultimately have four lanes.
Commonwealth Drive, Whitewood Road, Woodburn Road. All of these are existing urban streets.
However, as redevelopment takes place, tree lawns or grates should be added along with sidewalks where
they do not currently exist.
Neighborhood Streets and Block Patterns
One of the major transportation recommendations of this Master Plan, as discussed above, is to construct a
network of roads parallel and perpendicular to US 29 that would give drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and
transit users alternate routes to destinations. This network of parallel and perpendicular roads would allow a
significant number of local trips to be on roads other than US 29 for all or part of their length. The network of
parallel and perpendicular roads shown on the Transportation Network Diagram provides the major framework
for all of the smaller, local streets that serve individual developments and neighborhoods. It is important to
note that the Transportation Network Diagram illustrates the most critical future roadways, bu t not the full
pattern of local streets that is needed to fulfill the connectivity goals of this Master Plan.
These local streets and the block patterns they form are the subject of this section. Decisions about the street
network result in blocks of various sizes. Blocks are one of the most fundamental elements of urban form.
Blocks and block size are essential in creating walkable, interconnected neighborhoods. As noted in the
Neighborhood Model, the hilly character of Albemarle significantly affects the ability to create a true grid street
system. Instead, the recommendations are for street connections that relate more to Albemarle topography.
While rectangular blocks may not be possible, parallel and perpendicular connections can mimic blocks.
To create blocks in the Places 29 area, three types of local streets can be used to support development along
US 29 while limiting entrances onto US 29. These three streets are a one-way service road, a new main street
with its back to the primary arterial, and a perpendicular street arrangement. All the examples below illustrate
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 85)
concepts for US 29, but can easily be adapted for other parallel and perpendicular streets. The three concepts
can also be combined in order to accommodate a broad range of local conditions and types of existing and
proposed development.
Local Access Lane/Service Road (with one-way traffic)
Figure 4.16 illustrates how a local access lane can help create a block pattern that meets interconnectivity
needs while reducing the number of intersections along US 29 or other major road. The local access lane is a
low-speed, one-way travel lane that is parallel to major road. The lane provides access to adjacent properties
and allows turning movements onto local streets that do not intersect with the center travel lanes of the major
road. Local access lanes may also provide parallel or angled parking to support businesses oriented towards
the major road and pedestrian activity along the sidewalks between the access lane and adjacent uses (Figure
4.17).
Figure 4.16. A Local Access lane, shown on the left side of the diagram just to the right of the Entrance Corridor,
facilitates a block pattern that promotes interconnectivity while minimizing the number of intersectio ns along a
major road.
Figure 4.17. A cross section showing local access lanes on each side of an Entrance Corridor. These lanes
create a pedestrian and business-friendly environment along the street edge where onstreet parking and
vegetated medians buffer the sidewalks.
A landscaped median buffers activities in the local access lane from the fast moving traffic in the center travel
lanes. The main facades and entrances of buildings are oriented toward the pedestrian-friendly local access
lane. The photosimulation in Figure 4.18 illustrates the potential streetscape character of such a local access
lane along US 29. Local access lanes may be most appropriate for urbanized portions of US 29 south of the
South Fork of the Rivanna River.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 86)
Figure 4.18. A photosimulation showing a local access lane along US 29.
Local Access Lanes are appropriate along major roads with high traffic volumes, where a strong buffer and
transition is required between fast moving traffic and the land uses that face the major road. The feasibility of
local access lanes depends on local conditions, such as the available right of way, and should be determined
through a feasibility study. Local access lanes are an appropriate solution along US 29 (or other major roads).
Three types of intersections may occur along a local access lane:
1. An intersecting local road or access aisle forms a T -intersection with the local access lane. In
this configuration, the side median of the access lane is continuous and prevents access to
the center travel lanes of the major road (see Location A in Figure 4.16).
2. A two-lane street intersects with the local access lane and the center travel lanes of the major
road. The center median is continuous while the side median of the access lane is broken to
allow right-in/right-out traffic movements (see Location B in Figure 4.16).
3. A perpendicular cross street with travel and turn lanes intersects with the major road. The
center median of the major road is broken to allow left turns onto and/or off the major road at
a signal. Under these conditions, the local access lane rejoins the center travel lanes about
50 feet prior to reaching the major cross street. Alternatively, the local access lane may
continue to the cross street, where it ends with a right-turn only movement at the intersection
(see Location C in Figure 4.16).
The photosimulation in Figure 4.19 and the cross section in Figure 4.20 illustrate a local access lane at a
smaller scale near Gasoline Alley along Rio Road East. In the photosimulation, the local access lane is on the
far side of the street from the viewer. The cross section shows how vehicular connections through surface
parking lots (or structured parking) behind the buildings that face the local access lane can be used to
facilitate a circulation pattern that allows travel in the direction opposite to that of the access lane.
Figure 4.19. A local access lane fronts the street in the photosimulation of redevelopment in the Gasoline Alley
area.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 87)
Figure 4.20. A cross section illustrating how the side median of a local access lane can be used to bridge grade
differences between the center travel lane and the adjacent development.
Loop Road (two-way traffic)
Similar to a local access lane, the ―Loop Road‖ concept illustrated in Figure 4.21 can also be used to reduce
the number of direct street connections to the major road. However, with a loop road, a pedestrian-friendly
environment is created along a street that parallels the major road at a distance that allows for development
(and parking) to occur between the loop road and the major road. Parking is accommodated behind the
buildings that front on the loop road/pedestrian street. As this locates parking adjacent to and along the major
road (or Entrance Corridor), landscape buffers ar e needed to create a positive pedestrian environment for
people using the multi-use paths or sidewalks and to create a coherent visual quality along the Corridor.
The truncated streets or parking access roads between the Loop Road and the major road should be used to
create pedestrian and bicycle connections between the pedestrian-oriented loop road and the multi-use paths
or sidewalks along the major road.
The Loop Road approach is appropriate where the right of way is limited or where topographic conditions do
not allow the use of local access lanes.
Figure 4.21. A Loop Road can be used to minimize the number of direct connections to the major road, while
offering a protected pedestrian and business-friendly street environment.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 88)
Perpendicular Main Street
The concept of the ―Perpendicular Main Street‖ is related to the Centers that are oriented toward a street
perpendicular to US 29. North of the South Fork of the Rivanna River, examples of perpendicular main streets
include Ashwood Blvd., Airport Road, and Proffit Road. South of the South Fork, Perpendicular Main Streets
tie directly into the existing or redeveloping urban fabric along US 29. Figure 4.22 illustrates how block and
street patterns can satisfy the guidelines for block size and a multimodal street network. While the
perpendicular street is the only street that creates a vehicular link between US 29 and a parallel road (e.g.,
Berkmar Drive Extended), frequent non-vehicular connections between local streets and the multi-use path
along US 29 establish a high level of connectivity for non-vehicular travel modes.
Figure 4.22. A perpendicular Main Street can be the only street that creates a vehicular link between a major
road and a parallel road (i.e., Berkmar Drive Extended). However, frequent nonvehicular connections between
local streets and the multi-use path along the major road establish a high level of connectivity for nonvehicular
travel modes.
During review of development proposals, special attention should be given to the need for the parallel and
perpendicular roads. The street network developed to serve areas adjacent to major roads should rely on
Local Access Lanes and Loop Roads to limit the number of roads intersecting with the major road. Developers
should be encouraged to provide those segments of these roads that cross their property. Parallel and
perpendicular roads should be designed for lower traffic speeds, with bicycle and pedestrian amenities. Where
access to parking lots behind or beside buildings must cross pedestrian pathways or bicycle lanes, adequate
signage and markings should be provided to indicate where pedestrians and bicyclists are likely to be present
and where they have the right of way.
Transit-Oriented Development
An expanded and enhanced transit system is recommended for the Places29 area. As new blocks and streets
are created, it is important to include areas for transit. In order to attract passengers and provide needed
services throughout the area, transit stops should be provided in strategic places and should incorporate
amenities to make the system easy to use. Development near future transit stops in all Entrance Corridors
should include convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections to these stops and consider the possibilities for
transit-oriented development (TOD), if the quality of provided transit services rises to the level of Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT).
Future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or Express Bus stops on US 29 should include attractive and functional bus
shelters and provide ample space to accommodate convenient boarding/alighting, as well as pedestrian
circulation past the bus stop. Additional amenities, such as pedestrian-scale lighting, seating, trash/recycling
receptacles, wayfinding signage, and bicycle parking should also be considered, as warranted by expected
ridership numbers.
Potential Transportation Improvements beyond 2025
There are several potential roadway improvements and recommendations for further study that have grown
out of the US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study. None of these are recommended as part of the
transportation network during the 20-year implementation timeframe. However, they may become necessary
after 2025.
Eastern Connector. The Eastern Connector was identified in the long-range transportation plan for the
Charlottesville-Albemarle area for an alignment study. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (Board)
and Charlottesville City Council (Council) decided in 2006 to fund the Easter Connector Study jointly. The
study area for the Eastern Connector is bounded by Route 250 to the south, US 29 to the west, Proffit Road to
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 89)
the north, and Route 20 to the east.
The result of the alignment study is a preferred alternative that includes either a four-lane or a two-lane road
going through Pen Park and, possibly, through Darden Towe Park. It should be noted that there is
considerable public opposition to routing the connector through parks. Also, there may be significant federal
hurdles to placing a roadway within parks that have received federal funding or for a roadway to be built with
federal funding through a park.
Additionally, the study recommended planning for future connections to Polo Grounds Road and to Proffit
Road. Neither of those alignments was considered effective within the Eastern Connector timeframe, but the
lack of a better option closer to Route 250 sparked recognition that there is a need for planning further into the
future for transportation improvements (e.g., a 50-year timeframe). Both options have significant issues and
there are potential conflicts with the Southwest Mountain Historic District, Proffit Historic District, and
properties already in qualified conservation easement. Additionally, these alternatives may conflict with some
goals of the County‘s Rural Areas Plan. All of these issues would need to be studied further if there is interest
in planning for a future connector using either the Polo Grounds Road or Proffit Road alternatives.
Although a preferred alternative for the Eastern Connector was indentified in Fall 2008, the Board of
Supervisors delayed making a decision on the alignment, indicating that there are no funds available now to
pay for the connector. The Board also said it wants to see the results of the National Household
Transportation Survey, a regional origin and destination (O & D) study, now being conducted by the Federal
Highway Administration and due to be completed in 2010. In addition, the Board would like the MPO Policy
Board to be part of the discussion on the choice of alignment.
While an Eastern Connector would improve connectivity between the City and County, connecting the Eastern
Connector to Rio Road would increase the westbound/northbound and southbound/eastbound trips on Rio
road and US 29. Linking an Eastern Connector to Rio Road would increase the need for a facility to provide a
preferred southbound to eastbound turning movement at the intersection of Rio Road and US 29. Constructing
Northern Free State Road would reduce the need for the direct ramp by intercepting traffic coming from north
of the Rivanna River.
Northern Free State Road. The network analyses indicated that, if Berkmar Drive is extended across the
South Fork of the Rivanna River, the Northern Free State Road connection would not be necessary before
2025. However, operations analyses showed that by 2025, several locations on US 29 would be near capacity
to the extent that additional development in the northern portion of the corridor beyond 2025 would require
additional improvements on US 29. In this post-2025 condition, Northern Free State Road would be necessary
to relieve traffic congestion on US 29. An Eastern Connector alignment linked to either Rio Road or Polo
Grounds Road would reinforce the need for the Northern Free State Road connection across the river.
Accordingly, preserving right-of-way for Northern Free State Road is recommended.
Development Capacity
This Master Plan distinguishes between growth projected to occur in the Northern Development Areas within
the 20-year implementation timeframe and the potential development capacity of the area to accommodate all
the land uses designated on the Future Land Use Map. The Future Land Use Map shows land use
designations for all of the property in the Northern Development Areas, whether it is likely to develop during
the 20-year implementation timeframe or afterward. In fact, it is likely to be decades before all of the land uses
shown on the Map have reached full buildout.
2025 Growth Projections
The traffic analysis conducted for this plan takes into account the growth projections for the
Charlottesville/Northern Albemarle area as established by the 2025 regional growth allocation from the state
demographer. The projected growth between the base year for this plan (2005) and the year 2025 are listed in
Table 4.2 below. The majority of the projected growth will occur in already approved projects, with the
remaining growth assumed to occur in areas surrounding these developments.
Potential Capacity
Currently, no exact predictions can be made about growth rates and the spatial allocation of growth in the
Places29 area beyond the 2025 time horizon. However, using the Future Land Use Map, the potential
development capacity, which is the capacity of an area of land to accommodate a designated land use, can be
calculated. The calculations of potential development capacity for the Places29 area take into account the
range of intensities and the mix of uses that are allowed within the different land use designations shown on
the Future Land Use Map. Table 4.2 lists the possible range of potential development capacities for
employment and residential land uses in the Places29 area.
It is important to understand that future development will not consistently occur at the highest or lowest end of
the range. It is expected that the development capacity—the full implementation of the illustrated land use
pattern and neighborhood structure—will occur many years or even decades after 2025.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 90)
Table 4.2. Existing and Projected (2025) Development Capacity for Residential Units and Employment
Dwelling
Units
Dwelling
Units Change Employment Employment
Change
Existing (2005) 14,200 --- 15,900 ---
Projected (2025) 21,000 48% 40,900 157%
Development Capacity 37,900 167% 127,200 700%
Source: CD+A. Additional information is in the Assets, Needs & Opportunities Report.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 91)
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 92)
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 93)
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 94)
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 95)
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 96)
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 97)
5. Place Types
Introduction
In the County‘s Development Areas, the Neighborhood is the fundamental unit of community planning. A
Neighborhood is a place where people can live, work, shop, and play. Its build ings, streets, and public and
private areas relate well to one another by plan, not by happenstance. The Neighborhood is sized so that an
average person can walk from its center to its fringe in five minutes. Development is expected to follow the 12
principles of the Neighborhood Model.
The Places29 Master Plan applies the Neighborhood Model to the four Northern Development Areas. In this
area, US 29 has a profound impact on development patterns, building scale, transportation, and community
character, creating a specific set of challenges and opportunities for implementation of the Neighborhood
Model.
This chapter describes how the term ―Neighborhood‖ is applied in the Places29 area through the use of a
variety of place types. Several kinds of Centers are recommended and the areas around these Centers form
Neighborhoods. Employing these place types will help to ensure that the area‘s growth is accommodated as
envisioned by the County‘s Comprehensive Plan, this Master Plan, and the citizens of Albemarle County.
Existing suburban neighborhoods like Forest Lakes, Raintree, Dunlora, and Woodbrook will retain their current
land use pattern and not include new mixed-use Centers.
This chapter begins with an overview of the structure of neighborhoods and continues with a description of
Centers and the areas around Centers. Additional information about the land use designations, including
Center designations, is found in Chapter 4. Design guidelines are presented in Chapter 7, and in an appendix
to the Comprehensive Plan, General Design Guidelines for Development Areas.
The Structure of Neighborhoods
The basic structure of a Neighborhood is simple: the Neighborhood is a combination of two Place Types, a
Center and a walkable area around the Center. The concept behind this structure is that, if homes or
workplaces in the area around the Center are located within a 5- to 10-minute walk of the Center, then more
people will be able to walk or bicycle to the Center. This closer association with the Center helps to create an
identifiable character for the Neighborhood. The Center and Neighborhood types are described below and
shown in Figure 5.1.
A key requirement for a workable Neighborhood is that both the Center and the area around it need to be
walkable and to accommodate pedestrian needs. Walkable means three things: 1) the presence of sidewalks
or multi-use paths that allow safe pedestrian travel to the Center, 2) a high level of connectivity, and 3) a
relationship between adjacent uses and the sidewalk or path that creates a comfortable and interesting
pedestrian environment. Connectivity is high when there are multiple routes between a Center and the
surrounding areas, and when these routes are convenient rather than circuitous. Street networks—and their
sidewalks—need to be interconnected and provide the shortest feasible walking routes.
A well-designed Neighborhood should be pedestrian-friendly, but also accommodate bicyclists, transit riders,
cars, and appropriate delivery and larger vehicles. Open space and buildings at a human scale are an integral
part of overall Neighborhood design. Density and land use generally, but not always, vary from the Center to
the edge of a Neighborhood‘s walkable area.
The overall character of the Neighborhood is largely determined by the dominant land use (i.e., residential,
employment, or mixed use). Because a Neighborhood tends to include different residential types at varying
densities, it should provide housing and employment choices that address the needs of a broad range of the
County‘s population.
This Master Plan identifies three types of Neighborhoods and one type of District:
Residential Neighborhood
Employment Neighborhood
Mixed Use Neighborhood
Airport District
Residential Neighborhood
Residential Neighborhoods are residential areas organized around and well-connected to a public open space
or a Center. The residences have convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Center (see Figures
5.2 through 5.4). They are generally located within a 1/4- to 1/2-mile walking distance from the Center. The
residences may be single-family detached homes, townhomes, condominiums, or apartments in any of a
broad variety of densities and configurations. A mix of residential types is ideal. Other uses, such as schools,
places of worship, and civic uses may also be located within a Residential Neighborhood. Some mixed-use
development is also allowed, such as live/work units.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 98)
Figure 5.2. Concept Diagram of a Residential Neighborhood
Shown with a Neighborhood Service Center
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 99)
Figure 5.3. Example of a Residential Neighborhood
Shown with an urban open space
Figure 5.4. Example of a Residential Neighborhood
Shown with onstreet parking & shallow front setbacks
Employment Neighborhood
The Employment Neighborhood reflects the importance of the Places29 area as a major employment hub for
the County and the larger region. In an Employment Neighborhood, employment uses are organized around a
Neighborhood Service Center (see Figures 5.5 and 5.6), which provides service and retail opportunities to
workers employed by businesses located in the Center and in the area around it. A public open space in the
Center provides opportunities for active and passive recreation for employees. Employment Neighborhoods
may also be located around one of the larger Centers.
Figure 5.5. Concept Diagram of an Employment Neighborhood
Shown with a Neighborhood Service Center
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 100)
Figure 5.6. Example of a building in an Employment Neighborhood with groundfloor retail and offices on upper
floors
Organizing employment uses into walkable areas around Centers gives employees the opportunity to be less
car-dependent. Employees have the opportunity to walk to restaurants during their lunch break or after work,
and they can shop for goods and services in the Center without having to make a separate trip. This pattern
also encourages carpooling, riding a bicycle, or taking transit to work.
Clusters of businesses that support or serve one another are encouraged to locate in the same Employment
Neighborhood. Other uses, such as recreational, retail, and public facilities may also be located in these
Neighborhoods to provide services to employees. Residential uses may also be located in the Center of an
Employment Neighborhood to provide additional activity during nonworking hours and to create transitions to
adjacent Residential Neighborhoods.
Mixed Use Neighborhood
The distinguishing feature of a Mixed Use Neighborhood is that the area around the Center includes the full
range of residential and nonresidential uses (see Figures 5.7 and 5.8). In Mixed Use Neighborhoods,
residential uses are found primarily on the upper floors of mixed use buildings (with offices or retai l on the
ground floor), but residential uses may also be located in blocks of apartments, rowhouses, and single family
homes on small lots. Mixed Use Neighborhoods are also well-suited for live-work units located on the first floor
of buildings. The close integration of residential uses with offices, retail, commercial, employment, civic uses,
and parks creates vibrant places that are active throughout the day and into the evening hours. Mixed Use
Neighborhoods provide a unique setting for homes and businesses that satisfies a market niche for those who
value an active, dynamic urban experience. Because the entire Neighborhood is mixed use, the Center is
more fully integrated into the Neighborhood than other Centers in Residential or Employment Neighborhoods.
Figure 5.7. Concept Diagram of a Mixed Use Neighborhood
Shown with a central public open space
Figure 5.8. Example of buildings in a Mixed Use Neighborhood with ground floor retail and residential on upper
floors
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 101)
Airport District
As defined in the Neighborhood Model, Districts are single-use areas. Only one District is designated in the
Places29 area: the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. The Airport, which will develop according to the Airport
Master Plan, plays a vital role in the future development of the Uptown and the County. The airport also serves
as a catalyst for surrounding industrial uses that provide services to the airport and benefit from proximity to
the airport.
Buffering and accessibility are particularly important considerations for incorporating the Airport District into the
Places29 area. Due to aircraft operations, it is necessary to create a physical buffer between parts of the
airport and surrounding residential uses. At the same time, it is important for the airport to be fully integrated
into the transportation systems in the Places29 area, the City of Charlottesville, and the larger region so the
needs of air travelers and freight shippers are met.
Center Types
A Center is the focal point of the Neighborhood and usually includes a mix of residential and nonresidential
uses. These uses may be mixed either vertically or horizontally:
1. Vertically Mixed—where uses are mixed in the same building. For example, the first floor may
be retail or office, while the upper floor(s) are residential or office.
2. Horizontally Mixed—where uses are mixed in adjacent buildings. For example, a restaurant
may be located in a building next door to an office building, or next door to a building with
retail on the first floor and offices on the upper floors.
Centers usually have a higher density than the surrounding area, include a concentration of amenities, and
serve the entire Neighborhood. Community and Destination Centers also serve a larger ―market area‖ beyond
their immediate neighborhood. The appearance and character of the Center is designed to have a positive
effect on the rest of the Neighborhood. Some of the larger Centers may be high-intensity areas, with a mixture
of retail, services, public facilities (including parks), and employment. This mix of uses and the activities
generated by them attract residents from the surrounding area and visitors from beyond the Neighborhood.
Most importantly, a Center functions as a public space and a destination with in the Neighborhood and the
larger community. Centers are dynamic, active places that help establish a community identity within the
Places29 area. They also encourage transportation choice: walking, bicycling, riding transit, and parking once
within the Center while completing multiple errands. The Future Land Use Map in Chapter 4 shows the
distribution of Neighborhood Service, Community, and Destination Centers in the Places29 area. This Master
Plan defines four types of Centers, ranging from the smallest to the largest:
Neighborhood Service Center (shown with an ―NS‖ on the Future Land Use Map)
Community Center (shown with a ―C‖ on the Future Land Use Map)
Destination Center (shown with a ―D‖ on the Future Land Use Map)
The Uptown (shown with an ―Up‖ on the Future Land Use Map)
Neighborhood Service Center
Neighborhood Service Centers, the smallest mixed-use Centers, provide local-serving retail/service uses,
such as a drycleaner, florist, convenience store, or coffee shop in a horizontal or vertical m ixed use
configuration to support the residences, businesses, and other uses around them. Neighborhood Service
Centers typically range in size between 1 and 10 acres (see Figure 5.9). Larger Neighborhood Service Centers
may consist of multiple buildings or entire street frontages that stretch for one or two blocks. The upper floors
of mixed-use buildings can accommodate residential or office uses. The mix of uses in the Neighborhood
Service Center will be selected to serve the surrounding area. If the surrounding area is primarily residential,
then the Center should include supporting uses such as a drycleaner, mini-mart, newsstand, coffee shop, and
similar uses. If, on the other hand, employment uses are the major component of the area surrounding the
Center, then the uses in the Center will include those that employers and employees would patronize.
Figure 5.9. Concept diagram of a Neighborhood Service Center
Each Neighborhood Service Center should include a publicly accessible urban open space. In larger
Neighborhood Service Centers this may be a park, while smaller Centers may include a plaza (Figure 5.10) or
a pocket park (Figure 5.11). Neighborhood Service Centers may also serve as the core of an Employment
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 102)
Neighborhood (Figure 5.12).
Figure 5.10. An Example of a Neighborhood Service Center with a Plaza
Figure 5.11. An Example of a Neighborhood Service Center with a Pocket Park
Figure 5.12. A Photosimulation of a Neighborhood Service Center serving an Emplo yment Neighborhood.
(Photosimulation by Urban Advantage commissioned by Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network)
Neighborhood Service Centers in the Places29 Area
There are 20 Neighborhood Service Centers designated on the Future Land Use Map (see Chapter 4). Based
on their current level of development, some of these areas may develop or redevelop into Centers sooner than
others. Some may even redevelop on a parcel-by-parcel basis over a period of years. Centers fall into one of
four groups:
1. Centers that are greenfield sites (no development) or are underdeveloped:
a. On Rio Road East across the Meadow Creek Parkway from CATEC
b. In the northeast quadrant of US 29 and Polo Grounds Road
c. Across US 29 from Hollymead Drive North
d. On the east side of Dickerson Road on both sides of August Lane
e. In Piney Mountain on the east side of US 29 on Boulders Road
2. Developed Centers that are likely candidates for redevelopment:
a. East side of Hydraulic Road adjacent to Webland Drive
b. Southeast corner of US 29 and Greenbrier Drive
3. Centers that will be developed according to a plan approved by the County or that will be
included in a Small Area Plan:
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 103)
a. Rio Road West adjacent to the Oakleigh development
b. On the north side of Berkmar Drive between US 29 and Rio Road West (Small Area
Plan)
c. On Belvedere Blvd, part of the Belvedere development
d. Southwest quadrant of the intersection of US 29 and Airport Road, will be part of the
Airport Road Corridor Small Area Plan
e. Northwest quadrant of the intersection of US 29 and Airport Road, will be part of the
Airport Road Corridor Small Area Plan
4. Centers that are currently developed and not expected to redevelop within the first 10 years
of the Plan:
a. Northeast quadrant of Hydraulic Road and Commonwealth Drive
b. On the east side of Hydraulic Road on both sides of Whitewood Road
c. On Rio Road West on the south side of Four Seasons Drive
d. On the west side of US 29 on both sides of Westfield Road
e. On Rio Road East between Putt Putt Place and Rio East Court
f. On Rio Road East northwest of the Norfolk Southern railroad tracks
g. On the east side of US 29 south of Woodbrook Drive
h. On the east side of Dickerson Road on both sides of Quail Run
Community Center
Community Centers (Figures 5.13 and 5.14) provide retail and service uses for the surrounding area and the
community beyond. They are typically anchored by a grocery store with additional retail, service, or
commercial uses, as well as residences and office uses on upper floors of mixed -use buildings. Single-use
residential or office buildings may also be part of the mix of uses. The residential and office uses give the
Community Center the desired mixed-use character and provide an opportunity to broaden the range of
residential unit types and jobs available in the Places29 area. Where there are no nearby Neighborhood
Service Centers, Community Centers are encouraged to include neighborhood-serving uses as well as those
with a larger market area. Generally, Community Centers range in size from 10 to 35 acres.
Figure 5. 13. A Concept Diagram of a Community Center.
Figure 5.14. A Photosimulation of a Community Center, showing retail uses on the ground floors and
office/residential above.
A Community Center includes multiple connections to the surrounding area. These Centers also need a strong
relationship to major roads, but not necessarily US 29, in order to provide access and visibility for patrons and
workers from beyond the immediate area.
Community Centers should include a public open space that is a minimum of ¼ acre in size. Additional open
spaces may be recommended, based on individual Center design and mix of uses. These open spaces
should be associated with public or institutional uses (i.e., a library, school, or community center) or facilities
either adjacent to or integrated into the public open space.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 104)
Community Centers in the Places29 Area
There are seven Community Centers designated on the Future Land Use Map. All seven are either currently
developed as commercial/retail areas or are part of an approved concept plan for a development in the
Places29 area. Any of the currently developed Centers may redevelop as the market changes.
1. Centers that are currently developed:
a. Shopper‘s World
b. Albemarle Square
c. Rio Hill Shopping Center
d. Branchlands (Fairfield Inn, Food Lion, Applebees)
e. Area between Timberwood Blvd and Airport Road on the east side of US 29 (Food
Lion)
2. Centers that are part of an approved plan of development:
a. Hollymead Town Center
b. North Pointe
Destination Center
Destination Centers (Figures 5.15 through 5.17) provide regional-scale destinations for retail, entertainment,
service, and employment uses that draw patrons and workers from the entire Places29 area and beyond. At
the same time, the residential and employment areas that surround Destination Centers can take advantage
of them; nearby residents and workers add to the dynamic activity of the Center by increasing pedestrian
activity on the streets. As in Neighborhood Service and Community Centers, Destination Centers should
include residential or employment uses on upper floors and be designed with multiple connections to
surrounding areas and nearby Centers. A Destination Center is the appropriate location for a hotel, a multiplex
cinema, or other retail and entertainment use that requires a bigger building footprint. The multiple attractions
of this Center type and its mix of residences, employment, retail, civic, and entertainment uses offer good
opportunities for trip chaining—combining several errands to different businesses into a single trip—and make
the Center an excellent transit target. Destination Centers also need visibility and access from major roads,
although access from US 29 may be limited.
Figure 5.15. A Concept Diagram of a Destination Center
Figure 5.16. An Example of a Destination Center with Mixed Use Buildings of various scales—street view.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 105)
Figure 5.17. An Aerial View of a Destination Center with mixed use buildings of varying scales.
Destination Centers should include at least one public open space with a minimum size of 1/4 acre. Additional
open spaces may be recommended, based on individual Center design and mix of uses. It is encouraged that
these open spaces be associated with public or institutional uses (i.e., a library or community center) or
facilities either adjacent to or integrated into the open space.
Destination Centers in the Places29 Area
There are five Destination Centers designated on the Future Land Use Map. All five are either currently
developed as commercial/retail areas or are subject to an approved plan for development.
1. Destination Centers that are currently developed:
a. Fashion Square Mall
2. Destination Centers that are part of an approved plan:
a. Albemarle Place
b. A portion of the Hollymead Town Center (under development)
c. North Pointe (two Destination Centers planned)
Uptown
The Uptown is planned to be the most urban place in the Places29 area, with multiple focal points, an intense
mix of uses, and an environment that caters to a broad range of interests and activities. It w ill offer a wide
variety of uses and activities in one location, which may include residential and employment, as well as
entertainment and institutional uses. Due to its density, these uses will be located predominantly in mixed-use
buildings (see Figure 5.18 and Figure 5.19). With a total of approximately 40 acres, it has characteristics of
both a Center and a Neighborhood. In addition to at least one public open space (minimum size 1/4 acre), the
Uptown should include plazas, pocket parks, and/or institutional uses associated with publicly accessible
outdoor spaces. These focal points will also complement one another to create a unique place that attracts
people from throughout the Places29 area and beyond.
Development of the full Uptown as envisioned will take many years. It will likely evolve over time, beginning as
a smaller Center and intensifying as the market supports additional uses and larger buildings. Only one
Uptown is recommended in the Northern Development Areas.
The Uptown will provide an urban experience that is similar to Downtown Charlottesville; an environment that
is more compact, pedestrian-friendly, and features active public spaces. The Uptown will complement the
economic and employment opportunities generated by the nearby Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport and the
University of Virginia Research Park. Care has been taken in locating the Uptown and in defining its allowed
uses and physical characteristics, so that it can thrive and become the urban heart of the Northern
Development Areas.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 106)
Figure 5.18. A Concept Diagram of the Uptown showing a mix of uses, as well as a central public open space
and additional open spaces.
Figure 5.19. An example of the type of development envisioned for the Uptown. This view is of a pedestrian-only
street with mixed-use buildings on both sides and landscaping in the center.
The Areas Around Centers
People live, work, or do both in the walkable area surrounding a Center. The distance from the smaller
Neighborhood Service Centers to the outer edge of the walkable area around them is about 1/4 mile, which an
adult can walk in about 5 minutes. The distance from the major Centers (Community and Destination) to the
outer edge of their walkable area is closer to 1/2 mile, which an adult can walk in about 10 minutes. These
larger Centers may encourage people to walk longer distances because they have a more diverse mix of uses
that constitute a bigger ―draw‖ and because these Centers provide a pleasant walking environment. An
appendix to the Comprehensive Plan, General Design Guidelines for Development Areas, gives further
direction for the relationship of Neighborhoods to their Centers and flexibility in terms of walking distance to
allow for topography, physical barriers, parcel size, and other potential constraints.
6. Community Facilities and Services
Introduction
The Northern Development Areas are served by numerous County facilities located in Neighborhoods 1 and 2,
Hollymead, and Piney Mountain or by facilities within the City of Charlottesville. During development of the
Master Plan, residents of the area identified the need to maintain or improve the provision of services,
especially for library, police, schools, and passive and active recreational space. Additional solid
waste/recycling facilities and passive and active recreational spaces may be needed in the near future.
Generally, police, fire-rescue, schools, and library services/facilities are either adequately provided by existing
facilities or will be with the completion of improvements identified in this Plan, which are based on service
planning standards in the Community Facilities Plan. The Community Facilities Plan is a component of the
Comprehensive Plan that serves as a framework for community facility development decisions and
establishes specific service objectives and standards for the provision of public facilities for each of these
agencies: Police Department, Fire and Rescue Services, Library Services, Schools, Parks and Recreation,
County Government Administrative Offices/Services, and Solid Waste. Provision of these services to the
Northern Development Areas is discussed below. Please note that many of the recommended new or
upgraded facilities are included in the List of Implementation Projects at the end of Chapter 8, Implementation
and are described in more detail in Appendix 2, Implementation Project Descriptions.
Parks
The Northern Development Areas are served by a number of public parks and natural areas located within, or
adjacent to, the Places29 area. Public Park facilities are classified as County, district, or community parks, or
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 107)
as nature parks. The Places29 area is served by facilities in all of the park categories. District and Community
parks are typically provided in conjunction with high, middle (District), or elementary schools (Community). The
following facilities serve the Northern Development Areas:
County Parks
Park Acres Activities
Chris Greene Lake Park 239 Swimming, hiking, passive recreation
Pen Park (City)* 200 Golf, tennis, passive and active recreation
*Functionally similar to a County level Park, which serves Countywide and regional areas
District Parks
Park Acres Activities
Albemarle High School 100 Playfields, gym, tennis, track facilities
Jouett Middle School 35 Playfields, gym, tennis, track facilities, hiking/open space
Sutherland Middle School 16 Playfields, gym, tennis, track facilities
Community Parks
Park Acres Activities
Agnor-Hurt Elementary School 15 Playfields, gym, playgrounds
Baker-Butler Elementary School 47 Playfields, gym, playgrounds, nature trails/hiking
Greer Elementary School 10 Playfields, gym, playgrounds, hiking/open space, nature
trails/hiking
Hollymead Elementary School 47 Playfields, gym, playgrounds
Nature Parks
Park Acres Ac tivities
Ivy Creek Natural Area 215 Passive recreation, hiking trails, nature trails
Humphris Park 25 Passive recreation, hiking trails
Rivanna Greenway N/A Passive recreation, nature trails, hiking/biking trails
Park/Boat Access
5.05
Future Park and boat access adjacent to the existing boat
launch at the dam on the Rivanna River. Will give future
access to the river.
The following parks are not located in the Places29 area, but provide the population with public, recreational
open space:
1. Darden Towe Park (located in Pantops)
2. Pen Park (located in Charlottesville just south of Neighborhood 2)
3. McIntire Park and Charlottesville High School
These parks provide a significant range of recreational activities for residents in the Northern Development
Areas; therefore, it is important to plan for safe, multimodal transportation connections to these parks/areas.
The County‘s school sites provide recreational facilities that serve both the student population and the
surrounding neighborhoods. For this purpose, the County has developed standards for recreational facilities
that establish the equivalent of Community Parks at Elementary Schools, District Parks at Middle Schools, and
District Parks at High Schools. To allow school sites the flexibility to fit into the surrounding neighborhood and
local environmental conditions, the County has two sets of standards for Elementary Schools: the ―Community
Park‖ school level of service and the ―Neighborhood‖ school level of service. ―Commu nity Park‖ schools
include a broader range and higher level of recreational facilities than ―Neighborhood‖ schools, which provide
a minimum of recreational and athletic facilities. The Community Facilities section of the Comprehensive Plan
provides more details about the range and size of recreational facilities required at schools.
In addition to the nearby Nature Parks noted above, the County is developing an open space/nature park on
the Preddy Creek property off of Burnley Station Road, approximately five miles from the Piney Mountain
Development Area. In addition to the continued development of the Rivanna Greenway noted above, other
extensions of the Greenway system and trails are proposed on the Parks & Green Systems Map (see Chapter
4), including the multi-use (walking/biking) Northtown Trail, which will provide a recreational and commuter
connection between these two areas.
There are also a number of private and commercial facilities available to serve the area. These include various
fitness clubs (ACAC, Gold‘s Gym), athletic organization facilities (SOCA facilities), community swim and tennis
clubs (Fairview, Forest Lakes, and Hollymead), and private school facilities, such as the Charlottesville
Catholic School.
While the Northern Development Areas are currently well-served by facilities, continued growth in the area will
generate a need for additional facilities in the future, particularly field space to keep up with demand for
general recreation and for practice and game space for organized sports (soccer, lacrosse, football, and
base/softball). Various properties owned and controlled by the County will be considered for public use,
including as park and/or recreation space. Park and field space opportunities have been identified in the Piney
Mountain Development Area and the floodplain area along the North Fork of the Rivanna River in the
University of Virginia Research Park. Also, portions of the Northern Development Areas are lacking in smaller
community parks that are within walking distance of population centers. Provision of smaller public
spaces/neighborhood parks or amenities will be encouraged within future developments. To address these
needs, the following facilities and improvements are recommended for the area:
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 108)
Parks Recommendations:
Provide active field space for practice and competition sports (fields/multi -purpose fields).
When considering property for new schools, consider buying additional space to meet parks
and recreation needs, particularly for additional field space. Fields should be provided in the
Places29 area, with priority to the Hollymead/Piney Mountain area. (Provided through
proffer or acquisition to begin in the first 5 years, construction within the first 10 years
in Hollymead/Piney Mtn, in 10-20 years in the southern half of the Places29 area).
Consider use of proffered lands in North Pointe for interim park use until an elementary
school is needed.
Construct the Northtown Trail (begin within the first 5 years).
Complete Greenway development along the Rivanna River, ICNA to Darden Towe Park. and
the North Fork of the Rivanna River from Chris Greene Lake to the eastern Development
Area boundary (begin within the first 10 years for both).
Provide for trail connections from adjacent and nearby neighborhoods to the Greenway
network (private development/proffer, neighborhood association Parks & Rec. Dept. --
timeframe-ongoing).
Complete development of the Preddy Creek open space/natural area park (within the first 5
years).
Consideration should be given to evaluating/purchasing the properties between Chris Greene
Lake Park and property owned by the University of Virginia Foundation to meet Park &
Recreation needs.
The Parks and Recreation section of the Community Facilities Plan will be reviewed with the future update of
the Comprehensive Plan. This section outlines the County‘s approach and standards for delivering parks and
recreation services to the Development Areas. Updates to the Parks and Recreation section may have
significant bearing on the content of this Master Plan, in particular to the distribution, location, and quality of
parks, recreational facilities, and amenities in the Places29 area. The revision of the Parks and Recreation
section of the Community Facilities Plan is scheduled to be part of the Comprehensive Plan update and to be
completed next year. When it is completed, staff will determine if it contains any goals and/or requirements
that should be reflected in this Master Plan. Any needed changes to the Master Plan can be incorporated
during future updates.
Police
Police service is provided from the County‘s Office Building on 5th Street. The 5th Street Office Building
contains the County‘s Police Department, and police patrol all areas of the County from this location. The
current policy of police services recommends an average response time of 10 minutes for all Development
Areas, and service areas are based on a sector/beat system. Response times to the Northern Development
Areas generally meet current standards. However, this area generates the highest level of activity for the
Department of all areas in the County and requires a high level of resources to maintain this level of service.
To allow officers on duty to remain in the area as much as possible, field office space is provided within the
sector/beat areas. Adequate office space is currently available in the area for police needs. All new fire-rescue
stations will contain office space for police use. The new Hollymead Fire-Rescue station contains office space
for the police departm ent.
Police Recommendation:
Ensure police office space for beat officers in Neighborhoods 1 and 2 and the
Hollymead/Piney Mountain area. As per the Community Facilities Plan standards, police
office spaces should be provided at County Fire-Rescue Stations. (Project No. 31)
Fire-Rescue
Fire-rescue stations serving the Northern Development Areas are Seminole Trail (station 8) and Hollymead
(station 12). Back-up response is provided by Earlysville, Stony Point, and Charlottesville City stations.
Fire-rescue service facility needs are determined by a number of factors, including the response to a call and
the number of calls/frequency of calls to a station. Therefore, it is difficult to project precisely when new
stations will be needed. Based on the location of the existing stations serving the Northern Development
Areas, fire-rescue response is anticipated to be adequate for the next ten years (2009-2019). Beyond ten
years, there may be a need to locate satellite service/substation(s) to maintain adequate levels of service to
the whole Development Area, particularly with the development and expansion of NGIC/Rivanna Station
Military Base located in this area. (In the future, it is possible that fire protection to the base will be provided
internally as a military base function.)
Within the next ten years, renovation/upgrade or replacement of the Seminole Trail station will be needed to
house equipment adequately and meet staffing needs.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 109)
Fire-Rescue Recommendations:
Upgrade Seminole Trail Station and Rescue building facilities. (Project No. 35)
Monitor long term needs for future service improvements (regular ongoing process of
monitoring) and consider the need for satellite/sub-station service when necessary.
(Project No. 30)
Schools
There are eight public schools that are located in, or adjacent to, and serve the Northern Development Areas:
Agnor-Hurt, Greer, Woodbrook, Hollymead, and Baker-Butler Elementary schools; Sutherland and Jouett
Middle schools; and Albemarle High School. There are numerous private schools, including Charlottesville
Catholic School, Charlottesville Waldorf School, and the Einstein School. Albemarle County School‘s Long
Range Planning Committee is responsible for school enrollment trends and, either through redistricting or by
providing additional facilities, ensuring that the capital needs of the school children will be met. One site for a
future school has been proffered, and a school will be constructed there if and when needed in the future. This
site is located in Hollymead north of Proffit Road and east of US 29 in the future North Pointe development.
This school is not anticipated to be needed within the next 10 years.
Schools Recommendations:
A planned new elementary school may be needed in the County within the next ten years.
The site for this school will be in one of three locations in the County based on need/demand:
Crozet, the southern urban area, or the Northern Development Areas (North Pointe
proffered site) (10-20 year timeframe for opening). (Project No. 54)
Monitor the annual Albemarle County Schools Long Range Planning Process to assess the
need for additional school facilities. An additional middle/high school may be needed in the
long term planning period (2021-2030), or beyond. Consider the Northern Development
Areas as a possible location for a new middle and high school. Site selection to begin within
next 10 years, depending on demand.
Programmed expansions and upgrades (in the current CIP) for existing schools:
Sutherland Middle School addition (Project No. 28)
Hollymead Elementary School addition (2017) (Project No. 29)
Greer Elementary School renovation and addition
Library
Public library service is provided through the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library (JMRL) system. One library
is located in the Northern Development Areas, the Northside Library located in the Albemarle Square
Shopping Center. The Northside Library is centrally located in a shopping center in the Places29 area and has
transit service. Due to their proximity to Neighborhoods 1 and 2, both the Central and Gordon Avenue
Libraries in Charlottesville also serve this area. Both facilities are less than 5 miles from the US 29/Rio Road
intersection.
The Northside Library is a leased facility of approximately 15,000 square feet and is in need of expansion to
maintain adequate service to the Northern Development Areas. Improvements are programmed in the CIP
that call for up to 30,000 total square feet of library space in either one or two libraries located in the area. An
additional 10,000 square feet for systemwide administrative offices and bookmobile program support are also
proposed for this facility. This expanded facility, along with the Central Library and Gordon Avenue Branch,
would be adequate to serve the Northern Development Areas for the 20-year planning period. The County has
received a proffer of a site for a possible new library in the North Pointe Development, should a facility be
needed in this location in the future. The JMRL and County are in the process of updating the library‘s needs
assessment to determine the long-term needs for library services and facilities in the County and the City.
Library Recommendations:
Maintain leased facility in Albemarle Square for the short-term.
Construct a new library to replace the leased facility within the next five to 10 years. The
facility should be located in a reasonably accessible location to the Places29 area. (Project
No. 32)
Solid Waste Management
Solid waste collection service to County residents and businesses is provided by private haulers. The Rivanna
Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) is a regional authority established to manage solid waste disposal originating in
the City and County. The Authority operates the Ivy Materials Utilization Center (at the old Ivy Landfill), the
McIntire Recycling Center in the City, a Paper Sort facility (public-private partnership), and the Zion
Crossroads transfer and disposal facility (in partnership with Allied Waste Co.).
There is one recycling facility located in the Northern Developm ent Areas, a drop-off facility for paper located
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 110)
in the Sam‘s Club parking lot. The McIntire Road Recycling Center in the City provides primary recycling
services
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 111)
to the Northern Development Areas (there is also a drop-off center located in the Pantops Shopping Center).
The County has received a proffer of land near the Hollymead Town Center for use as a recycling center.
Solid waste management is in the process of a significant change for the County. Unlike many other localities,
there are now a number of private sector options for collection and disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW),
which is household garbage, and construction demolition and debris (CDD), which are the waste products of
construction activities. One of these private options recently became the first material recovery facility in the
state that can separate recyclable material from MSW and CDD. This eliminates the need to separate
recyclables from other waste. These options have significantly reduced the demand for public waste services,
although the County continues to see a need for a public facility that allows residents to drop off MSW and
other materials, such as vegetative waste and household hazardous waste. While solid waste services are
anticipated to continue to evolve over the next few years, the County sees a need to maintain services
currently provided at the Ivy Materials Utilization Center. Those services will most likely be provided through a
contractual agreement with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. Longer term, the County should evaluate if this
arrangement will provide the most cost effective means of addressing the County‘s needs. Until such time as
the need can be better defined, it is recommended that a potential site for a recycling center be maintained.
Solid Waste Management Recommendation:
Provide recycling services to the area in an effective and efficient manner, either through
strategically located recycling centers or other methods, such as directly to residents. It is
recommended that a potential site for a recycling center be maintained until such time as the
need can be better defined. (Project No. 33)
Water & Sewer
Water and sewer services are essential to the support existing and future development in the Northern
Development Areas. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) is an independent public agency
providing impoundment, treatment, storage, and transmission of potable water, and transport and treatment of
wastewater for the citizens of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. RWSA is the wholesale agency with the
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) as its customer. Water and Sewer services are provided by the
Albemarle County Service Authority, which provides service to individual retail customers in the County.
The County‘s policy is to provide water and sewer service to properties within the Development Areas. The
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area determines what properties may be served by
water and sewer, but it does not indicate where service exists. All of the Development Areas are to be served
by public water and sewer service.
Water Service
The South Fork of the Rivanna River Water Supply Reservoir currently is the primary source of drinking water
for the City and Development Areas of the County (except Crozet and Scottsville). The South Fork of the
Rivanna Treatment Plant is located at the end of Woodburn Road, near the reservoir dam. There is also a
water supply intake and treatment plant on the North Fork Rivanna River just west of US 29 near the Camelot
subdivision. This facility provides water to the portions of the northern Development Areas, primarily north of
Airport and Proffit roads (Piney Mountain and portions of Hollymead).
Community Water Supply Plan improvements in Places29. A community water supply plan to provide
adequate water capacity for the City and Development Areas of the County for the next 50 years has been
developed. Please refer to the Community Water Supply Plan found at the RWSA website and the Utilities
section and Natural Resources and Cultural Assets section of the County Comprehensive Plan for further
information on the Community Water Supply Plan. There are several improvements necessary within or near
the northern Development Areas to implement the recommendations of the community water supply plan.
(Project No. 13) They include:
Provide replacement water line and associated pump station connecting the South Fork
Treatment Plant and Ragged Mountain Reservoir.
Improvements to the South Fork treatment plant intake.
Other major improvements to the water service system include:
US 29 Pipeline. A future project calls for the replacement of 16,000 feet of 12-inch water line along US 29,
from the North Fork Treatment Plant to the entrance of Carrsbrook Drive and construction of an associated
water tank. The existing 12-inch line is hydraulically inadequate to allow effective transfer of water from the
main urban zone (the South Rivanna zone, which is south of Airport Road/Proffit Road) to the North Rivanna
zone (north of Airport Road/Proffit Road).
The new pipeline will be mainly a 24-inch diameter facility, with approximately 900 feet as a 16-inch size. This
is intended to be a phased project, with the initial phase replacing the 12-inch section of pipeline from the
South Fork Rivanna River to the vicinity of Airport Road. This first phase is programmed for design and
construction in the RWSA‘s FY08/09-12/13 Capital Improvement Plan. The far north section of the pipeline will
be the second phase. Both phases are anticipated to be completed within the first 10 years of the Plan.
US 29 Pumping Station. This project will be developed in conjunction with the US 29 Pipeline project and will
provide redundancy within the two primary pressure zones of the Urban Water System (the South Rivanna
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 112)
zone and North Rivanna zone). Once complete, these projects will allow water from the main urban zone
(South Rivanna) to be pumped to into the North Rivanna zone. This will improve the reliability of the system to
meet demands in the North Rivanna system. The projects will also allow the North Rivanna zone to provide
supplemental supply to the South Rivanna zone when necessary. This project is programmed for design and
construction in the RWSA‘s FY08/09-12/13 Capital Improvement Plan.
Water Service Recommendation:
Plan for and upgrade the water main now located along the US 29 corridor, particularly in the
Hollymead/Piney Mountain area.
Construct water line and pump station connecting the South water line and associated pump
station connecting South Fork Rivanna Treatment Plant and Ragged Mountain Reservoir.
Complete water systems improvements as necessary to implement the Community Water
Supply Plan.
Sewer Service
Sewer treatment facilities serving the Places29 area are the Moore‘s Creek Tr eatment Plant (located on
Moore‘s Creek in the City). The Meadow Creek interceptor, Powell Creek interceptor, and Rivanna River
interceptor convey effluent from most of the Northern Development Areas to the Moore‘s Creek Treatment
Plant. The existing Camelot Treatment Plant, which is located on the North Fork of the Rivanna River and
serves the Development Areas north of Airport and Proffit Roads, is being replaced (2010) by pump station
and pipeline. This proposed North Fork pump station and force main will increase sewer capacity to this
drainage area. The pump station would move sewage to the Powell Creek Interceptor, which is connected to
the Moore‘s Creek Treatment Plant. An additional pump station at/near the Camelot Treatment Plant site will
convey effluent to North Fork Pump Station, which will be located near the North Research Park entrance on
US 29.
A RWSA comprehensive sewer study is currently underway and will determine the need for and timing of
improvements within all of the Development Areas, including the Northern Development Areas.
Sewer Service Recommendations:
Complete replacement of the Camelot Wastewater Treatment Plant with a new force main
and pump stations from near the existing Plant to the Carroll Creek interceptor line along the
US 29 corridor.
Upgrade the Meadow Creek Sanitary Interceptor to provide needed capacity to serve
Charlottesville and the County.
Evaluate the results of the comprehensive sewer study and identify needed sewer
improvements in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Design Guidelines for the Places29 Area
Introduction
Physical form can make a place neighborhood-friendly, attractive, and pedestrian-oriented. The guidelines in
this chapter provide direction to ensure that the physical form of future development and redevelopment
supports the community‘s vision for the Places29 area. The guidelines identify ways in which the walkable,
well-connected, sustainable, and livable environments described in the earlier chapters of this Master Plan can
be achieved at the neighborhood level.
The design guidelines in this chapter recommend a future frontage condition for both Entrance Corridor
streets and Proffit Road. The guidelines provide information on building orientation as it relates to street type.
This section also provides guidance on the way in which the boundaries of the Development Areas relate to
the adjoining Rural Areas.
Design Guidelines for Development Areas—An Appendix
A future appendix to the Comprehensive Plan, General Design Guidelines for Development Areas, will provide
design guidance that should be used for all of the County‘s Development Areas, including those that are part
of Places29. The elements in the appendix are not repeated in this chapter, but should be used to guide new
development and redevelopment. These elements are also essential to understand the guidance given in this
chapter for Entrance Corridors.
This chapter and the General Design Guidelines for Development Areas also serve as a guide for future
planning efforts, such as Small Area Plans, zoning ordinance revisions, and the review of proposed
developments and other projects. The guidelines are intended to shape the fundamental elements of
neighborhood form. More detailed design guidelines that are incorporated into future Small Area Plans are
welcome and necessary ―extensions‖ of these guidelines.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 113)
Frontage Conditions for Entrance Corridors & Proffit Road
Types of Frontage Conditions
Frontage conditions are the physical conditions of property where it meets the street. Physical conditions may
be parking lots, landscaping, buildings, or natural vegetation where the property and right-of-way line come
together. Whatever is located at this juncture is considered the frontage condition.
The Assets, Needs, and Opportunities Report that was prepared early in the Places29 planning process
shows the existing conditions along the Entrance Corridors. The Recommended Entrance Corridor Frontage
Conditions Map shows five frontage types for properties along Entrance Corridors. The map also in cludes
Proffit Road, the only major road in the area that is not currently designated an Entrance Corridor. On the
Frontage Conditions Map, the pair of segmented, color-coded lines along each side of the Entrance Corridor
indicates which of the five frontage types is recommended for that segment of the Entrance Corridor (and
Proffit Road). The five frontage condition types are Urban Frontage, Landscaped Development Frontage,
Landscaped Residential Yard Frontage, Open Landscape Frontage, and Forested Buffer Frontage.
It is important to note that all streets in the Places29 area are expected to have a sidewalk or pedestrian path
on both sides of the street, except where it is not physically possible to do so. Separation between the
pedestrian path or sidewalk and the street will be provided by planting strips, either grassy strips with trees or
paved areas with trees in grates. The wider the street and faster the traffic, the wider the planting strip should
be in order to provide adequate separation between pedestrians on the sidewalk and moving traffic.
Urban Frontage
An Urban Frontage condition is designed to accommodate high levels of pedestrian activity. The area
occupied by an Urban Frontage is the land between the back of the curb and the face of a building, including
the front door that faces the street. Figures 7.1 and 7.2 show an Urban Frontage condition along a street.
Figure 7.1. A photosimulation of an Urban Frontage condition showing buildings that front onto an Entrance
Corridor with minimal setbacks.
Figure 7.2. A cross section showing a two-lane road with an Urban Frontage condition.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 114)
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 115)
Pedestrian activity in an area designated Urban Frontage is different for US 29 than on other Entrance
Corridor streets. On US 29, pedestrian activity is focused primarily on access to mass transit, as well as the
ability to walk safely and conveniently for short distances along the corridor. The expected US 29 Urban
Frontage condition is illustrated in Figure 7.3 below. Except for US 29, buildings in an area designated Urban
Frontage are to be oriented toward the street with minimal or no setbacks. Primary building entrances should
face the Entrance Corridor.
Figure 7.3. A cross section of US 29 showing an Urban Frontage. Note that an 8 – 12 foot pedestrian path may be
substituted for the sidewalk on one side.
The Urban Frontage condition includes three distinct functional pedestrian zones between the back of the curb
and the front of the building, as illustrated in Figure 7.4:
1. The Planting and Furnishings Zone
2. The Pedestrian Through-Zone (the ―sidewalk‖)
3. The Transition Zone
Figure 7.4. The three functional pedestrian zones of the Urban Frontage condition.
The characteristics of each zone are based on the location of pedestrian activities and design elements. The
recommended width for each zone depends on the number of pedestrians generated by existing and future
adjacent land uses. Generally, streets with a more intense and greater mix of land uses are expected to have
more pedestrian traffic, so these streets will have a wider recommended Pedestrian Through-Zone. Streets
with more pedestrian traffic may also have a wider recommended Transition Zone to accommodate café
seating and other amenities.
Figures 7.5 and 7.6 show two examples of the three pedestrian zones
Figure 7.5. A sidewalk in an urban environment showing all three pedestrian zones.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 116)
Figure 7.6. An example of a wide urban sidewalk showing all three zones, with café tables in the transition zone.
Planting & Furnishings Zone. The Planting and Furnishings Zone acts as a buffer between moving traffic
and pedestrians on the sidewalk. On Entrance Corridors other than US 29, the Planting & Furnishings Zone
includes a planting strip for street trees or has trees in grates. It may also contain street furniture, parking
meters, fire hydrants, bicycle racks, and the like, which are consolidated to keep them from being obstacles in
the Pedestrian Through-Zone.
The width of this zone will vary depending on the pedestrian activity level and the speed and volume of traffic
from which buffering is needed. Where right of way conditions permit, there may be a place for seating;
however, the primary location for seating should be in the Transition Zone. Seating along sidewalks of local
access lanes adjacent to Entrance Corridors should follow the guidance in the General Design Guidelines for
Development Areas.
Along US 29, the planting and furnishing zone is primarily a planting strip for trees and shrubs that provides a
greater separation from fast-moving traffic. This transition zone is not expected to provide for outdoor seating
or activity, except for transit shelters/benches. The area will provide for a greater building setback from the
corridor.
The recommended width for the Planting & Furnishings Zone in the Places29 area is in Table 7.1:
Table 7.1. Recommended Planting & Furnishings Zone Widths along Entrance Corridors and Proffit
Road
Entrance Corridor and Proffit Road Width of Planting and Furnishings Zone
US 29 12 feet min.
Other Entrance Corridors 10 feet min.
Proffit Road 10 feet min. (on designated urban side of the
street)
Pedestrian Through-Zone. The Pedestrian Through-Zone is intended for pedestrian travel only and should
be accessible. This zone is the area most users think of as the actual sidewalk —between the planted area
next to the curb and the area directly in front of adjacent buildings. The width of the Through -Zone should
increase where higher pedestrian volumes are expected or where a roomy ―feel‖ for the pedestrian
environment is desired.
On US 29, the Pedestrian Through-Zone may actually be a multi-use path that also allows for bicycle traffic.
Transition Zone. The Transition Zone is the area between the Pedestrian Through-Zone and the property
line. In most places, it provides a transition between the walking area and the business or other destination
next to the sidewalk. The Transition Zone is also the area where pedestrians slow down as they approach
businesses, window shop, or exit and enter buildings. In most cases, the Transition Zone is the width of
sidewalk in front of the buildings that is outside of the Pedestrian Through-Zone. Businesses may use this
zone for outdoor displays and seating when the area is paved and adequate width is provided. It may also be a
grassy landscaped area that provides a separation between the sidewalk and the door to the building. This
area may also be called the ―front yard‖ area or ―front setback.‖ Along US 29, this area will be deeper than on
other streets in the Places 29 area. This greater depth is the reflection of the need to have front doors further
away from the fast-moving traffic.
Table 7.2 indicates the recommended widths for each of the zones in the Urban Frontage condition (see
Chapter 4 for application on individual streets):
Table 7.2. Recommended Widths for the Three Pedestrian Zones
Planting &
Furnishings Zone
Pedestrian Through-
Zone (Sidewalk width)
Transition Zone
Total Width of All
Three Zones
5 – 12 feet 5 – 16 feet 3 – 20 feet 13 – 48 feet
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 117)
Existing Development. There are places shown as Urban Frontage on the Recommended Frontage
Conditions Map which may redevelop in their entirety or which may redevelop incrementally. For areas shown
as Urban Frontage that will not redevelop in their entirety, improvements to the frontage should be made to
reduce or eliminate the visibility of existing parking lots in the Entrance Corridor. For the short term, these
areas would follow the recommendations for Landscaped Development Frontage (see below). Improvements
along the lot frontage should include a vegetative screen or a combination of architectural and vegetative
screening to block the view of the parking from the Entrance Corridor. When full redevelopment or regrading
of the site does occur, the Urban Frontage condition should be achieved.
Grade Separations. This Master Plan recognizes that grade separation may be necessary at several
intersections along US 29. The need for grade separations, as for other major transportation improvements,
will be reevaluated with each five-year update of the Master Plan. Two potential grade-separated intersections,
US 29 and Rio Road and US 29 and Airport/Proffit, are shown with Urban Frontage on the recommended
Frontage Conditions map. The ultimate desired condition is Urban Frontage; however, until the engineering
has been completed for the design of the grade separations, the exact dimensions of the adjoining properties
will not be known. In the interim, a Landscaped Development Frontage should be used. Note that these
intersections will each be the subject of a small area planning process, which will define the ultimate
recommended road improvements. Frontage condition recommendations may need to be reevaluated when
the Small Area Plans are completed.
Shallow Frontage. There may also be small areas of roadway with lots of shallow depth which are
designated Urban Frontage. The Urban Frontage designation represents the desired condition for the full
length of that part of the road. Where this shallow depth does not allow for Urban Frontage to be used, then a
Landscaped Development Frontage should be used.
Landscaped Development Frontage
A Landscaped Development Frontage condition occurs where parking lots are located between the Entrance
Corridor and adjacent buildings, or where a rural section of street exists and is expected to continue as a rural
section for the foreseeable future. It is not the preferred frontage condition, however, it responds to the
situation in the Places29 area where existing auto-dominated uses, such as surface parking lots, car repair
service yards, or delivery areas, need to be visually buffered or screened from Entrance Corridor streets and
adjacent sidewalks or multi-use paths. By and large, this designation is intended to encourage improvement of
existing auto-dominated areas until they can be redeveloped into a more compact, pedestrian-friendly pattern.
The Landscaped Development Frontage may be appropriate for new development as explained later in this
section.
Throughout the Places29 area, a sidewalk or pedestrian path is always expected on streets, and it should be
separated from the street by a planting strip or a strip of trees in grates adjacent to the curb. Where a
Landscaped Development Frontage condition is used, in addition to the planting strip with trees between the
street and the sidewalk (adjacent to the curb), additional landscaping in the form of a landscaped buffer is
needed between the back of the sidewalk and the parking area. A sidewalk or path is needed at various points
along the corridor to provide access from the sidewalk along the street to the parking lot and the buildings
served by the parking lot. Where grades between the parking lot and sidewalk are different, stairs or ADA -
compliant paths are needed.
A landscaped buffer is a strip of land planted with a variety of trees and shrubs and intended to mitigate the
effects of adjacent uses or activities that require some degree of separation and to reduce the sense of auto -
dominance in the public realm. The need for separation between activities or uses dictates the specific
characteristics of the landscaped buffer. Depending on the buffer‘s depth, the types of plants used, plant
height and spacing, and the incorporation of vertical, built elements (e.g., walls and fences), a landscaped
buffer can soften visual impacts, visually screen, mitigate noise, separate space, or accomplish a combination
of these.
While the buffer may include walls or fences, it should always include trees and shrubs. Where a screening
function is necessary, trees, shrubs, walls, and fences will reduce and eventually eliminate visibility of
undesirable elements between adjacent uses or objectionable features for the pedestrian or person riding in a
car. Landscape buffers can be designed to act as screens if they are dimensioned and designed appropriately.
Figures 7.7 through 7.9 illustrate the desired buffer conditions.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 118)
Figure 7.7. An illustration of surface parking with a landscape buffer. The trellis in the center of the wider buffer
might be replaced with a low hedge.
Figure 7.8. An illustration of structured parking with a landscaped buffer.
Figure 7.9. A photosimulation showing a surface parking lot with landscaped buffer.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 119)
Table 7.3 gives the recommended landscaped buffer widths:
Table 7.3. Recommended Landscaped Development Characteristics
Entrance Corridor
Width of Landscape
Buffer along Parking
ROAD LANDSCAPE BUFFER
NEXT TO STREET
SIDEWALK OR PATH
WIDTH
LANDSCAPE BUFFER
BETWEEN PATH AND
PARKING LOT
US 29 12 – 20 feet 8 – 16 feet 10 – 20 feet
Other Entrance
Corridors
8 – 16 feet 5 – 15 feet 10 feet min.
Proffit Road (Urban
side)
10 feet min.
Existing Development shown as Landscaped Development. Redevelopment is not expected for at least
ten years in those areas designated Landscaped Development on the Recommended Frontage Conditions
Map. The primary use of this frontage condition is to reduce or eliminate the visibility of existing parking lots in
the Entrance Corridor. Designating areas Landscaped Development enables property owners to improve their
properties before complete redevelopment is needed or desired. Improvements along the lot frontage should
include a vegetative screen or a combination of architectural and vegetative screening to block the view of the
parking from the Entrance Corridor. As the ultimate goal for the Development Areas is an Urban Frontage
Condition, the designation of Landscaped Development Frontage along an Entrance Corridor should be
reevaluated with every five-year update of the Plan. As the areas shown for Landscaped Development
become ripe for redevelopment, the designation should be changed to reflect the desired Urban Frontage.
Existing Development shown as Urban Frontage that may be redeveloped as L andscaped
Development. As indicated in the section on Urban Frontage, achieving an Urban Frontage condition may be
difficult until total redevelopment of a site or adjacent sites occur. For example, it may be very difficult to create
a landscape buffer and relocate and widen a sidewalk where sidewalks on adjoining properties are three feet
from the back of the curb. It may be hard to create the Urban Frontage where extreme grade differences exist
between the street and the building pad. In these and other cases, it is important that improvement of the site
be encouraged. Improvement should include additional landscaping, the addition of a sidewalk across the
frontage (if none exists now), and provision of a way for pedestrians to walk easily from the sidewalk along the
street to the business, institution, or residential use on the other side of the landscaped buffer.
New Development. While Landscaped Development is not the preferred frontage condition, there are a few
areas on the Frontage Conditions Map where Landscaped Development is shown and there is no existing
development. Landscaped Development is recommended for these sites because of their unique
characteristics. In some of these areas, there may be significant grade differences between the street and the
property to be developed. There may be places where relocating major utilities would be prohibitively
expensive. There also may be lot depth problems that prevent a full block from being created when a new
street is built parallel to US 29.
Blocks with shallow depths. As mentioned in Chapter 4, creation of blocks is a goal for the Places 29 area.
A block with full depth allows buildings to face a parallel street (or local access lane or service road) and
buildings on the other side of the block to face the Entrance Corridor. Parking can then be relegated to the
center of the block between the two buildings. Where a block cannot be developed with sufficient depth to
allow buildings to face both US 29 and a parallel street, the result may be buildings facing the parallel street,
which would be double-fronted buildings. In this situation, relegating parking to the rear of the building may put
the parking between the building and the Entrance Corridor. Where this is the only option, the Landscaped
Development Frontage will visually buffer the backs of buildings and parking lots from pedestrians and
Entrance Corridors. However, all buildings must still meet the Entrance Corridor architectural design
requirements, even though a structure may not have an entrance that fronts on the Entrance Corridor.
Structured Parking. In rare instances, where the depth of a block or topographical constraints create a
difficult site, structured parking may face the Entrance Corridor. A landscaped buffer should then be used to
soften the appearance of the structured parking along an Entrance Corridor. The goal is to use vegetation to
help minimize the scale and massing of structured parking and to add interest. The landscaped buffer will also
help to separate the sidewalk or pedestrian path from an adjoining structure (see Figure 7.8).
Grade Differences. The Landscaped Development Frontage condition is also appropriate where the grade of
the Entrance Corridor street is well above or below the lot to be developed. Figures 7.10 and 7.11 show how a
landscaped buffer is used to soften the appearance of a parking lot from the Entrance Corridor where there
are significant grade differences. The photograph in Figure 7.12 shows the connections between a sidewalk
with a bus shelter and buildings set back from the street.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 120)
Figure 7.10. An illustration of parking with a landscaped buffer and a grade difference.
Figure 7.11. An illustration of surface parking with a landscaped buffer and a larger grade difference than the
one shown in Figure 7.10.
Figure 7.12. An example of Landscaped Development Frontage with sidewalk and bus shelter, and showing
connections from the sidewalk to the buildings.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 121)
In general, all buildings which have frontage along the Entrance Corridor should face the Entrance Corridor. In
the unusual condition where the main entrance to a building does not face the Entrance Corridor—meaning
that the back of the building or parking (either surface or structure) faces the Entrance Corridor—a landscaped
buffer should be used to screen the parking and soften the appearance of the structure. In no instance should
a building appear to show its back to the Entrance Corridor.
Landscaped Residential Yard Frontage
Landscaped Residential Yard is the recommended frontage condition for segments of Entrance Corridors
where existing and future residential yards face a street. Along US 29, residential yards are not expected to
face the street. For all other Entrance Corridors in the Places29 area, the intent of this designa tion is to
recognize the need for separation between residential properties, both single and multifamily residences, and
the street. Properties with landscaped frontages facing the Entrance Corridor should allow for residential
buildings, or portions of these buildings, to be visible from the street and adjacent sidewalks (see Figures 7.13
and 7.14). This will provide travelers along the Entrance Corridor with a sense of the street‘s residential
character.
Figure 7.13. An urban density residential area with landscaped front yards that act as a buffer between the
sidewalk and building fronts. There is also a narrow planting strip between the sidewalk and the parked car
partially visible in the lower right hand corner.
Figure 7.14. A neighborhood density residential area with landscaped front yards that act as a buffer between
the sidewalk and building fronts.
In a Landscaped Residential Yard Frontage, street trees are expected in the right-of-way between the
sidewalk and the street. Street trees introduce vertical elements that help create a sense of enclosure along
Entrance Corridors. This is important as Entrance Corridors tend to be wider than most other streets and can
easily lose the desired sense of enclosure. The landscaped area between the sidewalk and the building front
should have sufficient depth to separate the private residential space from the public space of the sidewalk.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 122)
In areas designated Landscaped Residential Yard, the height of street-facing hedges or fences should not
exceed four (4) feet. Such a low height allows pedestrians and drivers to have a sense of the residential
nature of the area.
Open Landscape Frontage
The Open Landscape Frontage condition is recommended to maintain existing views of the river valley along
the South Fork of the Rivanna River and the views of open fields along the western edge of Rio Road West.
On the Recommended Frontage Conditions Map, Open Landscape alternates with the Forested Buffer
Frontage condition along the stretch of US 29 north of Piney Mountain to the Greene County line. In this area,
the Open Landscape condition maintains the undeveloped character of land adjoining the Entrance Corridor.
Open Landscape is expected to reinforce visually the rural character of the designated Rural Areas (s ee
Figure 7.15).
Figure 7.15. An example of the Open Landscape Frontage condition, as seen from Ashwood Blvd., looking west
across US 29. The forested area on the right side of the photograph also illustrates a Forested Buffer Frontage
condition.
Forested Buffer Frontage
The Forested Buffer Frontage condition is used where existing and recommended swaths of land with
relatively dense stands of trees are intended to screen travelers through the US 29 Corridor from development
on the other side of the trees. The Forested Buffer creates a rural appearance, which breaks up the fully
developed appearance along US 29. Where Forested Buffers are intended to screen single-family residential
development adjacent to US 29, they should have a minimum depth of 50 feet. Forested buffers that are
intended to screen multi-family residential development adjacent to US 29 should have a minimum depth of 30
feet. Where indicated on the Recommended Frontage Conditions map, forested buffers are also to be used to
screen industrial areas from the view of the traveling public. The minimum depth of these buffers should be 30
feet. All of these buffers should be a combination of naturally arranged trees (not planted in rows) and a dense
understory of shrubs to screen uses and buildings located beyond the buffer from the view of people traveling
along the Entrance Corridor. As US 29 is widened adjacent to an area designated for a Forested Buffer,
sidewalks or paths should be constructed along with the widening improvements.
The cross section in Figure 7.16 shows a buffer between a multi-use path adjacent to an Entrance Corridor
and the residential backyards to the right in the illustration. Figure 7.15 shows a short segment of Forested
Buffer frontage on the right side of the photograph.
Figure 7.16. A cross section showing a deep Forested Buffer intended to maintain the visual character of
forested roadway edges along an Entrance Corridor.
30‘ to 50‘ minimum
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 123)
Situations Specific to US 29
Much of US 29 is shown as Urban Frontage, although parts are shown as Landscaped Development Frontage
and Forested Buffer. As street improvements are made along and adjacent to US 29, its character is expected
to change. Transit, pedestrian, and bicycle amenities will be added in some areas, while in others pedestrian
and bicycle activity may be moved away from US 29. In the Forested Buffer segments, a multi -use path is
proposed for use by both pedestrians and bicyclists. For the next ten to twenty years, however, some
segments of US 29 are not likely to change in character, so they are shown as Landscaped Development (see
description of Landscaped Development Frontage condition above).
The Urban Frontage condition may also need to be modified to respond to grade changes and other site
conditions in the vicinity of possible grade-separated intersections at US 29/Rio Road, US 29/Timberwood
Boulevard, and US 29/Airport Road (as illustrated in Figure 7.17), if these grade separations are necessary. In
each of these areas, the details of appropriate frontage condition should be worked out during preparation of
the Small Area Plans recommended in this Plan.
Figure 7.17. This cross section is an example of a potential grade -separated crossing of US 29 that
accommodates pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles.
Proffit Road – Not an Entrance Corridor
Proffit Road has not been designated an Entrance Corridor. However, it is a major road within the
Development Areas and needs the same level of coordination with adjacent land uses as the Entrance
Corridors. The stretch of Proffit Road within the Places29 area runs east from US 29 to the southern boundary
of the Baker-Butler Elementary School property (the Development Area boundary). For a portion of its length,
Proffit Road serves as the boundary between the Development Areas and Rural Areas. South of the Baker-
Butler Elementary School, Proffit Road is entirely in the Rural Areas.
Outside of the areas designated as Urban Frontage, where Proffit Road passes through the Centers near US
29, the frontage condition should remain either Landscaped Residential Yard, Open Landscape, or Forested
Buffer. This will create the recommended transition from future Urban Frontage condition along the segments
of Proffit closest to US 29 to the landscaped and rural conditions along the eastern portions of Proffit Road.
New development should recognize the plans to widen Proffit Road from US 29 to Baker-Butler School (also
see sample cross section shown in Appendix 3). This widening will incorporate sidewalks and bike lanes.
There will also be a roundabout at the intersection of Proffit Road/Worth Crossing/Leake Lane.
Creating Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas
In the County‘s Comprehensive Plan, Principle 12 of the Neighborhood Model calls for ―Clear boundaries with
the Rural Areas.‖ In order to fulfill this principle, this Plan incorporates a review of the conditions at the edge of
the Development Areas. These boundary conditions are discussed in detail in the Assets, Needs, and
Opportunities Report and are summarized here.
The conditions recommended below apply only to boundaries that are not Entrance Corridors. In some places
the boundary will be a road; in other places, the boundary will be an environmental feature, such as the
Rivanna River; a political boundary; or a watershed boundary, such as Woodburn Road and Pritchett Lane.
Conditions at these boundaries vary from fully developed to agricultural lands to undeveloped natural areas.
The Recommended Boundary Conditions Map distinguishes among six different types of boundary conditions,
which are represented as a line with colored segments that runs inside the Development Area boundary. This
line describes the appearance of the boundary within the Development Areas as experienced by a person
viewing the Development Area from the adjacent Rural Area. The six types of Boundary Conditions are:
Urban—Developed. The Urban—Developed boundary condition is where buildings and development are
expected up to the boundary with little or no transition between the urban use on one side of the boundary and
the use on the other side of the boundary. There are two types of ―urban‖ boundary conditions. One type
occurs where the boundary is a street and is similar to the Urban Frontage street condition described in the
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 124)
previous section. In addition, one side of the street may be the Development Area and the other side the Rural
Area. In this circumstance, the expectation is for a clearly urban condition on one side of the street, where it is
shown on the Boundary Conditions plan, and a rural condition on the other side. The other Urban Frontage
condition occurs where the back yards of lots in the County abut the back yards of lots in the City.
Urban—Landscaped. The Urban Landscaped boundary condition is used along streets, such as Dickerson
Road and Woodburn Road. It is also used at the rear of existing development where the boundary is not a
road, such as behind Forest Lakes and Riverrun, as well as in a few places where the back yards of
developments adjoin the City. Along streets, this type of boundary condition is characterized by deeper
landscaped setbacks and front yards that include lawns and gardens with trees or screens of trees, as well as
landscaped buffers that separate residential, commercial, and industrial uses from the roadway. Along the
backs of lots, the expectation is that the improvements will not extend all the way to the boundary, but will have
a vegetative separation between adjoining lots. Along Urban—Landscaped boundaries, the vegetation will
partially obscure the view of buildings, parking areas, and other uses from a road or area adjacent to the
boundary.
Rural—Residential. Like the Urban—Landscaped boundary condition, this boundary condition occurs along
streets as well as at the backs of properties. It occurs where rural estates and single-family homes on lots of
two or more acres are located across from or backing up to the Development Area boundary. These
properties have large setbacks from the roadway and have yards dominated by more mature vegetation than
expected with the Urban—Landscaped boundary.
Rural—Fields. This boundary condition is found on streets as well as at the backs of lots. It is characterized
by agricultural fields or undeveloped grassland or meadows that lack significant stands of trees. There may be
minimal development in these areas, such as individual dwellings or farm buildings.
Rural—Forested. This boundary condition is found on streets as well as at the backs of lots. It consists of
commercially used forests, dense stands of trees, or deep, forested buffers that have the appearance of a
forest. There may be minimal development in these areas, such as individual dwellings or farm buildings.
Riparian /Floodplain. This boundary condition consists of riparian vegetation alongside rivers, streams, and
lakes. A floodplain edge is characterized by natural meadows and agricultural fields that lie within the
floodplain of a river or stream. Individual rows of trees and minor buildings may also occur within a floodplain.
The recommendations shown on the Recommended Boundary Conditions Map should be used for guidance
as properties develop or redevelop in this part of the County.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 125)
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 126)
8. Implementation of the Master Plan
Introduction
The Places29 Master Plan is, first and foremost, a vision plan. The Vision, described more fully in Chapter 2,
does not have a timeframe; it is the ultimate future condition for the Places29 area. In fact, it may be decades
before this ultimate buildout condition is reached—before the land uses shown on the Future Land Use Map in
Chapter 4 are all in place.
After describing the Vision, the Plan explains what changes will need to be made and what projects will need
to be implemented during the next 20 years to address the existing bac klog of needed infrastructure
improvements, to support growth and development that will have an impact on this infrastructure, and,
ultimately, to move the Places29 area closer to that ultimate Vision.
This chapter describes the public and private actions—the implementation projects—that will be needed to
implement the Master Plan over the next 20 years. This chapter provides general direction and guidance on
the timing of transportation and other infrastructure improvements, as well as other planning and design
studies and processes. In addition, this chapter recommends Priorities where the County needs to focus its
funds on provision of infrastructure to support existing and proposed development. The chapter ends with a
List of Implementation Projects. T his List presents the implementation projects in the approximate order in
which they are expected to begin, along with estimated costs and proposed funding sources. More detailed
information about each of the implementation projects, including maps or diagrams of many of them, is given
in Appendix 2, Implementation Project Descriptions.
The implementation projects are grouped into four categories: Transportation, Land Use and Development,
Community Facilities and Services, and Parks and Green Systems. The Transportation category contains the
largest number of projects and requires the greatest amount of funding. The recommended improvements will
support the future growth anticipated in the Master Plan. While funding for these improvements may not be
available at the time the project is expected to begin and obtaining funding might require longer time periods
than anticipated in the Master Plan, the Plan establishes how these improvements should be provided
concurrent with new development under the proposed land uses. Even without funding for all of the
implementation projects, this Master Plan is valuable because it sets forth the community‘s vision for the area
and demonstrates how development can be designed to support the principles of the Neighborhood Model.
The implementation projects are scheduled to begin throughout the 20-year implementation timeframe. There
are several reasons for this spacing: first, the projects that will support the recommended Priority Areas should
begin first. Many of these projects are needed now to serve existing development and to address the backlog
of infrastructure needs. Other projects are not expected to be necessary until further development takes place,
and some projects are dependent on completion of an earlier one. And, as noted above, many of the projects
are dependent on funding that has not been identified or may not be available for several years.
Other areas in the County also have infrastructure needs that must be met and which may be more immediate
than some of the needs in the Places29 area. The County will need to balance the needs of all areas with the
available funding.
The implementation projects and the priorities assigned to them will be reexamined every five years when the
Master Plan is reviewed and updated. The first update will begin five years after adoption of the Master Plan.
Transportation Projects
The recommended transportation projects are the product of an extensive transportation study approved and
funded by VDOT that identified a number of short-term and long-term transportation projects, including grade
separation of six (6) impacted intersections. Due to limited available resources to undertake transportation
projects, the focus in the short term is on ―doable‖ and most immediately essential projects. Planning for the
extensive long-term transportation projects, including possible grade-separated intersections, has been
deferred for further evaluation and consideration based on transportation studies and traffic modeling to be
conducted as part of the Master Plan‘s future five-year updates. The recommended transportation projects
form a multimodal transportation network that is designed to address both unmet existing needs and future
transportation demands. The transportation improvements recommended to begin in the first ten years are
intended primarily to address the existing needs. Then, as the Places29 area and the surrounding region
continue to grow and transportation demands increase, the full list of these and/or other potential
improvements deserve serious consideration and may indeed be needed. In other words, the recommended
transportation projects form a sequential set of improvements over the short and long term.
It is essential to recognize that all except one of these recommended transportation improvements are needed
regardless of whether the County adopts this Master Plan. The enhanced transit system is the one project
specifically recommended in the Master Plan that would not also have been required by the 1996 Land Use
Plan. One reason so many of the other projects are necessary is that many properties both inside and outside
the Places29 area are already zoned and ready to develop, so the potential for additional growth exists even
without the Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map is designed to balance land uses with the transportation
network; together they promote a form of development that can reduce future transportation demands.
Without this form of development, future transportation demands are expected to be even higher than
projected.
This Plan recognizes that the transportation network in the Places29 area serves the needs of both regional
and local traffic. US 29 functions as a National Highway of Significance; 10 – 12 percent of the traffic it serves
originates outside the Places29 area and has destinations that are also outside the area. Some of the
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 127)
transportation improvements are necessary to serve this regional need as well as local growth. About two -
thirds of the trips on US 29 are local trips that begin and end in the Places29 area. Some of the transportation
improvements will give these local drivers alternate routes and/or open up planned areas for development and
redevelopment.
The proposed design for US 29 allows for the US 29 improvements to be implemented as a series of
independent roadway projects over the 20-year implementation timeframe. The improvements are multimodal;
they include transit as an integral part of the transportation system and transit-friendly design to complement
proposed transit routes. Further, pedestrian and bicycle improvements are planned throughout the Places29
area. Many projects can be implemented as redevelopment takes place. The design will also provide
alternatives for existing intersection movements during the construction of major improvements along the US
29 Corridor.
Prior to construction of any improvements to US 29, each improvement will require preliminary and final
engineering design, programming of funding and potential right-of-way acquisition. The timelines for these
activities will vary depending upon the complexity of the roadway elements. Projects may overlap; one
improvement may be under construction as planning begins for another. A timeline provided by VDOT shows
that major improvements could take 8 to 12 years to complete. This 8 – 12 year period includes the time
involved in project scoping, consultant procurement, location surveys, preliminary design, location & design
public hearing, final design, right-of-way acquisition, relocation of utilities, development of documents for
advertisement and bids, and, finally, construction.
While VDOT is the lead agency for improvements to primary and secondary system roadways, the County
plays a vital land use role by coordinating how private development occurs in relation to the roadway
improvements. The County also works with VDOT in the design of the improvements and by participating in
regional project priority programming through the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
Each development project and transportation improvement will be reviewed by County and VDOT staff for
compliance with the Access Management Plan. As parallel routes are implemented, the County and VDOT will
work with businesses and property owners along US 29 to implement the access management program.
Access management is intended to maximize the effectiveness and safety of the roadway system, particularly
in relation to land adjacent to the roadway. This program is described in more detail in US 29 North Corridor
Transportation Study Technical Memo 7, dated May 25, 2007. (Appendix 4)
A Note about the ―Western Bypass.‖ The US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study has shown that the set
of transportation improvements recommended in this Plan will be an effective and efficient means to address
existing and future transportation demands for all users of the US 29 Corridor during the 20-year
implementation timeframe. While the originally proposed Western Bypass would have served most of the
regional traffic (the 12% of drivers moving through the Places29 area without stopping), the Bypass would not
have helped local traffic (64%) or served many of the subregional vehicle trips (24%). It was recognized in
1990 after VDOT‘s consultant study of alternatives to relieve congestion in the US 29 corridor that a western
bypass was not preferable to or a substitute for improvements in the corridor. In fact, in the early 1990s, the
City, County, and University signed an agreement concurring with a 1990 Commonwealth Transportation
Board (CTB) resolution that sequenced improvements such that the Western Bypass would be constructed
only after completion of projects such as the widening of US 29 from Hydraulic Road to the South Fork of the
Rivanna River, the Meadow Creek Parkway, grade separated interchanges on US 29 at Hydraulic Road,
Greenbrier Drive, and Rio Road, and the North Grounds Connector, and only ―when traffic on Route 29 is
unacceptable and economic conditions permit.‖ It was in the spirit of this agreement that the County actually
worked to preserve the ultimate alignment of the Western Bypass in its land use decisions for several years. It
was only after a subsequent decision by the CTB in 1995 to rescind the previously agreed-to sequencing of
projects that the County withdrew all support for the Western Bypass, and the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) voted unanimously to withhold federal funding for construction of the Western Bypass
until the agreed-upon sequencing of the projects was restored.
An alternative route from the 250 Bypass north to Greene County that would have functioned as a longer
bypass to the west of US 29 was considered during the early phases of the Places29 transportation modeling,
but such an alternative route would have been significantly more expensive and, most importantly, would not
have served more than about 12 – 20% of the traffic on US 29.
Land Use & Development Projects
The recommended land use and development projects are designed to create the form of compact,
pedestrian-friendly urban development envisioned in the principles of the County‘s Neighborhood Model.
These projects include establishment of a Community Advisory Council to assist in implementation of the
Plan.
The Future Land Use Map in Chapter 4 governs land use and development decisionmaking in the Northern
Development Areas. As each zoning map amendment and special use permit is reviewed for approval, the
recommendations in this Master Plan will be applied. As such, there are fewer individual projects listed in the
Land Use & Development Projects sections of the Implementation Table than there are, for example, under
Transportation. Instead, as developers bring forward new proposals, the proposed developments will be
evaluated according to the Future Land Use Map and Tables, Parks & Green Systems Map, the principles of
the Neighborhood Model, and other parts of the Comprehensive Plan.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 128)
Community Facilities & Services Projects
Existing and proposed community facilities and services are presented in detail in Chapter 6. The planning for
and operation of each facility and service is the responsibility of a County department or regional agency. The
projects needed to support the existing and future development in this area are identified in this Plan.
Recommendations included in master plans prepared by other County departments and agencies have been
included as projects in this Plan.
Parks & Green Systems Projects
The Northern Development Area‘s existing and proposed parks, trails, greenways, and open spaces are
shown on the Parks & Green Systems Map at the end of Chapter 4. In some cases, the proposed open space
needs will be addressed as new developments are planned and constructed. In others, the County will provide
open spaces as the need for them arises and funds are available.
Implementation Priorities
This Master Plan recommends an extensive and interrelated series of implementation projects, as shown in
the List at the end of this chapter. To facilitate provision of these projects, two priorities have been set in order
to focus public efforts and limited resources where they are most needed during the 20-year implementation
timeframe. The priorities are based on several factors, including:
Existing facility, service, and infrastructure needs that are driven by existing development.
There is a backlog of transportation, infrastructure, and community facilities and services
needs that is already needed to serve the community as it exists today.
Regional transportation needs are acute in this part of the County.
Priority should be given to investments in the transportation network, community facilities and
services, and parks and green systems that support the areas where developments have
been approved, but not yet built.
Improvements needed to support further development outside of the mapped Priority Areas
and corridors. Relative to the three bullets above, investments are not anticipated in these
areas.
Many of the approved developments include transportation improvements or other facilities that will be
constructed by the developer. The precise timing and phasing of development will be determined by
developers and property owners based on market conditions, so, it is difficult for the County to know when
some of the promised infrastructure will be completed.
The two Priorities recom mended in this Master Plan are:
Priority 1: Transportation Improvements in the US 29 Corridor
The transportation network in the Northern Development Areas is intended to serve all users, from those
making very local trips (e.g., from home to the grocery store a few blocks away) to those traveling long
distances who simply pass through the Places29 area. The transportation network, in particular US 29, is
already congested in some areas at certain times. Several road improvements have been proposed for years
to address this congestion. The transportation corridor has been designated a Priority to support the backlog
of road improvements that are necessary to keep traffic moving (See Priority 1 Figure). While this area seems
large, it has been drawn to include a large number of essential transportation projects, including the two areas
that will be subject to Small Area Plans.
In most cases, construction of the network of roads parallel to US 29 depends largely on the timing of private
development projects along the corridor. However, some segments of the parallel roadways are needed to
provide alternate routes during construction of US 29 improvements. In these areas, portions of the parallel
road network may need to be designed and constructed before private development takes place adjacent to
US 29. Similarly, some portions of the parallel road network will extend the useful life of the existing US 29, so
that large-scale roadway improvements can be deferred as far as possible into the future.
The Essential Transportation Projects
The four transportation improvements listed below are the most critical improvements for the US 29 corridor
Priority Area and are the highest priority for implementation during the first five years of Plan implementation.
1. The improvements recommended in the 29H250 study and Hillsdale Drive Extended.
Construction of the segment of Hillsdale north of Hydraulic Road is essential to reduce the
volume of turning traffic at the intersection of US 29 and Hydraulic Road. Improvements to
US 29 noted as a & b below are also critical to maintain the level of service and improve
traffic flow on US 29 between the Hydraulic Road intersection and the 250 Bypass
intersection. This improvement is under design (2010) by the City and VDOT. While these
improvements are in the City, they are essential to the function of the US 29 corridor and
include:
a. Expand the southbound-to-westbound ramp at the US 29/250 Bypass (the
southbound onramp south of Angus Road), with an auxiliary lane to the Barracks
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 129)
Road offramp, and construct a fourth southbound lane on US 29 between Hydraulic
Road and the USX 29 interchange ramp.
b. Construct a westbound merge lane on the 250 Bypass at the Barracks Road
interchange.
Additional improvements for this intersection and the surrounding area that are expected to
be needed after the first five years are listed in Appendix 2.
2. Widening US 29 to six lanes—the segment of US 29 from Polo Grounds Road north to
Towncenter Drive needs to be widened to six lanes; in fact this project has been in the Six-
Year Plan for several years. An important part of this project will be safety improvements to
the northbound lanes. Completion of this project is considered the highest priority project in
the County.
Eventually, the segment of US 29 north of Airport Road to the North Fork of the Rivanna
River will also need to be widened to six lanes. The need to widen this second segment of
US 29 is not likely to occur until the very end of the 20-year implementation timeframe.
3. Berkmar Drive Extended—a new road segment from Hilton Heights Road north to
Towncenter Drive, including construction of the bridge over the South Fork of the Rivanna
River, is needed to provide an alternate, parallel road primarily for local traffic and to support
the widening of US 29 north of Polo Grounds Road. The first step in the process of
implementing Berkmar Drive Extended will be completion of the location, design, and
environmental review for the bridge over the South Fork of the Rivanna. This step will be the
focus of the implementation effort during the next five years. The ideal phasing to support the
widening of US 29 would be to construct Berkmar Drive Extended before beginning
construction of the additional lanes on US 29. However, given limited resources, the US 29
widening should receive the highest priority for construction funding.
4. Transit—providing enhanced transit service will enable some drivers to use transit for some
of their trips, thereby reducing the number of vehicle trips on network roads. It will also
provide opportunities for transit-dependent people to reach additional destinations. Transit
service should be expanded south of the South Fork of the Rivanna River and established
north of the South Fork as soon as sufficient density is developed t o support transit in the
Hollymead/Piney Mountain area.
It should be noted that, based on the latest traffic modeling, all of the transportation improvements
recommended in this Plan and the Transportation Study are considered necessary in order to maintain and
improve the flow of traffic through the Places 29 area over the 20 years of Plan implementation. With each
five-year Plan update, the need for these improvements will be reevaluated through an update of the traffic
modeling.
More detailed information about each of the recommended transportation projects is found in
Appendix 2, Implementation Project Descriptions.
Priority 2: For Public Investment and Land Use Decisionmaking
Priority 2 reflects the intent to focus public investment where new development has been approved and where
redevelopment is encouraged. There are two distinct geographic areas. First, Priority 2 South includes the
portions of Neighborhood 1 and Neighborhood 2 shown in the Priority 2 South figure. This area was selected
because a Small Area Plan will be developed for the area around the intersection of Rio Road and US 29.
Much of the existing commercial development in this area may be ready for redevelopment, so the focus of
public investment here will be on revitalizing, expanding, and improving the existing infrastructure to support
redevelopment during the first ten years of Plan implementation.
Priority 2 also includes the portion of the Hollymead Community shown in the Priority 2 North figure. This part
of the Hollymead Community has been approved for development and construction is underway, so this area
was selected to focus public infrastructure investment to support this approved development. A large part of
this area will also be included in the Airport Road Corridor Small Area Plan.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 130)
Private Development & Public Investments in Non-Priority Areas
While decisions on private development proposals (rezonings and special use permits) and public investments
should not be based solely on these Priorities, in the absence of specific objective criteria, decisions on
development proposals should be made with an understanding of where public investments are focused.
Focusing public investments creates efficiencies and ensures that infrastructure is in place when it is needed.
County land use decisions should be consistent with the Priorities established in this Plan. If the infrastructure
needed to support a proposed development outside the Priority Areas is not in place, the proposed
development should not be approved. For those implementation projects that are already needed to serve
existing and/or approved development, there is a notation to that effect in the ―Milestones‖ section of the
project description in Appendix 2.
When a development proposal is evaluated, any public infrastructure that would be adversely affected by the
proposal or is already in a substandard condition will be identified. The existing condition of and any adverse
affects on the public infrastructure from a development proposal should be important factors in considering the
suitability of the property for the proposed use. The transportation and other infrastructure requirements of the
community, including the timing of improvements should also be considered during evaluation of development
proposals. The County will consider the following:
a. Existing facilities
b. Facilities included in the capital improvements program
c. Service level standards established by the Community Facilities Plan or approved facility
master plans or service plans, and the effect of existing development, approved
development, and the proposed development on those standards
d. The ability of the County to finance facilities under its fiscal policies
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 131)
e. Service levels on the existing transportation system; the effect of existing and approved
development and the proposed development on those service levels and the effect of
proposed roads which are funded for construction
f. Commitments to phase the proposed development to the availability of adequate services
and facilities
g. Other mechanisms or analyses as the County may employ that measure the adequacy of
such services and facilities for various areas or that measure the County‘s ability to establish
adequate services and facilities
The County wants to encourage infill development and redevelopment in appropriate locations, as well as
affordable housing, neighborhood-serving retail, light industry, and other land uses. As one of the first
implementation projects under this Master Plan, County staff will develop more detailed guidance, including
specific objective criteria, in the form of a future Comprehensive Plan Amendment about the County‘s
expectations for proposed developments outside of the Priority Areas.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 132)
Small Area Plans
In order to coordinate land uses with recommended road improvements and to offer business and property
owners the opportunity to be involved in the design of the road improvements, this Plan recommends
preparation of Small Area Plans for two areas:
1) The area around the intersection of US 29 and Rio Road
2) The Airport Road Corridor
Each Small Area Plan will feature:
Updated current and projected traffic information for the area being studied
A Future Land Use Map showing the land uses at a more detailed level than on the Places29
Future Land Use Map
A neighborhood street network that further details the improvements recommended in the
Places29 Master Plan
The preliminary design of the recommended transportation improvements
Identification of right-of-way (ROW) for the transportation improvements, including any new
local streets
Measures to help minimize the impacts of the recommended transportation improvements
Identification of opportunities for business development, expansion, and relocation in the area
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 133)
Other information, as determined during preparation of the scope of work for each Small
Area Plan
During preparation of the Small Area Plan and design of the road improvements, business and property
owners will be invited to work with County, VDOT, and TJPDC staff to identify and eliminate or minimize
possible impacts of the road improvements. When the Small Area Plan and preliminary design are completed,
the short-term (construction) impacts and long-term impacts of the road improvements will be known.
Each Small Area Plan will be adopted into the County‘s Comprehensive Plan as part of the Places29 Master
Plan.
Intersection Improvements at Rio Road and US 29. The process of improving this intersection and the
transportation network around it will begin with preparation of a Small Area Plan. The small area p lanning
process will include evaluation and development of the preliminary design concepts for transportation
improvements that could prolong the life of the at-grade intersection and provide a design concept for long-
term improvements, as determined necessary at the time based on updated traffic information. The small area
planning process is not expected to begin until the second five years of Plan implementation.
The Small Area Planning Process
Each Small Area Plan would be prepared by County staff in conjunction with VDOT and TJPDC staff. The
process will involve the following steps, which may be reordered or expanded as necessary for each Small
Area Plan:
Funding for the Small Area Plan and preliminary design of the road improvement(s) is
identified.
Initial coordination of and agreement on the roles and activities of County staff, VDOT staff,
and TJPDC staff, and of any consultants who may be involved in the Small Area Plan. The
result of this step will be preparation of a memorandum of understandin g and a scope of
work, to be accepted by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, with input
from the Places29 Community Advisory Council.
Development of the public participation program.
An initial public meeting will be held to which all property owners, business owners, and
residents of the area will be invited. The purpose of the meeting will be to explain the Small
Area Planning process, outline the desired results, and clarify opportunities for public input
through the planning and design process. Additional substantive meetings will be held and
will be open to public participation.
During plan development, County and VDOT staff will work with potentially affected property
owners to explain the design and engineering process, identify opportunities to address
concerns and impacts regarding land use and transportation issues, and keep owners
informed about project status and involved in the planning process.
County staff will work with VDOT and TJPDC staff on land uses and the local street network
while VDOT (or its consultant) develops a preliminary design for the major road
improvements.
Presentation of preliminary road improvement design and suggested land uses/street
network to the public for comment and possible revision.
After revision, the preliminary road improvement design and suggested land uses/street
network will be presented to the P29 CAC, then to the Commission and Board for review,
comment, and, ultimately, adoption into the Comprehensive Plan.
Any development proposals submitted to the County prior to preparation of a Small Area Plan will be evaluated
according to the Future Land Use Map in the current Master Plan.
Funding the Implementation Projects
The Places29 Master Plan is a vision plan—it is based on what the community has identified as desirable in
the area where its members live and work. To work towards that vision and address the needs of existing and
future development during the next 20 years, the Plan recommends an ambitious program of Transportation,
Land Use & Development, Community Facilities & Services, and Parks & Green Systems implementation
projects. Finding the means to pay for these projects will be challenging. Monies to fund the improvements are
expected from various sources including federal, state, and local dollars. Public as well as private investment
will be used in construction of local projects.
Types of Costs and Source of Estimates
The assumptions and methodologies used to estimate the costs of specific projects are described here, along
with who is responsible for the estimates. The cost estimates, along with the party or parties responsible for
funding the projects, are given in the List of Implementation Projects at the end of this chapter, and more
information is provided in Appendix 2, Implementation Project Descriptions. The costs are divided into three
components: capital, program and planning, and operating costs.
Capital Costs
Generally, capital costs for transportation, community facilities, and other infrastructure elements are those
costs required to build a project or improve an existing facility. They include planning, design, engineering,
land/right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, site preparation, and construction. For Places29, costs for
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 134)
design and construction of the transportation improvements were prepared based on the roadway network
shown in Chapter 4. Costs for the community facilities and parks and recreation projects are based on
information included in the County‘s Capital Improvements Program (CIP).
In addition to the construction costs, there will also be regional capital and operating costs to expand the
transit system to achieve the levels of transit use envisioned for the Places29 area. Some of these costs have
been estimated based on information developed during the investigation of a regional transit authority (RTA).
Estimates for other transit-related costs will be prepared as the system is designed and equipment chosen.
For both transportation improvements and other infrastructure and community facility costs, the County
expects that new development will pay at least a portion of the capital cost.
Program and Planning Costs
Program and planning costs are those that will be necessary for ongoing planning efforts, such as the Small
Area Plans recommended for the Rio Road/US 29 area and the Airport Road Corridor. These costs include
staff time and, possibly, consultants for all or part of the planning process. The costs also include an estimate
for the County‘s public participation program. They should be considered the minimum cost since the scope of
work for each Small Area Plan has not been prepared. Staff has also not yet coordinated efforts with VDOT,
which will likely be handled through a memorandum of understanding or similar instrument.
There is also an ongoing cost for County staff to implement and monitor this Master Plan.
Planning and design costs for transportation improvements are included in the capital costs described above,
except for the transit system. These costs for transit are not yet known since they are dependent on the routes
chosen and the types of vehicles used.
Operating Costs
The ongoing costs of utilities, maintenance, and other operational costs for each transportation improvement,
other infrastructure improvement, and community facility need to be calculated and incorporated in the overall
cost of the project. These costs will be determined when an improvement or facility is designed, so they are
not included in the cost estimates in the List of Implementation Projects or in Appendix 2.
For some infrastructure improvements, such as libraries and fire stations, the County will also face the cost of
staffing the facilities once they have been constructed. Staffing costs will also need to be considered as part of
the operating costs of the facility.
Further, it is possible that some private entities, such as homeowners associations or property owners, will be
responsible for the operating costs of some of the facilities.
Funding Strategies
In order to implement the recom mendations in this Plan, the County will need to coordinate funding for
ongoing planning, capital investment, operations and maintenance, and monitoring costs from a broad range
of public and private sources. This section describes some of the funding strategies that can be used to fund
the recommended projects.
In addition to the information provided below, more detail regarding transportation funding options can be
found in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District‘s report, Transportation Funding Options, dated October 10,
2005. The full report is available on the TJPDC‘s website.
Prioritize Public Funding to Priority Areas
In keeping with County policy, this Master Plan identifies two Priorities (transportation improvements in the US
29 corridor and areas identified for redevelopment and new development) where public funding for
infrastructure development should be directed during implementation of this Plan. By focusing the limited
public funds that are available for the Northern Development Areas on these Priorities, the County can
address the existing infrastructure backlog, provide infrastructure for approved (but not yet built)
developments, and encourage redevelopment in areas where existing infrastructure may not meet the needs
of additional density/intensity.
Development Approval Process
Private developers will continue to play the key role in building attractive and functional neighborhoods and
mixed use centers through their own capital investment, while business, neighborhood, and homeowners‘
organizations will continue to play a role in operating and maintaining these elements. As part of a rezoning, it
is expected that developers will provide proffers for offsite transportation or other infrastructure improvements
to address impacts arising from the development. These improvements and the proffers related to them need
to be in keeping with this plan.
Federal, State, and Local Dollars
The County‘s main funding source for implementation is the funds that are generated through the County‘s
taxing authority. Priorities for expenditure of these funds for infrastructure and capital improvements are given
in the County‘s Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Based on a five-year financial program (years 1- 5) and
plan (years 6 – 10), the CIP details the County‘s funding priorities, including funding level, timing, and sources
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 135)
associated with specific improvements. The programming of projects for the Northern Development Areas in
the CIP should be based on the priority needs outlined in this Plan and the availability of funds.
The majority of transportation funds flow from the state through VDOT‘s Secondary (county), Urban (city), and
Primary road funding programs. There is a recognition in the region, and throughout the country, that there is
not enough funding available from the standard federal, state, and local sources to fund all of the region‘s
multimodal transportation priorities. Since many of the region‘s high priority transportation corridors extend
through the Places29 area, the County expects that significant amounts of federal and state funding are
necessary for the expansion and maintenance of US 29 and related regional elements of the transportation
network. The funding of transportation improvements is a core responsibility of the federal government and the
Commonwealth of Virginia. Any local funding of transportation projects should serve to augment, not replace,
significant federal and state funding. Still, the competitive nature of transportation funding at the state level will
make it difficult to rely solely on standard funding sources to pay for the recommended transportation
improvements. As part of the local funding, some combination of developer contributions of land and funding
for construction will be needed.
The overall strategy for accommodating future traffic volumes on US 29 is a combination of improvements to
US 29 and to the parallel and perpendicular road network. This combination of improvements provides for
more uniform operating conditions on US 29. It provides a road network that allows the pattern of development
to evolve in ways that are more supportive of US 29 as a part of the regional network, while providing for local
trips on the parallel network. Under this strategy, improvements to some portions of the secondary road
system would be equivalent to an improvement in the primary system. Accordingly, VDOT and the County
need to maximize the ability to use state and federal primary system funds for improvements to network roads
that improve the function of US 29. This can best be achieved by demonstrating that the construction of off-US
29 network improvements has a direct relationship to access management improvements on US 29 and/or is
part of other major improvements on US 29.
At the same time, the County needs to be prepared to apply for funding whenever new sources of federal or
state funding become available.
The County will also continue to work with stakeholder agencies, organizations, and individuals to
implement the Plan by pursuing grant funding from government agencies, foundations, and
corporations, as well as through direct investments of labor and funding from individuals, such as trail
construction and maintenance, and concepts like adopt-a-road or adopt-a-park programs that can
reduce operations and maintenance costs.
Partner with the City of Charlottesville
There are several opportunities for the County and the City of Charlottesville to partner in the funding of
transportation and other improvements, particularly in the southern portion of the Places29 area where the two
localities abut each other. Such a partnership could involve either shared funds from the two localities or a
collaboration in the use of funds from another source. Prime examples of such a partnership include: the
Meadow Creek Parkway, the interchange at US 29 and the 250 Bypass, the Hydraulic Road and US 29
intersection, portions of Rio Road, and Hillsdale Drive Extended. Other opportunities exist in the areas of
public open spaces, trails, and stormwater and water quality preservation needs.
Developing robust transit service is one area where a partnership between the County and City is essential,
especially considering the high level of capital improvements and operating costs that will be required to meet
the recommendations in this Master Plan. This Plan recognizes that a regional transit authority (RTA) or
similar management organization is needed.
―Nonstandard‖ Federal and State Funding Sources
There is a variety of federal and state funding sources that are currently available, and additional ones may
become available during implementation of the Master Plan. The County will continue to work with other
stakeholders and federal and state agencies to make use of these funding sources, which include:
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Assistance Funds: Given the expansion of the
National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) into a larger facility called the Rivanna Station
Military Base, the County may apply for planning and capital grants to support needed
transportation, school, housing, and other improvements necessary to serve the increase in
population from the military base. Funds may also be available to support business and
workforce development in connection with the base.
Brownfield Planning and Capital Grants and Loans: Brownfields are lands whose
redevelopment or reuse may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. The County and private land owners can
compete for grant funding or loans from the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to support the planning for and actual reuse of brownfield properties. The Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) also has a loan program to support the
remediation of brownfield sites.
Virginia Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund (VCWRLF): The Virginia DEQ has a revolving
loan fund that supports the acquisition of title or other rights to property when this will protect
or improve water quality and prevent pollution of state waters. These funds could be applied
for in connection with the recommended open space system within the Places29 area.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 136)
Private Funding for Maintenance of the Public Realm
Currently, a variety of business organizations (e.g., business park owners and the UVA Research Park) and
homeowners associations maintain privately owned open spaces, trails, recreational facilities, streetscapes,
roads, and other elements of the public realm within their developments. The County may wish to work with
future developments to continue this practice as a means to maintain these elements in future neighborhoods
and mixed use centers.
Partners in Implementation
Many public agencies and private entities will be partners in the successful implementation of the Master
Plan‘s recommendations for the Places29 area. Many of the implementation projects included in the
Implementation Table will involve coordinated and joint efforts by the entities listed below:
Albemarle County, both the local government and school divisions
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) and the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO)
The City of Charlottesville
The Virginia Department of Rail & Public Transportation (VDRPT)
The Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP)
The Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) and the Virginia Department of Housing
and Community Development (DHCD)
The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority
Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS), JAUNT, and a potential Regional Transit Authority
(RTA)
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, Albemarle County Service Authority, and other utilities
A wide range of nongovernmental, civic, and environmental, business, and community
organizations
Neighborhood and homeowner associations
Developers, builders, real estate agencies, financial institutions, and others involved in the
development process
Residents and property owners
New agencies, such as business improvement districts or community development agencies,
that may be set up to assist with implementation in certain parts of the Places29 area.
Places29 Community Advisory Council
As with other master-planned Development Areas, the County‘s Board of Supervisors will establish the
Places29 Community Advisory Council (P29CAC) to work with staff to monitor the implementation of the
Places29 Master Plan. The form and composition of the P29CAC will be determined after adoption of the
Plan.
Implementation Monitoring
Good planning practice includes the periodic review and update of plans after they are adopted. An important
part of this review is an ongoing monitoring program that keeps tabs on how well implementation is proceeding
and what additional issues or information have arisen since the plan was prepared. At strategic times, a plan
should be reviewed and updated or revised, based on the results of the monitoring program and input from the
public and local officials.
Monitoring Projects
With this Master Plan, successful implementation requires monitoring and refinement of both the Plan and
individual implementation projects. Monitoring by the County, other agencies, and stakeholders will ensure that
the Plan‘s goals are met. The monitoring process recommended as part of this plan incorporates a range of
perspectives: fiscal, economic, social, and environmental, as well as consideration of the general quality of life.
A monitoring program is described below, along with possible milestones for review and refinement of the
Plan. Milestones for individual implementation projects are included in Appendix 2, Implementation Project
Descriptions.
Master Plan Review
It is recommended that this Plan be reviewed and updated every five years, with the first review occurring five
years after adoption of the Plan. These five-year reviews are incorporated into the Plan as part of plan
administration and management. They are envisioned as the time to adjust the plan, based on any changes in
conditions or new information. As part of the five-year review, a broad range of performance criteria will be
measured and reported to County officials and the public. These criteria will include those referred to under
individual projects in Appendix 2 and the following more general criteria, among others:
Confirm the vision for the Places29 area to serve as the basis for recalibrating the Master
Plan.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 137)
Changes in population, income, social, economic, and/or employment patterns, as measured
by the US Census and the state demographer.
Changes in the County‘s physical environment.
New developments approved and/or constructed during the previous five-year period.
Any changes in the Comprehensive Plan and/or ordinances made by the Board of
Supervisors that affect implementation of the Master Plan.
The possible completion of VDOT‘s ―Blueprint‖ plan following the 2035 UnJAM Report
Any changes in driving patterns or other transportation data, such as road incident
information.
Updates to the County‘s Comprehensive Plan, including additional master plans adopted
after Places29.
Progress made on the implementation projects slated for completion during that five-year
period, and a reevaluation of transportation recommendations.
The availability of new funding sources or programs for transportation and/or other
infrastructure improvem ents.
The five-year review process will begin with collection of background information and statistics by County staff,
as well as staff‘s evaluation of performance criteria. Staff, in consultation with the Places29 Community
Advisory Council, will work with the County Planning Commission to develop a process for the plan update.
Places29: List of Implementation Projects
Important Points to Keep in Mind When Using This List
Each of the projects in this List represents an action needed to implement the Places29 Master Plan. The
projects are grouped first by timeframe: Ongoing, First Five Years, Second Five Years, and Second Ten
Years. Within each timeframe, the projects are separated by type into Transportation, Land Use &
Development, Community Facilities & Services, and Parks & Green Systems sections. Finally, within each
type, the projects are listed in the order in which they are most likely to begin, given funding
constraints.
Many of the projects, especially some of the major transportation improvements, will go through several
stages of planning, design, and construction before they are completed. At the appropriate time, the projects
should be included in the County‘s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and/or the 6-Year Transportation Plan.
The List of Implementation Projects gives the following information:
Implementation Project: the project name and project reference number. The reference numbers
are not an indication of priority; they are simply a means of identifying the projects. The same
numbers are used in Appendix 2. Implementation Project Descriptions. Projects shown in boldface
type are High Priority Projects.
FY 2010-2011 Estimated Cost: For transportation projects, this cost estimate includes both the
construction cost and the estimated cost for right-of-way (ROW) acquisition and utility relocation. To
obtain the total estimated cost of these transportation projects, it is necessary to add the
capital and ROW estimates. Most of the cost estimates were prepared by the Places29
transportation consultants, using cost factors provided by the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) and escalated to Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-2011 dollars using a growth factor also provided by
VDOT. In a few cases, where the project has been included in the United Jefferson Area Mobility Plan
(the UnJAM Regional Transportation Plan), the cost estimate from the UnJAM Plan is included in the
―Additional Information‖ column. Cost estimates from the UnJAM Plan include ROW and utility
relocation estimates and have been escalated to the year the project is expected to begin (so, these
estimates will be different from those prepared by the Places29 transportation consultants).
For Land Use & Development, Community Facilities & Services, and Parks & Green Systems
projects, the estimates, where available, come from the County‘s current or previous Capital
Improvements Program (CIP).
Funding Sources: the public and private entities that are expected to participate in funding the
project are listed in this column. Primary sources are those responsible for funding most or all of the
project. Secondary supporting sources may contribute supplemental funding. For example, with US
29 projects, the primary funding source is VDOT. Secondary support may be local funds directly from
private sources, including cash proffers, and the local tax base, including property taxes and, possibly,
local taxing districts.
Additional Information: gives information about project timing, projects currently identified in the
UnJAM plan, and other information.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 138)
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 139)
Appendix 2, Implementation Project Descriptions, contains additional information about each project,
including a more detailed project description, when the project is expected to begin, which parties are
responsible for planning and funding the project, and any issues that may need to be addressed
during planning and construction. The appendix also lists the milestones—triggers or thresholds that
will indicate when it is time to begin a project, how to measure the success of a project, or when one
project is dependent on completion of another. Additional information that may be useful is included,
such as the budget document where the project will be listed.
Given the limited resources available at this time, the County has identified four (4) transportation
improvement projects that are essential to move forward on over the next five years. These projects
are:
1. Design and construct improvements to US 29 from Hydraulic Road to the 250 Bypass and
pursue sources of funding for construction of Hillsdale Drive Extended (both projects are in
the City)
2. Design/engineering for the widening of US 29 from 4 to 6 lanes between Polo Grounds Road
and Towncenter Drive
3. Design of Berkmar Drive Extended, including the bridge over the South Fork of the Rivanna
River
4. Expansion of transit service (including hours of operation, headways, extension of service to
unserved areas, and supporting infrastructure, such as sidewalks, crosswalks, and shelters)
It should be noted that all of the transportation improvements recommended in this Plan are
the product of an extensive transportation study funded by VDOT that identified a number of
short- and long-term transportation projects. Due to limited available resources for
transportation projects, the focus in the short term is on the ―doable‖ and most immediately
essential projects. Planning for the long-term transportation projects has been deferred for
further evaluation and consideration based on transportation studies and traffic modeling to
be conducted as part of the Master Plan’s future five-year updates.
Project
Reference
No.
Implementation
Project
FY 2010-2011
Estimated
Cost
Funding Sources
Additional Information
Primary Secondary
ONGOING
TRANSPORTATION
US 29
1
Access Management
Improvements along US 29
from the 250 Bypass to the
Greene County Line
Variable; to be
determined
VDOT, City and/or
County Adjacent property owners
and businesses
The access management report
is in Appendix 4, and is
available under separate cover
2 Intelligent Transportation
System Strategies (ITS)
Variable; to be
determined
VDOT, City
LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT
3
Places29 Community Advisory
Council
County
The Committee will be appointed
after adoption of the Master
Plan.
4 Master Plan Administration
and Management County
FIRST FIVE YEARS (2011-2016)
TRANSPORTATION
In City
5
A HIGH PRIORITY
IMPLEMENTATION
PROJECT
29H250 Study
Recommended
Improvements
[In City] on US 29:
c. Expand southbound-
to-westbound ramp at
US 29/250 Bypass
(near Best Buy) with
auxiliary lane to
Barracks Road
offramp; and
construct a fourth
southbound lane on
US 29 between
Hydraulic Road and
the US 250
interchange; two lanes
would drop at the
offramp to westbound
US 250
d. Construct westbound
merge lane on the US
250 Bypass at the
Barracks Road exit
[See also Project #36]
$2,432,000 (a & b)
City of Charlottesville,
VDOT
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 140)
Project
Reference
No.
Implementation
Project
FY 2010-2011
Estimated
Cost
Funding Sources
Additional Information
Primary Secondary
6
A HIGH PRIORITY
IMPLEMENTATION
PROJECT
Construct Hillsdale Drive
north of Hydraulic Road
$30,108,000
(Includes ROW) VDOT, City Property Owners/
Developers
Hillsdale Drive Extension:
City/VDOT urban system
project with a very small
section in the County (Pepsi
Place to Greenbrier/existing
Hillsdale Drive)
US 29
7
A HIGH PRIORITY
IMPLEMENTATION
PROJECT
Widen US 29 to six lanes
from Polo Grounds Road to
Towncenter Drive
Design:
$2,500,000-
2,800,000
(included in
overall cost
below)
Overall cost:
$18,528,000
ROW: $11,117,000
VDOT
Design/engineer the 6-
lane improvement
(County & VDOT)
Pursue funding for
construction (VDOT)
Construct improvement
(once funding obtained;
construction may extend
into the second five
years)
May also include design
of possible Ashwood
Blvd. grade separation, if
necessary, in order to
plan for, reserve ROW
(official map action), and
acquire any necessary
ROW
Parallel and Perpendicular Roads
8
A HIGH PRIORITY
IMPLEMENTATION
PROJECT
Berkmar Drive Extended:
1. Initiate an alignment
study for the Berkmar
Drive Extended Bridge
to determine the best
crossing location and
bridge profile
2. Undertake bridge
design, alignment study
for Berkmar Drive
Extended north of the
South Fork of the
Rivanna River
3. Extend existing roadway
from northern terminus
of Hilton Heights Road
to Rivanna North fork,
including the bridge
Study: $155,000
VDOT, TJPDC, County Property Owners/
Developers
Project will begin with
alignment study for bridge as
continue to completion of
bridge and road when funding
is available, Widening of
Berkmar Drive between US 29
and Rio Road will begin after
the other parts of the project
are complete and as funding
is available.
Transit/Pedestrian/Bicycle Network
9
A HIGH PRIORITY
IMPLEMENTATION
PROJECT
Transit System Expansion &
Improvements
An ongoing project, but it is
a priority to implement the
following enhancements in
the first 5 years:
Expand hours of
operation
Reduce headways
Install support facilities
(e.g., shelters,
sidewalks/ bicycle
access to transit stops)
Extend area served
Cost to be
determined
City, County, CTS,
JAUNT
For the full scope of the
Transit Improvements, see
Chapter 4 and Appendix 2
10
Bicycle & Pedestrian Network
County, VDOT, other
agencies
Property Owners/
Developers
Close gaps in existing
system, including
crosswalks
Serve schools and parks
Provide connections to
transit
Pursue/study potential
interim at-grade pedestrian
crossings and implement
11
US 29 Pedestrian Crossovers /
Crossings
Locate, design, and construct
at-grade or grade-separated
pedestrian crossings at
strategic locations along US
29. See Parks & Green
Systems Map
$1,914,000 County, VDOT Property Owners/
Developers
Study feasibility and install
interim at-grade crossings
Grade-separated
pedestrian facilities would
be a long-term improvement
LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT
12
Five-year Review & Master
Plan Update County To begin in Year 4. See
Chapter 8 for description of
update process
Update will include reevaluation
of the transportation network
recommendations, including all
major road improvement projects
COMMUNITY FACILITIES & SERVICES
13
Utilities
Planning and development to
begin for:
1. Water line improvements
a. Replace/upgrade
waterline in new
location outside of US
29
b. Obtain location for new
water storage facility in
Hollymead area
Rivanna Water & Sewer
Authority, Albemarle
County Service
Authority
See Project Description in
Appendix 2 for more detailed
information
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 141)
Project
Reference
No.
Implementation
Project
FY 2010-2011
Estimated
Cost
Funding Sources
Additional Information
Primary Secondary
PARKS & GREEN SYSTEMS
14
Northtown Trail
A trail system extending from
the Hollymead Development
Area to Downtown
Charlottesville to provide
commuter and recreational
opportunities
$4,972,000 City, County, VDOT,
other agencies
Property Owners/
Developers
TJPDC now working on
project
Establish ―interim‖ trail
concept
Pursue funding for and
development of the trail as
per the MPO Northtown
Trail Study
15
A HIGH PRIORITY
IMPLEMENTATION
PROJECT
Greenway along the Rivanna
River
County, Property
Owners/ Developers
Continue efforts to construct trail
from Pen Park to ICNA
16
Provide active field space for
practice and competitive sports
fields/multi-purpose fields [see
Parks & Green Systems Map]
County, Property
Owners/ Developers
North Pointe proffered land for a
location to address some of the
needs
17
Recommended trails and trail
connections from adjacent and
nearby neighborhoods to the
Greenway network
County, Homeowners
Associations, Property
Owners
Ongoing, as opportunities arise
SECOND FIVE YEARS (2017-2022)
TRANSPORTATION
US 29
18
Intersection Improvements at
Rio Road & US 29:
Prepare a Small Area Plan
for the area around the
intersection of Rio Road and
US 29
Plan: $100,000
Plan: County;
Preliminary Design:
VDOT
Small area plan process
should begin within the
second five years, but after
completion of design work for
the US 29 widening (#7) and
design of Berkmar Drive
Extended (#8). The Small Area
Plan is to determine the scope
and design of improvements
to (and near) the existing
intersection. All options for
intersection improvements will
be considered in this process
(see Appendix 2 for further
details).
19
US 29 at Shoppers World and
Mall Drive
$637,000 VDOT, Property Owners
Timing of these
improvements depends on
development/ redevelopment
of adjacent properties
Property expected to be
included in Small Area Plan
for Rio/US 29 area
20
Albemarle Square Drive at US
29
$3,127,000
ROW: $1,876,000 VDOT, Developer
Timing of these
improvements depends on
development/ redevelopment
of adjacent properties
Property expected to be
included in Small Area Plan
for Rio/US 29 area
21 Signalize US 29 at Airport
Acres North $324,000 Property Owner/
Developer
22 Signalize US 29 at Northside
Drive $324,000 Property Owner/
Developer
23 US 29 at Burnley Station
Road/Frays Mill Road
$2,664,000
ROW: $666,000 VDOT Add second left turn lanes and
widen approaches to US 29
Parallel and Perpendicular Roads
24 Albemarle Place: Construct
street system Property Owner/
Developer Costs to be paid by property
owner/developer
25 North Pointe: Construct street
system Property Owner/
Developer Costs to be paid by property
owner/developer
26 University of Virginia Research
Park: Construct street system Property Owner Costs to be paid by property
owner
Transit/Pedestrian/Bicycle Network
27
A HIGH PRIORITY
IMPLEMENTATION
PROJECT
Transit System Expansion &
Improvements
[See also Projects #9 and #52.]
[costs included in
first five years
above]
City, County, CTS,
RTA, other agencies
Consider expanding service
to Hollymead/Piney Mtn.
Consider providing express
service/Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT)
COMMUNITY FACILITIES & SERVICES
28 Sutherland Middle School
Addition $2,199,000
29 Hollymead Elementary School
Addition $7,552,000
30
Monitor long-term need for
future Fire/Rescue service
improvements
31
Police Office for beat officers
in Neighborhoods 1, 2,
Hollymead, Piney Mtn.
Ensure adequate facilities are
provided over the long term to
serve these areas
32 Northern Albemarle Library
Facility $16,972,000 Albemarle County Jefferson-Madison
Regional Library
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 142)
Project
Reference
No.
Implementation
Project
FY 2010-2011
Estimated
Cost
Funding Sources
Additional Information
Primary Secondary
33
Recycling Centers
$350,000
Rivanna Water & Sewer
Authority, County
General Services,
Facilities Development
County‘s Solid Waste
Management Plan and
recommendations for
services are under review.
Maintain recycling services
and or facilities in some
form in the Places29 area
34 New Middle/High School Site Assessment:
$148,000
Albemarle County
Schools Division
35
Upgrade Seminole Trail
Fire/Rescue Station and
rescue building facilities
$5,775,000 Albemarle County Dept.
of Fire Rescue
PARKS & GREEN SYSTEMS
SECOND TEN YEARS (2023-2032)
TRANSPORTATION
US 29
36
A HIGH PRIORITY
IMPLEMENTATION
PROJECT
[In City] On US 29 from the
250 Bypass to Hydraulic
Road:
c. Construct eastbound to
northbound/
southbound offramp at
US 29/250 Bypass and
construct new offramp
at Holiday Drive
d. Close eastbound to
northbound/
southbound offloop at
US 29/250 Bypass and
reconstruct northbound
to eastbound onramp
e. Reconstruct
southbound to
eastbound onloop at US
29/250 Bypass
f. Expand US 29 from
Morton Drive to
Seminole Square
g. Reconstruct 250
Bypass/Hydraulic Road
intersection
h. Reconstruct Hydraulic
Road from US 29 to 250
Bypass
j. Design and construct
US 29 / Hydraulic
intersection. Final
design for the
intersection
improvement would be
subject to City/County
input and public hearing
processes.
[See also Project #5]
$23,160,000 (c – f)
$9, 565,000 (g)
$9,554,000 (h)
$39,372,000 (i)
City of Charlottesville,
VDOT
Staging of other related
improvements, such as
construction of network
parallel roads and immediately
adjacent parallel and
connecting roads, restriction
of turning movements, etc.
could maintain an adequate
LOS to prolong the life of the
at-grade intersection.
Construction of a possible
grade-separation (i) is
considered a long-term
project and is not expected to
begin until after completion of
the other noted improvements
(a-h, or their equivalent),
which will likely be after the
second ten years of Plan
implementation.
Recommended transportation
improvements will be
reevaluated with each five-
year update of the Master
Plan.
[Note: item ―i‖ is the Hillsdale
Drive Extension project,
Project #6 in this list.]
37
Intersection Improvements at
Rio Road & US 29:
2. Design and construct
road network
improvements, such as
parallel and connecting
roads, interparcel
connections, and/or
other turning movement
improvements as
established in the small
area plan (which are
needed to prolong the
life of the at-grade
intersection and/or that
would support a
possible grade
separation)
3. Design and construct
long-term intersection
improvements as
established during the
small area planning
process
[See also Project #18]
VDOT
2. As with the Hydraulic/US 29
intersection, staging of related
road improvements,
particularly construction of
network parallel roads and
immediately adjacent parallel
and connecting roads,
restriction of turning
movements, etc. could
maintain an adequate LOS to
prolong the life of the at-grade
intersection
3.When necessary, construct
ultimate improvements to this
intersection.
Recommended transportation
improvements will be
reevaluated with each five-
year update of the Master Plan
38 Intersection improvements at
Greenbrier Drive and US 29 $313,000 VDOT Add southbound left turn lane
and westbound right turn lane
39
Intersection improvements at
Woodbrook Drive and US 29 $1,089,000 VDOT
Extend northbound left turn and
right turn storage; channelize
Woodbrook Drive/US 29
intersection
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 143)
Project
Reference
No.
Implementation
Project
FY 2010-2011
Estimated
Cost
Funding Sources
Additional Information
Primary Secondary
40
Construct intersection
improvements at Ashwood
Blvd. and US 29
$11,927,000
ROW: $2,982,000 VDOT
Design of grade-separation, if
necessary, may be done during
design of US 29 widening in
order to plan for, reserve, and
possibly obtain necessary ROW.
Recommended transportation
improvements will be
reevaluated with each five-year
update of the Master Plan.
41
Intersection Improvements at
Airport Road/Proffit Road/US
29 and Timberwood Blvd./US
29:
Preparation of Small Area Plan
for the Airport Road Corridor
Plan: $100,000
Small Area Plan will be prepared
during the second ten years of
Master Plan Implementation
42
Major Improvements to the
intersection at Hilton Heights
Road and US 29
$17,949,000
ROW: $10,760,000 VDOT
Recommended transportation
improvements will be
reevaluated with each five-year
update of the Master Plan
43
Widen US 29 to six lanes from
Airport Road to bridge over the
North Fork of the Rivanna
River
$12,738,000 Property Owners/
Developers,
ROW costs are not included—
land to be donated per proffers
44
Intersection improvements at
US 29 & Austin Drive
Improvements:
$7,238,000
ROW: $1,809,000
VDOT
Intersection is now signalized.
45 Signalize US 29 at Dickerson
Road $324,000 VDOT
Parallel and Perpendicular Roads
46 Proffit Road Improvements NA VDOT, County
47 Dickerson Road Improvements $11,608,000 VDOT, County Construction dependent on
VDOT funding
48
Construct pedestrian
overcrossing (of US 29) at
Berkmar Drive
$2,200,000 County, VDOT, Property
Owner/ Developer
49
Construct connector road
between US 29 and Berkmar
Drive Extended (development-
dependent)
$1,841,000
ROW: $921,000
Property Owner, VDOT,
County
50 Extend Ashwood Blvd. to
Berkmar Drive Extended Property Owner/
Developer, VDOT
51
Reconfigure cross section of
Timberwood Blvd. between US
29 and Worth Crossing.
Construct roundabout at Worth
Crossing.
VDOT
Transit/Pedestrian/Bicycle Network
52
A HIGH PRIORITY
IMPLEMENTATION
PROJECT
Transit System Expansion &
Improvements
[See also Projects #9 and #27]
City, County, CTS,
RTA, other agencies
Continue to extend and improve
quality of service
COMMUNITY FACILITIES & SERVICES
53 Recreational Field Space in
the Piney Mountain Area $3,250,000 Developer/Property
Owner
54
New Elementary School
School:
$20,000,000
Land: $3,000,000
Albemarle County
Schools Division
To be located in one of three
locations in the County, based
on need/demand: Crozet,
southern urban area (Biscuit
Run proffered site), the Northern
Development Areas (North
Pointe proffered site)
PARKS & GREEN SYSTEMS
Appendix 1. Glossary of Terms Used in this Master Plan
This appendix provides definitions for those terms used in the Places29 Master Plan that may not be familiar
to readers. References to Plan chapters, tables, and other sources where additional information is given are
listed at the end of each definition.
Access Management—As defined by the Virginia Dept. of Transportation (VDOT), access management
seeks to improve the performance of the existing road network and enhance safety while maintaining the right
of private property to have reasonable access to state highways. Access management improvements control
the location, number, spacing, and design of entrances, median openings, traffic signals, turn lanes, street
intersections, and interchanges. Implementation of access management improvements is expected to reduce
crashes, injuries, and fatalities; lead to greater mobility that enhances the economic vitality of an area; cause a
reduction in the need for additional road capacity; and increase the traffic carrying capacity of existing roads.
(See the US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study Technical Memo No. 7, Access Management Program,
for further details. See also VDOT‘s access management regulations and design standards that are located
on the VDOT website.)
Buffer—An area that creates separation between two potentially incompatible uses. The width of the area
varies depending on the need for separation. Within the area, vegetation or vegetation and fencing are used to
either screen or mitigate the impacts of one use on another.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 144)
Building Footprint—The area of a lot or site covered by a building or buildings at the ground level, exclusive
of courtyards. Any parking areas that are within the perimeter of the building, such as podium parking spaces
or first floor parking are included in the footprint.
Built Form—The physical urban environment that results from a combination of transportation infrastructure,
buildings and other structures, and open spaces.
Capital Improvements Program—The County‘s Capital Improvements Program (CIP) serves as the major
financial planning guide for County expenditures towards capital facilities and equipment over a five-year
period. It is one of the primary tools used to implement the Comprehensive Plan. The CIP establishes a five-
year schedule for the purchase, construction, or replacement of the community‘s physical assets. A capital
project typically requires a minimum expenditure of $20,000 and has a minimum useful life of ten years. In
conjunction with the CIP preparation process, the County develops a comprehensive long-range capital needs
assessment that forms the basis for the CIP. This ten-year needs assessment is updated every other year as
part of the CIP process.
Center—A center provides a focal point for residents and pedestrians. Centers may be employment hubs,
areas of mixed uses, parks, places of worship, or other activity areas. Center should be recognized and
enhanced within neighborhoods. New centers should be built with pedestrian access in mind. Centers usually
have a higher density than the surrounding area, include a concentration of amenities and serve the entire
Neighborhood. A Center functions as a public space and a destination within the Neighborhood and the larger
community. There are four types of Centers in the Places29 area: Neighborhood Service, Community,
Destination, and the Uptown. (For additional information about Centers, see Chapter 5, Place Types.)
Comprehensive Plan—The Comprehensive Plan is Albemarle County‘s most important document regarding
growth, development, and change. It establishes government policy to help guide public and private activities
as they relate to land use and resource utilization. It is the basis for land development regulations and
decisions (rezonings, special use permits), capital improvements (public projects, such as schools, parks,
libraries), transportation, environmental and historic resource protection initiatives, new county programs and
decisions on the distribution of county budget dollars to a multitude of programs and agencies.
Development Areas (also referred to as Growth Areas or Urban Areas)—Areas of the county designated in
the Comprehensive Plan‘s Land Use Plan where urban development is encouraged to take place. The
County's growth management approach has been to direct development to these areas and preserve the rural
portion of the County for agriculture, forestry, and resource conservation.
District—As defined in the County‘s Neighborhood Model, an area that contains specialized uses, such as an
airport or large-scale manufacturing facility that cannot be accommodated appropriately in a neighborhood
structure (see Section 5-1, Structure of Neighborhoods). Districts are the exception, rather than the rule in the
Development Areas because districts do not have the range of activities and housing that are offered in
Neighborhoods. Districts should be interconnected with adjacent Neighborhoods, although, in some instances,
a district may need to be located a sufficient distance from a neighborhood in order to reduce impacts, such as
traffic burdens or competition with local retail core businesses.
Entrance Corridor—Entrance Corridors are streets and adjacent areas subject to the County‘s Entrance
Corridor overlay district. This district is intended to: implement the comprehensive plan goal of protecting the
county's natural, scenic, historic, architectural, and cultural resources; ensure a quality of development
compatible with these resources through the architectural control of development; stabilize and im prove
property values; protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; sustain and
enhance the economic benefits from tourism that accrue to the county; and support and stimulate
complimentary development appropriate to the prominence afforded properties that are historically,
architecturally, or culturally significant. (See Chapter 7, Design Guidelines for the Places29 Area)
Frontage Condition—Frontage conditions are the physical conditions of property where it meets the street.
Physical conditions may be parking lots, landscaping, buildings, or natural vegetation where the property and
right-of-way line come together. (See also Chapter 7, Design Guidelines for the Places29 Area)
Grade-separated Intersection—An intersection where one street is elevated above the other so traffic from
perpendicular directions does not cross paths in the intersection. Pedestrians, bicycles, and transit vehicles
may also be separated from general vehicular traffic. (See Chapter 4 for additional information and diagrams)
Growth Management—The use by a community of a wide range of techniques to determine the amount,
type, and rate of development desired by the community and to channel that growth into designated areas.
Human Scale—The result of sizing and proportioning buildings and other elements in the built environment so
that a pedestrian feels comfortable; regulating the heights, setbacks, spatial enclosure, front and side yards,
architecture, and relationships of building heights to widths all contribute to a human scale.
Implementation—Actions, procedures, programs, or techniques that carry out policies and plans.
Incidental Use—A use that supports a primary or secondary use and is permitted only in combination with the
primary or secondary use.
Infill Development—Development of vacant, skipped over parcels of land in otherwise built-up areas. In
some instances, infill development may also refer to the redevelopment of underdeveloped property.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 145)
Infrastructure—The basic facilities, such as roads, public buildings (schools, libraries, fire stations), utilities
(water, sewer, electric, gas), and communications systems on which the continuance and growth of a
community depends. Infrastructure is needed to sustain industrial residential, com mercial, and all other land
use activities.
Jug Handle—The term used to describe local streets that connect US 29 and perpendicular streets as part of
the network of roads around a grade-separated intersection. These jug handle connectors are at-grade streets
and replace most of the ramps and flyovers that are often part of grade-separated interchanges. When viewed
on the Future Land Use Map, the connecting road has the shape of a jug handle.
Land Use—The type of activity that takes place on property, such as residential, office, retail, commercial,
industrial, open space, and institutional.
Land Use Designation—As used in the Comprehensive Plan, including master plans, the specific land use(s)
that are permitted on a parcel, as indicated on the Future Land Use Map.
Multimodal—The term used in transportation planning to indicate that all modes of travel are included:
vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, transit, air, rail (passenger and freight), and freight (truck, rail, and air).
Multimodal streets include vehicular travel lanes and facilities to accommodate bicycles, pedestrians, and
transit. A true multimodal transportation network addresses not only the travel modes that rely on
streets/sidewalks, but also incorporates airports and railroads.
Neighborhood—As defined in the County‘s Neighborhood Model, the fundamental building block within the
Development Areas. A Neighborhood is made up of a Center and the walkable areas around the Center.
Neighborhood Model—The section of the County‘s Comprehensive Plan that supports a change in the form
of urban development, from suburban to more urban, based on increased density and guided by a master
planning process. The intent of the Neighborhood Model is to create livable communities in the Development
Areas while preserving the Rural Areas. The twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model provide guidance on
compact development in the Development Areas. (See the Neighborhood Model section of the
Comprehensive Plan)
Pedestrian-Oriented—Development designed with the primary emphasis on sidewalks and pedestrian
access to sites and buildings, rather than on auto access and parking areas. In a pedestrian-oriented
development, buildings are generally placed close to the street and their main entrances are oriented toward
the sidewalk. There are generally windows or display cases along the building facades that face the street and
sidewalk. Typically, buildings cover a large portion of the site and are placed as close together as possible to
allow pedestrians to walk comfortably to and from many potential destinations. Although parking areas are
provided, they are generally limited in size and are located behind or to the side of buildings.
Perpendicular Main Street—A street that is perpendicular to US 29 and serves as a major road in a Center
and the areas around a Center.
Photosimulation—A type of illustration where an original photograph is enhanced with additional features,
such as road improvements, sidewalks, buildings, landscaping, and other amenities to show how a particular
area might look once master plan recommendations are implemented.
Place Type—As defined in the County‘s Neighborhood Model, a component of a Neighborhood, such as a
Center or an Area around a Center.
Primary and Secondary Uses—Primary uses are the main focus of a development or a Neighborhood; the
majority of the uses in a development or Neighborhood should be primary ones. Secondary uses are
considered support uses for the primary ones; there are generally fewer secondary uses in a Neighborhood
than primary ones. Each land use designation defined in this Master Plan includes references to the primary
and secondary uses permitted in that designation. Generally for Neighborhoods and larger developments, the
primary and secondary uses analysis is based on the entire area, not on a single parcel.
Private Realm—The area within privately owned sites or developments, including both buildings and
residential yards and other exterior spaces, that are generally accessible only to residents, employees,
business owners, and their guests or patrons.
Public Realm—The areas within a community or a development that are accessible to all, are mainly in public
ownership, and include streets, sidewalks, parks, open space, and plazas, whether these areas are
maintained publicly or privately. The public realm also includes privately owned and maintained areas that are
open to the public most times of the day and contribute to public life.
Ring Road or Ring Roads—Similar to jug handles, a type of local street that connects US 29 to a parallel or
perpendicular street and serves as the connection to the overpass at a grade -separated intersection. Ring
roads are recommended primarily for the US 29/Rio Road intersection.
Rural Areas—The approximately 690 square miles (about 95 percent) of Albemarle County that surround the
Development Areas. Rural Areas are designed for resource protection purposes and are not intended to
accommodate urban development.
Screen or Screening—Landscaping and/or fencing that reduces or obscures the visibility of undesirable
elements or incompatible uses.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 146)
Secondary Use—See Primary and Secondary Uses.
Street Cross Section—A plan view of a street showing the complete right-of-way, including the vehicle lanes,
parking lanes, planting strips, sidewalks, multiuse paths, and landscaped buffers.
Transit-Oriented Development—A mixed-use development built at a density that is high enough to support a
transit stop or stops. Such a development provides sidewalks or paths from various destinations to the transit
stop and other amenities to encourage use of the transit system.
Transit-Ready Development—A mixed-use development that, when designed and constructed, identifies
and preserves appropriate space for transit service and amenities for users, even though transit service is not
available at the time the development is proposed.
Vision—A community‘s view of what it will look like and how it will function in the future, either at buildout or
another chosen milestone.
Walkable—An adjective applied to communities and neighborhoods that are sized to permit pedestrian
access to the entire area. Generally, pedestrians will be comfortable walking distances that they can cover in 5
to 15 minutes. In this amount of time, a pedestrian can cover between one -quarter and one-half mile,
sometimes further.
Walkingshed—The one-quarter to one-half mile distance that can be covered comfortably by a pedestrian in
a 5- to 15-minute walk.
Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map—A zoning ordinance, along with a zoning map, controls land use by
providing regulations and standards relating to the nature and extent of uses of land and structures. The
zoning ordinance should be consistent with the comprehensive plan. It is important to recognize that zoning
districts are not the same as land use designations in the County‘s Comprehensive Plan (including master
plans).
Appendix 2. Implementation Project Descriptions
This appendix provides a more detailed description of each of the Places29 Implementation Projects than is
given in the List of Implementation Projects at the end of Chapter 8. The projects in this appendix follow the
same order as they do in the List. The project reference number in the upper left hand corner of each project
corresponds to the project reference number in the List of Implementation Projects. These numbers are
provided for convenience; they do not indicate a priority.
The project descriptions of the transportation projects are taken from the US 29 North Corridor
Transportation Study. The descriptions of the other projects are from other planning documents or the
County‘s Capital Improvements Program (CIP).
Timing indicates when a project is expected to begin.
The estimated costs listed for each project have come from one of two sources:
1. The Places29 transportation consultants, Meyer Mohaddes Associates, developed the
transportation project estimates, based on cost factors supplied by VDOT. These cost
estimates include design, planning, and construction. Also, staff has used the same VDOT
factors to prepare an estimate for right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation. (See the
Appendix of Technical Memo 11 from the US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study for a list
of these cost factors.) These cost estimates have been escalated to Fiscal Year (FY) 2 101-
2011.
2. Estimates for non-transportation projects, where they are available, are taken from the
County‘s Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for the current year (FY 2009-2010).
It is important to remember that these cost estimates have been prepared to assist users of this Master Plan
to understand the relative magnitude of the costs for different projects. Except where noted otherwise,
preliminary engineering for the projects has not yet been done, so these estimates are more subject to change
than project estimates based on engineered plans. The original estimates were prepared by the US 29 North
Corridor Transportation Study consultants; staff has escalated the costs further to the fiscal year 2010-2011,
the year of adoption of this Master Plan. Since it is not certain when many of the projects will begin, these
costs have not been escalated to the time when design or construction is expected to begin. For additional
information about these cost estimates, including the methodology used to develop them, see the text of
Chapter 8, Implementation.
The issues to be addressed are those which must be dealt with before a project can be completed and/or
will be addressed by the proposed project.
The milestones will affect the timing of the project, especially in relation to other projects and funding. There
is also an indication whether the project is currently included in one of the County‘s or Planning District
Commission‘s planning/budget documents.
Illustrations are provided for some of the projects and are taken from one of three sources, as indicated in
the caption:
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 147)
The Places29 Future Land Use Map. The complete Future Land Use Map is included at the
end of Chapter 4.
The legend that applies to excerpts from the Future Land Use Map is:
The US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study Concept Maps. This is a series of four
diagrams that were prepared by the Places29 transportation consultants to show
transportation improvement projects in greater detail than is possible on the Future Land Use
Map. The diagrams are approximately to scale, but are not engineering drawings; they do
not show precise final locations of road improvements. They should be viewed as possible
road layouts subject to further refinement during preliminary engineering of each road
improvement project. It is important to recognize that once the project has been designe d
and engineered, the actual project could be significantly different than what is shown in these
illustrations.
The legend that applies to excerpts from the Transportation Study Concept diagrams is:
The transit projects are illustrated with schematic diagrams from Chapter 4.
Project Reference No.
1
Project Title:
Access Management Improvements along US 29 from the 250 Bypass to the Greene County line
Project Description:
Access management is intended to maximize the effectiveness and safety of the roadway system, particularly in relation to land adjacent
to the roadway. Access management recognizes the need for roadways to accommodate varying degrees of through traffic movement
balanced with access to abutting property. Under this basic principle of access management, higher order roads favor through traffic
movement over direct access to adjacent property. This means that property access needs should be from lower order roads that intersect
with the higher order roads. In this context, traffic function (i.e., the degree to which through traffic movement is given priority) controls the
design of the roadway.
Access management improvements along US 29 should facilitate the movement of through traffic along US 29 by encouraging acces s to
adjacent property from other roads wherever possible.
Timing: Ongoing Estimated Cost: Variable; to
be determined
Responsible Parties: VDOT, City and/or County, adjacent
property owners & businesses
Issues to Be Addressed:
These improvements should be based on the Access Management Plan, as detailed in Technical Memo 7 of the US 29 North Corridor
Transportation Study (See Appendix 4)
Incremental improvements should be designed as new developments are approved, during redevelopment, and as other US 29
transportation improvements are designed
Determine funding arrangements on a project-by-project basis
Some of these projects should be funded by private developers as part of development projects
Milestones:
Each development project and transportation improvement should be reviewed by County and VDOT staff for compliance with the
Access Management Plan
Continues throughout 20-year plan timeframe
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document: No.
1. For a complete set of maps and diagrams depicting the recommended access management projects, please consult the US 29
North Corridor Transportation Study Access Management Plan, dated May 25, 2007, prepared by Meyer, Mohaddes
Associates. This document is included as Appendix 4 and is available under separate cover.
Project Reference No.
2
Project Title:
Intelligent Transportation Systems Strategies (ITS)
Project Description:
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) collectively refers to technology-based approaches to managing traffic operations. Traffic signal
systems, automated vehicle identification systems, and traveler information systems are among the approaches included in ITS.
Timing: Ongoing Estimated Cost:
Variable, subject to a separate study
by VDOT
Responsible Parties: VDOT, City, County
Issues to Be Addressed:
Design an ITS for the US 29 corridor, including improved monitoring of traffic conditions, communications infrastructure, tra ffic signal
improvements, and, possibly, a management center to oversee traffic
Milestones:
Continues throughout the implementation timeframe
Comments/Notes:
US 29 New Modifications
US 29 Removal
US 29 New Undercrossing
New Road Overcrossing
New Bridge
Parallel Road Modifications
Other Network Modifications
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 148)
Included in Planning/Budget Document: UnJAM 2035 Constrained Long Range Plan, I-37.
Project Reference No.
3
Project Title:
Places29 Community Advisory Council (P29CAC)
Project Description:
The Council should be established and staffed once the Master Plan is adopted. As with the CACs for other master-planned areas, the
P29CAC should work with staff to monitor the implementation of the Places29 Master Plan. The P29CAC‘s role is to advise staff and the
Commission on matters related to land use and development in the Places29 area.
Timing: Ongoing Estimated Cost: NA—included
in Community Development
Dept. budget, for staff time and
other resource needs.
Responsible Parties: County Staff
Issues to Be Addressed:
The P29CAC‘s work during the first five years of Master Plan implementation is expected to be low due to the lack of funding for
projects and staffing
P29CAC may meet in two parts, if necessary to address issues more relevant to Neighborhoods 1 and 2 or to the communities of
Hollymead and Piney Mountain
As more development takes place in the Hollymead/Piney Mountain area, additional members may be added to the P29CAC to
represent those new developments
Milestones:
Comments/Notes: The P29CAC will be similar in purpose and composition to the CACs for Crozet and Pantops.
Included in Planning/Budget Document: NA
Project Reference No.
4
Project Title:
Places29 Master Plan Administration and Management
Project Description:
County staff monitors plan implementation
Staff facilitates plan implementation initiatives (ZTAs, studies, capital project planning, etc.), as necessary
Staff pursues new federal, state, and other funding sources for transportation projects and other projects, as needed
Staff conducts five-year plan review and update, in conjunction with the Planning Commission and the P29CAC (see also Project #12)
Staff monitors development review projects (ZMAs and SPs) for conformity with the Plan
Staff organizes and facilitates preparation of Small Area Plans (see Projects 18 and 41).
Timing: Ongoing Estimated Cost:
Included in CDD budget for staff
time
Responsible Parties: County staff
Issues to Be Addressed:
Staff time available for Master Plan administration and management is expected to be limited during the first five years of Plan
implementation due to limited resources
Milestones:
Administration/management begins when Master Plan is adopted
Periodic written reports on progress should be prepared for the Planning Commission
Planning for five-year review should begin in year 4 of each five-year cycle
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document: Included in County operating budget.
Project Reference No.
5
Project Title:
29H250 Study Recommended Improvements
A HIGH PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT
Project Description:
This project includes the following improvements, most located in the City:
a. A HIGH PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT: Expand the southbound-to-westbound onramp at
US 29/250 Bypass (near Best Buy) with an auxiliary lane to the Barracks Road offramp; and construct a
fourth southbound lane on US 29 between Hydraulic Road and the US 250 interchange; two lanes
would drop at the offramp to westbound US 250.
b. A HIGH PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT: construct westbound merge lane on the US 250
Bypass at the Barracks Road interchange
See Project #37 for the full scope of 29H250 recommended improvements.
$2,432,000
(a & b)
Timing: Begin a & b during the first five years Estimated Cost:
$2,432,000
Responsible Parties: City of Charlottesville,
VDOT
Issues to Be Addressed:
These projects are in the City, but they are included in the Master Plan because they are essential to the overall transporta tion plan for
the US 29 North Corridor
A partial design for these improvements has been completed
Milestones:
Funding has been identified for the first two items (a & b)
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document: Projects a and b are in the TIP
Project Reference No.
6
Project Title:
Construct Hillsdale Drive Extended north of Hydraulic Road
A HIGH PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT
Project Description:
Hillsdale Drive should consist of both two-lane and three-lane sections, with sidewalks, bike facilities, and parking provided along various
sections of the road. The portion in the County should be a three-lane cross section with bike lanes and sidewalks. It will increase the
parallel local roadway capacity from Hydraulic Road to Greenbrier Drive. This connection needs to be made befo re the US 29/Hydraulic
Road intersection is constructed in order to provide for construction traffic diversion. The complete extension of Hillsdale will run from
Holiday Drive in the City to Greenbrier Drive in the County. The segment north of Hydraulic Ro ad is primarily in the City, with a short
segment at the north end in the County. This parallel road system is consistent with the 29H250 Study recommendations. If all of the
needed ROW is donated by property owners, the cost for this improvement could be as low as $8,260,000.
Timing: Begin during the first five
years and continue until
completed
Estimated Cost:
$30,108,000
(Includes ROW est.)
Responsible Parties:
VDOT, City, Property owners/ developers
Issues to Be Addressed:
Constructing the Hillsdale Drive portion of the recommended parallel road system is consistent with the 29H250 Study
recommendations
Needed to address existing deficiencies
If all of the needed ROW is donated by property owners and developers, the cost for this improvement could be as low as $8,260,000
Hillsdale Drive Extended south of Hydraulic should be constructed as each property redevelops
Milestones:
Design work is underway now; construction of first segment adjacent to the K-mart property is underway
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 149)
Need to begin accruing funds for further construction
Construction of the remainder of the road to begin as soon as funding is available
The southern portion of Hillsdale Drive Extended (south of Hydraulic Road) should be constructed as each property redevelops
Hillsdale Drive Extended needs to be completed before a grade separation at Hydraulic Road and US 29 is constructed (if necessary)
in order to provide an alternate route during construction of the grade separation
Due to cost and impacts, completion is expected within 10 years, but is dependent on private development
Comments/Notes: Note in TIP indicates that the Developer is expected to donate ROW worth approximately $12,000,000.
Included in Planning/Budget Document: Project N-2. Not funded at this time.
6. North is to the right in this schematic diagram from the US 29 North Transportation Study. US 29 runs from left to right just
above the center of the diagram, the 250 Bypass is on the left. Hillsdale Drive Extended north of Hydraulic Road is shown in
yellow.
Project Reference No.
7
Project Title:
Widen US 29 to six lanes from Polo Grounds Road to Towncenter Drive
A HIGH PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT
Project Description:
Widen US 29 from four lanes to six lanes between Polo Grounds Road and Towncenter Drive, resulting in a six-lane rural cross section
with full shoulders and a center median. There should be a multi-purpose path on at least one side of the road. The County also plans
landscaped/forested buffers on both sides to preserve the wooded, rural character of this stretch of US 29, thereby maintaining a visual
break between the more urbanized areas north and south of this section of US 29. Future volumes projected for this stretch of US 29
require that the roadway be widened. The process to plan and design this improvement should begin as soon as the Master Plan is
adopted in order to determine actual cost, permit right-of-way acquisition, relocate utilities, and begin construction as soon as funding is
available. Other improvements, such as a potential grade separation at Ashwood Blvd. and any necessary connecting roads, may be
affected by the design of this widening and are expected to be considered during preparation of the design.
Timing:
Begin during the first five years
and continue until completed
Estimated Cost:
$18,528,000
ROW (est.): $11,117,000
Responsible Parties:
VDOT
Issues to Be Addressed:
Planning & preliminary design cost estimate: $800,000
Project is necessary to address existing deficiencies in the road network by providing a consistent number of lanes throughout the US
29 North Corridor. This project should also address vertical curvature deficiencies along this stretch of US 29.
Design and ROW acquisition for the connecting roads at Ashwood are to be considered as part of this project, if funding permits
Milestones:
Provide funding for design and begin design in years 1 – 5. This project is the highest priority improvement in the County
Accrue construction funding
Construction to begin as soon as design is complete and funding is identified
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document: UnJAM 2035 Constrained Long Range Plan, I-5.
7. This portion of the Future Land Use Map shows Polo Grounds Road on the left and the dashed lines alon g US 29 (through the
center) show the area to be widened (north is to the right).
Project Reference No.
8
Project Title:
Berkmar Drive Extended
A HIGH PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT
Project Description:
This road should be a four-lane divided cross section from a new bridge crossing of the South Fork of the Rivanna River to its connection
to Hollymead Drive/Meeting Street in the Hollymead Town Center. This road is intended to have a top speed of 35 miles per hou r. Berkmar
Drive Extended will extend parallel connectivity on the west side of US 29, offering drivers an alternate route to US 29, especially for local
trips. Berkmar Drive Extended, if constructed before US 29 is widened between Polo Grounds Road and Towncenter Drive, will provide an
alternate route for traffic diversion during construction on US 29. This project is expected to be completed in three phases:
1. Initiate an alignment study for the Berkmar Drive Extended bridge over the South Fork of the Rivanna River to help determine the
full cost of the bridge based on the chosen crossing location and profile. Study will include environmental reviews.
2. Extend existing roadway from northern terminus of Hilton Heights Road to Meeting Street in Hollymead Town Center, including
the bridge over the South Fork of the Rivanna River.
3. Widen Berkmar Drive from Rio Road to Hilton Heights Road to a 4-lane, undivided section.
Timing: Begin design during first five years Estimated Cost: Responsible Parties:
US 29
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 150)
and continue until construction is completed.
The highest priority during the first five years
is the bridge alignment study and
environmental reviews.
Bridge alignment study: $155,000
Bridge & Road: $25,273,000
ROW (est.): 12,637,000
VDOT, TJPDC, County, Property
Owners / Developers
Issues to Be Addressed:
Funding for the alignment study needs to be identified.
The study should begin as soon as the Master Plan is adopted in order to determine what the best bridge profile is and the re sulting
cost of the bridge (expected in the first three years). The full cost of the bridge will be known once the preliminary design of the bridge
is complete.
The alignment of Berkmar Drive Extended north of the bridge should also be determined.
Property Owners/ Developers may be asked to dedicate ROW and/or construct a portion of Berkmar Drive Extended as part of
development of parcels the road crosses. If the parcels do not develop in time, other funding sources for all/part of the costs will be
necessary.
The need to widen the section of Berkmar Drive between US 29 and Hilton Heights Road should be considered during the second ten
years of Plan implementation, after Berkmar Drive Extended is completed. This widening may be needed after the bridge over th e
South Fork of the Rivanna is constructed and Berkmar Drive is extended to Hollymead Town Center.
Milestones:
Completion of the bridge alignment study and design is the first priority during the first five years.
The location and design of the road north of the bridge is based on available resources.
If Berkmar Drive Extended, including the bridge, is in place before US 29 is widened to six lanes between Polo Grounds Road and
Towncenter Drive, Berkmar Drive Extended could serve as an alternate route, especially for local traffic.
Bridge design should begin as soon as the Master Plan is adopted so the alignment and cost of both the extension and the bridge can
be determined.
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document:
8. This portion of the Future Land Use Map shows the recommended extension of Berkmar Drive over the South Fork of the
Rivanna River and north to Hollymead. The extension would run from the current southern end of Berkmar Drive at Hilton
Heights Road (visible at the left edge of the diagram) to a planned connection with Meeting Str eet in the Hollymead Town
Center, shown on the right side of the map. North is to the right.
Project Reference No.
9
Project Title:
Transit System Expansion & Improvements
A HIGH PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT
Project Description:
Implement Priority Transit service in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area from Charlottesville to the Rio Road/US 29 area. In the first five
years, the priority is to implement:
Expanded hours of operation
Reduction in headways
Installation of support facilities (e.g., shelters, sidewalks/bicycle access to transit stops)
Extension of the area served
(see also Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transit Authority Draft Final Report, August 2008)
Timing: Begin during the first five
years; project will continue
throughout the 20-year Plan
timeframe
Estimated Cost:
$17,000,000
Responsible Parties:
City, County, CTS, RTA, and other agencies
Issues to Be Addressed:
Extend local bus service as Centers develop.
Coordinate transit service with road improvements and development of Centers throughout the US 29 Corridor.
Expand service to other portions of the Development Areas, including Hollymead and Piney Mountain, as residential and/or
employment densities are sufficient to support service.
Continue to pursue establishment when feasible of an RTA or similar organization in order to oversee implementation of a City-County
operated transit system essential to Places29.
Milestones:
Establish an RTA or a similar organization to develop and manage system.
The short-term focus should be on expanding service in the Development Area and improving quality of service (shorter headways,
night service, better access to stops—sidewalks, bench/shelter/bike rack installation)
Service should begin as soon as sufficient residential density and emplo yment intensity are present in the area to be served.
Comments/Notes: The cost for this transit system will depend on the level of local service provided.
Included in Planning/Budget Document: UnJAM 2035 Constrained Long Range Plan, I-35.
Project Reference No.
10
Project Title:
Bicycle & Pedestrian Network
Project Description:
Establish a completely interconnected and integrated pedestrian system, consisting of sidewalks, paths, and/or trails. Also, establish
bicycle access throughout the Places29 area in the form of bicycle lanes, trails, and/or safe road conditions within the area.
Recommended locations for many of these improvements are shown on the Parks & Green Systems Map.
Timing: Begin during first five
years and continue throughout the
20-year implementation timeframe
Estimated Cost:
NA
Responsible Parties:
County, VDOT, other agencies, property owners,
developers
Issues to Be Addressed:
Add/upgrade bike lanes and sidewalks as components of all new and expanded public road projects, c onsistent with the Master Plan,
Jefferson Area Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenway Plan.
Correct existing gaps in bicycle and pedestrian facilities and improve existing crosswalks
Establish new pedestrian facilities and crosswalks
Require construction of bike and pedestrian connections with development projects
Milestones:
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 151)
Facilities that are part of private development projects should be completed as those projects are constructed
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document: Included in CIP: ―Sidewalk Construction Program‖—provides annual, ongoing funding for the
construction of sidewalks and other pedestrian-related improvements NOT funded in conjunction with road projects or specific
Neighborhood Plan Implementation Projects….Annual funding for a general sidewalk construction program also permits a greater
flexibility for planning and construction of needed facilities. Costs to maintain the sidewalks are additional operating impa cts for this
project.
Priority sidewalks (not related to road projects):
- Hydraulic Road (US 29 to Georgetown Road) (portion to be completed with the Albemarle Place Project when constructed)
- Commonwealth Drive (Greenbrier Drive to Dominion Drive)
- Leake Lane/Timberwood Blvd. area
- Rio Road, from the Meadow Creek Parkway to Agnese Street
- Dominion Drive (US 29 to Commonwealth Drive)
- Area serving Hollymead Elementary School/Sutherland Middle School complex
Priority Crosswalks:
- Rio Road at: Fashion Square Mall, Greenbrier Drive, Berkmar Drive
- Hydraulic Road at: Commonwealth Drive
- Berkmar Drive at: Woodbrook Road
- US 29
Bicycle Facilities:
- Encourage restriping of all roads when feasible to provide the maximum space possible between the edge of the travelway and
the curb/shoulder to accommodate bicycles
- See Jefferson Area Regional Pedestrian, Bicycle and Greenway Plan for improvements recommended the Places29 area
Project Reference No.
11
Project Title:
US 29 Pedestrian Crossovers / Crossings
Project Description:
At-grade or grade-separated pedestrian crossings between the city limits (Hydraulic Road) and the Piney Mountain Development Area.
Design and construct pedestrian crossings at strategic locations along US 29 between the City limits and Piney Mountain. The greatest
need for pedestrian crossings is in the southern portion of the Places29 area between the City limits and Woodbrook Road, and in the
Hollymead Town Center area. Pursue possible at-grade crossings initially and ultimately above-grade crossings. (See Project 48 for a
long-term pedestrian improvement in the Fashion Square Mall area.)
Timing: Begin during first five years and
continue throughout the 20-year
implementation timeframe
Estimated Cost:
NA
Responsible Parties:
County, VDOT, Property Owners, Developers
Issues to Be Addressed:
Identify locations for crossings and determine if they are to be at-grade or elevated
Determine order for construction
Design and determine the cost of each crossing
Each potential grade separation would include transit/bicycle/pedestrian crossings
Milestones:
Location identification should begin as soon as the Master Plan is adopted
Potential crossing locations should be considered as part of each Small Area Plan
Short-term, interim crossings should be pursued, if feasible
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document:
11. Specific locations for these improvements have not yet been identified. However, general locations are recommended on the
Parks & Green Systems Map.
Project Reference No.
12
Project Title:
Five-Year Master Plan Review & Update
Project Description:
This Master Plan has been prepared with a 20-year Plan implementation timeframe, with a review and update every five years to ensure
that implementation of the Plan is proceeding according to the guidelines in the Plan. These reviews are envisioned a s the time to adjust
the Plan, based on any changes in conditions or new information. As part of the review, a broad range of performance criteria should be
measured and reported to County officials and the public. These criteria include those listed unde r individual implementation projects in
this Appendix and a set of more general criteria listed at the end of Chapter 8.
The five year review process should begin with collection of background information and statistics by County staff, as well a s staff‘s
evaluation of the performance criteria. Staff in consultation with the Places29 Community Advisory Council, should work with the Planning
Commission to develop a detailed process for the Plan update.
Timing: Begin in fourth of first
five years
Estimated Cost:
Responsible Parties:
County
Issues to Be Addressed:
The number of implementation projects that have begun and how much has been completed.
New issues that have arisen since adoption of the Master Plan
Revisit the transportation network based on updated traffic information, in particular to determine the need for various improvements
at major intersections
Milestones:
Begin review and update process in Year 4 with data gathering and analysis
Process to be coordinated with the Planning Commission and P29CAC
Comments/Notes: additional information about the review is provided in Chapter 8.
Included in Planning/Budget Document:
Project Reference No.
13
Project Title:
Utilities
Project Description:
The following are a series of both RWSA and ACSA water and sewer system improvements needed in the Places29 area:
Sewer Service:
In 2009, the ACSA initiated final design of the North Fork Regional Pump Station Project. This project includes the installat ion of the
Camelot Pump Station and the North Fork Regional Pump Station and their associated force mains. Wastewater generated in the
northern area served by the Camelot Wastewater Treatment Facility will be pumped south and flow by gravity to the Moore‘s Cre ek
Wastewater Treatment Facility. The pump stations and force mains will be owned and operated by the ACSA. It is anticipated that
these facilities will be in operation by June 2011 and the Camelot Wastewater Treatment Facility and North Fork Research Park Pump
Station will be abandoned.
Additional sewer improvements may be identified upon completion of the ongoing Sewershed Analysis.
Water Service:
The RWSA and ACSA are evaluating the implementation of an Airport Pressure Band that would result in the abandonment of the
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 152)
Piney Mountain Storage Tank. This would require replacement and upgrade of the existing water transmission mains in the US 29
corridor north of the Hollymead Town Center to Dickerson Lane.
Replace and upgrade water transmission line providing service to the Northern Development Areas. The line and easement should be
provided along the alignment of Berkmar Drive Extended.
Construct a water tank along the new water transmission line. The desirable location would be at the higher elevations in the
Hollymead Community. A potential site includes the ridge line located between the Hollymead Town Center and Airport Road. This is
one of the highest elevations in the area. The facility should be a ground level water tank as opposed to a tower facility.
Timing: Throughout the 20-year
implementation timeframe
Estimated Cost:
NA
Responsible Parties: Rivanna Water & Sewer
Authority, Albemarle County Service Authority
Issues to Be Addressed:
Milestones:
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document:
Project Reference No.
14
Project Title:
Northtown Trail
Project Description:
Create a trail system that extends from the Hollymead Development Area to Downtown Charlottesville, approximately six miles of trail and
a bridge over the Rivanna. This trail, and possible associated spurs, will provide commuter and recreational opportunities. The linear park
and trail system connected with the Meadow Creek Parkway project provides a key segment of this trail.
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission has developed the Northtown Trail Plan, which calls for a conceptual trail, beginning in
the City and continuing into the County. The proposed route is described and illustrated in the ―Conceptual Trail‖ publicatio n prepared by
the TJPDC. Ultimately, the proposed route would extend from the UVA Research Park off US 29 in the Hollymead area to Downtown
Charlottesville. This commuter ―trail‖ is intended to promote multimodal transportation options along the often congested US 29 corridor.
The Plan identifies existing facilities, what will be constructed in the near future, and what is planned for the long term. The Downtown Trail
Steering Committee, which is made up of representatives from the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and VDOT, guided work on
this project, whose overall goal is to create a non-vehicular transportation link between the residential and employment centers of the City
and County.
Timing: Begin during the first five
years and continue until the trail is
completed
Estimated Cost:
$4,972,000
Responsible Parties:
City, County, TJPDC, VDOT, other agencies, property
owners, developers
Issues to Be Addressed:
Design and consider possible locations in the County with development proposals
Property owners/Developers may be asked to donate ROW and/or construct segments of the trail
Milestones:
Design/alignment needs to be complete as soon as possible after adoption of the Master Plan in order to obtain dedications of ROW
and construction of portions of the trail during development review of projects in the relevant portions of the Places29 area
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document: TIP: N-10.
14. See the TJPDC publication ―Conceptual Trail‖ for a diagram of the proposed route.
Project Reference No.
15
Project Title:
Greenway along the Rivanna River/North Fork of the Rivanna River
A HIGH PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT
Project Description:
As shown on the Parks & Green Systems Map.
Timing: Begin during the first five
years and continue until the
Greenway is complete
Estimated Cost:
$175,000
Responsible Parties: County, Property owners/Developers
Issues to Be Addressed:
Complete development of the Rivanna River Greenway from Ivy Creek Natural Area to Darden Towe Park ($100,000)
Complete development of North Fork Rivanna River Greenway from Chris Greene Lake to eastern Development Area boundary
($75,000)
Includes field space
Milestones:
Comments/Notes: Development will be forwarded by volunteer construction services and the donation of land or easements, whic h
reduce the total estimated cost of construction.
Included in Planning/Budget Document:
Project Reference No.
16
Project Title:
Provide active field space for practice and competitive sports fields/multi-purpose fields
Project Description:
To provide new community park facilities for practice and competitive sports as needed to serve anticipated growth in the Places29 area.
[see the Parks & Green Systems Map]
Timing: Throughout plan
implementation timeframe
Estimated Cost:
$7,000,000
Responsible Parties: County, Property
owners/developers
Issues to Be Addressed:
Obtain through proffer or acquisition to begin in the first five years
Construction within the first 10 years in Hollymead/Piney Mountain area ($3,500,000)
Construction in the second 10 years in Neighborhoods 1 and 2 ($3,500,000)
Milestones:
Identify types and amount of space needed
Identify possible locations (consider land proffered for a future school in North Pointe as a site that could be used to addr ess this need)
Request proffers with new developments
Comments/Notes: Cost estimate is based on the development of two little league baseball fields, two full -size soccer field/multipurpose
fields, two basketball courts, two playgrounds, shelters, and restrooms. Additional field space may be necessary.
Included in Planning/Budget Document:
Project Reference No.
17
Project Title:
Recommended trails and trail connections from adjacent and nearby neighborhoods to the Greenway
network
Project Description:
See the Parks & Green Systems Map for recommended trail locations and connections.
Timing: Begin during first five years
and continue throughout 20-year
implementation timeframe
Estimated Cost:
Variable, to be determined
Responsible Parties: County, Homeowner
Associations, Property Owners
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 153)
Issues to Be Addressed:
Provide for these connections with private development/proffer, neighborhood association effort, or Parks & Recreation Dept.
Milestones:
Comments/Notes: Strong efforts are being made by County Parks & Recreation Dept. staff to facilitate donations of
easements/ROW/dedications of lands and volunteer efforts to construct these types of connections. The Greenway Program is funded at
$50,000 in the CIP. These funds are used as necessary to support development of the greenway system and strate gic neighborhood
connections.
Included in Planning/Budget Document: CIP
Project Reference No.
18
Project Title:
Intersection Improvements at Rio Road & US 29:
Preparation of a Small Area Plan
Project Description:
Based on current transportation modeling for the US 29 Corridor and Places29 area, this Master Plan recognizes the need for
intersection improvements at US 29 and Rio Road in order to prolong the useful life of the current at-grade intersection and to evaluate
the need for a grade separation to address future traffic conditions due to the significant level of traffic moving through this intersection.
Concepts/designs for the intersection improvements should be established through the Small Area Plan process in which adjace nt and
nearby property owners and key stakeholders are expected to participate. The following principles should guide the evaluation process
for the interim and long-term improvements to this intersection:
The type of intersection improvements recommended should be based on updated current and projected traffic information.
Coordinate land uses with transportation improvements during development of the Small Area Plan.
Improvements should provide adequate levels of service on the roads and access to adjacent properties.
Improvements to the road network should be phased in a manner that prolongs the life of the existing at-grade intersections.
All options for intersection improvements will be considered during preparation of the Small Area Plan.
Pursue design concepts that provide, to the extent feasible and practical, at-grade relationships of roads to businesses to
facilitate visibility and access.
In developing design concepts, minimize the need for additional right-of-way acquisition.
Short-term issues related to the construction of intersection improvements should be addressed through strategic
construction phasing, development of the parallel local road network to provide alternate access prior to construction of
intersection improvements, and other strategies.
Preparation of a Business Impact Plan should be considered during the Small Area Plan process.
Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit users shall be accommodated in all road improvements to the greatest extent possible.
The general concept for improvements in this area relies on the construction of a parallel local road network, access management
improvements, and interparcel connections to prolong the life of the existing at-grade intersection and to provide part of the long-term
solution to travel and access needs in this area.
18. This portion of the Future Land Use Map shows the intersection of Rio Road and US 29. US 29 runs from left to right
in the center of the map (north is to the right).
a. Prepare a Small Area Plan for the general area around Rio Road and US 29, coordinated with the preliminary design by
VDOT. The Small Area Plan will help determine more specific land uses and the local street network. Follow the principles for
intersection improvements listed on the previous page. The precise area to be subject to the Small Area Plan should be
determined as the first step in the process.
Timing:
Estimated Cost: Responsible Parties:
Places29
Consultant UnJAM Plan Primary Secondary
To begin during the
second five years, after
completion of planning
for the six-lane widening
of US 29 and location
and design of Berkmar
Drive Bridge and
extension.
Plan (a): $100,000
Implement the
Plan‘s access
management
recommendations
Plan (a): UnJAM does
not include Small
Area Plan
Consistent with intent
of UnJAM
Plan (a): County;
Preliminary Design-
VDOT; County in
development plan review;
VDOT funding for
construction; VDOT
participation in Small Area
Planning process and
funding of construction of
improvements
Plan (a): None
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 154)
Issues to Be Addressed:
Coordinate preparation of Small Area Plan with VDOT‘s design & engineering study for intersection improvements at Rio & US 29;
develop a Memorandum of Agreement between VDOT and County to conduct joint public planning process.
The potential impact of the construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway.
The design/alignment of the needed connecting and parallel roads should be determined during preparation of the Small Area Pl an.
These roads may have an impact on and will provide access to adjacent property.
Milestones:
Begin preparation of the Small Area Plan as soon as funding is identified in the second five years of Plan implementation.
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document:
Project Reference No.
19
Project Title:
US 29 at Shopper‘s World and Mall Drive
Project Description:
Add a third lane to the Shopper‘s World approach; reconfigure the Fashion Square Mall Drive approach, including the channeliz ed
right turn lane on Mall Drive. This recommended configuration retains direct access to existing retail areas on both sides of US 29.
Timing: Begin during the second
five years
Estimated Cost:
$637,000
Responsible Parties: VDOT, property owners
Issues to Be Addressed:
Milestones:
Complete as improvements become necessary to the functioning of US 29 or as property redevelops, whichever comes first.
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document: No.
Project Reference No.
20
Project Title:
Albemarle Square Drive at US 29
Project Description:
Widen the Albemarle Square Drive approach to US 29 to provide two inbound lanes and three outbound lanes. Add a second
southbound left turn lane on US 29 and extend the southbound right turn storage. These improvements are needed to provide ful l
access to adjacent commercial properties and support future intersection improvements at Rio Road and US 29. Partial access
to/from Albemarle Square would improve operations and reduce width requirements on Albemarle Square Drive, but would limit
accessibility, and therefore is not recommended.
Timing: Begin during the second
five years
Estimated Cost:
$3,127,000
ROW (est.): $1,876,000
Responsible Parties: VDOT, developer
Issues to Be Addressed:
Improve traffic management/flow near congested intersection.
Milestones:
Construct in conjunction with redevelopment of Albemarle Square or construction of intersection improvements at US 29 and Rio
Road, whichever comes first.
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document:
Project Reference No.
21
Project Title:
Signalize US 29 at Airport Acres Road North
Project Description:
To be provided as part of the North Pointe proffered improvements. Necessary to accommodate projected development in the area .
Timing: Begin during the second
five years
Estimated Cost:
$324,000
Responsible Parties:
Property owner/developer
Issues to Be Addressed:
Milestones:
To be installed with development of North Pointe.
Comments/Notes: No right-of-way (ROW) will be necessary for this improvement.
Included in Planning/Budget Document: No.
Project Reference No.
22
Project Title:
Signalize US 29 at Northside Drive
Project Description:
To be provided as part of North Pointe proffered improvements. Necessary to accommodate projected development in the area.
Timing: Begin during the
second five years
Estimated Cost:
$324,000
Responsible Parties:
Property owner/developer
Issues to Be Addressed:
Milestones:
To be installed with development of North Pointe.
Comments/Notes: No right-of-way (ROW) will be necessary for this improvement.
Included in Planning/Budget Document: No.
Project Reference No.
23
Project Title:
US 29 at Burnley Station Road/Frays Mill Road
Project Description:
Add a second northbound and southbound left turn lane on US 29 and widen the eastbound and westbound approaches t o US 29.
Timing: Begin during the second
five years
Estimated Cost:
Turn lanes: $2,663,000
ROW (est.): 666,000
Responsible Parties: VDOT
Issues to Be Addressed:
Milestones:
Future volumes will require the additional turn lanes, which are to be installed when traffic warrants
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document: No.
Project Reference No.
24
Project Title:
Albemarle Place: Construct Street System
Project Description:
The developer of Albemarle Place has proffered a network of internal streets connected to Hydraulic Road, US 29, and the Comdial
property. The major north-south street, Albemarle Place Boulevard, will run from Hydraulic Road northward. These internal streets
will provide an essential part of the local street network. The timing of construction is dependent on development of the property.
Timing: First ten years Estimated Cost:
Costs expected to be paid for by property owner,
developer.
Responsible Parties:
Property owner/developer
Issues to Be Addressed:
The connection of Albemarle Place Boulevard to Greenbrier Drive may be either where shown with a dashed line and/or in
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 155)
an alternate location indicated by the two arrows.
Milestones:
The timing is set by the Albemarle Place proffers; construction is dependent on private development decisions.
Comments/Notes: The connection from Albemarle Place northward to Greenbrier Drive will be dependent on redevelopment in the
area near the ―Comdial‖ site.
Included in Planning/Budget Document: No.
24. This portion of the Future Land Use Map shows the network of streets that are part of the approved Albemarle
Place development. These streets should be constructed as part of the development. The connection to
Greenbrier Drive indicated with arrows may be made in addition to or instead of the connection shown with a
dashed line. North is to the right.
Project Reference No.
25
Project Title:
North Pointe: Construct Street System
Project Description:
This street network will provide a parallel road network on the east side of US 29 from Proffit Road to the intersection with Lewis and
Clark Drive. The main road through the proposed development will serve as a parallel route to US 29. The roads in North Point e
need to be in place when additional development north of Hollymead Town Center brings additional traffic.
Timing: First ten years Estimated Cost:
Costs expected to be paid for by property
owner, developer.
Responsible Parties:
Property owner/developer
Issues to Be Addressed:
Milestones:
Timing set in proffers; construction is dependent on private development decisions.
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document: No.
25. This portion of the Future Land Use Map shows the network of streets that is planned to serve the North Pointe
Development. US 29 runs horizontally toward the top of the map, the North Pointe streets are below (east of) US
29.
Project Reference No.
26
Project Title:
University of Virginia Research Park: Construct Street System
Project Description:
The street network within the Research Park will provide a parallel road network on the west side of US 29, including Lewis & Clark
Drive. The University Foundation has agreed, as part of the rezoning on the property, to extend Lewis & Clark Drive from US 29 to
Airport Road.
Timing: Throughout the 20-year
implementation timeframe
Estimated Cost:
Costs expected to be paid for by the
property owner
Responsible Parties:
Property owner
Issues to Be Addressed:
Milestones:
Timing set in proffers
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document: No.
US 29
US 29
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 156)
26. This portion of the Future Land Use Map shows Lewis & Clark Drive from Airport Road to US 29, as well as other
streets in the University of Virginia Research Park. North is to the right, US 29 stretch es from left to right at the
bottom of the map, and Airport Road is on the left side.
Project Reference No.
27
Project Title:
Transit System Expansion & Improvements
A HIGH PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT
Project Description:
Continue to implement transit service in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area from Charlottesville to the Rio Road/US 29 intersection
area, then, ultimately to Hollymead and Piney Mountain [see also Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transit Authority Draft Final
Report, August 2008]
Timing: Begin during the first five
years and continue throughout the 20-
year Plan timeframe.
Estimated Cost:
$17,000,000
Responsible Parties:
City, County, CTS, RTA, and other agencies
Issues to Be Addressed:
An RTA or similar organization needs to be established as soon as possible in order to oversee implementation of a City-County
operated transit system essential to Places29.
Extend local bus service as Centers develop.
Coordinate initial transit service with road improvements and development of Centers throughout the US 29 Corridor.
Provide express or Rapid Bus service along the US 29 Corridor, linking the City and eastern Development Area corridor from
Charlottesville to US 29 / Rio Road intersection, and with potential extension to Hollymead/Piney Mountain.
Milestones:
Establish an RTA or a similar organization to develop and manage system.
Service should begin as soon as sufficient residential density and employment intensity are present in the area to be served
Comments/Notes: The cost for this transit system will depend on the level of local service provided.
Included in Planning/Budget Document: UnJAM 2035 Constrained Long Range Plan, I-35.
27. This schematic diagram is an example of a possible Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and circulator system that would
ultimately serve the entire Places29 area.
Project Reference No.
28
Project Title:
Sutherland Middle School Addition
Project Description:
To increase the capacity of Sutherland Middle School from 709 to 789 students, approximately 4,800 square feet will be added to the
building. The addition will include four regular classrooms, an in-school suspension (ISS) room, several offices, storage, and a
mechanical / electrical room. The existing ISS Room will be renovated into a corridor conn ection to the addition. Additional operating
impacts for this project include custodial, maintenance, and operating expenses and would be an impact on the School Division ‘s
operating budget.
Timing: First ten years Estimated Cost:
$2,169,000
Responsible Parties:
Albemarle County Schools Division
Issues to Be Addressed:
Milestones:
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document: Programmed in current CIP: 2017 – 2018. The project‘s start date was moved back due
to the new capacity formula and new enrollment projections.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 157)
28. This portion of the Future Land Use Map shows the location of Sutherland Middle School.
Project Reference No.
29
Project Title:
Hollymead Elementary School Addition
Project Description:
To increase the capacity of Hollymead Elementary School from 488 to 608 students, approximately 17,250 square feet will be added
to the building. The additions will include five regular classrooms, one pre-k handicapped room, resource rooms, offices, and faculty
workrooms. Required site work includes additional parking spaces, relocating multiple play areas and one mobile classroom. In
addition, renovations will be required for a new conference room and health clinic near the administration area. Additional o perating
impacts for this project include custodial, maintenance, and operating costs and would be an impact within the School division‘s
operating budget.
Timing: First ten years Estimated Cost:
$7,036,000
Responsible Parties:
Albemarle County Schools Division
Issues to Be Addressed:
Provide necessary field space to meet existing demands and long-term growth needs.
Milestones:
Site selection and acquisition.
Construct in latter part of 10-year period.
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document: Programmed in current CIP: 2017 – 2018, with construction expected to begin in 2018-
2019. The project‘s start date was moved back due to the new capacity formula and new enrollment projections.
29. For the location of this improvement, see Project 28.
Project Reference No.
30
Project Title:
Monitor long-term needs for future Fire/Rescue service improvements
Project Description:
This project represents an ongoing process of monitoring emergency and non-emergency call activity to determine whether
modifications/improvements to services and/or facilities are needed.
Timing: Throughout the 20-year
implementation timeframe
Estimated Cost:
NA
Responsible Parties:
County Dept. of Fire-Rescue and Fire Station chiefs
Issues to Be Addressed:
Monitor the need to augment service to the area.
Milestones:
Evaluate options to address any deficiencies in services once identified.
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document:
Project Reference No.
31
Project Title:
Police Office for beat officers in Neighborhoods 1 and 2, Hollymead, and Piney Mountain
Project Description:
The project involves monitoring the availability of office space for beat officers within the designated service areas (refer red to as
―beats‘). This is an ongoing process.
Timing: Throughout the 20-year
implementation timeframe
Estimated Cost:
NA
Responsible Parties: Albemarle County Police Dept.
Issues to Be Addressed:
Ensure police have facilities in the Northern Development Areas per Community Facilities Plan standards. Current space exists .
Space is usually provided at County Fire-Rescue Stations
Milestones:
Monitor for need to upgrade. Facilities are adequate at the time of Master Plan adoption.
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document:
Project Reference No.
32
Project Title:
Northern Albemarle Library Facility
Project Description:
The Northern Albemarle Library Facility combines the former New Northside Library and New Library 29N Corridor into one North ern
Albemarle Library Facility project. This project proposes constructing 30,000 square feet of library space and 10,000 square feet of
bookmobile and systemwide (administrative) space in the northern urban areas of the county. Additional operating impacts incl ude
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 158)
additional personnel and building maintenance and operating co sts. These additional operating costs would impact the county‘s
operating budget through an increase in the funding provided to the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library (JMRL).
Timing: First ten years Estimated Cost:
$16,972,000
Responsible Parties:
Primary: Albemarle County (CIP and operational funds;
cash proffers)
Secondary: Jefferson-Madison Regional Library
(supplemental funding efforts/donations, planning)
Issues to Be Addressed:
Determine whether the Northside library will continue in its current location (Northside-Albemarle Square) or a new location, with
preference for a new location, or remain within Neighborhoods 1 or 2. A new facility should be consistent with the Community
Facility Plan standards.
Determine the need for an additional facility (long-term in the Hollymead area). Consider whether the proffered site in the North
Pointe development is available.
Milestones:
Develop plan to upgrade/expand (first 5 years).
Construction in 6 – 10 year timeframe.
Comments/Notes: Leasing of an expanded facility is an alternative to construction of a new facility.
Included in Planning/Budget Document: CIP recommends funding for this project to begin in FY2014-2015, pending a
comprehensive review of library needs.
Project Reference No.
33
Project Title:
Recycling Centers
Project Description:
The Northern area of the County is considered a potential location for a recycling facility. This facility will serve county residents and,
possibly, private haulers who choose to deliver recyclable materials, including plastic, aluminum/steel, and paper.
Timing: First ten years Estimated Cost:
$350,000
Responsible Parties: Rivanna Water &
Sewer Authority, County General Services,
Facilities Development
Issues to Be Addressed:
Provide efficient and effective recycling service to the Places29 area, either through services provided directly by haulers and/or
through strategically located recycling center locations
A potential site (proffered) for a recycling center in Hollymead should be maintained until such time as the need for such a facility
can be better defined
Provide locations for one or two recycling centers to serve the Northern Development Areas
Central to the Hollymead/Piney Mountain area (first 10 years)
Central to Neighborhoods 1 and 2, as needed based on demand (11 – 20 year timeframe)
Milestones:
Meet public expectations, State mandates, and environmental impacts, service needs, and efficiencies.
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document: Project recommended for deferral due to the current (2010) reevaluation of the solid
waste management system in the City/County, including recycling services (and also funding). The existing potential site in
Hollymead should be retained until the need for such a facility in this area is determined.
Project Reference No.
34
Project Title:
New Middle/High School
Project Description:
Acquire land to address the projected needs for a new middle and high school in the Places29 area. Approximately 100 acres wo uld
be needed to accommodate the two schools and the associated athletic and recreational facility needs. Site assessment costs for
appraisers, engineers, topo survey, and borings are in the FY 2018-2019 CIP, and the land purchase costs are in FY 2019-2020.
Timing: Site selection to begin
the first ten years of Plan
implementation
Estimated Cost:
Site assessment: $100,000
(Does not include land costs)
Responsible Parties: Albemarle County Schools
Division
Issues to Be Addressed:
Monitor the annual Albemarle County Schools Long Range Planning Process to assess the need for additional schools facilities
Site selection to begin during the later stages of the 10-year timeframe. When evaluating potential sites, consider buying
additional space if necessary to meet parks and recreation needs, particularly additional field space.
Construction may need to begin during the later stages of the 11 – 20 year timeframe, or beyond
Places29 area may be the location
Milestones:
Enrollment projections should be carefully tracked to determine the need for these facilities.
Comments/Notes:
Locating and acquiring a site will be challenging.
A long site selection time is needed. Pursue opportunities as they arise.
Included in Planning/Budget Document: This project‘s start date was moved back to reduce the financial impact on the capital
plan, and due to the anticipated need for the improvements.
Project Reference No.
35
Project Title:
Upgrade Seminole Trail Fire/Rescue Station and Rescue Building Facilities
Project Description:
Two existing Albemarle County fire-rescue stations, the CARS Berkmar building and the Seminole Trail Fire Station are in need of
replacement in the northern urban area of the County. Both existing buildings have limited sleeping quarters and living space s for
volunteer and career staff. This project provides funding for the construction of a 25,000 square foot replacement fire rescue station
combining the two buildings into one facility.
Timing: First ten years Estimated Cost:
$5,775,000
Responsible Parties: Albemarle County Dept. of Fire
Rescue
Issues to Be Addressed:
Provide adequate facilities for services
Milestones:
Project development anticipated for FY 2012-2013 and FY 2013-2014.
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document: CIP
Project Reference No.
36
Project Title:
29H250 Study Recommended Improvements
A HIGH PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT
Project Description:
Project includes the following improvements, most located in the City:
c. A HIGH PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT: Expand the southbound-to-westbound onramp
at US 29/250 Bypass (near Best Buy) with an auxiliary lane to the Barracks Road offramp; and
construct a fourth southbound lane on US 29 between Hydraulic Road and the US 250 interchange;
two lanes would drop at the offramp to westbo0und US 250.
d. A HIGH PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT: construct westbound merge lane on 250
$2,432,000(a & b)
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 159)
Bypass at Barracks Road interchange
e. Construct eastbound to northbound/southbound offramp at US 29/250 Bypass and construct new
offramp at Holiday Drive
f. Close eastbound to northbound/ southbound offloop at US 29/250 Bypass and reconstruct
northbound to eastbound onramp
g. Reconstruct southbound to eastbound onloop at US 29/250 Bypass
h. Expand US 29 from Morton Drive to Seminole Square
i. Reconstruct 250 Bypass/Hydraulic Road intersection
j. Reconstruct Hydraulic Road from US 29 to 250 Bypass
k. Design and construct improvements to the US 29/Hydraulic intersection. Final design for the
intersection improvement would be subject to City/County input and public hearing processes. The
cost estimate given here is based on a single-point urban interchange (SPUI). The type of
improvements will be subject to further evaluation based on updated traffic information during the
five-year update of the Master Plan.
$23,160,000
(c - f)
$9,565,000 (g)
$9,554,000 (h)
$39,372,000 (i)
Timing: Begin with a & b during the first five years; further
improvements (c - h) are not anticipated to begin until the
second five years of Plan implementation
NOTE: Construction of the grade separation (i), if still
deemed necessary based on updated traffic information
during future updates of the Master Plan, is a long-term
project not anticipated to be needed within the 20-year
timeframe. Emphasis will be placed on completing
projects a – h (or their equivalent)
Estimated Cost:
$84,083,000
Responsible Parties: City of
Charlottesville, VDOT
Issues to Be Addressed:
All major transportation improvements, including grade separations will be reevaluated during the five -year Plan update.
Improves the flow of traffic from US 29 to the US29/250 Bypass
Most of these projects are in the City, but they are included in the Master Plan because they are essential to the overall
transportation plan for the US 29 North Corridor
A grade-separated intersection at Hydraulic and US 29 would protect pedestrians and bicyclists from exposure to heavy traffic on
US 29 and provide a safe connection between areas east and west of US 29. (Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are included in the
project.)
Based on preliminary designs prepared during the 29H250 study, a single-point urban interchange (SPUI) works most efficiently
with the existing topography in the area and would potentially cause less long -term disruption to adjacent businesses. However,
the design actually used for the grade separation will be determined during the final design of the improvement
A partial design has been prepared as part of the 29H250 Study
Facilitates redirection of more local trips to Hillsdale Drive Extended and connector roads to the west of US 29
Milestones:
Funding has been identified for the first two items (a & b).
Determine which of these improvements needs to be done within the first 10 years.
Begin planning & design of remaining projects within first 10 years, with construction not expec ted until the second ten years
(projects c-f).
Grade separation (i), if necessary, is not anticipated within the 20-year Master Plan timeframe.
Comments/Notes: Reconfiguring the US 29/250 Bypass interchange reduces the amount of land occupied by on/offramps and
creates new developable land in the triangle area. It provides better access to nearby businesses and creates the potential to expand
the sites of some of these businesses. It requires pedestrian and bicycle access improvements through the interch ange with
particularly improved access potential on the east side of US 29.
Included in Planning/Budget Document: Projects a and b are in the TIP
36. This schematic diagram from the US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study shows the various road
improvements recommended by the 29H250 study and incorporated in the Places29 Master Plan. The actual
design of the improvements will be chosen during the design process. North is to the right, US 29 runs
horizontally through the center of the diagram, and the 250 Bypass slants to the left.
Project Reference No.
37
Project Title:
Intersection Improvements at Rio Road & US 29
Project Description:
This project is the second phase of intersection improvements at this intersection; during this phase the design and construction of
the improvements recommended in the Small Area Plan (see Project 18 for the description) will begin.
US 29
Hydraulic
Road
250
Bypass
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 160)
37. This portion of the Future Land Use Map shows the intersection of Rio Road and US 29. US 29 runs from left to
right in the center of the map (north is to the right).
Timing:
Estimated Cost: Responsible Parties:
Primary Secondary
Construction not expected
until the second ten years of
Plan implementation or later
( Costs will be determined
during project design and
engineering
VDOT
Issues to Be Addressed:
Coordinate preparation of Small Area Plan with VDOT‘s design & engineering study for intersection improvements at Rio & US 29 ;
develop a Memorandum of Agreement between VDOT and County to conduct joint public planning process. Design of the
intersection improvements will be determined during the Small Area Plan process.
The potential impact of the construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway.
The design/alignment of the needed connecting and parallel roads will be determined during preparation of the Small Area Plan
and will have an impact on and provide access to adjacent property.
The design and alignment of all intersection improvements.
Milestones:
Begin preparation of the Small Area Plan as soon as funding is identified.
Implement the Small Area Plan once it is complete and adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Comments/Notes: ROW costs could be significantly less for two reasons: 1) the Rio/US 29 intersection is so wide that ROW needs
may be less, and 2) property owners may donate ROW.
Included in Planning/Budget Document: UnJAM 2035 Constrained Long Range Plan, I-8.
Project Reference No.
38
Project Title:
Intersection improvements at Greenbrier Drive and US 29
Project Description:
Add southbound left turn lane and westbound right turn lane at Greenbrier Drive and US 29.
Timing: Begin during second ten
years
Estimated Cost:
$313,000
Responsible Parties: VDOT
Issues to Be Addressed:
Improvements will address intersection LOS and traffic management.
Milestones:
This project is the first major 4-way intersection north of the high priority project at Hydraulic Road and US 29. Once the Hydraulic
Road/US 29 intersection functions more effectively, the next capacity issue will be at the intersection of Greenbrier and US 29. In
order to address the capacity issue at Greenbrier and keep traffic moving on US 29, these intersection improvements will be
necessary. If funding becomes available, these improvements should be done as soon as possible after the improvements at
Hydraulic Road are completed.
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document: No.
Project Reference No.
39
Project Title:
Intersection improvements at Woodbrook Drive and US 29
Project Description:
Several improvements are necessary at this intersection to address the Level of Service (LOS) and to manage traffic. The
improvements would ultimately result in a partial access intersection configuration and would allow the intersection to re main open;
the congestion that would result from a full access intersection would create a bottleneck. The improvements, which would be done at
different times during the 20-year plan implementation timeframe, are:
a. Extend northbound left turn and right turn storage lanes (first ten years).
The following potential improvements will be reevaluated based on updated traffic information with the five year update of th e Master
Plan; they would be constructed as part of a system of parallel and connecting roads in the area:
b. Remove the southbound left turn lane (second ten years).
c. Channelize the westbound approach to right-out only (second ten years).
d. Channelize the eastbound approach to right-out/left-out only (second ten years).
Timing: Begin during the second
ten years
Estimated Cost:
$1,089,000
Responsible Parties: VDOT
Issues to Be Addressed:
Address intersection LOS and traffic management.
Milestones:
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 161)
At peak periods, such as Saturday morning, traffic now warrants these improvements.
As higher priority projects south of this intersection are completed and the knot of congestion shifts north along the US 29 corridor,
the County should be is ready for the improvements to be made at Woodbrook Drive and US 29.
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document: No.
Project Reference No.
40
Project Title:
Construct Intersection Improvements at Ashwood Blvd. and US 29
Project Description:
Current transportation modeling has identified the long-term need for grade separation at the intersection of Ashwood Blvd. and US
29. Needed improvements at this intersection, as with all major transportation improvements, will be reevaluated during five -year
Master Plan updates based on updated traffic information. Ashwood Blvd. is the sole intersection in this section of the US 29 corridor;
eliminating the at-grade median break and signal would improve operations and safety on US 29. If grade separation is necessary, it
would provide an unencumbered crossing for bicycles and pedestrians, as well as access across US 29 for vehicular traffic.
Connecting roadways would provide opportunities to consolidate access driveways along US 29. This grade separation, along wit h
the extension of Ashwood Blvd. to Berkmar Drive Extended, would provide a major connection for residents on the east side of US 29
to reach Berkmar Drive Extended. See also Project 7 for information about the coordination of these intersection improvements with
the recommended widening of US 29 north of Polo Grounds Road.
Timing: Second ten years Estimated Cost:
$11,927,000
ROW (est.): $2,982,000
Responsible Parties:
VDOT
Issues to Be Addressed:
All major transportation improvements, including grade separations will be reevaluated during the five -year Plan update.
VDOT may decide to design a potential grade separation at the same time the US 29 widening from Polo Grounds Road to
Towncenter Drive is designed.
The most appropriate location for the connecting roads would be determined during design, based on development status of
relevant parcels.
Milestones:
Construction of Ashwood grade separation may precede construction of grade separations at Airport Road and Timberwood Blvd
Comments/Notes: If the design of this grade separation is determined with the widening of US 29, the cost may be less and the
ROW may be purchased as part of the widening from Polo Grounds Road to Town Center Drive.
Included in Planning/Budget Document: No.
40. This schematic diagram from the Future Land Use Map shows the potential grade separation at Ashwood Blvd.
and US 29, along with the connection of Ashwood Blvd. to Berkmar Drive Extended.
Project Reference No.
41
Project Title:
Intersection Improvements at Airport Road/Proffit Road/US 29 and Timberwood Blvd./US 29
Preparation of a Small Area Plan for the Airport Road Corridor
Project Description:
Current transportation modeling has identified the need for intersection improvements at Airport Road/Proffit Road/US 29 and
Timberwood Blvd./US 29 in order to prolong the useful life of the current at-grade intersections and the long-term need for grade
separations at both of these intersections to address future traffic conditions due to the significant amount of traffic moving through
the intersections. Further, because of the proximity of these two intersections, planning and design of both sets of intersection
improvements must be done at the same time.
This project is the preparation of a Small Area Plan for the Airport Road Corridor, which includes both of these intersections, the full
length of Airport Road to the Airport, and the surrounding area. Concepts/designs for the intersection improvements will be
established through the Small Area Plan process in which adjacent and nearby property owners and key stakeholders are expected
to participate. The following principles will guide the evaluation process for the ultimate improvements to these two interse ctions:
The type of intersection improvements recommended should be based on updated current and projected traffic
information.
Coordinate land uses with transportation improvements during development of the Small Area Plan.
Improvements should provide adequate levels of service on the roads and access to adjacent properties.
Improvements to the road network should be phased in a manner that prolongs the life of the existing at-grade
intersections.
All options fir intersection improvements will be considered during preparation of the Small Area Plan.
Pursue design concepts that provide, to the extent feasible and practical, at-grade relationships of roads to businesses to
facilitate visibility and access.
Design of connector roads and related improvements will respect the need for cle ar and direct access to the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport and the University of Virginia Research Park.
In developing design concepts, minimize the need for additional right-of-way acquisition.
Short-term issues related to the construction of intersection improvements should be addressed through strategic
construction phasing, development of the parallel local road network to provide alternate access prior to construction of
intersection improvements, and other strategies.
Preparation of a Business Impact Plan should be considered during the Small Area Plan process.
Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit users shall be accommodated in all road improvements to the greatest extent possible.
The general concept for improvements in this area relies on the construction of a parallel local road network, access management
improvements, and interparcel connections to prolong the life of the existing at-grade intersection and to provide part of the long-term
solution to travel and access needs in this area.
Timing: Plan will be prepared
beginning during the second ten years.
Construction of improvements will
continue after the Plan is complete and
as funding is available
Estimated Cost:
$100,000 (study, minimum)
Responsible Parties:
County, VDOT, property owners/developers,
business owners
Issues to Be Addressed:
Milestones:
All major transportation improvement recommendations will be reevaluated during five-year Plan updates based on updated traffic
information.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 162)
Design, layout of transportation/road improvements, and the timing of construction will be determined during preparation of Small
Area Plan for the Airport Road Corridor
Construction will begin after funding is identified.
Construction of the improvements recommended in the Small Area Plan will begin once the Plan has been completed and
adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Some of the recommended improvements may not be necessary during the 20-year
life of this Master Plan.
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document: No.
41. This illustration from the Future Land Use Map shows the approximate area to be included in the Airport Road
Corridor Small Area Plan. US 29 runs from right to left near the bottom. North is to the right.
Project Reference No.
42
Project Title:
Major Improvements to the intersection at Hilton Heights Road and US 29
Project Description:
Current transportation modeling has identified the need for intersection improvements at the intersection of Hilton Heights R oad and
US 29 in order to prolong the useful life of the current at-grade intersection and the potential long-term need for grade separation to
address future traffic conditions due to the significant amount of traffic moving through the intersection. Needed improvemen ts at this
intersection, as with all major transportation improvements, will be reevaluated during five-year Master Plan updates based on
updated traffic information.
Timing: Second ten years or later Estimated Cost:
$17,949,000
ROW (est.): $10,760,000
Responsible Parties:
VDOT
Issues to Be Addressed:
All major transportation improvements, including potential grade separations, will be reevaluated during five -year Plan updates.
May not be necessary during the 20-year plan implementation timeframe.
Design will be difficult due to topography and potential impact to adjacent residential areas. Alternative design concepts should be
thoroughly evaluated.
Would provide another connection between areas to the east of US 29 and Berkmar Drive Extended.
Milestones:
Evaluate the need for and extend of improvements in this location, including potential grade separation, during each five -year
Master Plan review and update.
Identify funding and schedule construction.
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document: No.
Project Reference No.
43
Project Title:
Widen US 29 to six lanes from Airport Road to bridge over the North Fork of the Rivanna River
Project Description:
Widen US 29 to a six-lane rural cross section with full shoulders and center median. There will also be a multi-purpose path on at
least one side of US 29 in this segment of the road. Future volumes are expected to require widening of this section of US 29 . North
Pointe proffers include portions of the northbound lane to be added.
Timing: Second ten years Estimated Cost:
$12,738,000
Responsible Parties:
Property owner/developer
Issues to Be Addressed:
The northbound lane is part of the North Pointe proffers.
The southbound lane is part of the University of Virginia Research Park proffers.
Milestones:
The northbound lane will be constructed as part of the North Pointe Development.
The southbound lane will be constructed when square footage of buildings constructed in the Research Park reaches the
threshold specified in the proffers.
Comments/Notes: Right-of-way costs are not included because the proffers include donation of the right of way for the lane on
each side of US 29.
Included in Planning/Budget Document: No.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 163)
43. This portion of the Future Land Use Map shows the segment of US 29 from Airport Road (to the left) to the North Fork
of the Rivanna River (the red line on the right) that will be widened to six lanes. The dashed lines on US 29 reflect the
segment that will be widened.
Project Reference No.
44
Project Title:
Intersection improvements at US 29 and Austin Drive
Project Description:
Add Austin Drive Extended (westbound approach)and add southbound left turn lane. These improvements are required to
accommodate development expected in the area (new development on the east side of US 29).
Timing: Second ten years Estimated Cost:
Improvements: $7,238,000
ROW (est.): $1,809,000
Responsible Parties:
VDOT
Issues to Be Addressed:
Milestones:
Make improvements when traffic warrants.
Comments/Notes: Intersection is now signalized.
Included in Planning/Budget Document: No.
Project Reference No.
45
Project Title:
Signalize US 29 at Dickerson Road
Project Description:
Signalize intersection.
Timing: Second ten years Estimated Cost:
$324,000
Responsible Parties:
VDOT
Issues to Be Addressed:
Required to serve development.
Milestones:
Install signal when traffic warrants.
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document: No.
Project Reference No.
46
Project Title:
Proffit Road Improvements
Project Description:
From US 29 east 1.6 miles, address capacity and safety issues by improving the road alignment and constructing an urban section
road with sidewalks and bicycle lanes.
Timing: Begin during the second ten
years
Estimated Cost:
NA
Responsible Parties: VDOT
Issues to Be Addressed:
Milestones:
Funding is available only for preliminary engineering of these improvements.
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document: Yes, County‘s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements
Project Reference No.
47
Project Title:
Dickerson Road Improvements
Project Description:
To improve safety and address public requests, repave the gravel portions of Dickerson Road and replace two bridges.
Timing: First ten years Estimated Cost:
$11,608,000
Responsible Parties: VDOT
Issues to Be Addressed:
Milestones:
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document: Yes, County‘s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements
Project Reference No.
48
Project Title:
Construct pedestrian overcrossing (of US 29) at Berkmar Drive
Project Description:
This elevated crossing will integrate pedestrian and bicycle crossings into a future transit stop and facilitate redevelopmen t
opportunities. The overcrossing is intended to serve pedestrians and bicyclists crossing to/from Fashion Square Mall and the corner
of Berkmar Drive and US 29. The design would take advantage of the grade difference between the west side of US 29 (lower) an d
the increase in elevation on the east side.
Timing: Second ten years Estimated Cost:
$2,200,000
Responsible Parties: County, VDOT, Property
owner/developer
Issues to Be Addressed:
May require developer participation; coordinate with development of surrounding area.
Milestones:
Construct as soon as funding has been identified and the location/design established.
Comments/Notes: A photosimulation of this crossing is shown on page 4-16 of the Master Plan.
Included in Planning/Budget Document:
Project Reference No.
49
Project Title:
Construct connector road between US 29 and Berkmar Drive Extended
Project Description:
Both the original US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study and more recent transportation modeling done by the TJPDC show th at
a third connector road between US 29 and Berkmar Drive located midway between the existing conn ections at Woodbrook Drive and
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 164)
Hilton Heights Road will be necessary to permit traffic to flow smoothly to/from US 29 and Berkmar Drive. Such a connector ro ad also
creates large ―blocks‖ bounded by US 29 on one side and Berkmar Drive on the other. This road should connect to the existing
signalized crossover at the Northtown Center development. The final alignment will be determined as redevelopment takes place and
properties are designed. This road will be a two-lane cross section (with center turn lanes if necessary, depending on the extent of
development adjacent to the road). It provides another means for traffic to access Berkmar Drive without traveling on US 29.
Construction of this road is development-dependent.
Timing: Second ten years Estimated Cost:
$1,841, 000
ROW (est.): $921,000
Responsible Parties: Property
owners/Developers
Issues to Be Addressed:
Requires participation of property owners.
One alignment that has been proposed for this road would connect the Schewel Furniture Drive to Berkmar Drive Extended. The
western end of the proposed road would travel along property lines to minimize right-of-way needed from any one property owner
and to allow several adjacent properties to have access to/from the proposed new connector road. This ali gnment would be
approximately halfway between existing connections at Woodbrook Drive and Hilton Heights Road. However, other alignments
that meet the need for a connector between Woodbrook and Hilton Heights Road would be considered based on benefits to traffic
and availability.
Milestones:
Construction is development-dependent.
Comments/Notes:
Property owners/ developers may donate ROW.
A two-lane road with dedicated left turn lanes may be an acceptable alternative design.
Included in Planning/Budget Document: No.
Project Reference No.
50
Project Title:
Extend Ashwood Blvd. to Berkmar Drive Extended
Project Description:
This extension provides a connection that would allow users of Ashwood Blvd. to access Berkmar Drive Extended without using US
29.
Timing: Second ten years Estimated Cost:
NA
Responsible Parties: Property
Owner/developer, VDOT
Issues to Be Addressed:
Ashwood Blvd. would be extended from the western end of the potential grade separation to Berkmar Drive Extended; if no grade
separation is constructed, then the extension would be at-grade.
Construction will need to be coordinated with the construction of both Berkmar Drive Extended and the Ashwood Blvd. grade
separation
Milestones:
May be constructed as part of the Ashwood Blvd. grade separation, provided Berkmar Drive has already been constructed. May
need to be built at the time Berkmar Drive Extended is constructed.
Comments/Notes: No estimate of ROW or construction costs is available. Cost may be included in grade separati on, and/or
construction of Berkmar Drive Extended.
Included in Planning/Budget Document: No.
50. This portion of the Future Land Use Map shows the connection of Ashwood Blvd. over US 29 to Berkmar Drive
Extended at the top of the map.
Project Reference No.
51
Project Title:
Reconfigure cross section of Timberwood Blvd. between US 29 and Worth Crossing. Construct
roundabout at Worth Crossing.
Project Description:
The new cross section for Timberwood and the roundabout would support the grade separations, if needed, and connector road
operations at Timberwood Blvd. and US 29.
Timing: Second ten years Estimated Cost:
NA
Responsible Parties:
VDOT
Issues to Be Addressed:
Milestones:
May be completed after the potential grade separations, if necessary, at Airport Road and Timberwood Blvd. are constructed
Comments/Notes: May be included in grade separation of Timberwood/US 29.
Included in Planning/Budget Document: No.
Project Reference No.
52
Project Title:
Transit System Expansion & Improvements
A HIGH PRIORITY IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT
Project Description:
This project is a continuation of the transit system work begun during the first five years of Plan implementation. It includes extending
local bus service as Centers develop. It would also involve coordinating the initial Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system (or Priority
Transit/Express Transit Service) with road improvements and development of Centers throughout US 29 North Corridor. Specifically,
BRT would be extended to the Uptown and the airport once the density/intensity of development in the Airport Road Corridor area
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 165)
would support transit. The County would also, ultimately, extend the BRT to Greene County, if ridership warranted.
Timing: Project began during the first
five years and will continue throughout
the 20-year Plan implementation
timeframe
Estimated Cost:
$16,500,000 (to extend service from
Midtown to Uptown)
Responsible Parties: City, County, CTS, RTA,
other agencies
Issues to Be Addressed:
Milestones:
Extend BRT to the Rio Road/US 29 intersection area as density/ intensity increases to support transit use, if not done during first
ten years.
Extend BRT to Uptown and Airport once density/ intensity increases to support transit in Airport Road Corridor Area, possibly
further north to Rivanna Station Military Base/ GE area.
Extend local bus service as neighborhoods/Centers develop; provides localized service and provides connections to BRT/Express
service.
Extend BRT to Greene County when potential ridership warrants or provide connection with Green County Transit).
Comments/Notes:
Included in Planning/Budget Document: No.
52. An example of a recommended long-range Places29 transit network, with both Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and local
circulator service.
Project Reference No.
53
Project Title:
Recreational Space in the Piney Mountain Area
Project Description:
To provide new community level park facilities needed to serve anticipated growth in the Piney Mountain Development Area east of
US 29.
Timing: Begin during the
second ten years
Estimated Cost:
$3,250,000
Responsible Parties: Property owners/Developers,
County
Issues to Be Addressed:
Milestones:
Identify types and amount of space needed
Identify possible locations.
Request proffers with new development
Comments/Notes: the cost estimate is based on the development of necessary sports fields, shelters, and restrooms. (See Project
16 for more details). It is anticipated that developers would provide all or most of these faciliti es.
Included in Planning/Budget Document:
Project Reference No.
54
Project Title:
New Elementary School #17
Project Description:
A new 600-student facility would be constructed in one of the Development Areas, with an 8,000 square foot gym, auxiliary spaces,
and a cafeteria and library. The school would be 84,360 square feet. The school is programmed to open in 2017. The project to
acquire the land necessary for an elementary school in one of the Development Areas is separate from the construction cost . The
site should be purchased in FY2013-2014.
To be located in one of three locations in the County, based on need/demand: Crozet, southern urban area, the Northern
Development Areas (North Pointe proffered site).
Timing: Second ten years Estimated Cost:
$7,199,000
Responsible Parties: Albemarle County
Schools Division
Issues to Be Addressed:
Milestones:
Identify need
Design and construct new school
Comments/Notes: Enrollment projections indicate the need for one new elementary school in the Dev elopment Areas over the next
ten years (2017). The school will be located in one of three areas depending on the location of the growth in student population and
the capacities of the existing elementary schools. Monitor the School Long Range Planning proc ess to determine whether the school
will need to be located in the Places29 area within the next ten years.
Included in Planning/Budget Document: The school construction project start date was moved back to FY 2017-2018 due to the
new capacity formula and new enrollment projections.
Appendix 3. Roadway Cross Sections
In order to create a multimodal transportation network that functions well throughout the Places29 area,
careful consideration must be given to each travel mode: pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and vehicles,
both passenger and freight. Roadways must be designed to accommodate each of these modes and to allow
connections between modes and the land uses along the roadways. These roadway designs will vary
depending on the number of travel lanes (two, four, or more) and the land uses adjacent to the roadway.
Recommended roadway designs for the Places29 area are illustrated here in a series of cross sections that
show travel lanes, medians and center turn lanes, parking lanes and bays, bike lanes, sidewalks and multi-use
paths, and the landscaped strips that separate pedestrians from vehicles. The four cross sections that apply to
US 29 are included in Chapter 4, Future Land Use Plan and Transportation Network and are repeated here.
After the US 29 cross sections, this appendix gives additional examples of cross sections for boulevards and
other four-lane roads and avenues and other two-lane roads. They are advisory and represent a potential road
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 166)
or street improvement. A typical cross section for a four-lane roadway and another for a two-lane roadway are
also included in Chapter 4.
The caption for each of the cross sections includes either a letter in a box or a number in parentheses. These
letters and numbers correspond to those on the map at the end of this appendix, which shows approximately
where each of the cross sections is recommended to be applied.
US 29 Cross Sections
US 29 Eight-Lane Section (Typical). This section is used between Hydraulic Road and Polo
Grounds Road. In many areas, US 29 has sidewalks on both sides. Multi-use paths may be used
in areas where, for topographical reasons, buildings are not constructed with the usual setback
from the pavement.
A
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 167)
US 29 Six-Lane Rural Section, from Polo Grounds Road to Hollymead Town Center and from Airport
Road to the North Fork of the Rivanna River.
B
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 168)
US 29 Six-Lane Section with Urban Frontage. This section is recommended from Hollymead Town Center to
Airport Road. In this section, buildings are constructed 40 feet from the edge of the curb (rather than 30 feet,
as shown). In other areas, the setback may be deeper due to topographical constraints.
C
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 169)
US 29 Existing Conditions with Added Multi-use Path and Median Landscaping, north of the North Fork
of the Rivanna River to the Greene County line. This section of US 29 passes primarily through the Rural
Areas.
D
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 170)
Four-Lane Roadway Cross Sections
10. Rio Road East – East of Northfield Road.
11. Hydraulic Road/Rio Road West from Berkmar to the Development Area boundary (adjacent to City).
12. Berkmar Drive from Rio Road north to Cross Section 14 in locations without onstreet parking, and
Lewis and Clark Drive.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 171)
13. Berkmar Drive from Rio road north to Cross Section 14 in locations with onstreet parking.
14. Berkmar Drive from Hilton Heights Road to the bridge (along potential infill development north of
Hilton Heights Road).
15. Berkmar Drive Extended from Rio Mills Road to Towncenter Drive.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 172)
16. Airport Road from Dickerson Road to US 29.
Two-Lane Roadway Cross Sections
1. Hillsdale Drive from the 250 Bypass to Rio Road, Meeting Street from Towncenter Drive to Airport Road,
Berkmar Drive from Rio Road to US 29, Towncenter Drive from US 29 to Meeting Street, and other locations.
2. Towncenter Drive in mixed-use areas east of Dickerson Road and unnamed road around
Fashion Square Mall.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 173)
3. Main Street through the Uptown.
4. North Pointe Boulevard.
5. Northside Drive from US 29 to Lewis and Clark and from US 29 to North Pointe Blvd., Towncenter Drive from
Meeting Street to Dickerson Road in areas without mixed use, and the unnamed road from Meeting Street to
Dickerson Road.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 174)
6. Proffit Road from Worth Crossing to Development Area boundary.
7. Hillsdale Drive (portions), unnamed road from Polo Grounds Road to Ashwood Blvd., Piney Mountain
Loop (except portion near US 29).
Appendix 4. Access Management Report for US 29, dated May 25, 2007
Appendix 5. The US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study Final Report, dated August
18, 2008
Appendix 6. The 29H250 Phase 2 Report, dated September 15, 2004
**The full 29H250 Phase 2 Report is approximately 150 pages in length. The executive summary is
included in this appendix and the full report is available online on the County‘s Places29 webpage.
These three appendices are available under separate cover. Please see the Places29 website or contact
the Community Development department at 434-296-5832.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 175)
__________________
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 176)
Agenda Item No. 14. Closed Meeting.
At 12:26 p.m., Mr. Thomas moved that the Board go into a closed meeting pursuant to Section
2.2-3.711.A of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards, committees,
commissions, and an administrative position; and under Subsection (7) to discuss with legal counsel and
staff specific matters requiring legal advice relating to the community water supply plan. Mr. Snow
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 1:51 p.m., Mr. Thomas moved that the Board certified by recorded vote that to the best of each
Board member‘s knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting
requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed
meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed meeting. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 16. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments:
Mr. Snow moved the following appoints/reappointments:
appoint Amy Preddy to the Pantops Community Advisory Council;
reappoint Marylin Minrath to the Public Defender Office Citizens Advisory Committee with said
term to expire December 31, 2013;
reappoint Jay Fennell to Public Recreational Facilities Authority with said term to expire
December 13, 2013; and
reappoint Steve Murray to TJ Water Resource Foundation Board with said term to expire
December 31, 2015.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Foley noted that Mr. Richard Wiggins, the County‘s Finance Director, has retired, and he
would like to recommend the appointment of Mr. Ed Koonce as the Acting Director of Finance effective
February 1, 2011.
Ms. Mallek moved to adopt the following resolution to appoint Mr. Ed Koonce as the Acting
Director of Finance effective February 1, 2011. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION TO APPOINT ACTING DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, upon the
recommendation of the County Executive, that R. Edward Koonce, III is hereby appointed the Acting
Director of Finance of Albemarle County effective February 1, 2011. R. Edward Koonce, III, as Acting
Director of Finance, shall serve at the pleasure of the Board and have all those powers and duties set
forth in Section 15.2- 519 of the Code of Virginia and as otherwise provided by general law.
__________________
Agenda Item No.17. Economic Vitality Action Plan, Quarterly Update.
Ms. Lee Catlin, Assistant to the County Executive for Community and Business Partnerships, said
that this is the second quarterly update on the Economic Vitality Action Plan. The presentation will include
a review of economic indicators and data on the metrics.
Mr. Steve Allshouse, Coordinator of Research and Analysis, said that beginning in 2003 the
County has been including annual data in the County‘s Community Profile and on a quarterly basis has
been publishing Quarterly Economic Indicators on the website, along with more recent data reflecting
outreach efforts. Mr. Allshouse provided Board members with a copy (on file) of the County‘s Economic
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 177)
Vitality Indicators including background information. He noted that the Virginia Employment Commission
data can be as late as six months out, but most other data is more current than that. He stated that sales
tax data is an important indicator, as it is a good proxy for consumption that comprises a good chunk of
national and local activity. According to the Finance Department, between the third quarter of calendar
year 2009 and the third quarter of calendar year 2010 sales tax went up by about 8%. They do not have
complete data for the fourth quarter.
In terms of jobs and income, Mr. Allshouse reported that the County‘s unemployment rate has
been hovering around 5% for the last year or so, and between the third quarter of calendar year 2009 and
the third quarter of calendar year 2010 that number increased by about 1%. He said during better times,
that figure is usually around 3%, but it seems the area has peaked out from the depth of the recession.
Mr. Allshouse noted that the unemployment number is generated from a survey that is fairly current. The
total number of jobs figure is measured separately by companies paying into the State unemployment
system. He reported that between the second quarter of calendar year 2009 and the second quarter of
calendar year 2010, approximately 138 jobs were lost, or three-tenths of one percentage. He added it is
not a dramatic drop, which is the good news.
Under general business activity, Mr. Allshouse said that a new piece of data the County is
beginning to track is the number of business licenses in the County, which gets at the heart of business
formation. He stated that between the last quarter of calendar year 2009 and the fourth quarter of
calendar year 2010 there was an uptick in the number of business licenses issued. He was given a
number of 39 as an increase in business licenses, but that is not a net figure and they do not know how
many businesses dropped out. He added that if they track the total number each quarter, they should be
able to get a net figure for comparison.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is a way to track lost businesses. Ms. Catlin responded that they were
told it would likely have to be calculated manually.
Mr. Allshouse said that it seems someone in the audience has indicated there is a way to find this
out, so staff would pursue it sooner.
Mr. Rooker asked if someone went out of business would they be included in that number. Mr.
Allshouse said staff would not know quarter specific as to when the business left.
Ms. Catlin said that staff could do some clarification on that. Part of rolling this information out is
to help understand which measures are given good indications. In this information, staff was trying to
capture the total number and numbers of new places that are opening up in the County. She also pointed
out that when a license is not renewed, it can be assumed that the business is no longer in operation.
Given that business licenses are paid annually, Mr. Boyd commented that the only way to know
for sure would be if they did not pay the next years‘ business license tax. He noted that there could be an
analysis done each year since licenses are renewed annually.
Mr. Allshouse stated that the dollar value of new commercial building permits between the third
quarter of calendar year 2009 and the third quarter of calendar year 2010 increased substantially, but what
accounted for most of that increase was work being done at Martha Jefferson.
Mr. Rooker commented that he thought those building permits were issued in the beginning of the
project. Mr. Mark Graham explained that there is a base building permit, but then there are subsequent
up-fits that need building permits.
Mr. Allshouse said that BPOL tax revenue gives a good idea on an annual what is going on in
business formation, and that dipped slightly for the comparative quarters. For FY 2008-2009 according to
the Finance Department, he reported that the split between residential and non-residential tax revenues
has been a 75/25% split, which is similar to peer communities, but that is a total tax revenue not just a real
property tax revenue. Mr. Allshouse reported that the number of private sector jobs was 67.3% in FY
2008-09, and in 1999 the figure was 71% but dropped down to 66% in 2004.
Mr. Allshouse concluded by stating there are some positive signs in sales tax revenue, although
unemployment remains higher than usual and the housing market still has elevated levels of unsold
inventory.
Mr. Boyd asked about how some descriptive information might be included to provide background
on things like sales tax. Mr. Allshouse said that he could include that in the revamped version of the
Quarterly Economic Indicators, adding that there is a lot going on that needs to be explained.
Ms. Catlin stated that the last time the Board discussed the plan, staff informed them of the
broader economic climate of the County, and a lot has been happening in that regard. She said that the
DIA Hiring Fair had very long lines, and officials have said they are looking to fill about 40%, or 500 of their
1,100 jobs, locally. Ms. Catlin stated that PVCC has joined with the Advanced Technical Intelligence
Center for Human Capital Development, from Ohio, to form a partnership to provide education and
training to help staff intelligence community jobs in Central Virginia. That should be a great pipeline to
help keep DIA, NGIC and the private-sector defense contractors staffed with local residents. Ms. Catlin
said that Kohl‘s also had a hiring fair and plans to open their doors in March and fill 150 jobs.
Ms. Catlin noted that Fiber-Light is hosting an update meeting tomorrow at the Omni, and they are
apparently only about 10 miles away from Charlottesville with their fiber-optic system. Ms. Catlin
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 178)
commented that the meat of the program is early, for those who cannot attend the entire meeting. She
reported that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission was one of 45 awardees across the
country selected to get a Department of Housing and Urban Development Sustainable Communities
Regional Planning Grant, which is a new initiative launched at the federal level intended to build economic
competitiveness by connecting housing with good jobs, quality schools and transportation. Ms. Catlin said
that it is a three-year project that puts a regional approach to bringing things together that will help the
County‘s economic competitiveness.
She also reported that the feature documentary, Vintage, has been released and features 10 area
wineries among other wineries. Ms. Catlin stated that the film debuted at the Virginia Film Festival and is
now being shown on PBS stations across the country. She said that staff is still waiting to get viewership
numbers, but it seems to have had a good response.
Ms. Catlin stated that the Artisan Trail is now the Monticello Artisan Trail, which goes through the
communities of Nelson and Albemarle, including the City, and sites along the trail will include studios, craft
venues, farms, markets, wineries, and other businesses that provide food and lodging for visiting
travelers. She said that the goal is to have the first round of information to get the map and website up to
date by March 1, noting that states like North Carolina that have done similar trails have realized some
significant economic advantages.
Ms. Catlin reported that the touch screen kiosk is being put in place at Monticello to take the place
of staff who are no longer there, and that would be officially launched on President‘s Day in coordination
with the public release of Monticello Ale, which is produced in partnership with Starr Hill Breweries. The
kiosk will be accessible to about 2,500 people who pass by the bus stop location at the Monticello Visitors
Center daily.
Ms. Susan Stimart, Economic Development Facilitator, said that staff has continued outreach for
the Economic Vitality Action Plan. Staff had two separate meetings with the VEDP last quarter that
included the DIA in a discussion about updating the County‘s Community Profile on the VEDP website.
She also said that TJPED led a regional meeting with different partners including UVA and DIA to talk
about new initiatives with VEDP staff, and all are very supportive of the target industries study. Ms.
Stimart reported that the County also had an important meeting with the Virginia Department of Business
Assistance Director, Mr. Peter Su, and his staff, to talk about the action plan and its goals and projects.
She said that the Free Enterprise Forum was instrumental in inviting Mr. Foley, Ms. Catlin, and her to
speak with their Board about the action plan and some of the initiatives coming forward from the County.
Ms. Stimart reported that there was a business forum with members of Community Development
that also included the Small Business Development Center, SCORE, Cville‘s Incubator, the Chamber of
Commerce, and TJPED. She said that one of the results of that meeting was to roll out a small business
tool kit that would help entrepreneurs better understand the process of development review and
regulations. Ms. Stimart stated that the second forum was held last week with UVA‘s new staff person,
Mr. Mark Crowell, Executive Director and Associate Vice President for Innovation Partnership and
Commercialization, who has assumed a new position to help bring research projects forward for
commercialization.
Ms. Stimart reported that Mr. Su is volunteering a staff person from his operation to work with the
County on a business retention initiative. The Small Business Development Center also was awarded a
$30,000 grant to expand their operations, which will help the community access more talent. She
recognized Mr. Mike Harvey from TJPED, which is bringing in some additional staff resources to help with
business retention initiatives in the County. Ms. Stimart said that there would be a survey project rolled
out in the area to ask businesses about the businesses climate, followed by a business retention meeting
for a business first program.
Regarding regulatory reform elements the Board has discussed previously, Ms. Stimart reported
that staff has been working on the Light Industrial Zoning Text Amendments and has met with the
Planning Commission to discuss specific uses under that zoning, as well as a review of setback and buffer
standards and performance standards. She noted that Community Development was very helpful with the
Monticello Artisan Trail rollout, by having one person assigned to address the home occupation
clearances.
Ms. Catlin concluded with a summary of initiatives. The Target Industry Study will help staff
prioritize County initiatives.
Mr. Rooker asked who will make the decision regarding the Target Industry Study. Ms. Catlin said
that is what the whole study will be about. Staff has been talking with Mr. Harvey who is looking at doing it
at a regional level. The feel some of the components of the Study will be effectively addressed regionally;
some will be specific to Albemarle and focused on County issues. Staff hopes to come back to the Board
next month with a proposal for components and the approach of the Study. She also said that a
Strengths, Weaknesses Opportunity and Threats (SWOT) assessment would be helpful in the process,
which would include input from stakeholders throughout the community. They will also look at some of the
key County competitive assets, labor force availability, skill levels, analyzing existing business clusters,
growth sectors, etc., and then how to work stakeholders and community into that so that the end product
is very specific to how Albemarle sees itself.
Mr. Rooker commented that there are a lot of companies that naturally fit in with DIA and UVA that
should be considered, rather than a race to the bottom.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 179)
Mr. Dorrier said that the Town of Scottsville is suffering from a lack of jobs and lack of economic
support. He mentioned that Appomattox is 50 miles from there so perhaps a service could be set up from
Charlottesville down to Scottsville, Buckingham, and Appomattox as part of the Sesquicentennial of the
Civil War.
Ms. Catlin responded that it is a great suggestion and one group they have not met with yet is the
Scottsville Town Council, adding that the Sesquicentennial Commission of the City and County is looking
for opportunities as part of that recognition.
Mr. Boyd commented that the assets in the community – UVA, world class K-12 school system,
historical sites, etc., – and then determining the types of businesses fit into the mold. Ms. Catlin said that
the SWOT would allow you to identify with the community and others a good list of the assets which then
leads in the direction of how to leverage those assets.
Ms. Catlin said that the plan calls for a focus on agricultural economy as well, and the roundtables
from that sector would be meeting in the near future. In the next month or so, staff anticipates those
meetings taking place. She added that some of the important initiatives related to the LI availability are
connected to the Comp Plan updates and will move ahead as the Plan process proceeds.
Ms. Catlin said progress on the Plan is continuing. Staff will continue to bring the metrics to the
Board on these quarterly updates and refine those to make sure they reflect meaningful measures. Staff
will be discussing the Target Industry Study further in March.
Ms. Mallek asked about a joint work session between the Tourism Board and the Board of
Supervisors. Ms. Catlin said there has been discussion about a meeting, and staff will follow-up.
Ms. Mallek expressed concern that the county is losing its identity in the midst of materials that
mention Charlottesville. Mr. Boyd and Mr. Rooker mentioned branding experts that had come in and said
that Charlottesville-Albemarle was too long of a name.
Ms. Catlin added that staff has been communicating with Tourism folks about having an agri-
business roundtable. They have shown interest in doing that.
Mr. Boyd commented on the wine bloggers who are coming here this spring. He said this is the
first time that has been held anywhere other than California, and it will be huge. Ms. Catlin said they have
been talking with CACVB about it and will continue the discussions because it is a tremendous opportunity
for Albemarle.
Mr. Boyd asked where things stand with Yancey Mills in terms of the Comp Plan update, as they
are ready to put up some pad-ready sites. He said that the lack of Light Industrial land is an important
aspect of economic vitality. Ms. Catlin said she would leave that to Mr. Graham as part of Community
Development‘s Work Program discussion.
Ms. Mallek added that it is also tied into the interstate-interchange issues. Ms. Catlin said that Mr.
Graham would probably cover that in his presentation.
Mr. Rooker said that there are several Light Industrial buildings already available and vacant right
now, including the Daily Progress building, which has been sitting empty for some time. He added what
indication is there that there is a demand for Light Industrial space that is not being fulfilled when there are
vacant buildings in the County that are for sale that cannot seem to get interest.
Mr. Boyd stated that the days of the 200-300 employees moving into town are gone, and smaller
businesses wouldn‘t be able to use a building like the Daily Progress building. It is more the smaller
businesses with 20-30 employees that need space or want to expand.
Ms. Mallek said that she does not know how to get the owners to offer them by coming down on
the price a bit.
Mr. Rooker commented that there is a lot of anecdotal discussion on available space. Hopefully
the Target Industry Study will address what type of space is needed, such as laboratory space for
research, as Mr. Mark Crowell described. He is weary to a nontargeted approach to saying the County
needs to approve ―x‖ because it needs LI space. He thinks there are more needs other than just LI
buildings.
Mr. Thomas asked if there may be businesses that have tried to come here and have not been
able to find space. Ms. Stimart responded that she has a file with that type of information but TJPED
would probably have better information on that.
Mr. Rooker commented that there are also people who say they looked in Albemarle County but
could find land cheaper in Greene County. They won‘t be able to cure that problem, but then also
someone who wants lab space because they are commercializing an invention at UVA is probably not
going to go to Louisa County; they will want to find something close by.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks that would be some valuable information if the Board could get it – what
businesses are you aware of that came here but could not find what they needed or were interested in
looking here but could not find what they needed.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 180)
Ms. Catlin said she thinks the Target Industry Study will get them into having those kinds of
conversations, seeing what has been the unmet need, and then seeing how it can be approached.
The Board concluded that the Target Industries Study would allow for a fuller discussion on what
type of space is available and what is needed.
__________________
(At this time the Board took up Agenda Item No. 12.)
Agenda Item No. 12. ARB-2010-126. Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines Update.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
―County Code § 18-34A.2(a) directs the Architectural Review Board (―ARB‖) to promulgate design
standards for ratification by the Board of Supervisors.
The ARB‘s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines have not received a comprehensive update since
their ratification in 1994. Over the years, updates have been made to specific sections of the guidelines,
including lighting, fuel pump canopies and signs (see Attachment A). The Entrance Corridor Overlay
District regulations in the Zoning Ordinance were amended in early 2010.
The ARB and staff will be considering revisions to the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines in
phases to allow for more timely progress in recognition of the fact that staff resources available for this
undertaking are limited. The four recommended phases are as follows:
Phase 1 includes minor and new text revisions to bring the guidelines up to date with long-
standing practices of the ARB and to clarify standard design requirements as well as guidelines
which have proven difficult for applicants to understand. This phase will also eliminate from the
guidelines lists and process-related information (as opposed to design-related information)
because the lists and process information are now easily available at the County‘s web site where
they can be updated quickly and easily. (See www.albemarle.org/ARB) Eliminating this
information will streamline the guidelines, allowing for more timely updates in the future. These
revisions are separated from the subsequent phases because they do not involve actual changes
to current requirements or practice.
Phase 2 will bring the guidelines in line with the County‘s expectations for the Development Areas.
This will include coordination with the Neighborhood Model and the master plans for Crozet,
Pantops, Places 29 (when adopted), and the Village of Rivanna. Updates to the Development
Area guidelines are an important second step in this process since the majority of ARB
applications are for sites in these areas. This phase of updates will begin to address the issue of
context in the Entrance Corridors more specifically. To this end, qualifications will be added to the
guidelines to distinguish appropriate treatments sought/desired in the Development Areas against
what is considered appropriate in the Rural Areas. (For example, a rustic split rail fence might be
appropriate in the Rural Areas but generally not at a commercial development in the Development
Areas.)
Phase 3 will begin after completion of the upcoming Comprehensive Plan review and will ensure
that the guidelines are consistent with the County‘s expectations for the Rural Areas using the
updated Comprehensive Plan as guidance. This phase will complete the revisions needed to
address context issues in the Development Areas and the Rural Areas.
Phase 4 will incorporate any updates that are necessary to bring the guidelines into conformance
with revisions made to the site plan review process, which is currently under development.
The ARB has already promulgated the Phase 1 Guidelines. Attachment B is a black -line draft and
attachment C is the clean draft of the proposed Phase 1 Guideline revisions as recommended by the ARB
at its November 1, 2010, November 15, 2010 and January 3, 2011 meetings. (See Attachments D, E and
F for the ARB‘s actions.) The revisions:
1) Eliminate process-related information and lists, much of which is outdated and is now
available on the County‘s website, such as:
Identification of types of projects that require ARB review
Steps in the ARB review process
Submittal requirements
How to appeal a decision of the ARB
The list of the County‘s Entrance Corridors
Explanation of what falls within an Entrance Corridor
The County‘s Entrance Corridor map
The County‘s recommended tree list
2) Further clarify standard design requirements, such as:
Additional information on window glass to clarify that highly tinted and highly
reflective glass is generally not appropriate in the Entrance Corridors, with detail
on the acceptable level of reflectance and the submittal items required for review.
Clarification on the appropriate treatment of equipment and other objectionable
features in the Entrance Corridors, clarifying that appropriate siting of such
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 181)
features is the first step, followed by the addition of screening to eliminate
visibility.
Addition of information on the typical maximum light level found appropriate for
display lots in the Entrance Corridors.
Clarification on the size of trees required along interior roads, pedestrian ways
and parking areas.
Information directing applicants to add standard equipment, landscape and
lighting notes to their plans.
3) Provide assistance on guidelines that have proven difficult for applicants to understand,
such as:
Clarification on the ornamental tree spacing requirement along the EC frontage.
Clarification on the appropriate appearance of the illumination from site lights in
the Entrance Corridors.
Clarification on the desired appearance of grading proposed in the Entrance
Corridors.
These revisions clarify long-standing practices of the ARB and do not revise current guidance or
process. Staff anticipates that these changes will improve efficiency in the review and approval of ARB
applications.
The ARB and staff recommend that the Board ratify the revised Guidelines set forth in Attachment
C and endorse the phased approach to the Guideline revisions as outlined in this Executive Summary.‖
Ms. Margaret Maliszewski, Principal Planner, said that the Entrance Corridors were first
established in 1990 and the design guidelines were first ratified in 1994. Since that time, she said, there
have been minor revisions made to small sections of the guidelines but not a comprehensive update. She
said that staff suggests a four-phased approach. Phase 1, being considered today, would include minor
revisions to the text; Phases 2 and 3 would bring the guidelines in line with the County‘s expectations for
the development areas and rural areas, and Phase 4 would include revisions to bring the guidelines in line
with any changes that might be made to the Site Plan Review process.
Ms. Maliszewski said that Phase 1 revisions can be divided into two categories; the first one being
streamlining, with removal of lists of information and process-related information from the guidelines. She
stated that other revisions in Phase 1 include clarification of existing guidelines, as some of them were not
written in a straightforward or elaborative manner. Ms. Maliszewski said that these changes clarify the
long-standing practices of the ARB and help clarify the standards for applicants. Staff thinks this will
improve efficiency in the review of the applications in the Entrance Corridors and the approval of those
applications. She said that staff‘s recommendation today is to ratify the guidelines and endorse the
phased approach as outlined.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks this is a good approach. He said that these are not substantive
changes, but are recommendations for text clean-up changes with a phased approach to get into the
substantive changes later.
Mr. Davis said that there are two actions the Board needs to take. There is peculiar language in
the ordinance that says that the ARB promulgates the guidelines and the Board of Supervisors must ratify
them. One motion would be needed by the Board to ratify the guidelines that are set forth in Attachment
C, which is the legal requirement to update the guidelines.
Mr. Rooker moved to ratify the Guidelines as set forth in Attachment C.
Mr. Thomas asked Ms. Maliszewski what the advantage is to the applicant with these changes.
Ms. Maliszewski responded that that the applicant has more information upfront.
Mr. Thomas asked if this is discretionary or written in the ordinance. Mr. Davis explained that
these are guidelines, but there is a legal requirement to get a certificate of appropriateness for that project,
and the ARB‘s review process is based on compliance with the guidelines.
Mr. Rooker stated that the idea is to make the process as clear as possible from the beginning.
Mr. Snow commented that he was very impressed with a recent ARB meeting with Taco Bell
trying to quickly rebuild their restaurant on the site where the old building burned down, noting that the
ARB was willing to make changes on the spot with the applicant to speed up the approval.
Ms. Mallek said that the process of the Crozet Library also revealed this difficult balance between
the ARB‘s charge and the applicant‘s goals for their building.
Ms. Mallek then seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
__________
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 182)
Mr. Rooker then moved to endorse the phased approach to the Guideline revisions as
recommended in the Executive Summary (set out above). Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
(The Guidelines are set out below:)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
DESIGN GUIDELINES
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Background
Section 15.2-2306 of the Code of Virginia authorizes localities to regulate the design of development along
streets, roads, and highways providing significant routes of tourist access to the County and to designated historic
landmarks, structures or districts and to contiguous cities and towns to insure that such development is
compatible with the architecture of the historically significant landmarks, buildings, and structures to which these
routes lead. These ―entrance corridors‖ have been designated by the locality. The review of development
proposals within such corridors is to be undertaken by the locally designated Architectural Review Board.
On October 3, 1990, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted Section 30.6 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance. The section is titled ―Entrance Corridor Overlay District‖ and implements the authority
described above. It specifically designates a number of ―entrance corridors,‖ establishes standards for the review
of development proposed within the corridors and creates a five member Architectural Review Board (ARB). The
Board of Supervisors also appointed members to the ARB and charged them with the responsibility for proposing
and administering a set of Guidelines for development within the designated corridors.
Procedures and Requirements
State law and County ordinance both require that the ARB approve only those proposals which reflect
designs which are compatible with the historically significant architecture of the County of Albemarle
and City of Charlottesville. It is not intended that proposed designs mirror existing historic structures in the
area. Replication of historic structures is neither required nor desired. However, developers proposing
―trademark‖ designs can expect that significant modification will be required by the ARB before approval will
be granted.
The guidelines which follow are intended to provide assistance to the applicant in designing projects which will
satisfy these design guidelines. In addition, Appendix A contains a list of the pictures of historically significant
structures in the area that are illustrated in this booklet; drawings which highlight some of the important
features of these structures; and photographs of modern buildings, both in the area and elsewhere, which are
considered compatible with these historic structures.
See the ARB page on the Albemarle County website at www.albemarle.org/ARB for additional details
regarding:
Application requirements and the types of ARB applications
Steps in the ARB review process
The types of projects that require ARB review
Areas of the County that are included in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District
A map of the County‘s Entrance Corridors
Links to relevant forms and related information (including a link to Section 30.6 of the Zoning
Ordinance: Entrance corridor overlay district – EC).
DESIGN GUIDELINES – GENERAL
Purpose
1. The goal of the regulation of the design of development within the designated Entrance Corridors is to
insure that new development within the corridors reflects the traditional architecture of the area.
Therefore, it is the purpose of ARB review and of these Guidelines, that proposed development within
the designated Entrance Corridors reflect elements of design characteristic of the significant historical
landmarks, buildings, and structures of the Charlottesville and Albemarle area, and to promote orderly
and attractive development within these corridors. Applicants should note that replication of historic
structures is neither required nor desired.
2. Visitors to the significant historical sites in the Charlottesville and Albemarle area experience these
sites as ensembles of buildings, land, and vegetation. In order to accomplish the integration of
buildings, land, and vegetation characteristic of these sites, the Guidelines require attention to four
primary factors: compatibility with significant historic sites in the area; the character of the Entrance
Corridor; site development and layout; and landscaping.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 183)
Compatibility with significant historic sites:
3. New structures and substantial additions to existing structures should respect the traditions of the
architecture of historically significant buildings in the Charlottesville and Albemarle area. Photographs of
historic buildings in the area, as well as drawings of architectural features, which provide important
examples of this tradition are contained in Appendix A.
4. The examples contained in Appendix A should be used as a guide for building design: the standard of
compatibility with the area‘s historic structures is not intended to impose a rigid design solution for new
development. Replication of the design of the important historic sites in the area is neither intended nor
desired. The Guideline‘s standard of compatibility can be met through building scale, materials, and
forms which may be embodied in architecture which is contemporary as well as traditional. The
Guidelines allow individuality in design to accommodate varying tastes as well as special functional
requirements.
Compatibility with the character of the Entrance Corridor:
5. It is also an important objective of the Guidelines to establish a pattern of compatible architectural
characteristics throughout the Entrance Corridor in order to achieve unity and coherence. Building
designs should demonstrate sensitivity to other nearby structures within the Entrance Corridor. Where a
designated corridor is substantially developed, these Guidelines require striking a careful balance
between harmonizing new development with the existing character of the corridor and achieving
compatibility with the significant historic sites in the area.
Site development and layout:
6. Site development should be sensitive to the existing natural landscape and should contribute to the
creation of an organized development plan. This may be accomplished , to the extent practical, by
preserving the trees and rolling terrain typical of the area; planting new trees along streets and
pedestrian ways and choosing species that reflect native forest elements; insuring that any grading
will blend into the surrounding topography thereby creating a continuous landscape; preserving, to the
extent practical, existing significant river and stream valleys which may be located on the site and
integrating these features into the design of surrounding development; and limiting the building mass
and height to a scale that does not overpower the natural settings of the site, or the Entrance Corridor.
Landscaping:
7. The requirements of the Guidelines regarding landscaping are intended to reflect the landscaping
characteristic of many of the area‘s significant historic sites which is characterized by large shade trees
and lawns. Landscaping should promote visual order within the Entrance Corridor and help to integrate
buildings into the existing environment of the corridor.
8. Continuity within the Entrance Corridor should be obtained by planting different types of plant materials
that share similar characteristics. Such common elements allow for more flexibility in the design of
structures because common landscape features will help to harmonize the appearance of development
as seen from the street upon which the Corridor is centered.
DESIGN GUIDELINES – SPECIFICS
This section provides specific recommendations intended to achieve the goals described in the general
design statement.
Compatibility with significant historic sites.
Structure design
9. Building forms and features, including roofs, windows, doors, materials, colors and textures should be
compatible with the forms and features of the significant historic buildings in the area, exemplified by (but
not limited to) the buildings described in Appendix A. The standard of compatibility can be met through
scale, materials, and forms which may be embodied in architecture which is contemporary as well as
traditional. The replication of important historic sites in Albemarle County is not the objective of these
guidelines.
10. Buildings should relate to their site and the surrounding context of buildings.
11. The overall design of buildings should have human scale. Scale should be integral to the building and
site design.
12. Architecture proposed within the Entrance Corridor should use forms, shapes, scale, and materials to
create a cohesive whole.
13. Any appearance of ―blankness‖ resulting from building design should be relieved using design details or
vegetation, or both.
14. Arcades, colonnades, or other architectural connecting devices should be used to unify groups of
buildings within a development.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 184)
15. Trademark buildings and related features should be modified to meet the requirements of the
Guidelines.
16. Window glass in the Entrance Corridors should not be highly tinted or highly reflective. Reflectance off
the outside pane of glass should be kept below 7%. Specifications on the proposed window glass and
samples of tinted window glass should be submitted with the application for final review.
Accessory structures and equipment
17. Accessory structures and equipment should be integrated into the overall plan of development and shall,
to the extent possible, be compatible with the building designs used on the site.
18. The following should be located to eliminate visibility from the Entrance Corridor street. If, after
appropriate siting, these features will still have a negative visual impact on the Entrance Corridor street,
screening should be provided to eliminate visibility:
a) Loading areas,
b) Service areas,
c) Refuse areas,
d) Storage areas,
e) Mechanical equipment,
f) Above-ground utilities, and
g) Chain link fence, barbed wire, razor wire, and similar security fencing devices.
19. Screening devices should be compatible with the design of the buildings and surrounding natural
vegetation and may consist of:
a) Walls,
b) Plantings, and
c) Fencing.
20. Surface runoff structures and detention ponds should be designed to fit into the natural topography to
avoid the need for screening. When visible from the Entrance Corridor street, these features must be
fully integrated into the landscape. They should not have the appearance of engineered features.
21. The following note should be added to the site plan and the architectural plan: ―Visibility of all
mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.‖
Lighting
General Guidelines
22. Light should be contained on the site and not spill over onto adjacent properties or streets;
23. Light should be shielded, recessed or flush-mounted to eliminate glare. All fixtures with lamps emitting
3000 lumens or more must be full cutoff fixtures.
24. Light levels exceeding 30 footcandles are not appropriate for display lots in the Entrance Corridors.
Lower light levels will apply to most other uses in the Entrance Corridors.
25. Light should have the appearance of white light with a warm soft glow; however, a consistent
appearance throughout a site or development is required. Consequently, if existing lamps that emit
non-white light are to remain, new lamps may be required to match them.
26. Dark brown, dark bronze, or black are appropriate colors for free-standing pole mounted light fixtures
in the Entrance Corridors.
27. The height and scale of freestanding, pole-mounted light fixtures should be compatible with the height
and scale of the buildings and the sites they are illuminating, and with the use of the site. Typically,
the height of freestanding pole-mounted light fixtures in the Entrance Corridors should not exceed 20
feet, including the base. Fixtures that exceed 20 feet in height will typically require additional
screening to achieve an appropriate appearance from the Entrance Corridor.
28. In determining the appropriateness of lighting fixtures for the Entrance Corridors, the individual
context of the site will be taken into consideration on a case by case basis.
29. The following note should be included on the lighting plan: ―Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a
lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire. The spillover of lighting
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 185)
from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not
exceed one half footcandle.‖
Guidelines for the Use of Decorative Landscape Lighting
If other site lighting is visible from the Entrance Corridor, lighting used for decorative purposes will generally
not be approved. However, the ARB will review each proposal to determine impact and appropriateness for
the Entrance Corridor.
30. Exterior light used for decorative effect shall:
a) be compatible with the character of the Entrance Corridor. Compatibility of exterior lighting
and lighting fixtures is assessed in terms of design, use, size, scale, color, and brightness.
b) impact only the immediate site. The effect of the illumination should not be discernible from
distances along the Entrance Corridor.
31. Where used for decorative effect, outdoor light fixtures shall:
a) be equipped with automatic timing devices and shall be extinguished between the hours of
11:00 p.m. and dawn.
b) be shielded and focused to eliminate glare. Glare control shall be achieved primarily through
the use of such means as cutoff fixtures, shields and baffles, and appropriate application of
mounting height, wattage, aiming angle, fixture placement, etc.
c) be cutoff luminaires, aimed so as not to project their output beyond the objects intended to be
illuminated; or non-cutoff luminaires, equipped with glare shields, visors, barn doors, and/or
other similar shielding accessories as required to meet the following criteria: Light distribution
from all lighting installations shall be cut-off at all angles beyond those required to restrict
direct illumination to within the perimeter of the landscape feature being illuminated.
d) never exceed 3,000 lumens. Further restrictions on lumens may be imposed by the ARB.
e) not be modified to reflect seasonal colors.
f) be of a number that is compatible with the scale of the object and the development to be
illuminated, such that the light emitted will not over-illuminate or overpower the site, as
determined by the ARB.
Signs
See the ARB‘s revised sign guidelines, adopted October 13, 2004.
Landscaping
32. Landscaping along the frontage of Entrance Corridor streets should include the following:
a) Large shade trees should be planted parallel to the Entrance Corridor Street. Such trees should
be at least 3½ inches caliper (measured 6 inches above the ground) and should be of a plant
species common to the area. Such trees should be located at least every 35 feet on center.
b) Flowering ornamental trees of a species common to the area should be interspersed among the
trees required by the preceding paragraph. The ornamental trees need not alternate one for one
with the large shade trees. They may be planted among the large shade trees in a less regular
spacing pattern.
c) In situations where appropriate, a three or four board fence or low stone wall, typical of the area,
should align the frontage of the Entrance Corridor street.
d) An area of sufficient width to accommodate the foregoing plantings and fencing should be
reserved parallel to the Entrance Corridor street, and exclusive of road right-of-way and utility
easements.
33. Landscaping along interior roads:
a) Large trees should be planted parallel to all interior roads. Such trees should be at least 2½
inches caliper (measured six inches above the ground) and should be of a plant species
common to the area. Such trees should be located at least every 40 feet on center.
34. Landscaping along interior pedestrian ways:
a) Medium trees should be planted parallel to all interior pedestrian ways. Such trees should be at
least 2½ inches caliper (measured six inches above the ground) and should be of a species
common to the area. Such trees should be located at least every 25 feet on center.
35. Landscaping of parking areas:
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 186)
a) Large trees should align the perimeter of parking areas, located 40 feet on center. Trees should
be planted in the interior of parking areas at the rate of one tree for every 10 parking spaces
provided and should be evenly distributed throughout the interior of the parking area.
b) Trees required by the preceding paragraph should measure 2½ inches caliper (measured six
inches above the ground); should be evenly spaced; and should be of a species common to the
area. Such trees should be planted in planters or medians sufficiently large to maintain the
health of the tree and shall be protected by curbing.
c) Shrubs should be provided as necessary to minimize the parking area‘s impact on Entrance
Corridor streets. Shrubs should measure 24 inches in height.
36. Landscaping of buildings and other structures:
a) Trees or other vegetation should be planted along the front of long buildings as necessary to
soften the appearance of exterior walls. The spacing, size, and type of such trees or vegetation
should be determined by the length, height, and blankness of such walls.
b) Shrubs should be used to integrate the site, buildings, and other structures; dumpsters,
accessory buildings and structures; ―drive thru‖ windows; service areas; and signs. Shrubs
should measure at least 24 inches in height.
37. Plant species:
a) Plant species required should be as approved by the Staff based upon but not limited to the
Generic Landscape Plan Recommended Species List and Native Plants for Virginia
Landscapes.
38. Plant health:
a) The following note should be added to the landscape plan: ―All site plantings of trees and
shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is
prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health
of the plant.‖
Site development and layout:
Development pattern
39. The relationship of buildings and other structures to the Entrance Corridor street and to other
development within the corridor should be as follows:
a) An organized pattern of roads, service lanes, bike paths, and pedestrian walks should guide the
layout of the site.
b) In general, buildings fronting the Entrance Corridor street should be parallel to the street.
Building groupings should be arranged to parallel the Entrance Corridor street.
c) Provisions should be made for connections to adjacent pedestrian and vehicular circulation
systems.
d) Open spaces should be tied into surrounding areas to provide continuity within the Entrance
Corridor.
e) If significant natural features exist on the site (including creek valleys, steep slopes, significant
trees or rock outcroppings), to the extent practical, then such natural features should be
reflected in the site layout. If the provisions of Section 32.5.6.n of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance apply, then improvements required by that section should be located so as to
maximize the use of existing features in screening such improvements from Entrance Corridor
streets.
f) The placement of structures on the site should respect existing views and vistas on and around
the site.
Site Grading
40. Site grading should maintain the basic relationship of the site to surrounding conditions by limiting the
use of retaining walls and by shaping the terrain through the use of smooth, rounded land forms that
blend with the existing terrain. Steep cut or fill sections are generally unacceptable. Proposed contours
on the grading plan shall be rounded with a ten foot minimum radius where they meet the adjacent
condition. Final grading should achieve a natural, rather than engineered, appearance. Retaining walls 6
feet in height and taller, when necessary, shall be terraced and planted to blend with the landscape.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 187)
41. No grading, trenching, or tunneling should occur within the drip line of any trees or other existing features
designated for preservation in the final Certificate of Appropriateness. Adequate tree protection fencing
should be shown on, and coordinated throughout, the grading, landscaping and erosion and sediment
control plans.
42. Areas designated for preservation in the final Certificate of Appropriateness should be clearly delineated
and protected on the site prior to any grading activity on the site. This protection should remain in place
until completion of the development of the site.
43. Preservation areas should be protected from storage or movement of heavy equipment within this area.
44. Natural drainage patterns (or to the extent required, new drainage patterns) should be incorporated into
the finished site to the extent possible
45. Fuel Pump Canopies
(Adopted by the ARB on August 25, 1998, revised October 13, 2004)
a) Fuel pump canopies may be required to provide customers with protection from the elements
and to provide lighting levels required for dispensing fuel. Such fuel pump canopies are
functional elements of present-day gas/convenience stores and their character and
appearance shall reflect a minimalist design consistent with that function.
b) Fuel pump canopies shall be the smallest size possible to offer protection from the elements.
Canopies shall not exceed the sizes identified in Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies as
outlined in Appendix B.
c) The size of the canopy fascia and canopy support columns shall be in proportion to the
overall size of the canopy structure. The fascia shall not exceed 36" in total height, including
any accent bands.
d) Canopy fascias shall not be illuminated.
e) Lighting of fuel pump canopies shall be of the lowest level that will provide safe dispensing of
fuel. All canopy lighting shall be flush-mounted and shielded, downward directed, and shall
not emit light above the horizontal plane. All canopy lighting shall meet the .5 foot -candle
spillover requirement in compliance with zoning ordinance regulations.
f) Canopy related elements, including fuel dispensers, support columns, spandrels, planters,
etc. shall be compatible with the character of the building and site and shall not be used for
advertising.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 188)
g) The architectural elements of a building should not be altered to reflect trademark canopy
design.
h) Canopy fascias shall be limited to the use of one principal color, with ARB review.
i) Colors, materials, forms, and detailing may be used to coordinate canopies with a site, its
building(s), and structures.
j) Fuel pump canopy applicants should refer to ARB Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies.
(Appendix B).
APPENDIX A
The following list contains properties that serve as examples for architecture and site design proposed within the
Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The list contains historic buildings as well as more recently constructed
buildings. The buildings are located within Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville.
Albemarle County Court House
Albemarle First Bank (Route 29 North)
Liberty Station & Convenience Store (previously Amoco, intersection of Route 29 North and
Airport Road)
Ash Lawn
Barracks Road Shopping Center (Barracks Road and Emmet Street intersection)
Crestar Building (High Street)
Forest Lakes Commercial Area (intersection of Route 29 North and Airport Road)
Ivy Commons (Ivy Road)
Legal Research Building (Route 250 West)
McDonald's (intersection of Route 250 East and Route 20 North)
Memorial Gym (University of Virginia)
Monticello
Moser Radiation Therapy Center (Route 250 West)
Peter Jefferson Place (Route 250 East)
Queen Charlotte (High Street)
Rotunda and the Lawn (University of Virginia)
Shell Convenience Store Building (Route 250 East)
Wachovia Bank (Route 29 North)
The buildings as noted above are either historically significant or serve as examples of architecture compatible
with historically significant buildings in the Charlottesville and Albemarle area and serve as examples of shapes,
structures, materials, colors, textures, site development, and the integration of site and structure which are
encouraged by these guidelines.
It should be recognized, however, that replication of these examples will not necessarily result in the issuance of
a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Architectural Review Board because each building site and its context is
unique.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 189)
APPENDIX B
Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies
(Adopted by the ARB on August 13, 1998)
LENGTH
Maximum length for a single island canopy = 26'
(= 4' comfort zone front + 18' auto length + 4' comfort zone back)
Maximum length for a double island canopy = 42'
(= 2' comfort zone front + 18' auto length + 2' comfort zone middle + 18' auto length + 2' comfort zone
back)
Maximum length for a triple island canopy = 66'
(= 3' comfort zone front + 18' auto length + 3' comfort zone middle + 18' auto length + 3' comfort zone
back + 18' auto length + 3' comfort zone back)
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 190)
WIDTH
Maximum width for single island canopies = 26'. (= 3' (open door overhang) + 6' (car width) + 2' (curb
clearance) + 4' (island width) + 2' (curb clearance) + 6' (car width) + 3' (open door overhang))
HEIGHT (from ground to bottom of fascia)
Maximum acceptable height is 14' 6‖.
FASCIA HEIGHT
Maximum fascia height is 36‖.
FUEL DISPENSER SIZE
A typical size is 7' 9" high (approximately half the minimum canopy height), 4'6" wide, 32" deep.
ISLAND SIZE
A typical size is 12-14' long, 4' wide, 9" tall
__________________
Agenda Item No.18. Bright Stars Annual Report, Charity Haines.
Ms. Charity Haines, Program Coordinator for Albemarle County Bright Stars Preschool Program,
said she is pleased to present their 2010 Annual Report. In addition to Bright Stars, this report
encompasses the Title I and Early Childhood Special Education Programs in Albemarle County. Ms.
Haines stated that for the past three years these programs have been blending their resources and their
practices to create a more unified, efficient and holistic approach to preschool. She also said that Bright
Stars has coordinated more closely with Head Start and City preschools to improve outreach and
enrollment of children who are eligible for services. The first ten pages of this report address the wider
preschool network and the last part of the report is more Bright Stars specific.
Ms. Haines said that the number of children participating in preschool programs has grown over
the last several years as a result of the partnerships forged with Title I, Early Childhood Special Education
and certain private preschools in the community that meet the same standards as the County. She stated
that Stony Point started a preschool in 2010 that is a fully blended program with 16 children. She noted
that the children have made significant gains in language and literacy. They tested the children the last
week of September and the first week in October on certain language and literary skills at which times
their achievement levels were fairly low. They tested the children again the end of May and saw huge
progress. Ms. Haines reported that the blended and standalone programs in 2010 reached the highest
level of achievement they have reached since 2004, when the assessment tool was redone and made
more difficult. She said that 82% of children in the blended programs reached or exceeded the
benchmark score for kindergarten readiness, and in the standalone programs 80% reached or exceeded
the benchmark.
Ms. Haines reported that social and personal development also benefit preschool children, as they
learn how to get along with others, share, take turns, follow directions, ask for help, and be excited about
learning. She said that in the fall about 50% of the children come in with these skills, and that number
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 191)
jumped significantly by the spring. In the parent evaluation, Ms. Haines said that parents rate the program
very highly and there have been long waiting lists over the last three years, and last year the list exceeded
75 children. These are children who are eligible but no space was available.
Mr. Rooker asked how the blending of these programs has worked.
Ms. Haines responded that it has been challenging because they are trying to blend financial and
teacher resources, curriculum, and parent involvement. About three years ago they received a grant -
Inclusive Placement Opportunities for Preschoolers - that encouraged expansion opportunities for
inclusion of special education children with more typically developing peers. They continued to have the
same number of Bright Stars children, which they split into two classes, and then introduced four special
education children into each of the classes. At times they had to get extra resources and teachers had to
learn new skills. She said that some of the strategies used for early special ed children were very, very
workable for the more typically developing at-risk children, and there was a lot of teacher training and
teacher‘s assistant training needed for this blending. Ms. Haines said that they also reached out to some
private preschools, but there were some obstacles to partnering because of certain requirements under
the program.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the afterschool program at Yancey Elementary School is still going on. Ms.
Haines responded that it is. Mr. Dorrier asked if it was included in this information. Ms. Haines responded
―no‖; it is an afterschool program, not preschool.
Mr. Boyd asked if it is because of funding that the additional 75 children could not be in the
program. Ms. Haines said that the State cap on how many children can be served is 139, and the total
cost is about $9,500 per pupil on average. Ms. Haines added that the schools make up a portion of the
local match, but mostly through in-kind contributions, and even if there were more money there is not
space available.
Mr. Rooker asked if the new YMCA building and the new Boys and Girls Club building on Cherry
Avenue could possibly be used. Mr. Boyd pointed out that there may be transportation issues with that
arrangement. When the program is in existing schools, they can use County buses.
Ms. Haines reported that because Bright Stars is a DSS administered program there are outcome
measures that must be met each year, and these goals have been essentially the same over the last five
years. She said that one goal is that children attending program will reach or exceed the benchmark
score for pre-K readiness, which 80% of them did this year. She said that 78% of them achieved
Kindergarten-level readiness, measured by those who have remained in the County. Ms. Haines stated
that there are also goals for parents to attend functions, and they exceeded the targets in attending school
functions and parent conferences, which is largely because of the work of the Family Coordinators who
make repeated phone calls and provide transportation to get the parents to the schools. She also said
that they ask parents to set goals for themselves, which has been particularly challenging, but currently
85% of parents have reached the goals they set for themselves.
In terms of demographics, Ms. Haines reported that there is a large number of Latino families in
the program, 25%, but that has had to be limited because there would be more students speaking
Spanish than English which would not be a very wise balance. She added that 39% of parents did not
finish high school or get a GED, and most of them are Latino parents who went to 6th grade and then
dropped out.
Ms. Haines then presented information on Bright Stars alumni, stating that they are able to track
children through 5th grade. She said that often the supports offered in preschool that made it possible for
them to succeed are not available in higher grades, so student performance eventually declines. Ms.
Haines stated that there are families that continue to ask for ongoing support in areas such as housing,
education, employment, help for other children, etc., and there are three schools that have a high level of
need for the alumni services.
She concluded by stating that out of the children who are enrolled in Bright Stars, including
alumni, only 1% have been removed from the home due to child abuse and neglect, and less than 2%
have an open child protective services case. Ms. Haines said she thinks they are able to stabilize families
that may be a little more insecure and at risk before they hit the point of court involvement. She added
that there is lots of support in the community, including participation in the Safe Schools Healthy Students
Grant, with a family worker for two schools provided for Bright Stars out of that funding. She also said that
the program was selected by the State for their quality rating improvement system, and is part of the pre-K
Spanish PALS Pilot program with 35 children participating. Ms. Haines said that Bright Stars is also part
of UVA‘s Preschool Relationship Enhancement Project, the Martha Jefferson Hospital Dental Grant, and
received a grant to purchase Spanish/English-language storybooks to send home as a lending library for
parents. Ms. Haines reported that there is a grant through Music Today for a special program in
Scottsville for parents and children, which began in January. She added that the program also received a
Health Department grant to address obesity, and received money for bikes, helmets and gardening
supplies. She reiterated that they are very well connected in the community. Ms. Haines thanked the
Board and the community for supporting Bright Stars.
Ms. Mallek said that one of the classes came to her farm last year and hopes that they will come
back again next year.
Mr. Dorrier commented that Bright Stars is recognized as one of the best programs in the County.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 192)
Mr. Rooker asked Ms. Haines what the relationship is with Smart Beginnings. Ms. Haines
responded that Smart Beginnings is still operating, and Bright Stars participated as one of their member
organizations, along with Schools and Social Services. She explained that they have given Bright Stars
funding for books and pamphlets for kindergarten readiness. Smart Beginnings tries to gather data to
show how effective programs are.
Mr. Rooker said that when he met with Smart Beginnings they seemed to have specific ideas
about pre-K education that would run on a parallel track, but he has not really seen that occur. Ms. Haines
explained that Smart Beginnings is going through some leadership changes right now. They are engaged
in the quality rating improvement system that looks at classroom environment with a component of
teacher-child interaction.
Ms. Kathy Ralston, Director of Social Services, said that Smart Beginnings is really a concept, and
is a program at the State level that was funded by the Virginia Early Childhood Council under Governor
Kaine. She said that the Partnership for Children is a collaboration in this community of about 15
agencies that serve 0-6 age children, and got a grant from Smart Beginnings, with United Way serving as
fiscal agent. Ms. Ralston said that Smart Beginnings has a leadership council that was required by the
grant that United Way manages, and is really aligned with the Partnership for Children.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that when Governor Kaine was elected, one of his platform issues was to
bring pre-K education to all the children in the State but the funding was never available to do that.
Ms. Ralston noted that Bright Stars received a few grants under his administration to enhance the
inclusiveness and to work more with the private sector, which is when they got connected with local
private preschools.
Mr. Snow asked if there is a plan that could be established to include the 75 children who are
currently not part of the program. Ms. Haines responded that the need is definitely recognized, and most
of those children are in the Cale, Agnor Hurt and Greer School District, although there are waiting lists
now at Scottsville and Red Hill. She stated that they work as closely as possible with Head Start and the
City preschool. Last year Smart Beginnings developed a tool kit for parents to use who had children on
the waiting list.
Ms. Ralston said that there is a great opportunity with the Smart Beginnings Leadership Council to
forge a public-private partnership. She added that all it takes is money, and another learning cottage, a
trailer, if the School has a footprint to put the trailer. Staff could certainly look at that further if that is the
Board‘s desire.
Mr. Rooker stated that it would be interesting to look into that possibility, as there is no greater
impact on kids‘ lives than getting them started in school well.
Mr. Boyd commented that it would be valuable to follow up with Smart Beginnings, as it seems
that combining forces with them might allow more children to enter the program.
Ms. Ralston responded that she has had that conversation with Ms. Kathy Train and would re-
approach it.
Board members thanked them for all their work.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 19. Community Development Work Program.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
―The purpose of this work session is to establish work program priorities for Community
Development for calendar year 2011. Community Development reviews its workload and Board priorities
annually to set direction for the upcoming year. Historically, the recommended initiatives have greatly
exceeded staff resources available to work on them, making it necessary to prioritize initiatives. This
annual review provides the Board the opportunity to set priorities and establish an annual work program.
The last annual review was completed in February 2010 and the adopted work program is provided as
Attachment A. Attachment B provides a status report of staff‘s efforts on the 2010 work program while
Attachment C offers a historical review of staffing, budget, and workload for Community Development,
establishing the baseline for available staff resources.
Resource Considerations:
In developing its 2011 work program, staff first focused on workload and available resources.
Staff resources are first dedicated to meeting federal, state and local mandates. Local mandates include
County ordinances that require plan reviews, permits issuance, and inspections. Ordinance enforcement
includes enforcement of Board policy, such as the Entrance Corridor Guidelines and the Comprehensive
Plan. After meeting those mandates, the remaining staff capacity is dedicated to the work program. To
assist the Board in understanding the current workload and staffing, staff has prepared an overview of
workload in key areas. (Attachment C). In preparing this, staff notes that Community Development staffing
has been reduced from 84 FTEs in FY 06 to its current authorized level of 59 FTEs which represents an
overall 30% reduction. Staff also notes that on an inflation adjusted basis, Community Development has
witnessed a 29% budget reduction since FY 06. Through 2009, the staff reduction roughly matched the
reduction in workload. However, in 2010, the workload began to increase while staffing reductions
continued. This has created a reduction in the available staff resources to dedicate to the work program.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 193)
In an effort to continue to make progress on the achievement of the work program, staff has modified and
eliminated programs that are not mandated. For example, staff no longer provides assistance to property
owners with respect to stream buffers or groundwater issues and staff has prioritized zoning enforcement
to focus limited resources on the areas of highest concern (e.g. Entrance Corridors).
Priorities:
Staff has recommended priorities for the 2011 work program, focusing on three factors. First, staff
has considered mandates. Beyond the ordinance enforcement discussed above, the County is required
by State law to review its Comprehensive Plan every five years. As initiated in the 2010 work program,
staff has started a multi-year effort to update the Comprehensive Plan and anticipates some of these
sections will reach the Planning Commission in the second half of 2011. Staff notes this will include last
year‘s State mandate with respect to ―Urban Development Areas.‖
Second, staff is focused on the Board‘s January 6, 2010 Action Plan, with its efforts primarily
focused on modifications to the ministerial and legislative review processes as considered by the Board in
June and September 2010.
Third, and finally, staff is focused on other initiatives that address process improvements or clarify
ordinance requirements. These efforts include the current review of noise standards for wineries and
simplifying the administration of critical slope requirements in the Development Areas As these items are
the lowest priority of the three, the Board should recognize that work on these initiatives may be delayed if
the mandated workload significantly increases or new initiatives are given a higher priority.
Proposed Work Program:
Staff‘s recommended work program is provided as Attachment D. In establishing the priorities,
staff anticipates that the Board could complete the review of Places 29 in the first quarter of 2011 without
a need for significant staff time. With respect to the work on the Comprehensive Plan, staff notes this will
include the State mandated changes for Urban Development Areas. Staff anticipates hiring a temporary
planner in the first half of 2011, entirely funded by a grant already received by the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission, to assist with this effort.
Beyond work on mandated programs, staff‘s primary focus is completing the modifications to the
ministerial and legislative review processes, as agreed to by the Board, recognizing that these are listed
as strategies in the Economic Vitality Action Plan that was adopted in 2010. Staff anticipates that the
ordinance amendments for the ministerial processes will reach the Planning Commission in the second
quarter of 2011 and the revisions to the legislative processes near the end of the third quarter of 2011.
This puts the ministerial process ahead of the schedule discussed with the Board in June 2010. The
legislative processes are behind the September 2010 schedule due to a surge in legislative applications
seen in late 2010 and staff resources being diverted to work on Places 29, which had been expected to be
completed in the first quarter of 2010. Beyond those efforts, staff anticipates supporting the other 2011
strategies of the Economic Vitality Action Plan.
Remaining staff time has been dedicated to ordinance revisions, such as the winery noise
amendment and critical slopes. Items that have been recommended for deferral include consideration of
Historic Resources or Natural Heritage ordinances, as well as engineering process and stormwater
changes. With respect to stormwater changes, staff anticipates significant work may be required in 2012
related to the Watershed Implementation Plan for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, but there is not enough
information at this time to estimate the level of effort that will be required to make these mandated
modifications. Finally, staff notes that some additional initiatives are listed as ―constrained‖ in Attachment
D, meaning those are the initiatives staff plans to support on a time available basis. If other efforts require
more time than anticipated, staff anticipates these issues would be deferred to a future year.
This work program has been drafted to fit within the department‘s current FY 11 budget and
its anticipated FY 12 budget. Staff has assumed the workload will continue the current trend of small
increases and that no additional staff resources will be made available by the Board. If the workload
exceeds what current staffing can accomplish, or if additional staff reductions are made, it will be
necessary to make adjustments to this work program and some items may need to be deferred or
eliminated.
Staff requests that the Board consider the 2011 work program as proposed in Attachment D,
advise staff of any changes desired in it, and authorize staff implementation.
__________
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said that every year Community
Development comes forward and talk about its work program, workload, and presents information on
initiatives and available resources. He commented that there are always more initiatives than resources,
so everything must be prioritized. Mr. Graham stated that the steps today are to 1) will review progress
with the 2010 work program; 2) review staff workload and availability for 2011 work program; 3) set
priorities for 2011 work program and 4) establish 2011 work program by balancing resources against
priorities.
With respect to the current program, since Places 29 was approved earlier by the Board, it gets
removed from the list. The one area staff has neglected due to other priorities is a review of RA uses and
evaluation of changing the regulations with respect to requiring special permits associated with churches
in the rural areas. Mr. Graham said that this is primarily a result of Planners who are getting overwhelmed
by the number of legislative applications before them. He said that everything else is either completed or
on schedule, with other changes forthcoming in the zoning district performance standards.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 194)
Mr. Graham reported that the Comp Plan update started late fall, but staff is a little behind
because of other staff priorities regarding legislative applications. He said that the Department has gone
from 84 employees in 2006 down to 58 by the end of 2010, or an approximate one-third reduction in staff.
Mr. Graham explained that three tiers of staff deal with building permit applications: the Intake Specialist
- who ensures that an applicant knows what permit is needed and what fees to pay; the Zoning Inspector
- who tries to make sure that buildings are put in proper locations to match intended use; and the Building
Inspectors - who ensure that the structure meets Building Code requirements. Mr. Graham stated that
when comparing number of applications per staff person managing them, the Building Inspector‘s
workload is lower than it was in 2006, but both the Intake Specialist and Zoning Inspector had significantly
increased workloads, even though the total number of applications is down.
Mr. Graham presented information on the number of applications related to erosion and sediment
control plans, storm water management plans, stream buffer protection and groundwater protection, with a
significant trending upward in 2010. He said that the same holds true for the zoning workload, adding that
there are indicators here of new business formation, zoning clearance and signs, as every new business
gets a clearance to operate and wants to put up a sign. Mr. Graham stated that things were trending
down until 2009, then they began to trend back upward. He reported that zoning violations are the most
time intensive activity, and the number being managed by a Zoning Inspector has increased significantly.
Mr. Boyd asked if the names of new businesses would be public information, and asked if that
could be shared with Economic Development staff.
Mr. Graham responded that a weekly download of who is asking for zoning clearance and signage
could be provided to them, adding that Ms. Stimart has already been using it but it has been somewhat of
an overwhelming tool to use. Mr. Graham commented that it is difficult for staff to have a good feel for the
market dynamics with available space and occupied space.
Mr. Snow said that he had four buildings go empty, but then were all filled by existing businesses.
Mr. Graham noted that there are many situations where someone has moved from the City out
into the County, and businesses in the County might choose to move to Zions Crossroads to save money
on their rent. He stated all of this information is available online right now through the County View
website.
Mr. Boyd asked if it would make sense to have an online clearing place where inspectors, TJPED,
etc. could put in this information.
Mr. Rooker said that it seems the realtors would have all of this information. He added that is
their business, why should the County be doing that?
Mr. Graham stated that there is always a story behind the information, with a number of factors
playing into the data.
Mr. Boyd suggested talking to CAAR about supporting this database.
Mr. Rooker said that the data is already there, but it is a question of people tapping into it.
Mr. Graham noted that there are people out there who routinely screen the data, looking for
market advantages.
Mr. Graham reported that there was a very significant drop in subdivision and site plan
applications in 2009, and that really has not rebounded at all yet, with site plans being a great indicator of
commercial activity. He said that the workload for those staff members has been fairly flat. Mr. Graham
reported that there was an enormous jump in legislative applications between 2009 and 2010, with most of
this happening in the second half of 2010, due primarily to a change in zoning fees effective January 1,
2011. With this surge in applications, Mr. Graham stated that this has meant there is very little capacity
left for planners to pick up other things, such as ordinance amendments and the Comp Plan. He added
that this wave would probably last until mid-2011, noting that these are applications that must be approved
by the Board such as special use permits and rezonings.
Mr. Thomas asked if he had any information on the effect of the increase in tapping fees by the
Service Authority. Mr. Graham noted that the Service Authority signs off on building permits, and
someone from that department comes into Community Development and logs into the database, checking
off permits that are ready to be approved.
Mr. Graham said that the ARB workload has increased, but the simplification of the process has
been the saving grace as it has made it more administrative.
To summarize 2011 workload, Mr. Graham reported that there is a cautious upward trend in
development activity, and staff capacity is stretched, with difficulty keeping up with some tasks in a
number of programs. He said that the quality drops when the workload exceeds capacity, just as it does
with any business. Mr. Graham added that there are also fewer resources available to work on all the
Board initiatives coming forward. He said that a lot of staff members are sticking it out because there are
no other jobs, but if that changes there is the potential future threat that a lot of experienced staff people
are going to leave. He commented that they are pushing awfully hard on some of these people. Mr.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 195)
Graham noted that staff would be addressing this with the Board in discussions of the development review
process.
Mr. Snow commented that this is going on across the board, with the private sector, people trying
to cut costs. Ms. Graham agreed that it is a threat right now, with everyone stretching resources as tight
as possible.
Mr. Graham reported that the County processed a record number of ordinance amendments, 29
in 2009, and indicated that most of the staff capacity to work on Board initiatives is being consumed by the
surge of legislative applications being processed. He stated that he expects to have more resources
available when that surge is over. He noted that the Planning District Commission has a sustainability
grant available to fund a temporary planner who would work on the Comp Plan updates with no additional
cost to the County.
Mr. Graham reported that Community Development has a number of priorities. The first is legal
mandates: a) the County has to enforce the existing ordinances, b) monitoring of conservation easements
as required, c) updating of the Comprehensive Plan to include some recent mandates from the General
Assembly on urban development areas, and d) a monitoring/analysis of TMDL legislation impacts, with an
expected financial commitment for the County starting in 2013.
Mr. Graham reported that the next priority is County initiatives: a) focusing on the action plan from
January 2010, and b) development review processes such as the industrial zoning evaluation, sign
regulations, and implementation of the Economic Vitality Action Plan.
Mr. Graham said that there are also a number of ordinance amendments that are underway: a)
critical slopes, b) industrial uses, c) winery noise, d) home occupations which is complete, and e) RA
churches. He stated that the major work program decision is whether to break out the interstate
interchange policy and possible expansion of Light Industrial.
Mr. Graham said staff would like to bring the work plan forward by the end of the calendar year,
although it is going to need to tie into the Target Industries Study because you need to know what you are
trying to accomplish before you plan the uses. If there is a Board interest to try to accelerate that, staff
can go back and look at it, but for the first part of 2011 it is going to be very difficult to free up resources
without stopping some other initiatives that are already in progress, including items in the Economic
Vitality Action Plan.
Mr. Rooker commented that it seems to him that it would save time if they did the work on the RA
churches. Mr. Graham said that is true, but the County is mandated by schedule to turn legislative
applications around. They have to find the time to free up the resources to get it done. He added that he
really feels stymied there.
Mr. Graham stated that staff is ready for legislative redistricting with the GIS people whenever that
comes forward, staff plans continue to participate in the TMDL process, and staff plans to do a better job
to improve conservation easement inspections. He said that the County initiatives include the Economic
Vitality Action Plan, with pursuit of new initiatives and maintenance of current programs, such as citizens
advisory councils, PACC and participation in the MPO.
Mr. Graham emphasized that if staff can find the resources, it would really like to get the RA
churches zoning ordinance through the system. He said that the engineering storm water management
was on the 2010 work program and went untouched. He is recommending that nothing be done with it
until 2012 as the TMDL is going to require other changes. Mr. Rooker commented that that makes sense.
Ms. Mallek said that staff can have a list of options available. The County will need to assess
local capabilities and establish which community groups can take on some responsibility. Mr. Graham
responded that he is fully anticipating extensive interaction with others, stating that the Board will have to
make some policy decisions moving forward.
Ms. Mallek commented that there is a large stakeholder group to be tapped into. Mr. Graham
agreed, noting that there are several groups.
Mr. Graham said that farm wineries are already being dealt with. They are trying to find the
resources to try to simplify the critical slopes process in development areas would likely not be addressed
until later in 2011. They are currently trying to get together a proposal in a form to go back to the public
and then get to the Planning Commission. Mr. Graham explained that a change in the definition of critical
slopes is not being considered, except in certain special cases such as when a manmade slope is isolated
and away from any other resources. He added that there is also a need to give the ability to handle some
of them administratively.
Mr. Rooker noted that 99% of the waiver requests get approved but the question is what
conditions are put on those approvals. Mr. Graham said that is what they are working on.
Mr. Graham stated that he has provided a proposed work program for 2011 as an attachment to
the executive summary. If Board members for any changes they may have and staff would start using
them.
Mr. Boyd noted that a revised approach may reduce staff time in one area, and he would like to
translate this into dollar costs and understand the impact. Mr. Graham said that he struggles with a large
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 196)
number of these because it is partially a quantitative exercise but partially a qualitative exercise and trying
to create a value for the qualitative portion is difficult.
Mr. Boyd clarified that he would like for staff to designate the resources that are going to each
initiative.
Mr. Foley said that the Board could evaluate the plan with recommendations as to high priority
issues that they would like to see done differently.
Mr. Boyd said, for example, if they concentrate on LI, put ―x‖ it, it will cost ―x‖ dollars, and then
what is expected to be gained from that. What would it mean to the County to put priority on that issue and
what would it cost as opposed to devoting the same amount on money on the Comp Plan.
Mr. Graham stated that it could be estimated as to how much staff time would be saved by
making changes in the ordinance, but it is difficult to put a value on that from the applicant‘s perspective.
Mr. Boyd said if the Board puts high priority on LI and RA churches, does it mean they will get
done in two months as opposed to a year and a half. What does that mean to the County?
Mr. Rooker said the outcome has been Board generated and whether it is going to get approved
you don‘t know.
Mr. Boyd commented that some initiatives such as the master plan groups have been able to
move on without a lot of staff time. Are there other things that can be done like that.
Mr. Rooker noted that there are measurable efficiencies to be realized in things like the RA
churches, which might follow a similar course as cell towers, with ministerial approval by staff instead of
going before the Commission and Board. He added you can make kind of a cost benefit analysis there.
Mr. Boyd said that this kind of information is needed relative to other projects, with expected costs
and timeframe and anticipated benefit – which may not be anything more than a question answered for
the Board.
Mr. Rooker commented that a whole lot of time can be spent getting to that point.
Mr. Foley mentioned that Mr. Graham has an M.B.A. and could do a very complicated evaluation/
outcome review, but the most helpful thing is for the Board to direct him toward certain areas instead of a
detailed analysis on every scenario.
Mr. Rooker said that he would like to see the RA churches issue moved forward. He thinks it
would save money in the long run and save the applicants money. Mr. Foley said staff could take a look
at that.
Ms. Mallek commented that she thought Ms. Joan McDowell had been working on that for ages.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that due to changes in staffing, she has been assigned to other matters.
Mr. Boyd said that he would like to see a broader approach because it bothers him to hear that
staff is overtaxed now, as the decision has already been made to have the staff level where it is.
Ms. Mallek stated that it was cut because the economy was slow and the workload was slower,
but the Board needs to remember that the Community Development Department is five departments
combined, unlike other localities. She also said that during a previous discussion on Light Industrial the
decision of the Board at that time was not to separate out one part of the Comp Plan because it was
determined that the work would have to be repeated during the full evaluation, and because it should not
be treated without the other components of rural area being considered.
Mr. Snow commented that he likes the way the Library Study was handled, with a need identified
and report done by Ms. Roxanne White that will save the County money in the long run. He said that the
manpower the County has need to be used wisely, with someone brought in from the outside occasionally
to help with major projects that cannot be covered with existing staff.
Mr. Foley suggested having the Board identify things that they would like to see move forward
more quickly, based on what Mr. Graham has presented in terms of timeline. He stated if there are some
things that you would like accelerated, they would have to do that analysis and can give the Board
alternatives on how to achieve it.
Mr. Snow commented that this is a situation where it could be studied and analyzed more, but the
end result would likely be staff coming back and saying based on our experience, this is what we know.
He added that they can go forward without spending time and energy on a study.
Mr. Foley said, he thinks Mr. Graham is providing the Board his best picture right now of what staff
can get done, with that analysis behind it.
Mr. Graham said that he really appreciates the Board asking for analysis before requesting staff to
move forward with the work. He thinks it makes for better decisions by everybody.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 197)
Ms. Mallek said that the Board has dropped several initiatives on staff with a very short timeframe,
such as farm stands, and this year it is the farm wineries noise.
Mr. Foley commented that it sounds like the RA churches is one such initiative that could move
forward more quickly.
Mr. Rooker stated that it may be efficient to do what Mr. Snow recommends as far as bringing in
someone to help when needed. The RA church situation may save significant time for staff over the long
run.
Mr. Snow said the Board is very open to feedback on what it is asking staff to do.
Mr. Foley said that staff could take another look at this to see if there is a way to bring some
things forward sooner. In addition to RA churches, he is hearing from the Board that Light Industrial is to
considered under the review of the whole Comp Plan.
Mr. Boyd said that he does not feel he has a cost-benefit analysis on that issue.
Mr. Foley asked if there is a desire to accelerate that process.
Mr. Rooker said that the idea was to wait for the Target Industry Report to have a better idea of
what the County wants to accomplish. He thinks it would be a waste of time and money to have staff run
out and do something that is not well defined. He added that the study should inform the County on what
kinds of businesses are likely to expand here and the kind of space they may need, and how it might fit
into zoning and the Comp Plan.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would rather have that type of demand study generated from the private
sector, but there have been a number of private developments that have rushed through approvals such
as North Point and Avon Place.
Mr. Rooker said that applicants tend to be overly optimistic at the time they come forward with
their projects in terms of how many houses they are going to sell and how fast they are going to sell them,
or how much retail space they are going to lease.
Ms. Mallek commented that you would never be an entrepreneur if you were not optimistic.
Mr. Cilimberg said, a lot of these projects are like quicksand, they start out as a fairly direct
consideration of an issue but as they evolve past the staff analysis actually into Planning Commission
work sessions and hearings and Board work sessions and hearings, they are mired down in issues that
we are going back and forth trying to find resolution to. He added that a lot of time is because of the
public involvement and the issues the applicants bring to the table. For example, mountain protection
became a huge time consumer for staff. Winery noises are turning out to be much more involved than
staff thought. He commented that applicants‘ wishes do not always come true, but even with that aside,
most of these projects have a lot of hot buttons to them that consume time.
Mr. Boyd commented that the reason the farm winery noise issue arose because of a problem
that has been expounded due to County regulations and requirements.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that a good example is the farm noise issue. When it was presented to
the Planning Commission, it was presented as a straightforward issue of staying with what you have and
propose objective decibel-based standards. The Commission tried to respond to some public issues that
were concerned about decibel-based, and concern about loosening up amplified noise allowances that
would affect adjacent owners. The Commission then asked staff to establish decibel readings that you
would not hear on adjacent properties. He said that staff is then put into the position of having to research
all of that.
Ms. Mallek asked if a joint work session with the Commission would help move this along.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that it would be helpful to know what the parameters for that meeting
would be, as staff already has marching orders from the Commission.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that applications such as Restore ‗N Station consume a huge amount of
time. Mr. Graham said that it took hundreds and hundreds of staff hours.
Mr. Boyd asked if it could have been circumvented by a better process.
Mr. Rooker responded that the neighbors felt the process ultimately worked.
Ms. Mallek added that the applicants are coming in with a plan they feel will ultimately work.
Mr. Graham said that in other counties that would get approved administratively, but Albemarle
has a much higher bar, which increases complexity and time, and makes it harder to predict an outcome.
He added that is who we are.
Mr. Thomas noted that in that situation the applicant kept coming back to the ARB with something
other than what they had requested.
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 198)
Mr. Rooker said that this is why applications often take so long.
Ms. Mallek commented that Old Trail was a perfect example of an applicant following the process
rules.
Mr. Foley asked the Board if they felt comfortable moving forward with the work plan.
Mr. Boyd commented that he would like to see the Light Industrial piece focused on and the
interstate-interchanges.
Mr. Rooker said that the Board just discussed having the Target Industries Study done first.
Mr. Boyd said that if it is a short term plan he would agree.
Ms. Cilimberg said that an early report had a target date for completion of September 2012. Staff
hopes in the Comp Plan process it would take information from the target industries work and combine it
with land use considerations to bring to the Board. He stated that staff has lost some time with the Comp
Plan but would gain some of it back with the new position. He added that several staff members would be
dedicated to the Comp Plan exclusively over the next two years.
Ms. Mallek asked when the new staff person would start.
Mr. Graham said he thinks in two to three months. He stated that he could turn around a quick
analysis on interstate-interchanges and Rural Area churches, with alternatives to expedite those
processes and cost-benefit analyses.
Mr. Dorrier said that there should be an analysis of growth area boundaries, what the County has
and what it has lost.
Mr. Graham and Mr. Cilimberg stated that that analysis is done early in the Comp Plan process.
Mr. Boyd commented that he is not sure he would have voted to move forward with Places 29
initially had he known it would take five years and 72 meetings. He also thinks that when they do a plan of
work on a particular project and it calls for four community meetings, the Board needs to hold to those
meetings and not expand them to a greater number.
Mr. Rooker said that the Board has a lot to do with dragging processes out longer, and needs to
be careful not to expect more and more of staff. The Board needs to be efficient in how it handles matters
and create work for staff.
Ms. Mallek said that the Board should begin to provide direction to staff as to what the top
priorities are.
Mr. Foley stated that today‘s discussion helps give that direction. He added that the reality is that
there cannot be an analysis of Light Industrial from the Target Industry Study until the end of the year.
Mr. Rooker noted that perhaps something else to move forward with more quickly is the critical
slopes analysis, as it saves time and money once it is done.
Mr. Graham said staff fully anticipates that the Board will bring up issues from time to time, but
they are resource limited and some things get delayed when they pick up other issues.
Mr. Boyd asked staff if they have ever used interns from UVA.
Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Graham responded that they have used them for quite some time and
would be lost without them. Mr. Graham said they have a high reliance on interns.
Ms. Mallek commented that the sustainable planner person will help the County considerably.
In terms of direction from the Board Mr. Graham said he will come back with a plan to expedite
the RA church issue and interstate interchange issue, as well as how it fits into the Target Industry Study.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 20. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Thomas said that he is meeting with Cracker Barrel officials today. They are interested in
putting a restaurant on 5th Street near the Holiday Inn. He said that they are also meeting soon with the
ARB.
__________
Ms. Mallek asked if Board members have any feedback on the Airport issue. Board members
expressed support with writing a letter. Ms. Mallek said she would work with Ms. Barbara Hutchinson from
the Airport and forward it back to the Board members through email.
Mr. Boyd said they do not want to do anything that will detract the County from having a vibrant
airport.
__________
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 199)
Ms. Mallek reported that the One Stop Center has received several grants for extra training and
staff. The rehabilitative services people are bringing in extra help.
__________
Mr. Cilimberg asked the Board if they want to schedule a joint work session with the Planning
Commission on the farm wineries noise ordinance.
Mr. Rooker said that a decibel standard makes sense, as it can be measured objectively and is
not influenced by ambient noise.
Ms. Mallek added that it also allows businesses to test levels prior to having an event.
Mr. Boyd said, if the issue can be expedited by having a joint meeting, he would support one.
Mr. Rooker stated that everyone on the Board seems to agree with the decibel standard, and he is
not sure why a joint work session is needed as the position can just be conveyed to the Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that they were considering a decibel standard that is very low.
Ms. Mallek said that one alternative is that it could be the same standard all businesses in the
County have to comply with.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested having each Board member talk to their Commissioner.
Mr. Boyd said that there is already a decibel standard in the rural areas, and it should not be
changed just for farm wineries. He also said that he does not support Police response because that
department is already overextended.
Mr. Snow commented that there is no other way to enforce it, as Zoning cannot be asked to
respond on the spot.
Mr. Davis said that it only applies to amplified music and the question is whether amplified music
is appropriate in the rural area, and if so who should be able to hear it.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff‘s understanding is that under Virginia Code it cannot be disallowed,
so the County is presented with an issue it must find its own answer to.
Mr. Davis said the question is who should hear it.
Ms. Mallek commented that a lot of it depends on topography, as she can hear the high school
band when they practice even though she lives ten miles away from the school.
Mr. Rooker said that he would like to provide the Commission with some direction before they
spend a lot of time on it.
Mr. Snow stated that it must be enforceable, and it likely will not happen more than once or twice.
Mr. Boyd asked if this should be raised to a criminal offense.
Mr. Davis pointed out that this is a zoning offense at this point. The Police do not have noise
meters nor are they trained. He also said that the Zoning Department has some meters and some
training, but there would still need to be an investment made if the requirement is for them to respond. He
added that Police are not an effective enforcement tool currently with a noise meter.
Mr. Dorrier said that someone could seek a warrant for disturbing the peace and proceed in that
way.
Mr. Boyd said since these events are generally prescheduled, could not arrangements be made
for a Zoning person to come out.
Ms. Mallek said the number is important so that it can be tested.
Mr. Davis stated that all of these issues would be debated by the Commission and with the
direction the Board has given, Mr. Cilimberg could proceed with work with the Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg again suggested that Board members talk with their Commission representatives.
__________________
February 2, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 200)
Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn to February 9, 2011, 9:00 a.m., Room 241.
At 4:36 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Rooker moved to adjourn
the meeting to February 9, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 241. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 07/13/2011
Initials: EWJ