2001-10-10October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October
10, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were no matters presented for discussion.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1, 5.2 and 5.5, and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda
as information.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 5.1. ZMA-1999-11. Clover Lawn Village (Preston Stallings) (Sign #42). Public hearing on a
request to rezone 6.80 acs from R-1 & HC to PD-MC. TM 56, Pcls 107, 107A & 107A1. Loc on Rockfish
Gap Tnpk (Rt 250W), across street from Blue Ridge Building Supply at 5221 Rockfish Gap Tnpk. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density Residential, recom for 3-6 du/ac in
the Village of Crozet. White Hall Dist. (Public hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on September 24
and October 1, 2001.)
At the request of staff, by the vote set out above, ZMA-1999-11, was deferred until the
Boards meeting on December 12, 2001.
==
__________
Item 5.2. SP-2001-06. Clover Lawn Village (Preston Stallings) (Sign #41). Public hearing on a
request to allow residential uses in PD-MC zone. Clover Lawn Village. White Hall Dist. (Public hearing
advertised in the Daily Progress on September 24 and October 1, 2001.)
At the request of staff, by the vote set out above, SP-2001-06, was deferred until the Boards
==
meeting on December 12, 2001.
__________
Item 5.3. ZTA-01-007. Alleys & Shared Driveways. An ordinance to amend 3.1, Definitions,
'
4.6.3, Lots, yards adjacent to streets, 4.11.2.1, Accessory structures, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the
'
Albemarle County Code, to define alley, driveway, private road & shared driveway, to require that the
A@A@A@A@
regulation pertaining to required lots & yards adjacent to streets also apply to alleys, to clarify the location
from where the yard shall be measured & to clarify that the setback for accessory structures applies not
only from the property line, but also certain travelways. (Public hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on
September 24 and October 1, 2001.) This item was removed from the agenda because Planning
Commission action has been delayed. This will be readvertised for a public hearing at the
appropriate time.
__________
Item 5.4. STA-01-01. Alleys & Shared Driveways. An ordinance to amend 14-104, Definitions,
''
14-303, Contents of final plat, 14-313, Instrument evidencing maintenance of certain improvements, 14-
512, Standards for both public streets & private roads & 14-514, Standards for private roads only & to add
14-241, Circumstances when shared driveways & alleys may be authorized, of Chapter 14, Subdivision of
Land, of the Albemarle County Code, to define driveway & shared driveway, & to amend the definitions
A@A@
of alley & private road, to establish the conditions & procedures by which shared driveways & alleys may
A@A@
be authorized, to require that final plats contain information pertaining to alleys & shared driveways, to
require that alleys be subject to an approved maintenance agreement & to allow alleys to be provided on
the side of certain lots & to be subject to approval by the county engineer. (Public hearing advertised in the
Daily Progress on September 24 and October 1, 2001.) This item was removed from the agenda
because Planning Commission action had been delayed. This item will be readvertised for a public
hearing at the appropriate time.
__________
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item 5.5. Resolution designating October 13, 2001, as Lewis and Clark Festival Day.
By the recorded vote set out above, the proclamation was approved. Ms. Thomas said she
would read the proclamation into the record at the end of the meeting since no one from the news media
was present. She said a tremendous amount of work has gone into what is hoped will be an annual event.
However, todays newspaper carried only two lines about this event, and it was at the end of an article about
=
something else.
__________
Item 5.6. Copies of letters dated October 1 and October 3, 2001, from Mr. John Shepherd,
Manager of Zoning Administration, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels, were
received for information:
a.Tax Map 84, Parcel 57 & Tax Map 84, Parcel 58 (property of Massie E. and
Joyce B. Hughes).
b.Tax Map 6, Parcels 16 & 29 (property of Robert M. and Patricia A. Byrom, known
as Cottonwood Farm).
c.Tax Map 97, Parcel 21B (property of Mehring Family Limited Partnership).
d.Tax Map 65, Parcel 86 (property of Millwood Land Trust U/A).
e.Tax Map 122, parcels 12A and 13 (property of Judith B. Bushkin).
__________
Item 5.7. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for July 24, 2001, was received for
information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Public hearing on proposed FY 2001 budget amendments (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on September 30, 2001).
Ms. Roxanne White summarized the staff's report (see details in the minutes of October 3, 2001).
At this time, the public hearing was opened. There was no one present who wished to speak, and
the public hearing was immediately closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to approve the budget amendment as advertised, and to adopt
Appropriation Resolutions #20083, #20084, #20085, #20087, #20088, #20089 and #20090. The motion
was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20083
FUND: C.S.A.
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR FY 2000-01 COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1551 53120 581601 C.S.A.$150,000.00
TOTAL$150,000.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1551 24000 240109 STATE FUNDS$ 96,402.98
2 1551 51000 512001 SCHOOL TRANSFER 53,596.02
TOTAL$150,000.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20084
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION GRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1208 81301 110000 SALARIES-REGULAR$ 2,200.00
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
1 1208 81301 350000 PRINTING & BINDING100.00
1 1208 81301 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES200.00
1 1208 81302 110000 SALARIES-REGULAR11,250.00
1 1208 81302 350000 PRINTING & BINDING250.00
1 1208 81302 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES500.00
1 1208 81309 110000 SALARIES-REGULAR11,250.00
1 1208 81309 350000 PRINTING & BINDING250.00
1 1208 81309 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES 500.00
TOTAL$26,500.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1208 24000 240500 GRANT REVENUE-STATE$ 1,450.00
2 1208 33000 330001 GRANT REVENUE-FEDERAL23,600.00
2 1208 51000 512004 TRANSFER-GENERAL FUND 1,450.00
TOTAL$26,500.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20085
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1533 31013 120000 OVERTIME WAGES$3,448.42
1 1533 31013 210000 FICA 361.08
TOTAL$3,809.50
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1533 33000 330011 DMV GRANT$3,809.50
TOTAL$3,809.50
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20087
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAM
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1557 53150 310000 PROF SERVICES$90,000.00
TOTAL$90,000.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1557 33000 330001 FEDERAL REVENUE$90,000.00
TOTAL$90,000.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20088
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR SCHOOL PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 3205 61102 132105 P/T WAGES$18,432.97
1 3205 61102 210000 FICA1,526.61
1 3201 61102 121000 SALARIES-TEACHER1,235.00
1 3201 61102 114100 SALARIES-TEACHER AIDE8,000.00
1 3201 61102 210000 FICA 765.00
TOTAL$29,959.58
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 3205 33000 330111 PRESCHOOL GRANT$19,959.58
2 3201 51000 510100 APPROP-FUND BALANCE 10,000.00
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
TOTAL$29,959.58
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20089
FUND: SCHOOL/PROGRAMS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR SCHOOL PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 3310 61120 132100 P/T WAGES$ 38,787.00
1 3310 61120 210000 FICA3,213.00
1 2113 61131 580000 MISC(922.00)
1 2113 93010 930000 FUND TRANSFER922.00
1 3115 63322 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES922.00
1 3133 63321 132100 P/T WAGES7,512.15
1 3133 63321 210000 FICA573.75
1 3307 61129 600200 FOOD SUPPLIES36,362.43
1 3136 61102 132100 P/T WAGES5,223.19
1 3136 61102 210000 FICA425.00
1 3910 63241 600800 VEHICLE FUEL188,000.00
1 2100 61101 112100 TEACHER SALARIES(55,596.02)
1 2112 93010 930206 TRANSFER TO CSA FUND 55,596.02
TOTAL$281,018.52
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 3310 18000 181258 SUMMER REVENUE$ 42,000.00
2 3115 51000 512001 TRANSFER-SCHOOL FUND922.00
2 3133 16000 161232 REVENUE-TUITION4,389.00
2 3133 24000 240240 REVENUE-STATE379.00
2 3133 51000 510100 APPROP-FUND BALANCE3,317.90
2 3307 33000 330610 USDA REIMB34,823.60
2 3307 51000 510100 APPROP-FUND BALANCE1,538.83
2 3136 51000 510100 APPROP-FUND BALANCE5,648.19
2 3910 16000 161271 FUEL CHARGES 188,000.00
TOTAL$281,018.52
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20090
FUND: GENERAL/SCHOOLS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR FY 2000-01 OVER EXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1000 21051 110000 JUVENILE COURTWAGES$ 11,000.00
1 1000 31020 129900 SHERIFFO/T-REIMBURSABLE9,000.00
1 1000 33020 700002 REGIONAL JAIL234,000.00
1 1000 41030 110000 WATER RESOURCESWAGES1,000.00
1 1000 71002 700007 TOWE PARK9,000.00
1 1000 92010 580301 REFUNDSTAX REFUNDS62,000.00
1 1000 92010 580304 REFUNDSBUSINESS LIC REFUNDS27,000.00
EDUCATIONINSTRUCTION(315,000.00)
EDUCATIONADMINISTRATION20,000.00
EDUCATIONTRANSPORTATION95,000.00
EDUCATIONMAINTENANCE150,000.00
EDUCATIONCONSTRUCTION50,000.00
1 4200 71002 331200 TOWE PARKR&M-BUILDINGS 1,100.00
TOTAL$354,100.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1000 16000 160303 SHERIFF DEPT FEES$ 9,000.00
2 1000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE 344,000.00
2 4200 16000 160502 TOWE PARKCITY385.00
2 4200 16000 160503 TOWE PARKCOUNTY 715.00
TOTAL$354,100.00
_______________
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Agenda Item No. 7. Public hearing on proposed FY 2002 budget amendments/reappropriations
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 30, 2001).
Ms. White summarized the staff's report (see details in the minutes of October 3, 2001).
Mr. Dorrier asked about the Tourism Fund. Ms. White said the majority of the money for the
Tourism Programs/Projects, $380,841.41, was budgeted in the General Fund. This is just a transfer of
funds because the moneys were already appropriated into the General Fund. Mr. Dorrier said there will be
a balance of $560,000.00 in the Tourism account. Ms. White said that is correct.
Mr. Dorrier asked for a report to the Board when the greenway plan is developed. Ms. White said
the person to be transferred to the Parks Department will be working with a committee which has already
been established.
Ms. Thomas said the Planning District Commission had a presentation for a greenway plan for the
whole district, and it included the greenway plan which Albemarle County has finished. It also included
Fluvannas, etc., but the plans did not all match up.
=
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board could get a presentation of this plan. Mr. Tucker said Albemarle
already has a Greenway Plan, but a person is now needed who can devote one hundred percent of their
time to implementing that plan. A large part of the plan is involved with proffers. Work is needed to get
those proffers implemented, and work is needed to get the actual construction of the trails. Ms. White said
that person would also work with volunteers. A lot of people are ready to do some of the actual physical
work, but it needs coordination if the Albemarle portion of the greenway is to be completed.
Mr. Cilimberg brought Mr. Dorriers attention to Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan adopted
=
about a year ago entitled Natural Resources & Cultural Assets. He said that one of the appendices to that
A@
chapter is Albemarles Greenway Plan.
=
Mr. Dorrier said he asked that question because the town of Scottsville has been awarded a grant
to improve the levee walkway. Directly off of that is a ten-mile greenway trail between Scottsville and
Howardsville. He thinks that some of the town money could be used for development for the greenway.
Ms. Thomas said she was also pleased to see the number of contributions to the School System,
and she will be sending letters expressing the Boards appreciation.
=
At this time, the public hearing was open. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve then budget
amendment as advertised, and to adopt Resolutions of Appropriation #2001010, #2001011, #2001012,
#2001013, #2001014, #2001015, #2001016, #2001018, #2001019, #2001020, #2001021, #2001022,
#2001024, #2001025, #2001026, #2001027, and #2001028. Also, to adopt Appropriation #2001017, which
was previously approved (See note above). Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-010
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION GRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1300 41030 110000 SALARIES$4,390.00
1 1300 41030 332300 SIGNS 3,150.00
TOTAL$7,540.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1300 24000 240761 GRANT$3,150.00
2 1300 51000 512004 GENERAL FUND TRANSFER 4,390.00
TOTAL$7,540.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
NUMBER: 2001-011
FUND: HOUSING
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR HUD PUBLIC ASSISTANCE HOUSING GRANTS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1227 81920 300205 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES$ 80,912.00
1 1227 81920 312800 AUDIT400.00
1 1227 81920 579001 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENT706,233.00
1 1227 81921 300205 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES65,696.00
1 1227 81921 312800 AUDIT400.00
1 1227 81921 579001 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENT582,398.00
1 1227 81921 930009 TRANSFER TO GEN'L FUND 42,031.00
TOTAL$1,478,070.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1227 33000 330015 SECTION 8-001 MOD REHAB ASST$ 787,545.00
2 1227 33000 330016 SECTION 8-002 VOUCHER PROGRAM 690,525.00
TOTAL$1,478,070.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-012
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ACT GRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1520 29406 566120 OAR$443,490.00
1 1520 29406 566140 CENTRAL VA JAIL33,066.00
1 1520 29406 566150 REGION TEN85,886.00
1 1520 29406 562500 TJ PLANNING DISTRICT 2,000.00
TOTAL$564,442.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1520 24000 240440 STATE GRANT$564,442.00
TOTAL$564,442.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-013
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR 2001 LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1536 31013 120000 OVERTIME WAGES$35,127.00
1 1536 31013 210000 FICA 2,687.00
TOTAL$37,814.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1536 33000 300001 FEDERAL GRANT$34,033.00
2 1536 51000 512004 TRS FROM GEN'L FUND 3,781.00
TOTAL$37,814.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-014
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION GRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1208 81301 110000 SALARIES-REGULAR$ 2,750.00
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
1 1208 81301 350000 PRINTING & BINDING50.00
1 1208 81301 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES200.00
1 1208 81302 110000 SALARIES-REGULAR10,000.00
1 1208 81302 350000 PRINTING & BINDING500.00
1 1208 81302 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES1,500.00
1 1208 81309 110000 SALARIES-REGULAR4,000.00
1 1208 81309 350000 PRINTING & BINDING750.00
1 1208 81309 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES 250.00
TOTAL$20,000.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1208 24000 240500 GRANT REVENUE-STATE$ 2,000.00
2 1208 33000 330001 GRANT REVENUE-FEDERAL16,000.00
2 1208 51000 512004 TRANSFER-GENERAL FUND 2,000.00
TOTAL$20,000.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-015
FUND: VARIOUS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND VARIOUS SCHOOL GRANTS AND DONATIONS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 2252 61101 160300 STAFF DEV$ 2,500.00
1 3104 60211 312500 PROF SVC INST1,350.00
1 3104 60252 312500 PROF SVC INST6,000.00
1 3209 61103 112100 SALARIES-TEACHER 50,000.00
1 3209 61103 210000 FICA3,700.00
1 3209 61103 221000 VRS6,700.00
1 3209 61103 231000 HEALTH INS3,000.00
1 3209 61103 232000 DENTAL INS500.00
1 3209 61103 241000 LIFE INS563.32
1 3209 61103 420100 FIELD TRIPS1,000.00
1 3209 61103 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES15,004.68
1 3209 61103 800100 MAC/EQUIP-ADD'T23,000.00
1 3211 61102 800100 MAC/EQUIP-ADD'T15,627.00
1 3104 60201 312500 PROF SVC INST1,000.00
1 3104 60201 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES2,500.00
1 3104 61101 132100 P/T WAGES4,346.00
1 3104 61101 210000 FICA 360.00
TOTAL$137,151.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION$ 2,500.00
2 3104 24000 240355 AIERP1,350.00
2 3104 18000 181221 UPTON GRANT6,000.00
2 3209 24000 240299 VA ED PARTNERSHIP103,468.00
2 3211 24000 240357 SLIVER GRANT15,627.00
2 3104 18000 181259 VA POWER GRANT3,500.00
2 3104 51000 510100 GOV ACADEMIC GRANT FROM F/B 4,706.00
TOTAL$137,151.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-016
FUND: TOURISM
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
ORIGINAL APPROPRIATION FOR FY '02 TOURISM FUND
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1810 72030 999999 TOURISM CONTINGENCY$380,841.41
TOTAL$380,841.41
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
2 1810 51000 510100 TOURISM FUND BALANCE$380,841.41
TOTAL$380,841.41
TRANSFERS
1 1810 93010 930009 TRNSFR TO GEN FD, ORIG G/F BUDGET$409,411.00
1 1810 93010 930009 TRNSFR TO GEN FD, GREENWAY PLAN$ 35,000.00
2 1810 51000 510100 TOURISM FUND BALANCE$444,411.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-017
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR LEWIS & CLARK CELEBRATION
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1000 79000 568735 LEWIS AND CLARK CELEBRATION$1,000.00
1 1000 95000 999990 B.O.S.-BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS(1,000.00)
TOTAL$ -0-
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
TOTAL$-0-
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-018
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF FY 2000-01 PURCHASE ORDERS
OUTSTANDING AS OF JUNE 30, 2001
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1000 12010 800200 COUNTY EXECUTIVE$ 1,224.00
1 1000 12013 350000 COMMUNITY RESOURCES1,244.00
1 1000 12013 800701 COMMUNITY RESOURCES349.00
1 1000 12030 580040 HUMAN RESOURCES2,500.00
1 1000 12141 310000 FINANCE-ADMINISTRATION3,100.00
1 1000 12141 800200 FINANCE-ADMINISTRATION638.00
1 1000 12142 600100 FIN-ASSESSMENT & COLLECTIONS1,361.15
1 1000 12142 800200 FIN-ASSESSMENT & COLLECTIONS905.95
1 1000 12142 800712 FIN-ASSESSMENT & COLLECTIONS1,680.00
1 1000 12143 800200 FIN-ACCOUNTING & PAYROLL579.00
1 1000 21020 800100 GENERAL DISTRICT COURT775.00
1 1000 21060 301210 CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT2,500.00
1 1000 32011 800200 FIRE RESCUE-ADMINISTRATION1,780.00
1 1000 32012 600400 FIRE RESCUE-TRAINING1,120.35
1 1000 32012 601100 FIRE RESCUE-TRAINING880.75
1 1000 32012 601100 FIRE RESCUE-TRAINING130.00
1 1000 32012 601500 FIRE RESCUE-TRAINING822.00
1 1000 32012 800200 FIRE RESCUE-TRAINING911.45
1 1000 32013 601100 FIRE PREVENTION880.75
1 1000 32015 600400 FIRE/RESCUE-OPERATIONS1,201.00
1 1000 32015 600400 FIRE/RESCUE-OPERATIONS300.19
1 1000 32015 601100 FIRE/RESCUE-OPERATIONS1,020.14
1 1000 32015 601100 FIRE/RESCUE-OPERATIONS880.75
1 1000 32015 601100 FIRE/RESCUE-OPERATIONS2,642.25
1 1000 32015 601100 FIRE/RESCUE-OPERATIONS810.00
1 1000 41000 312341 ENGINEERING47,564.35
1 1000 41000 312700 ENGINEERING995.50
1 1000 41000 312700 ENGINEERING27,780.42
1 1000 41000 331901 ENGINEERING2,000.00
1 1000 41000 331901 ENGINEERING2,509.99
1 1000 41000 331901 ENGINEERING505.00
1 1000 41000 800200 ENGINEERING195.00
1 1000 41000 950023 ENGINEERING5,138.20
1 1000 42040 390001 SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING22,937.00
1 1000 43002 301211 PUBLIC WORKS-MAINT DIV1,600.00
1 1000 43002 301211 PUBLIC WORKS-MAINT DIV6,436.00
1 1000 53011 800200 V.P.A. MANAGEMENT2,383.00
1 1000 53014 600100 V.P.A. EMPLOYMENT SERVICE1,338.94
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
1 1000 53014 601200 V.P.A. EMPLOYMENT SERVICE620.77
1 1000 53014 800200 V.P.A. EMPLOYMENT SERVICE278.00
1 1000 71013 540000 P & R SUMMER SWIM PROGRAM180.00
1 1000 71013 540000 P & R SUMMER SWIM PROGRAM45.00
1 1000 71014 600700 REC - ATHLETICS & CLASSES547.20
1 1000 71015 540000 P & R COMMUNITY CENTERS630.00
1 1000 81010 301210 PLANNING253.00
1 1000 81010 312342 PLANNING4,922.96
1 1000 81010 312700 PLANNING5,400.00
1 1000 81010 312700 PLANNING3,111.83
1 1000 81010 800201 PLANNING169.99
1 1000 81017 312385 E-911/PLANNING85,138.00
1 1000 81017 550400 E-911/PLANNING396.80
1 1000 81040 800100 ZONING SERVICES 1,010.50
TOTAL$254,323.18
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1000 51000 510100 G/F BALANCE$254,323.18
TOTAL$254,323.18
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-019
FUND: C.A.D.
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION FOR C.A.D. SYSTEM
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 4105 31061 800306 C.A.D.$380,732.34
1 4105 31061 390003 ADMIN FEE 32,586.35
TOTAL$413,318.69
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 4105 16000 160502 CHARLOTTESVILLE$198,062.32
2 4105 16000 160503 ALBEMARLE178,925.66
2 4105 16000 160512 UNIV OF VA 36,330.71
TOTAL$413,318.69
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-020
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF FY 2000-01 UNCOMPLETED PROJECTS
AS OF JUNE 30, 2001
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1000 12030 312390 HUMAN RESOURCESQUIP TRAINING$ 24,430.00
1 1000 12030 580030 CUSTOMER SERVICE27,380.00
1 1000 12030 580040 LEADERSHIP COUNCIL INIT21,333.00
1 1000 12040 550570 COUNTY ATTORNEYMOVING EXPENSE3,360.00
1 1000 12143 800710 FINANCED.P. SOFTWARE250,000.00
1 1000 13020 120000 VOTER REGISTRATIONO/T WAGES900.00
1 1000 13020 210000 FICA70.00
1 1000 13020 320000 TEMP HELP1,500.00
1 1000 13020 360000 ADVERTISING1,000.00
1 1000 13020 520100 POSTAL SERVICES15,000.00
1 1000 31013 601101 POLICEUNIFORMS15,000.00
1 1000 31013 800301 COMMUNICATION EQUIP5,000.00
1 1000 31013 800500 MOTOR VEHICLES20,500.00
1 1000 31013 530010 INSURANCE DEDUCTIBLES15,000.00
1 1000 31020 605037 SHERIFF R&M-VEHICLE417.00
1 1000 32015 331500 FIRE/RESCUER&M-VEHICLE10,000.00
1 1000 32015 331500 R&M-VEHICLE20,500.00
1 1000 32015 601015 PORTABLE REHAB UNIT9,340.00
1 1000 41000 312700 ENGINEERINGCONSULTANTS25,000.00
1 1000 41000 800100 MACH & EQUIP800.00
1 1000 43002 331200 PUBLIC WORKSR&M BUILDINGS15,000.00
1 1000 43002 800100 MACH & EQUIP14,000.00
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
1 1000 53011 312210 V.P.A.CONTRACT SERVICES25,000.00
1 1000 53013 800501 V.P.A.MOTOR VEHICLES19,000.00
1 1000 81010 312342 PLANNINGDEVEL AREA STUDY125,000.00
1 1000 81010 550400 TRAVEL5,000.00
1 1000 81010 800610 RENOVATIONS2,815.00
1 2114 61311 580500 EDUCATIONTRAINING FUNDS 6,500.00
TOTAL$678,845.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE$672,345.00
2 1000 51000 510100 SCHOOL FUND BALANCE 6,500.00
TOTAL$678,845.00
______
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-021
FUND: BRIGHT STARS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: COMPUTERS FOR BRIGHT STARS PROGRAM
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1553 61122 800700 ADP EQUIP$ 2,000.00
1 1553 61129 800700 ADP EQUIP2,000.00
1 1553 61151 800700 ADP EQUIP2,000.00
1 1553 61152 800700 ADP EQUIP2,000.00
1 1553 61153 800700 ADP EQUIP 2,000.00
TOTAL$10,000.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1553 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE$10,000.00
TOTAL$10,000.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-022
FUND: UNITED WAY DAYCARE
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR FY 2001-02 UNITED WAY DAYCARE PROGRAM
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1550 53110 390056 ADMIN FEE-UNITED WAY GRANT$ 25,232.00
1 1550 53110 567910 UNITED WAY-DAY CARE GRANT234,606.00
1 1550 53110 580025 COUNTY SHARE83,635.00
1 1550 53110 580026 CITY SHARE110,586.00
1 1550 53110 580027 UNITED WAY SHARE 75,811.00
TOTAL$529,870.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1550 33000 160510 ADMIN FEES$ 25,232.00
2 1550 33000 330014 HHS UN WAY PASS-THRU GRANT234,606.00
2 1550 33501 160502 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE110,586.00
2 1550 33501 160525 UNITED WAY MATCHING FUNDS75,811.00
2 1550 51000 512004 TRS FR GENERAL FUND 83,635.00
TOTAL$529,870.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-024
FUND: SCHOOL/PROGRAMS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 2210 61101 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES$ 250.00
1 3143 61101 540410 RENTAL-INSTRUMENTS8,505.00
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
1 3104 60215 132100 P/T-WAGES20,000.00
1 3104 60215 210000 FICA1,530.00
1 3104 60215 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES8,470.00
1 3104 60212 312000 PROF SVC INST150.00
1 3131 61311 312500 PROF SVC INST40,590.00
1 3131 61311 580000 MISC EXP5,000.00
1 2115 62190 520300 TELECOMMUNICATIONS(4,000.00)
1 2410 60100 999981 SCH BD RESERVE4,000.00
1 2114 61311 580500 STAFF DEV10,010.00
1 3502 60606 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES 7,457.00
TOTAL$101,962.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION$ 250.00
2 3143 51000 510100 COMM FOUND GRANT F/B8,505.00
2 3104 18000 181247 STATE FARM GRANT30,000.00
2 3104 24000 240264 VA COMM TOURING GRANT150.00
2 3131 24000 240312 TECHNOLOGY GRANT45,590.00
2 2000 24000 240380 MENTOR TEACHER PGM10,010.00
2 3502 18000 181223 SHANNON FOUNDATION 7,457.00
TOTAL$101,962.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-025
FUND: GENERAL FUND C.I.P
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF UNCOMPLETED PROJECTS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 9010 12140 950004 DIRECTOR OF FINANCEASSESSMENT SYSTEM$45,975.57
1 9010 21000 312343 COURT FACILITIESSPACE NEEDS STUDY117,201.13
1 9010 21000 331000 COURT FACILITIESREPAIRS & MAINTENANCE1,230.45
1 9010 21020 800100 GENERAL DISTRICT COURT MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT5,000.00
1 9010 21050 331000 JUVENILE COURTREPAIRS & MAINTENANCE27,554.19
1 9010 31000 800306 PUBLIC SAFETYCOMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH178,925.66
1 9010 31000 800915 PUBLIC SAFETYPUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY14,795.57
1 9010 31010 800910 POLICE DEPARTMENTFIRING RANGE30,000.00
1 9010 31040 800650 ECC-OPERATIONSBUILDINGS-CONSTRUCTION3,677.03
1 9010 32010 800523 FIRE DEPARTMENTFIRE PUMPER-REPLACEMENT453,200.00
1 9010 32010 950092 FIRE DEPARTMENTFIRE HOUSE/AERIAL FIRE APP433,631.34
1 9010 32010 950110 FIRE DEPARTMENTRECORDS MANAGEMENT SYS18,503.64
1 9010 41000 312700 ENGINEERINGPROF SER CONSULTANTS50,000.00
1 9010 41000 800690 ENGINEERINGSIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROG95,420.50
1 9010 41000 800960 ENGINEERINGSTREET LIGHTS76,929.21
1 9010 41000 950035 ENGINEERINGNORTH BERKSHIRE ROAD3,079.00
1 9010 41000 950039 ENGINEERINGMEADOW CREEK PKWY ENGINEER24,275.41
1 9010 41000 950059 ENGINEERINGKEENE LANDFILL CLOSURE271,872.80
1 9010 41000 950061 ENGINEERINGMEADOW CREEK PATH20,000.00
1 9010 41000 950090 ENGINEERINGIVY ROAD51,667.00
1 9010 41000 950091 ENGINEERINGBARRACKS RD SIDEWALK46,933.25
1 9010 41000 950116 ENGINEERINGMEADOW CREEK PKWAY PHS 122,613.22
1 9010 41020 950024 STREET IMPROVEMENTSLANDSCAPING-29 NORTH74,251.75
1 9010 41020 950051 STREET IMPROVEMENTSAVON ST/RT 20 CONNECTOR5,242.50
1 9010 41020 950068 STREET IMPROVEMENTSWAKEFIELD ROAD IMP22,465.00
1 9010 41020 950081 STREET IMPROVEMENTSREVENUE SHARING ROADS456,776.90
1 9010 41020 950115 STREET IMPROVEMENTSAIRPORT ROAD SIDEWALKS127,000.00
1 9010 43100 800664 PB WORKS/MAINT PROJSECURITY SYSTEMS34,254.41
1 9010 43100 800666 PB WORKS/MAINT PROJFACILITY MAINT92,569.90
1 9010 43100 800687 PB WORKS/MAINT PROJCOB CHILLER REPLACEMENT8,693.75
1 9010 43100 950042 PB WORKS/MAINT PROJUNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS1,092.85
1 9010 43100 950102 PB WORKS/MAINT PROJCOB PARKING LOT7,697.61
1 9010 43100 950117 PB WORKS/MAINT PROJSOCIAL SERV RENOVATION2,194.10
1 9010 43100 950119 PB WORKS/MAINT PROJBOARD RM RENOVATIONS69,050.00
1 9010 43100 950120 PB WORKS/MAINT PROJFINANCE RENOVATIONS5,360.34
1 9010 43100 950123 PB WORKS/MAINT PROJHUMAN RESOURCE RENOVATION18,495.00
1 9010 43100 950125 PB WORKS/MAINT PROJEDUCATION RENOVATIONS3,670.00
1 9010 43100 950127 PB WORKS/MAINT PROJDEVELOPMENT DEPT RENOVAT50,000.00
1 9010 43100 950128 PB WORKS/MAINT PROJCOB ENTRY CORRIDOR BEAUTY85,000.00
1 9010 71000 800665 PARKS & RECREATIONADA STRUCTURAL CHANGES34,800.47
1 9010 71000 800668 PARKS & RECREATIONADA CHANGES-SCHOOLS4,074.00
1 9010 71000 800949 PARKS & RECREATIONMAINTENANCE PROJECTS19,709.49
1 9010 71000 950003 PARKS & RECREATIONCROZET PARK IMPROVEMENTS11,886.91
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
1 9010 71000 950009 PARKS & RECREATIONSCOTTSV COMMUNITY CENTER70,537.71
1 9010 71000 950028 PARKS & RECREATIONRED HILL RECREATION IMP400.57
1 9010 71000 950033 PARKS & RECREATIONWALNUT CREEK REC PROJECTS920.50
1 9010 71000 950034 PARKS & RECREATIONTOWE PARK REC PROJECTS147,304.75
1 9010 71000 950044 PARKS & RECREATIONATH FIELD STUDY/DEVEL2,628.48
1 9010 71000 950050 PARKS & RECREATIONSOUTHERN PARK DEVELOPMENT52,055.06
1 9010 71000 950064 PARKS & RECREATIONIVY LANDFILL DEVEL20,000.00
1 9010 71000 950070 PARKS & RECREATIONBROWNSVILLE REC IMP1,492.77
1 9010 71000 950121 PARKS & RECREATIONSIMPSON PARK513,633.50
1 9010 72030 580416 TOURISMCONSERV EASEMENT-TOURISM350,000.00
1 9010 73020 800700 LIBRARIESADP EQUIPMENT95,000.00
1 9010 73020 800949 LIBRARIESMAINTENANCE PROJECTS104,576.65
1 9010 73020 950076 LIBRARIESNORTH BRANCH LIBRARY4,223.10
1 9010 73020 950114 LIBRARIESNEW LIBRARY500.00
1 9010 73020 999999 LIBRARIESCONTINGENCY FUNDS58,883.00
1 9010 81010 580409 PLANNINGACQUIS-CONSERV EASEMENT650,000.00
1 9010 81010 950053 PLANNINGNEIGHBORHOOD PLAN58,851.78
1 9010 81010 950108 PLANNINGGREENBRIER PED/BIKE PATH75,000.00
1 9010 81010 950139 PLANNINGPARCEL CONVERSION PROJECT325,000.00
TOTAL$5,657,777.82
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 9010 16000 160502 CHARGES FOR SERVICESCITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE$12,927.50
2 9010 18000 189916 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUECHAMBER OF COM/29 NORTH6,775.90
2 9010 18100 181113 DONATIONS AND GIFTSDONATION-SIMPSON PARK293,633.50
2 9010 24000 240231 CATEGORICAL AID-STATEVA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION54,150.33
2 9010 51000 510100 TRANSFERSFUND BALANCE4,436,364.93
2 9010 51000 512023 TRANSFERSFROM E911178,925.66
2 9010 51000 512034 TRANSFERSFROM TOURISM350,000.00
2 9010 51000 512004 TRANSFERSFROM GENERAL FUND325,000.00
TOTAL$5,657,777.82
TRANSFERS
1 4101 93010 930010 TRANSFER TO C.I.P$178,925.66
2 4101 51000 510100 E-911 SURCHARGE FUNDFUND BALANCE178,925.66
1 1000 93010 930010 TRANSFER TO C.I.P325,000.00
2 1000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE325,000.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-026
FUND: STORM DRAINAGE
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF UNCOMPLETED PROJECTS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 9100 41000 800975 ENGINEERINGSTORM WATER CONTROL IMP$153,219.26
1 9100 41000 950093 ENGINEERINGDRAINAGE STUDY/PLAN183,219.72
1 9100 41036 312400 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BASIN PROF SER ENGINEERING8,391.45
1 9100 41036 800750 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BASINPURCHASE OF LAND341,650.00
1 9100 41036 800975 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BASIN STORM WATER CONTROL IMP51,147.28
1 9100 41037 800975 IVY ROAD DRAINAGESTORM WATER CONTROL IMP80,000.00
1 9100 41049 800975 WOODBROOK CHANNELSTORM WATER CONTROL IMP26,505.00
1 9100 41054 800975 RICKY ROADSTORM WATER CONTROL IMP36,000.00
1 9100 41057 800975 WESTMORELAND CRTSTORM WATER CONTROL IMP69,148.46
TOTAL$949,281.17
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 9100 51000 510100 TRANSFERSAPPROPRIATION-FUND BAL$949,281.17
TOTAL$949,281.17
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-027
FUND: SCHOOL C.I.P.
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF UNCOMPLETED PROJECTS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 9000 60100 800665 SCHOOL BOARDADA STRUCTURAL CHANGES$197,266.67
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
1 9000 60203 800605 CROZET ELEMCONSTRUCTION13,002.34
1 9000 60204 800673 GREER ELEMHVAC IMPROVEMENTS19,317.27
1 9000 60210 800901 STONE ROBINSON ELEMBUILDING RENOVATIONS10,997.77
1 9000 60211 800987 STONY POINT ELEMPARKING/PLAYGROUND18,996.69
1 9000 60214 800605 CALE ELEM SCHOOLCONSTRUCTION1,613.90
1 9000 60217 312350 BAKER-BUTLER ELEMENGINEERING/PLANNING129,245.27
1 9000 60217 800630 BAKER-BUTLER ELEMSITE PREPARATION130,727.93
1 9000 60218 312350 SOUTHERN ELEMENTARY ENGINEERING/PLANNING20,000.00
1 9000 60251 800901 BURLEY MIDDLE SCHOOLBUILDING RENOVATIONS120,272.60
1 9000 60254 800901 WALTON MIDDLE SCHOOL BUILDING RENOVATIONS30,393.07
1 9000 60255 800200 SUTHERLAND MIDDLE SCH FURNITURE & FIXTURES1,249.33
1 9000 60301 800605 ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION4,193.98
1 9000 60303 800901 MURRAY EDUC CENTERBUILDING RENOVATIONS8,683.50
1 9000 60304 312350 MONTICELLO HIGH SCHENGINEERING/PLANNING5,000.00
1 9000 60304 800120 MONTICELLO HIGH SCHEQUIPMENT/MATERIALS10,000.00
1 9000 60304 800605 MONTICELLO HIGH SCHCONSTRUCTION23,770.90
1 9000 60410 800665 C.A.T.E.CADA STRUCTURAL CHANGES8,772.34
1 9000 60510 800901 VEHICLE MAINT FACBUILDING RENOVATIONS8,274.81
1 9000 61101 800700 CLASS/INST-REGULARADP EQUIPMENT214,865.25
1 9000 62190 800700 ADM-TECHNOLOGIC SERADP EQUIPMENT10,890.89
1 9000 62420 312310 FAC MAINT-BLDG SERA&E ROOF REPLACEMENT40,055.80
1 9000 62420 800949 FAC MAINT-BLDG SERMAINTENANCE PROJECTS134,890.31
TOTAL$1,162,480.62
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 9000 51000 510100 TRANSFERSAPPROP-FUND BAL$1,162,480.62
TOTAL$1,162,480.62
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-028
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR NEW PROJECT REQUESTS
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1000 22010 800700 COMMWEALTH ATTORNEY VCAIS-ADP EQUIP$ 14,000.00
1 1000 31020 130000 SHERIFFP/T WAGES16,900.00
1 1000 31020 210000 FICA1,300.00
1 1000 32012 800100 FIRE/RESCUEMACH & EQUIP3,000.00
1 1000 32012 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT12,000.00
1 1000 32015 580404 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SUP6,000.00
1 1000 71011 110000 PARKS AND RECRWAGES25,765.00
1 1000 71011 210000 FICA1,970.00
1 1000 71011 221000 RETIREMENT2,150.00
1 1000 71011 231000 HEALTH INSURANCE2,280.00
1 1000 71011 232000 DENTAL INSURANCE85.00
1 1000 71011 241000 LIFE INSURANCE205.00
1 1000 71011 270000 WORKER COMPENSATION38.00
1 1000 71011 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES2,507.00
1 1000 81040 800500 ZONINGRENOVATIONS3,700.00
1 9010 32010 950140 FIRE/RESCUEFIRE INCIDENT REPORTING25,000.00
1 9010 71000 950097 PARKSLANE BASEBALL FIELD 36,000.00
TOTAL$152,900.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE$ 56,900.00
2 1000 51000 512034 TRANSFER FROM TOURISM35,000.00
2 9010 51000 512004 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND 61,000.00
TOTAL$152,900.00
TRANSFERS
1 1000 93010 930010 TRANSFER TO C.I.P.$61,000.00
2 1000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE$61,000.00
(Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 7:25 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2001-17. Merrie Meadows. Request to allow a church in accord w/Sec
10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ord on TM 48, P 15A located at 2746 Merrie Meadows Lane on the N sd of Rt 20 N
& 300' NE of Stony Point Elementary School (deferred from September 19, 2001).
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Tucker said on September 19, 2001, the Board deferred SP-2001-17 until October 10, 2001, in
order for staff to review additional information provided by the applicant regarding the church relation-ship
with the camp and its meetings. As previously discussed, a special use permit allowing four cabins for
weekend lodging/camping two times a year (SP-1985-35), was approved with a condition that restricted the
camp use to the owner rather than the property. When the owner transferred the property into a family
trust, the special use permit became invalid.
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 restricts governments from
imposing or implementing land use regulations "in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the
religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution" unless there is a compelling
governmental interest and the regulation is the least restrictive means for furthering that interest. Based
upon the applicant's statements at the Board's September 19, 2001, public hearing and written materials
submitted thereafter, staff has determined that the camping events associated with the congregation are
accessory to the primary church use. Cumulative impacts resulting from both the church and potential
accessory uses require further review by Zoning, Engineering and the Health Department. These impacts
include noise, lights, traffic and water, septic and waste management issues.
It should be noted that the new information regarding camp events as accessory to the church was
not available at the time of the Planning Commission hearing. In addition, any new conditions of approval
resulting from this information will not have been reviewed by the Commission who believed that the
camping events would require a separate special use permit; therefore, the Commission's recommendation
for approval did not consider camping events as an accessory use. In order to allow staff adequate time to
review impacts associated with the camping events, staff recommends that the Board defer action on this
request and, if the Board deems it is warranted, to refer this application back to the Commission for its
reconsideration and recommendation.
Ms. Humphris said she thinks the request should go back to the Commission. She talked with the
Chairman of the Planning Commission a couple of days ago and he said that when the Commission dealt
with the request, they assumed the whole idea of camping was dead because the special permit was no
longer in effect. They did not know the Board would be dealing with that question. She said this request is
entirely different from what the Commission thought it was dealing with. She then offered motion to refer
SP-2001-17 back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Martin said he believes that most of the Board members also thought the camping issue was
dead. Ms. Humphris said she agrees, but then in the middle of the discussion, the Board realized the
applicant thought it was alive, so it does need to be looked at again. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Martin.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2001-023. Crozet Laundromat (Sign #40). Public hearing on a request to
allow coin-operated laundromat in accord w/Sec 27.2.2.14 of the Zoning Ord. TM 56A3, P 9B, contains .7
acs. Located on Three Notch'd Rd (Rt 240) across from the Con Agra facility. Znd LI. White Hall Dist.
(Notice of public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on September 24 and October 1, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant proposes a coin-operated laundromat with drop-off service to be
located in the old Con Agra Seconds Store. The location is in an existing building that is part of a series of
commercial buildings along Three Notchd Road across from the Con Agra Plant. The applicant chose this
=
space because of a lack of available commercial space in downtown Crozet. The site also has a natural
gas hook-up that is integral to the applicants business. They will share space in this building with a video
=
store and there is a restaurant located in an old house to the west. Behind the property is a single-family
home. All of the properties surrounding the laundromat are zoned with LI, Light Industrial, and HI, Heavy
Industrial.
Mr. Cilimberg said that in the Crozet Community Study, which is a part of the Comprehensive Plan,
it is recommended that all new commercial activities be located in the downtown area of Crozet. The Study
includes this area as part of Crozets downtown. Staff believes the proposed development is in keeping
=
with the Study. He said the proposal also meets several of the Crozet Community goals, including
redevelopment of an existing structure, and the fact that a majority of the parking is on the side or behind
the building.
Mr. Cilimberg said that factors favorable to the request are: the proposed use fills a demonstrated
need in the western part of the County; the proposal adaptively reuses the existing building; and, the
provision of parking and safe ingress/egress can be ensured with the conditions recommended by staff and
agreed to by the applicant. One unfavorable point noted was: the area is technically designated as rural in
the Comprehensive Plan but it is an area recognized by the Crozet Community Study and has been used
for commercial development for a number of years prior to the 1980 comprehensive rezoning of the
County.
Mr. Cilimberg said the owner is not prepared to permanently close one of the entrances at this time,
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
but staff feels that conditions which address circulation and safe access can accommodate this use. Staff
has recommended approval with three conditions. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 2,
2001, also recommended approval. The Commission noted a change in the one-way circulation which
might be desirable, and asked that the Engineering Department review that as part of its site plan review.
The applicant has now changed the plan to show the circulation as discussed by the Commission. He
referred the Board to a copy of the site plan posted on the wall. He said it is the newest plan, and provides
for one-way circulation and parking as the Commission discussed. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the
meeting at 7:30 p.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommends changing the reference to the plan date in Commissions
=
Condition #1, from last revised 9/19/01" to last revised to 10/4/01. He said that condition would then
AA@
reference the plan being prepared by Raymond E. Gaines, Architect, titled Crozet Laundry and dated
A@
10/4/01.
Ms. Thomas invited the applicant to speak.
Mr. John Quesenberry said Mr. Jeff Sprouse, owner of the property, asked him to be present to
answer questions. He is the applicant for this special use which is needed in the area. There is no
laundromat serving western Albemarle for 14 miles in any direction. He thinks it will be a successful
business. This building has been used as a commercial facility in the past. He asked approval of the
special use permit.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. There was no one from the public who wished to
speak, so the public hearing was closed.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Perkins to approve SP-01-23, subject to the three
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission with the date 10/4/01 being inserted into Condition
No. 1 in place of 9/19/01.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1.The owner shall provide for the parking and directional signage in general accord with the
improvements shown on the sketch plan, prepared by Raymond E. Gaines, Architect, titled "Crozet
Laundromat" and dated 10/04/01 prior to opening the laundromat use granted under this special
use permit. The individual parking spaces shall be permanently delineated on the site;
2.The owner shall close the easternmost access point on Tax Map 56A3, Parcel 9A, in a manner that
meets with the approval of the Albemarle County Department of Engineering and Public Works.
The requirements of this condition shall be performed prior to opening the laundromat use granted
under this special use permit; and
3.The applicant shall provide a traffic island or bollards to protect the parking space designated
number 1" on the sketch plan.
A
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. CPA-98-03. Post Office Land Trust. Public hearing on a request to amend
the Comprehensive Plan designation for approx 180 acs w/in the Community of Hollymead (existing
development area) to change land use desig from IS, OS & RS to mixed-use Town Center Designation.
Loc on W side of Seminole Trail (Rt 29N), S of Airport Rd (Rt 649) & bounded on the S & W by unnamed
stream (which crosses Rt 29 N of the Rt 29/Hollymead Dr intersec). (Notice of public hearing was
advertised in the Daily Progress on September 24 and October 1, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg said a proposal to amend the Land Use Plan recommendations for this area has
been under review by the Planning Commission since the Spring of 1998. In October, 2000, the
Commission recommended an amendment to change the land use designation from a combination of
Office Service, Regional Service and Industrial Service to a Town Center designation which encouraged a
mixed-use, urban scale development concept which included residential, as well as, retail, service and
office uses. During the Boards review of the Commissions recommended amendment, property owners
==
within the proposed Town Center area expressed concern over some of the recommendations in the
proposed amendment language. On February 7, 2001, the Board deferred action on the Plan amendment
in order to allow the property owners to develop their own proposal for a master plan for the Town Center
consisting of development and design guidelines. Such a Master Plan was submitted on July 20, 2001, to
the Planning Department for review.
Mr. Cilimberg said he had a substitute for Figure 14A to hand out tonight. It puts labels on some of
the structures indicated originally in the Master Plan document. He said that staff reviewed the proposed
Master Plan comparing it to the Commissions recommended amendment language. This analysis was
=
presented and discussed at a Board work session on September 5, 2001. Based on the directions received
from the Board at that meeting, staff has been working with the property owners to address the major
differences between the Commissions recommended amendment and the property owners proposed
==
Master Plan.
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Cilimberg said he would note the primary areas that were covered in that subsequent work: 1)
The recommendation for a floor area ratio (FAR) of .75 in the Commissions amendment for Town Center
=
development. He said that has been addressed by reducing the net FAR to .50 and modifying the text to
emphasize that this is an ultimate build-out goal. Site design will need to accommodate future phasing of
development or redevelopment to achieve this higher density development; 2) The limit on compatible low
FAR regional service uses of no more than 65,000 square feet on a single floor for the Mixed Use/ Regional
Service area. He said the text has been modified to indicate that certain types of retail stores, such as
department stores, home improvement and grocery stores, are appropriate for this area and can/will be
larger than 65,000 square feet, and based on current market/demographic characteristics will not locate in
multi-story buildings. Negative aspects of this form of development (bulk, massing) will be addressed
through architectural treatment, and building and site orientation and design measures; 3) The property
owners proposal for an at-grade crossing (intersection) at the mid-point of the Town Center site between
=
Timberwood Boulevard and Hollymead Drive. Mr. Cilimberg said the text has been changed to include the
possibility of establishing a mid-point access at a new crossover if warranted by traffic studies and
conditions; 4) A recommendation for a one hundred foot undisturbed vegetative buffer along the Town
Center frontage of Route 29. He said the site has been subject to a recent logging activity. No significant
vegetation remains along the frontage of Route 29, so this recommendation has been removed. He said
that in the Master Plan document on Page 3 there is reference made to treatment of the Route 29 frontage.
Mr. Cilimberg said if these changes to the amendment language adequately address the Boards
=
concerns, staff recommends that the Board adopt the amendment language as set out in the staffs report
=
dated October 10, 2001, with Attachment A dated October 4, 2001. He noted that on page 7 of
Attachment A, at the bottom of the page, the sentence reading Principles of sustainable design shall be
A
incorporated .... should read Principles of sustainable design should be incorporated .... Replace the
@A@
word shall with the word should.
A@A@
Ms. Thomas asked why the words green roof technology were removed from that same
A@
sentence. Mr. Cilimberg said that was done at the request of the applicants.
Mr. Bowerman said he has met with staff and the applicants since the Boards last meeting on this
=
amendment. He said the first three changes seen are reflective of reality. Initially, the FAR will not be
reached at that level because density will not require it. The 65,000 square feet is also a situation of reality.
Companies like Lowes or Target are only putting up builds in excess of 65,000 square feet, and unless the
=
building is in an urban setting, it will only be one story. This change reflects what would be placed in the
regional area, so there should be no misunderstanding by the Commission or the Board of what is going to
be requested. He said in order to accomplish the development plan shown on the new copy of 14A, there
will be an entrance to the Town Center at the new crossover location. In the alterna-tive, at Timberwood a
lot of the traffic would be from the south. This Town Center will be a regional use. A lot of the turning
around traffic would be coming from the south and the new crossover would be built in recognition of that.
There would be a left-turn here instead of a U-turn. He does not believe that a lot of what is shown on this
first plan will be built for as many as 25 years. The FAR would, over time, increase. Depending on market
conditions there might be some two-story buildings, but the CPA allows that flexibility. Without that flexibility
initially, the CPA is not something that will happen. That is his judgment, and is what he communicated to
staff as his feeling.
Mr. Martin said what has come out of this is what he had expected when the Board last met. For all
the reasons Mr. Bowerman stated into the record, that is enough said until after the public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman said they did not talk about the green roof technology. That is a technology which is
also new to him. Ms. Humphris said she had talked to Mr. Cilimberg about this also. Mr. Bowerman said
there have been some substantial changes between what was recommended when the Board first saw this
amendment, and what is before the Board tonight. He did not want the Board to feel that staff and the
applicant had acted in a vacuum. Ms. Humphris said she had wondered how some of the changes came
about.
At this point, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Steve Blaine said he represented Deerman Realty Company. Over the last ten months, they
have worked with his clients and the other owners in the Town Center area in trying to reach a consensus.
It is clear that the work done with staff has helped them to reach a consensus. They are in agreement with
the staff's recommendation on the proposed language. Mr. Blaine offered to answer questions.
Mr. Jeff Werner said he was speaking tonight more as a resident of the City than as a staff member
at PEC. He has no specific comments about the proposal. He wanted to offer a perspective which he
thinks is important for the Board to keep in mind as it discusses the possibilities that exist on this site. He
realizes that current rules preclude what he will show the Board. He said there is a lot of talk about
Charlottesville when discussing DISC and the neighborhood model. He said he lives a few blocks north of
the downtown mall. He said a downtown mall is a great place to live and the center for this town, so he
would like to offer an image for the Board to think about. He passed around a drawing. He said the
downtown mall covers approximately 100 acres. In the City's Corridor Study there is a very comprehensive
inventory of square foot usages in that area. He said his colleague at SLEC, Bruce Appleyard, has
addressed some of the transportation issues (he had E-mailed a letter to the Board members). Mr. Werner
said it is possible to create a very viable town center on 100 acres, or just more of the same type of
A@
development can be created on that land.
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks all the Board members appreciate the effort which has gone into
drafting this Master Plan and the proposed amendment language. The Board appreciates the property
owners getting together to come up with the plan.
Ms. Humphris said she has a lot of questions. She said that for many years the Board has talked
about not having the same type of development above the South Fork Rivanna River as there is below the
river. The Board has felt that when it had a chance to deal with that area, development would be dealt with
in a much better way, aesthetically and environmentally. She appreciates the effort put into this Master
Plan by the applicants. It is a minor miracle that it was able to be brought about. Her questions have to do
with the differences between what the Board did at the September 5 meeting and what she sees in the
language tonight. Under, Land Use and Density, the first bullet did state A mix of residential and non-
A
residential land uses shall be provided with the Town Center, including Urban Density Residential (6 to 34
du/ac.), Office Service Community Service, Public/Institutional uses including parks and greenways, and
compatible Regional Service and Industrial Service. That has been changed to ... and compatible
@A
Regional Service and compatible Industrial Service. She asked the reason for this change.
@
Mr. Cilimberg said based on this proposal there would be some element of the project that
probably would not be termed compatible in terms of the larger, one-floor retail uses. When looking at a
town center and the kinds of things which are happening along the main street compared to regional
service, then regional service is not in the same vein. They attempted to call it what it is (regional service).
Then, they qualified that anything that was industrial service would have to be compatible, in the way of
offices and research, rather than other types of industrial.
Ms. Humphris asked if those compatible industrial uses would be defined at a later time. Mr.
Cilimberg said the Master Plan does some of that. The second bullet Uses not considered desirable for
A
this area include heavy industrial and manufacturing uses, and other large land consuming uses .... works
@
with bullet number one. They noted things which are not desirable, but did recognize the fact that this
proposal has a big box. Ms. Humphris said taking out the language ... and larger scale highway-oriented
A@A
regional commercial uses located in a free-standing, big box concept with large expanses of parking. is a
@
major change. She does not think the Board talked about that at the last meeting.
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Werners vision of the downtown mall concept is also his vision ultimately.
=
He said the County will not get rapidly from where it is today to that mall concept, which took 200 years to
develop and redevelop. Initially, the economics of doing the internal part support anybody doing it. The
regional use and the revenues generated are necessary in order to create the Town Center complex before
the Board tonight in terms of the total picture. The FARs initially are less than 3.0. In today's environment,
=
he does not see any way to accomplish the rest of the plan unless the Board is willing to call it a work in
progress. He trusts that the people who own the property, and whatever arrangements they have worked
out between them, participate. Unless all participate, the economics are not available for residential and
some of the other uses. If the concept talked about by DISC is ever going to be realized, unless the County
wants to pay for it, it will have to be done by the private sector. It will have to be done by people who will
make a profit from doing it. That is the reason he looked at this pragmatically.
Ms. Humphris said she had not finished her questions. She asked why the bullet reading Special
A
attention should also be given to the visibility of development from Route 29 was deleted. Mr. Cilimberg
@
said that was something the owners felt might be taken as a liberty to restrict regional service. He does not
think it was a problem. It is understood that there will be regional service on Route 29, and there will be a
big box concept, but it should still be treated in a way that is complimentary to Route 29. That is the change
that has been requested by the applicant.
Ms. Humphris said she thinks that language should remain in the amendment. Also, further along
there is language which stated Building shall be inward oriented to internal road system serving the Town
A>=
Center (north south street and/or east west street) and not oriented to Route 29 and that language also
@
was deleted. She does not understand why it should be omitted. She thought the whole idea of a town
center was that the whole thing would be inward oriented to the internal road system as opposed to being
oriented to Route 29. Mr. Cilimberg said the change (14A) handed out tonight gives a picture of how they
propose the regional area will look. The two largest of the buildings would be closest to Route 29. They
would have a face on Route 29, but also be oriented to parking on the south side of one building, and to the
north side of the other. There is some inward orientation. There may have been some concern about how
inward oriented would be interpreted.
A@
Ms. Humphris said she thinks that language belongs in the amendment. She said the one hundred
foot undisturbed vegetative buffer was discussed previously, and that has now disappeared. She
understands that on Page 3 of the Master Plan book there is a paragraph about the landscape edge, but no
distance is given. She does not know what that means, or what the setback will be from the edge of Route
29 to that edge. She thinks there should be some distance stated. She thinks the whole idea of the one
hundred foot vegetative buffer was important. There was a statement in the paperwork that the buffer
could not be achieved, but something meaningful could be achieved.
Ms. Humphris said she understands what the applicant is saying about the whole idea of that mid-
point access between Hollymead Drive and Timberwood Boulevard, but she thinks it would be a better idea.
She said Mr. Bowerman had indicated that it would prevent a U-turn, but that is not necessarily so. Given
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
the situation with Route 29, adding another stop light for a new crossover is a mistake. If there is to be an
entrance there, it would be better to have only a right turn in and a right turn out to service traffic heading
south. The traffic heading north could go on Timberwood. After she had gone through all of this, the only
conclusion she could come to was that the Board is facing a very difficult decision. She does not think it
was anyone's vision that a town center would have big boxes. However, she realizes that in a situation like
this it was difficult to have all of the owners come together. She is faced with deciding if it is better to have it
work in this fashion instead of having it work in what she would consider to be the ideal fashion. That is the
decision all are faced with, and she understands that Mr. Bowerman has already made his decision.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the applicants should speak to the issue of the new crossover. They
can explain their reason for wanting it. It deals with the Plan itself. Ms. Humphris said when she met with
them, she heard that. But, she thinks the Countys big picture of how Route 29 will develop and what
=
pressures development might put on having Route 29 widened and other roads promoted, is more
important. She understands their rationale.
Mr. Martin said he thinks this proposal is a big step toward getting what the DISC Committee
envisioned. He agrees with Mr. Bowerman that in order to get this proposal, a path must be traveled.
Having three owners come together like this is an accomplishment in and of itself. Having many of the
DISC principles included is another accomplishment. Having this designed in a way that it can change into
what is eventually wanted is another accomplishment. Unless the County is going to build the infrastructure
and put in the open space and other things, it will not happen unless a path is traveled to get there. The
County has staff which will be looking at this property over the years, and everyone knows the Board is
pushing it in a certain direction as the densities increase. He feels this is a good step. As to the crossover,
to take it away would put a burden on Timberwood Drive. He understands the crossover would only be built
if a traffic study indicated a need for it to de built.
Mr. Dorrier said he comes from Scottsville which is a small town. They have recently had some
good news in the form of grants for infrastructure. He said the budget of the town is about $350,000.00.
They operate on a zero margin for improvements. He said this town has been there for 200 years and has
developed an infrastructure and some viability, and has a lot of history. One of the real problems with the
town is economic viability. Recently they had two restaurants close, and another store is about to close.
The Canal Warehouse has been developed, but it is up for sale because business cant be found to go in it.
=
He mentions this because it is hard to create a viable economic structure with just the people who live
there. The town tries to get people passing through to stop and spend some money in the community. He
can see why there would be an emphasis to attract a big box store that would cause people to stop and
come into the development. He does not think the development would make it with just the internal support
of the people who live there. He said the real problem with small towns, even the viable ones, is to provide
enough economic benefit for the store owners to make a living and continue to stay in business. It appears
that this development will combine features from both the old town and the new urbanism, and that it has
some real possibilities. He agrees with Mr. Bowerman that you cant get from an open field to something
=
like the downtown mall without a great deal of money or public support. He does not think the private
sector can do it on its own. He does not think the County can provide much support other than what is
presently being done, which is moral support. He thinks this will be a far better development than what
could have gone on the property by right. He supports the amendment.
Mr. Perkins said he agrees with Mr. Dorrier. This will be much better than what could have gone on
the property by right. He does not think the Board is getting everything it wanted, nor is the applicant. He
thinks this is a compromise all can live with.
Ms. Thomas said she has some practical suggestions she would like to have feedback on. At the
Boards last meeting, she thinks it was understood that this is something that would develop over the years
=
and would not be perfect when first opened. Also, it would have some aspects of a regional center, rather
than a town center, but over the long term it could be developed into more of a town center. She said that
area is going to develop with a lot of population if everything that is possible is developed. This will either be
the town center for that area or the town centers will be scattered around the edges. If it is agreed that this
starts as a regional center with the goal of producing it into a town center, then she thinks the word
compatible is very important. She has worried about how to have residential development very close to
A@
Lowes and she would think the applicants would want to be sure the regional service is compatible with the
=
other uses. Words are not all-determining issues, but she would like to have the applicants discuss why
they would want incompatible regional service. If the goal is to have development that is compatible and
conducive to mixed use residential development, pedestrian orientation, and a sense of this area being a
town center without adding unnecessary stress to Route 29, she suggests putting the word compatible
A@
back in.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the visual aspect will also be important. She does not think that is
totally lost, but on page 5 the importance of the inward orientation is noted. That is an important part of
A@
making sure this develops with the possibility of it becoming a Town Center rather than a strip of big boxes
that turn their backs on the rest of the Town Center and make it impossible to develop into an attractive
Town Center. She would put inward orientation back in, or would like to hear why that is not seen as
A@
desirable by the applicants. If no buffer is being provided, then the words the applicants use on page 3 of
their application about the landscaped edge should also appear in what the Board holds them to as a
guide.
Ms. Thomas said that everyone on the Board knows she has a thing about transit access. Transit
access is something which has been crossed out on page 6. Even if no buses are traveling those streets
today, if they are not provided for ahead of time, then that is what may be precluded from happening in the
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
future.
Ms. Thomas said she has two other points. When the Board met with the applicants they talked
about how, although some of the blocks seemed very large now, they actually are smaller than they look.
She does not see anything in the proposed language that encourages smaller blocks as this develops. She
thinks that what a Comprehensive Plan amendment should do is say what is being expected. She said the
language talks about the road network and that desirable block lengths be between 200 and 300 feet, with
larger block lengths being permissible. She would like to make it very clear that the Board is expecting as
small blocks as possible because it wants this to be a pedestrian-oriented Town Center. Her last question
is about the goal to have grade-separated fly-overs or interchanges so the present Hollymead Community
can be connected to this town center. She said the Board talked about that when it was developing the
Route 29 North amendment for the Comprehensive Plan. She said there is language in the
Comprehensive Plan stating Bicycle/pedestrian facilities shall be provided as part of grade separated
A
crossings to provide pedestrian connectivity between the east and west sides of Route 29. She asked if
@
this automatically picks up what was in CPA-2000-05. Mr. Cilimberg said the only thing this changed is the
language on page 8.
Mr. Cilimberg asked about Ms. Thomas remark that on page 6 transit access is eliminated. Ms.
=
Humphris asked if Ms. Thomas was referring to the bullet on page 6 where the word shall was changed to
A@
should (Pedestrian and bicycle systems and transit access shall should be provided throughout the
A@A
Town Center, with continuous walkway and travel way provided from Airport Road and Route 29 North.)
@
Ms. Thomas said yes. Mr. Cilimberg said the word shall was changed to should in a lot of places
A@A@A@
because this is a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Ms. Thomas said that takes care of her concerns. Now, there are the questions of wanting
incompatible regional service, inward orientation, and picking up the visual quality comments from the
A@
application. Mr. Cilimberg said block lengths are mentioned in the third bullet on page 6 and also at the
bottom of page 6 and the top of page 7 in the Master Plan a reference is made to block lengths. He
suggested adding the words "consistent with the master plan" to the sentence in the Comprehensive Plan
language. He said that is assumed in all of this, but there is more specificity in the Master Plan at the
bottom of page 6 (general block lengths will not exceed 500 feet) than in the Comprehensive Plan.
A
Ms. Thomas asked what language Mr. Cilimberg is recommended be added. Mr. Cilimberg said
he is suggesting that the words although longer block lengths consistent with the Master Plan may be
A
permissible based on traffic, topographic, and/or other site conditions to the end of the last sentence in
@
bullet #3. The sentence would then read: The desirable block lengths would be between 200 and 300
A
feet, although longer block lengths consistent with the Master Plan may be permissible based on
traffic, topographic, and/or other site conditions.
@
Mr. Bowerman asked if that language really addresses the question. Mr. Cilimberg said that at the
top of page 7 in the Master Plan document there is reference to not having a strict rectilinear grid. There is
a lot in the Master Plan document which gets into some of the issues mentioned tonight. Mr. Dorrier asked
if that is the document dated July 20. Mr. Cilimberg said yes. Mr. Dorrier asked if both the staff and the
A@
applicants buy in to that document. Mr. Cilimberg referenced Attachment A of the staff report, and the fifth
bullet on page 3 reading: In addition to other applicable recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan,
A
the Town Center shall be developed in general accord with the
Conceptual Master Plan & Design
dated July 20, 2001, by Daggett & Grigg (the Master Plan).
Guidelines for the Hollymead Town Center,
A@@
He said staff referenced this Master Plan as being the guiding document in the development of the Town
Center.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this replaces zoning considerations. Mr. Cilimberg said no. It will be the basis
A@
by which zoning decisions are made.
Mr. Bowerman said Ms. Thomas raised some issues. He is trying to understand whether Mr.
Cilimbergs comments have addressed those concerns because they are part of the CPA, or whether those
=
concerns need to be addressed. Mr. Martin said there are two of them that need to be discussed.
Mr. Cilimberg said he was talking about the block lengths, and suggested a reference to satisfy that
concern. Ms. Thomas said if sufficient guidance is provided so it is known that the Board wants the smallest
blocks practical, which will be between 200 and 500 feet, then that concern is taken care of. That leaves
the question of why anyone would want incompatible regional service and what is wrong with buildings
being inwardly oriented. Mr. Bowerman said there is the question about the crossover and why it should not
look nice from Route 29.
Ms. Thomas said their own words say they do want it to look nice from Route 29. Ms. Humphris
said the words special attention should be given to the visibility were deleted.
A@
Mr. Blaine said he will address the questions, but first would like to make a general response. Each
of the issues mentioned were discussed with staff and the owners. The selection of the wording was
discussed many times. There were words the owners would have preferred to have in the proposed
language and reflected in their Master Plan. They felt they made compromises. It was a compromise
process where a consensus was reached. There were a lot of owners with varying interests. To respond to
Ms. Humphris question about the regional service use, there was one owner who had regional service
designation for his property. His position could have been to not agree with the Master Plan. There were
compromises made. There was concern about what the language dealing with visibility meant. What does
it mean to say special attention to visibility from Route 29? The topography of this property is such that not
A@
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
only would the regional service use, but some uses behind that area, be visible from Route 29. Does that
mean that the buildings would have to be invisible? There is a process in place which involves architectural
review (ARB) and aesthetic (entrance corridor) concerns. He could not attach specific meaning to the
language which had to do with visibility. There was a lot of certainty attached to it, the staff thought it did not
add much. Why have language in the proposal that in and of itself adds nothing? Second, the inward
A
orientation language should not focus just on the regional service. The language in the Master Plan
@
applies to all of the uses in the Town Center. It is important to understand that the Master Plan addresses a
hierarchy of streets. He referred the Board to Figure 21 to illustrate what he is talking about. It is an
illustration to relegate parking and have orientation to a streetscape. If the buildings are facing on main
street, the back of those buildings may be visible from the parallel street. Buildings have to orient one way
or the other. If they orient to a front street, then their back will be to another parallel street. If buildings on
Route 29 orient inward, and the inward orientation is some street parallel to Route 29, the back of the
buildings will be facing Route 29. How does that square with the concern about visibility from Route 29?
Mr. Blaine said that in Figure 14A it is very clear that with respect to the regional service, the
buildings are oriented to have an inward orientation. There is a picture to show what it will look like. If there
is a problem with the way it looks, that can be discussed.
Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Blaine is presenting a picture rather than using the words inward
A
orientation? Mr. Blaine said a picture is worth a thousand words. He does not agree that by deleting the
@
word compatible it means incompatible. What is the function of that term? What does it add to the
A@A@
Plan? Is it open to many interpretations? If it is open to many interpretations, that leads to uncertainty. If
there is uncertainty and it doesnt add much, the balance is to eliminate it. These particular development
=
plans will go through a rezoning process. There are standards for zoning which deal with impacts on
surrounding uses. What are the considerations of the larger community? If a word is added which does not
add anything, that is making trouble for the applicant and, possibly, the community at large.
Ms. Thomas said on the philosophical point that if a word does not add, and creates uncertainty,
that it should be deleted, then a whole lot of words would be deleted. The Comprehensive Plan is a guiding
document. She thinks it is very important that the regional service be compatible with the town center and
with the mixed uses and the residential uses around it. That word seems important even though people will
discuss what compatible is. It is important to give guidance in the Comprehensive Plan that says the
A@
County wants the uses to be compatible. In this case, she thinks the word compatible is still needed.
A@
Ms. Martin said he thinks there is a fear that compatible will eventually be used to beat their
A@A
heads to say that the big box is not compatible, and everything will go back to square one. That is the
@A@
bottom line. If there were some assurance that the word compatible would not be used in this fashion,
A@
there would not be that concern. That is the crux of the problem. They do not want this same issue to
come up when they submit their plans.
Ms. Humphris said that would not be possible given the way everything else in this amendment is
written. The one word compatible doesnt change the fact that everything about the 65,000 square feet
A@=
has been taken out. The record shows that.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has to be agreeable to it before discussing it. She asked if Mr. Blaine
had further comments.
Mr. Blaine said they can't agree to it. In this precise forum, this may be an example of what they will
face. He said Ms. Thomas had used the term earlier to illustrate that a Lowes would not be compatible
=
with the residential use. He said that precisely is not the interpretation they want. How do they apply
compatible to an adjoining area which has not yet developed? What if the regional service area is
developed first?
Ms. Thomas said she would like to correct what Mr. Blaine said. She was not saying it is impossible
for mixed use and residential to take place next to Lowes. She said she worries about it. That is exactly
=
where the design criteria being talked about comes in, so here can be a big box which is compatible to the
residential uses and long-range development of the town center.
Mr. Blaine said the detailed language on the design guidelines as contained in their multi-paged
Master Plan, addresses that. They dont rely on one word to address that. They try to rely on pictures and
=
detailed descriptions of various treatments and approaches. Particularly with respect to the big box which
they know is a problem for members of the Board. They addressed that specifically with language that
goes to massing and architectural treatment. They went back and forth four or five times on that to get a
consensus. It has been thoroughly debated. County staff has represented the Boards interests and the
=
Countys interests very well during these discussions. He has represented the diverse, disparate interests of
=
the owners who came together on this proposal in a coalition that is just hanging by a hair, based on this
overall proposal which has been worked on for ten months, being adopted. They have come this far during
that time so he asks that the Board not be hung up on the word compatible.
A@
Mr. Dorrier said there will be a number of things that will come out of this which will be of benefit to
the whole County. Also, there are three or four review processes which any plans must go through.
Mr. Bowerman said this is a Comprehensive Plan amendment which deals with the total package.
He hears that there is a fear that at some specific level, after a lot of money is spent, and a lot of time has
passed, there will be a submission which will get hung up on a word in the Comprehensive Plan like the
word compatible. There is a fear that people will stop looking at the rest of the language in the Plan and
A@
concentrate on one specific thing whether it be visible from Route 29. If you look at the rest of the
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Comprehensive Plan in terms of the way it has been documented both by words and by visuals, you dont
=
have the same problem when you look at the whole thing. What he senses is a fear that the Board will not
hold up its end of this amendment.
Mr. Martin said it is not just the Board, but the Planning Commission and other groups. Every
proposal will not come back to this Board. It will come back to others who will assume what the Board
meant. He looks at this as if the Board were negotiating with someone for a piece of property for a school
site, and the negotiations have been on-going. Then, finally there is a conclusion and staff recommends
something that has been negotiated, and either the Board or the other party decides at the last moment to
make a change. At that point, the whole thing falls apart. He thinks that is what Mr. Blaine said. He would
like to say that the County is getting much more than it is giving, especially if one considers what could
happen if these three landowners went about doing what they could do separately. He has no problem with
following the staffs recommendations realizing that those recommendations are a result of negotiations.
=
He has no problem with offering a motion to approve CPA-98-03 with the text and map amendment as
recommended by staff.
Mr. Bowerman said he will second the motion. However, he is not unmindful of what Ms.
Humphris and Ms. Thomas have expressed.
Ms. Humphris said she does not understand the big deal about not having a statement saying
special attention should also be given to the visibility of development from Route 29. She said that is
A@
important to this community. The public will not be happy if a statement like that letting County staff know
there is this expectation, is not included.
Mr. Martin suggested just making a reference to the levels of special attention that will be given.
List those different levels of special attention which will be given to visibility. Ms. Humphris said she does
not care how it is said, just so it is said.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Master Plan which has been developed addresses the issue of visibility.
The fact that there is the large document which deals with all parts of the Plan seems to address what is
being discussed.
Mr. Perkins said it seems redundant to him because the Architectural Review Board (ARB) will
have to approve any plan submitted.
Mr. Martin said if the language had never been in the amendment at all, the Board would not be
talking about its being taken out at this time. Ms. Humphris said that is the problem. The language was
removed.
Mr. Thomas said she thinks it is more a matter of trust. She thinks concerns were expressed that
the Board will take some words and use them as weapons. A couple of the Board members are concerned
that by removing these words, they are planning on downplaying that aspect which she thinks is important.
Then, will that create any false expectations that the Board feels these things are not important? This
conversation is about emphasizing that there are things the Board thinks are important. Things were
handled in all the back and forth that went on, but which this whole Board was not a part of.
Mr. Cilimberg said he had said it would not be a problem to delete the words special attention
A
should also be given to the visibility of development from Route 29 because that happens. It is a reality
@
that everything on Route 29 gets special attention because of the review processes.
Mr. Martin suggested just saying everything on Route 29, including this project, will receive the
A
special attention it normally receives.
@
Mr. Perkins said there is a statement included saying they must receive a building permit before
they build any building, and that is a given. Mr. Cilimberg referred the Board to the copy of 14A which was
handed out tonight, and said to use that as an example. Staff will be reviewing a rezoning request based on
14A. The way that gets addressed in terms of design is what the ARB will be looking at, as well as the
Planning Commission. It is a statement of fact which is one reason why it does not need to be in the
language.
Mr. Dorrier said Route 29 is an entrance corridor. The special visibility issues are already looked at
for anything occurring along the corridor. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct.
Ms. Humphris asked what the width of the buffer will be. Mr. Cilimberg said that is undetermined at
this time. Ms. Humphris asked how it will be determined. Mr. Cilimberg said it will be based partially on the
improvements to Route 29 through this area. Staff has not been able to ascertain any information from
VDOT about those plans. Ms. Humphris said VDOT has said they are not going to do anything. Mr.
Cilimberg said something has to happen in the area. Traffic is getting worse everyday based on existing
circumstances. There have to be improvements to Route 29, as well as additional transportation improve-
ments. When the Board adopted the Comprehensive Plan amendment last December, that was intended
to establish those improvements. Whatever improvements are made to Route 29, a decision will then have
to be made as to the kind of frontage treatment which will occur. Any depth change to the 100 feet
originally recommended would create a real problem for the property owners because of the relationship of
what they are trying to do to Route 29 and what the improvement could do to their development. That
question will have to be addressed in the rezoning. Ms. Humphris said anyone who travels often between
Charlottesville and Hampton Roads/Newport News can see the pitiful attempts to buffer Home Depot along
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
I-64. Mr. Cilimberg said the ARB will pay attention to how the buildings relate to Route 29, but also how the
frontage improvements relate to Route 29. The ARB will look at the whole picture, and they will have to
look at this early as part of the rezoning process.
Mr. Dorrier said the plan the Board received tonight is not a good sketch of what it will be. This is
conceptual, and he thinks it will be much different from what is shown. Mr. Cilimberg said it may not be that
much different, it is a starting point. The details are not on that sketch.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Martins motion is to approve exactly what staff has recommended. Mr.
=
Martin said that is correct. Mr. Bowerman said he would second the motion. That is the understanding of
all parties at this time.
Mr. Perkins said this is a very important process in the history of the County. It may be the
beginning of the way things are going to be. He thinks the Board has discussed this long enough, so he
called for the question.
Ms. Thomas said she had been requested to have a five minute break. She asked if Mr. Perkins
would agree to that before calling the roll. Mr. Martin said he did not agree, and would second Mr. Perkins
=
motion.
Roll was immediately called, and the motion to call the question failed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
__________
Mr. Bowerman said he voted no because he thinks it is important that when the Board votes on
A@
this question, it is important to get a 6:0 vote. To preclude any further discussion, the Board would end up
not having a 6:0 vote.
At 8:50 p.m., Ms. Thomas called for a recess. The Board reconvened at 9:00 p.m., and the
meeting continued.
Ms. Thomas said the motion to call the question failed, so the Board may continue with the
discussion.
Ms. Humphris said she realizes that the little details she expressed concerns about will be taken
care of during the zoning process. Whereas, she would much prefer that some of the language remain in
the amendment, she does understand about the inward orientation and the problems that brings up, and
A@
the fact that VDOT will deal with the whole issue of the crossover. With all of that said, she thinks it is
important to make this an unanimous decision if possible because it is the important to the way that not only
Route 29 develops in the future, but the way town centers develop in the future in the County.
Ms. Thomas said she brought up the word trust, which got an interesting reaction in the audience.
She thinks it is a basic issue that the Board is talking about, and she was surprised at the reaction to the use
of the word compatible since that seemed to her an obvious word, instead of being regarded as a
A@
dangerous word. She said her vote will also indicate a level of trust that she will hold the applicants to.
Ms. Thomas said there was a motion made and seconded. She asked if there were further
comments. With no comments being made, roll was called, and the motion to adopt the CPA was
approved by the recorded vote which follows:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Martin said he agrees it is much better for a motion to be adopted by a 6:0 vote. He thinks that
improves the level of trust in and of itself, and the expectation of trust.
Mr. Dorrier said it also gives support to County staff, which they need.
(Note: The amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is set out in full below.)
Amendment to Hollymead Community Profile Recommendations
Adopted 10/10/2001, (CPA-1998-03, Post Office Land Trust)
(Albemarle County Land Use Plan, page 78)
The area designated as Town Center west of Route 29 and south of Airport Road is intended as a
$
generally more compact, higher density area containing a mixture of businesses, services, public
facilities, residential areas and public spaces, attracting activities of all kind. Nearby residential
development will be of high enough densities to support many of these uses.
This designation replaces the previous patchwork of regional service, office service and industrial
service areas in an effort to establish a more unified planning and development process.
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
·
The Town Center should adhere to the following twelve design principles as further defined in the
General Development/Design Guidelines: 1) pedestrian orientation, 2) neighborhood friendly
streets and paths, 3) interconnected streets and transportation networks, 4) parks and open
spaces, 5) neighborhood centers, 6) buildings and spaces of human scale, 7) relegated parking, 8)
mixture of uses, 9) mixture of housing types, 10) redevelopment rather than abandonment, 11) site
planning that respects terrain, and 12) clear edges.
The Town Center is intended to incorporate features that conserve land, provide a "critical mass" of
$
uses and achieve a high level of interaction of activities. Ultimately, it is intended that portions of the
Town Center include such features as wide sidewalks, on-street parking and parking integrated
with uses, multi-story structures and residential uses above commercial and retail uses.
Stand-alone residential is also appropriate in an urban form.
In addition to other applicable recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, the Town Center
$
shall be developed in general accord with the Conceptual Master Plan & Design Guidelines for the
Hollymead Town Center, dated July 20, 2001, by Daggett & Grigg (the "Master Plan").
General Development/Design Guidelines
The following are general guidelines for the entire area designated as a Town Center in the Hollymead
Community.
LAND USE and DENSITY
A mix of residential and non-residential land uses shall be provided within the Town Center,
$
including Urban Density Residential (6 to 34 du/ac.), Office Service Community Service,
Public/Institutional uses including parks and greenways, and Regional Service and compatible
Industrial Service.
Uses not considered desirable for this area include heavy industrial and manufacturing uses, and
$
other large land consuming uses, such as warehousing (including self storage facilities), and auto
dealerships.
Commercial and residential development should strive to ultimately achieve higher densities than
$
those achieved historically. Development in some areas of the Town Center, particularly in the
Mixed Use/Regional Service Area, likely will not provide as high a density initially or in the fore-
seeable future as densities achievable in other areas of the Town Center, but development in all
areas should be designed so as not to preclude higher densities, through subsequent redevelop-
ment and/or infill, when the market demographics are such as will justify and support denser
development features, including structured parking and multi-story retail. The desired overall
density for the ultimate build-out of the Town Center is a FAR of .50. The desired .50 FAR overall
density contemplates a net of all open space, road, street and travel ways, as well as public
amenities. Nothing herein shall be interpreted as limiting the FAR for the Town Center.
While it is desirable for single story buildings to not exceed 65,000 square feet, it is recognized that
$
large stores, some much larger than 65,000 square feet on one level, such as department stores,
home improvement stores and supermarkets, are appropriate in the Mixed Use/Regional Service
Area (see Master Plan, Figure 14A). Issues of bulk, massing and pedestrian accessibility for all
buildings, but particularly for single story stores over 65,000 square feet, may be addressed
through various design concepts, such as building facade/roof-line treatments, building orientation
and/or other measures, so as to dilute their appearance as large, monolithic boxes and to facilitate
subdividing these stores in the event of the need for re-tenanting with smaller stores.
A significant residential component should be located within the designated Town Center area,
$
both mixed with other commercial/office uses and within walking distance (approx. 1/4 mile from
core commercial center).
Development of this area pursuant to approval of an overall development plan for the Town Center
$
is desired. Approval of Development Plans for portions of the Town Center may be necessary and
appropriate in certain situations, but should be in general accord with the Master Plan.
SITE DESIGN
To achieve the intent of the Master Plan:
All building facades visible from a public road should continue design elements present on the front
$
of the building.
Buildings should be oriented to streets and parking relegated as addressed in the Master Plan.
$
Site development should respect the terrain and use appropriate design techniques to minimize
$
clearing and grading activities.
Roof design should mitigate the visual impact of larger scale structures and associated buildings,
$
especially considering the general location of this area along a ridgeline.
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
Loading docks, trash collection facilities, outdoor storage and related facilities should be
$
incorporated into building design so they are not visible.
Metal buildings should not be permitted.
$
A system of walkways and bikeways should be included in site design.
$
Parking:
-Parking in excess of that necessary to support individual uses in the Town Center is discouraged.
-Parking should be centralized where appropriate. Cooperative parking arrangements are
encouraged where feasible.
-On-street parking should be incorporated into road design for categories of streets where on-street
parking is contemplated in the Master Plan.
-Large parking areas should be divided into smaller components using travel ways and median
breaks with trees and other landscaping material used to minimize visual impacts and heat
generated by large areas of pavement.
-Minimize parking areas between streets and buildings, as addressed in the Master Plan.
Establish a landscape edge on the east side of the Town Center along Route 29 consistent with the
$
ultimate design of Route 29 (urban or rural cross-section design) generally contemplated in the
Master Plan.
TRANSPORTATION, TOWN CENTER AREA (See also the TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
section for specific recommendations for improvements along the Route 29 Corridor)
Transit service should be provided as soon as operation is feasible and site design should
$
accommodate future transit service.
All roads should be designed with the intent of providing pedestrian friendly neighborhood oriented
$
streets. All roads in this area should be constructed as an urban cross-section, with sidewalks, and
street landscaping. Lower design speeds and minimizing road width (number of through lanes)
should be encouraged. However, on-street parking should be encouraged where appropri-ate. A
system of bike lanes should be accommodated as generally depicted in the Master Plan, including
all roads, which connect to lands adjacent to the Town Center.
The road network for the Town Center should consist of a system of interconnected streets forming
$
a network of blocks. The network should consist of a minimum of two (2) north-south roads with
crossing streets creating a block pattern. Shorter block lengths consistent with the intent of
creating a walkable community should be provided. The desirable block lengths would be between
200 and 300 feet, although longer block lengths may be permissible based on traffic, topographic,
and/or other site conditions.
The Town Center road network should include connections to Route 29 at Timberwood Boulevard
$
and Hollymead Drive, and provide for access to Airport Road at two (2) locations: 1) the future
North Fork Research Park access on Airport Road; and, 2) a future crossover located just west of
the U. S. Post Office Building.
One mid-point access between Hollymead Drive and Timberwood Drive may utilize a new
$
crossover on Route 29, if warranted by traffic studies and conditions. Given the current road
infrastructure in the vicinity of the Town Center, such a crossover is an important element of the
Town Center and is a critical ingredient for a Boulevard/Main Street entrance into the development
from Route 29. Once the ultimate transportation network for the Town Center and surrounding
environs is in place, the continuing need for such a crossover may be reconsidered.
The north/south parallel road should be designed as a "Boulevard" or "Main Street"(as depicted in
$
Figures 4 and 5 of the Master Plan), recognizing that while carrying a higher volume of traffic, it
also serves as an important Neighborhood Street within the Town Center concept. As such, the
road needs to accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, transit service and contribute positively to the
character of the area. Other streets in the Town Center may be designed as a "Main Street,"
"Avenue," "Neighborhood Street," or "Way" depending on the character and intensity of
development in the area (Master Plan, Figures 5, 6, and 7).
Pedestrian and bicycle systems and transit access should be provided throughout the Town
$
Center, with a continuous walkway and travel way provided from Airport Road and Route 29 North.
Pedestrian activity is encouraged. Sidewalks on both sides of streets built ten (10) feet wide or
$
greater should be provided in high-density areas, with four (4) feet minimum width on some streets
elsewhere as contemplated in the Master Plan.
A park and ride lot should be established near the Town Center area.
$
A network of subsidiary cross streets linking all major roads in a street block system should be
$
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
established throughout the larger site. Linkages shall be made to existing developed areas where
possible (Deerwood, Forest Springs).
Grade separated vehicular crossings of Route 29 are recommended at Timberwood Boulevard
$
and Hollymead Drive. Bicycle/pedestrian facilities shall be provided as part of grade separated
crossings to provide pedestrian connectivity between the east and west sides of Route 29. These
should be located at or near Timberwood Boulevard and Hollymead Drive. Sidewalks and bike
facilities shall also be provided to link to planned facilities along Airport Road as contemplated in
the Master Plan.
PUBLIC SPACE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES/SERVICES
Open space, recreation areas and public spaces shall be provided to serve patrons, employees,
$
and community residents. Development of public open space/features such as a public square,
traffic circles, and "pocket park(s)" should be provided throughout the Town Center area.
A greenway shall be established along the stream forming the western and southern boundary of
$
the Town Center and should include walking and bike trails and other features/amenities. This
greenway and associated trails should extend across Route 29 to link to the residential areas east
of Route 29 and ultimately to the proposed greenway along Powell Creek.
The Community Facilities Plan indicates a need for a public library and police substation in the
$
Hollymead Community. The Town Center may be a desirable location for these and other such
public facilities.
Space shall be made available for a recycling center (not counted against square footage limits).
$
ENVIRONMENT
Regional stormwater facilities should be established to serve this portion of the Hollymead
$
Community.
Exemplary specimen or old growth trees that may exist in this area should be preserved to the
$
extent practicable.
Area landscaping shall minimize water requirements.
$
Principles of sustainable design should be incorporated to a significant extent in site development,
$
including use of natural lighting within buildings, and energy efficiency.
Road Improvements, Route 29 Corridor and Proffit Road
Amendment to Hollymead Community Profile Recommendations (pp. 78-81)
Adopted, 2/7/2001, Readopted 10/04/2001 (CPA-2000-05)
Transportation improvements include...(p.80)
$
Recommended improvements along the Route 29 Corridor:
Road design and alignment improvements to Route 29 should be in keeping with the emerging
$
community consisting of a mix of residential neighborhoods, and commercial and employment
centers. Improvements related to upgrading Route 29 shall be consistent with an overall network
of interconnecting roads that balance the need to serve both the local and regional transportation
demands.
Parallel or adjunct roads east and west of Route 29 should be designed and located in a manner
$
consistent with other land use and transportation recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
Any system of parallel roads to augment Route 29 should be constructed as an urban cross-
$
section design (curb/gutter) with sidewalks and bike lanes. This creates a system of roads more in
keeping with a neighborhood street system and more consistent with the character of the adjacent
neighborhoods.
Recommendations for road design/classification for the parallel roads are taken from the
$
Albemarle County Neighborhood Model as recommended by the Development Area Initiatives
Study Committee (DISC) Report. Road design should be an "Avenue/Residential Boulevard" or
"Neighborhood Street" design on the eastern parallel road from Polo Grounds Road to Hollymead
Drive; a "Main Street" design on the eastern parallel road from the cemetery to Proffit Road; a
"Boulevard" or "Main Street" design on the western parallel road system transitioning to
"Avenue/Residential Boulevard" or "Main Street" south to Hollymead Drive extended.
The eastern parallel road system should extend to Polo Grounds Road (Route 643).
$
The southern end of any western parallel road system should terminate at a connection with
$
Hollymead Drive Extended.
Hollymead Drive and Timberwood Parkway should be designed with grade-separated crossings of
$
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
Route 29, without ramps, to connect with the road system on the western side of Route 29 and
accommodate east-west vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle movements with the appropriate
facilities.
Provide a grade-separated crossing without ramps at Airport Road to accommodate east-west
$
vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle movements with the appropriate facilities.
Based on development patterns east of Route 29, provide grade separated bicycle/pedestrian
$
overpasses/underpasses to accommodate east-west movement.
East-west connecting roads should be curb/gutter design with sidewalks/bike lanes and the design
$
should be "Avenue/Residential Boulevard" or "Main Street" design.
In the long term, consider establishing an east-west connection from Route 29 to Earlysville Road
$
(Route 743) as recommended in the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) by
extending Hollymead Drive to Earlysville Road. This road location and design should be
coordinated with the relocation of Dickerson Road (Route 606).
Intermediate accesses, without crossovers, to Route 29 should be provided on the east side
$
between Ashwood Boulevard and Timberwood Boulevard and west side between Hollymead Drive
and Timberwood Boulevard, except one (1) mid-point access between Hollymead Drive and
Timberwood Drive may utilize a new crossover on Route 29 if warranted by traffic studies and
conditions. Given the current road infrastructure in the vicinity of the Town Center, such a
crossover is an important element of the Town Center and is a critical ingredient for a
"Boulevard/Main Street" entrance into the development from Route 29. Once the ultimate
transportation network for the Town Center and surrounding environs is in place, the continuing
need for such a crossover may be reconsidered.
Stop the northern end of the eastern parallel road at Hollymead Drive and access undeveloped
$
land north of Hollymead directly from Route 29, without a crossover. This will avoid significant
impact to existing homes in Hollymead.
Proffit Road (Route 649) should be constructed with a "Neighborhood Street" design from Worth
$
Crossing to Lanford Hills Drive, including sidewalks and bike lanes. The section from Route 29 to
Worth Crossing should be designed in a manner necessary to accommodate transition to the
ultimate improvements to Route 29 and Airport Road. a major upgrade of Proffit Road east of
Lanford Hills to Route 20 is not recommended; however, minimal spot safety improvements may
be appropriate in certain locations.
_______________
Note: Ms. Thomas said while there is a news reporter present, she will read into the record the
proclamation adopted by the Board earlier in the meeting concerning Lewis and Clark Festival Day. She
read:
LEWIS AND CLARK FESTIVAL DAY
WHEREAS,Albemarle County is the birthplace of Meriwether Lewis and home to many sites that
were influential to his life and upbringing; and
WHEREAS,Albemarle County is home to Monticello, residence of Thomas Jefferson who chartered
the Corps of Discovery and directed its exploration of the west; and
WHEREAS,some of the planning, outfitting and training of leaders of the Corps of Discovery
occurred within Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS,many of the artifacts of the expedition, as collected and catalogued by members of the
Corps of Discovery, were permanently displayed at Monticello in Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS,Albemarle County is a sponsor of the Lewis and Clark Festival which will be celebrated
on October 13 and 14, 2001, and is an active participant in the upcoming bicentennial
observance of the Lewis and Clark Expedition which will begin in January, 2003;
NOW, THEREFORE,I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors, do hereby recognize
OCTOBER 13, 2001 as
LEWIS AND CLARK FESTIVAL DAY
and call its importance to the attention of all our citizens and encourage
community members to participate fully in the wide range of available events
and activities.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: April 25 and September 12, 2001.
October 10, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
No minutes had been read.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Bowerman said at the last day meeting he mentioned the area near the Senior Center to Mr.
Jim Bryan (VDOT). There is going to be a significant issue in the area in terms of sidewalks and
crosswalks. He mentioned it because the County is about to begin work on a new capital program and
highway budget. He thinks it will need special attention.
__________
Ms. Humphris asked if any of the Board members have received the E-mail messages which
appear to be viruses. She got two of them, and she was concerned that where the attachment is located, it
says the virus has been detected and removed. She sent a message to Fred Kruger because she did not
know if that was something new being used to get one to open the attachment.
__________
Mr. Dorrier asked the status of the citizen review panel for the Police Department. He asked who
will be making a presentation to the Board. Mr. Tucker responded that Chief Miller will not make a
recommendation until the end of this year or early next year.
__________
Mr. Perkins said he has seen some things in engineering magazines where they have created
parking lot surfaces so the water penetrates through. He asked the cost of parking lots with these pervious
surfaces. He said that becomes more important when there is denser development. Mr. Tucker responded
that a small area in the lower employee parking lot was resurfaced using this method as a test. Engineers
are still working on that, it has not been totally perfected. Grit and grime will clog the impervious section
eventually.
__________
Ms. Thomas commented that Jackson County, North Carolina, is adopting Albemarle Countys
=
wireless service facility ordinance.
__________
Ms. Thomas commented that the High Growth Coalition has asked Albemarle Countys staff to
=
answer some questions about cluster provisions in the rural area. The legislator who asked the question
wanted it to be used in both the urban area and the rural area. She does not understand its purpose in an
urban area.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn to October 17, 2001, 5:00 p.m., Room 235, for Joint Meeting with
Planning Commission.
At 9:15 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Ms.
Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adjourn this meeting until October 17, 2001, at 5:00 p.m. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 12/12/2001
Initials: EWC