The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-02-07 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of February 7, 2001 February. 9, 2001 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION 1. Call to order. 4. Others Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. · Ms. Diantha McKeel, School Board representative, informed the Board that the School Board is issuing Gold Cards to County senior citizens, which allow them to attend school- sponsored activities at no charge. 5. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation. Ms. Thomas presented certificates to several retiring members of various boards and commissions. 6.1 Proclamation recognizing March 21 through March 25, 2001 as Virginia Festival of the Book (attachment A). READ. Note: Mr. Dorrier volunteered to look into creating a County- sponsored writing award for County students. It was the CONSENSUS of the Board to have him do so and report back. ASSIGNMENT Meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Sally Thomas. All BOS members present. Clerk: Laurie Bentley. None. None. Clerk: Send signed proclamation to Nancy Damon. 6.2 Proclamation recognizing February 2001, as School Board None (proclamation given to Dr. Charles Ward Appreciation Month (attachment B). READ. during the meeting). 6.3 6.4 Appropriation: High Growth Coalition Lobbyist, $1,000, (Form #20049). APPROVED. Resolution to accept roads in Wind River Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways (attachment C). ADOPTED. Resolution to accept roads in Forest Lakes South, Section L and M, Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways (attachment D). ADOPTED. Resolution to accept roads in Stonegate at Western Ridge Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways (attachment E). ADOPTED. Authorize Chairman to execute "Mutual Aid Agreement" between Albemarle County and Nelson County for fire and rescue services (attachment F). AUTHORIZED Chairman to sign. Authorize County Executive to execute lease agreement with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, re: Howardsville James River Access in Albemarle County (attachment G). AUTHORIZED County Executive to sign. Installation of "Child at Play" Sign on River Run Drive (Route 1175) in River Run Subdivision. ADOPTED resolution (attachment H). 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 Clerk: Forward signed appropriation form to M. Breeden, copying appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward original resolution and VDOT form to Glen Brooks. Clerk: Forward original resolution and VDOT form to Glen Brooks. Clerk: Forward original resolution and VDOT form to Glen Brooks. County Attorney: Send signed copy to Nelson County and return one signed original to Clerk. Clerk: Obtain County Executive's signature and forward two originals to Pat Mulaney. Parks & Recreation staff: Return a signed original to Board office after all signatures are obtained. Clerk: Attach to Transportation letter sent to VDOT, copy Juan Wade. 6.12 Copy of public notice for Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0085979, Keswick STP. (Received for information.) Note: Ms. Humphris asked why discharge flow was increased by 50%. Mr. Tucker said this is just a notice; David Hirschman 6.10 FY 2001/02 Revenue Projection Update. APPROVED. None. 6.11 Tip Fee Waiver following Storm Damage. (Received for None. information.) Note: Ms. Thomas said it should be noted that this is a pilot program to see what costs are, etc. Water Resources Manaqer: Investigate and report back to the Board. 6.17 Citizen Participation in the FY 2001/2002 Budget Process. (Received for information.) Note: Ms. Humphris asked if this meant that the Board would be meeting with the League of Women Voters; Mr. Tucker said that staff, not the Board, will meet with the League. will investigate and report back to the Board. None. 7. School Board Presentation. MADE. None. 8. Transportation Matters. · Mr. Jim Bryan advised the Board that a traffic light will be installed at the intersection of Rt. 250 W and Rt. 667. Ms. Thomas objected, saying that the Rt. ,250 West Citizens Advisory Board has not been involved in the decision-making process as promised. Mr. Benish said Planning is drafting a summary, due to the Board on 2/14/01. · Mr. Tucker said that the Free State Road and Rio Road public hearing on a connector road in lieu of a railroad bridge replacement, was held. Staff will provide comments to VDOT and a future public hearing will be held to provide construction information. Staff will the report back to the Board. · Mr. Perkins said Mr. Bryan and he have been working on the "Catterton Road compromise" (no details provided). · Mr. Dorrier said that Mr. Bryan and he recently "rode the Scottsville roads together" so that Mr. Dorrier could advise Mr. Bryan of road conditions in that district. · Ms. Humphris asked whether VDOT plans to work with County staff on the design of the Route 29 North parallel roads. Mr. Bryan said VDOT will work with County staff once it resolves internal conflicts having to do with the project, and the cost of obtaining rights-of-way. · Ms. Humphris mentioned that the Board had received another letter regarding restricting truck traffic on Earlysville road. The author of the letter stated that County staff refused to provide the EarlYsville League information on the subject. She asked that Juan Wade do so at this time. Public hearing on an ordinance to authorize Albemarle County to participate in the James River Alcohol Safety Action Program under a shared powers agreement pursuant to § 15.2-1300 of the Code of Virginia. ADOPTED ordinance (attachment I). Clerk: Include comments in Transportation Letter. Planninq staff: Follow up with VDOT and Advisory Board. Planning staff: Follow up with VDOT. None. None. Planninq staff: Follow up with VDOT. Planninq staff: Provide information to Earlysville League as requested. Clerk: Send copy to Rita Moore. 10. Social Services Presentation. MADE. None. 11. SDP-00-119. Home Depot at North Town Center Preliminary Site Plan Appeal. DENIED. Clerk: Schedule resolution for denial of site plan for BOS action on 2/21. 14. Closed session. None. 15. Certify closed session. None. 12. CPA-2000-05. Rt. 29 - Hollymead. ADOPTED transportation None. improvements as spelled out (attachment J), with changes as noted. 13. Discussion: 2001 Redistricting. ADOPTED schedule and None. preliminary guidelines. 16. Virginia Outdoors Foundation, 2000 Conservation Easements None. Update. MADE. 17. Discussion: 800 MHz Radio System. APPROVED beginning of contract negotiations with Motorola. Emergency Communications staff: Begin negotiations. 18. Quarterly Financial Report. ACCEPTED. None. 19. FY2000 comprehensive Annual Financial Report Presentation. None. ACCEPTED. 20. Appointments: · Appointed Carolyn J. Fowler to JAUNT Board with said term to run from 9/30/00 through 9/29, 2003; · Appointed Nathaniel D. Perkins to Housing Committee, with term to run from 1/1/01 through 12/31/03; · Appointed Ross L. Stevers to ACE Appraisal Review Committee, with term to run from 2/7/01 through December 31, 2001; and, · Reappointed William B. Harvey to Advisory Council on Aging, with said term to run from 6/1/01 through 5/31/03. 22. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board: · Valerie Long, attorney for Home Depot, asked the Board to reconsider its earlier vote. It was the CONSENSUS of the Board to take no further action. · Ms. Humphris restated her concern that the Earlysville League said staff refused to provide them information pertaining to the restriction of truck traffic on Earlysville Road, and reiteratect instructions to Planning staff to do so. · Ms. Thomas asked the Board to adopt two resolutions (one asking that the General Assembly exclude planning district commissions from the requirements of HB1261, which limits the representation of locally elected officials on the commissions; and one asking that the General Assembly continue the level of funding anticipated in the biennial budget for FY 2001-2001) Both were ADOPTED (attachments K and L). · Ms. Thomas advised the Board that the Thomas Jefferson Eastern Planning Initiative meeting would be held 2/8/01. Clerk: Update Boards & Commissions records. Send appointment letters, copying appropriate persons. None. Planninq staff: Provide requested information to the Earlysville League. Clerk: ForWard signed copies of resolutions to Planning District Commission. None. 23. Adjourn at 4:30 p.m. Attachment A VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK WHEREAS, Albemarle County is cOmmitted to promoting reading, writing, and storytelling within and outside its borders; and WHEREAS, our devotion to literacy and our support of literature has attracted between 200 and 300 writers and thousands of readers to our VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK; and WHEREAS, the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK celebrates the power of books and publishing; and WHEREAS, businesses, cultural and civic organizations, and individuals have contributed to the ongoing success of the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Albemarle and Virginia, and the world, have made the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK the best book festival in the country; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim Wednesday, March 21, 2001 through Sunday, March 25, 2001 as the seventh annual VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK and encourage community members to participate fully in the wide range of available events and activities. Attachment B WHEREAS, School Board Appreciation Month as Virginians we have a responsibility to prepare our children for a successful and fulfilling future, and to educate the children of our great Commonwealth by increasing knowledge and understanding, and developing positive character traits; and WHEREAS, parents are responsible for the education of their children, and teachers, principals and school board members are entrusted by parents to guide, direct and impart knowledge to their children while at school; and WHEREAS, School Board members, along with the growing and dynamic team of teachers, set the standard of excellence in Virginia's education of its young people: an(~ WHEREAS, local school boards have devoted themselves to providing a high quality of education for all students in the Commonwealth; and WHEREAS, our great Commonwealth is proud of its educational system and is appreciative of the efforts of local school board members to make the Virginia public school system an excellent one to educate our children; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby recognize February 2001, as School Board Appreciation Month in the County of Albemarle and call this observance to the attention of all citizens. DATED THIS 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2001. Attachment C The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 7th day of February 2001, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Wind River Subdivision described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 16, 2001, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Wind River Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 16, 2001, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of- way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Charlotte Humphris Seconded by: Charles Martin Yeas: Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.; Charlotte Y. Humphris; Charles S. Martin, Walter F. Perkins; Sally H. Thomas, and David P. Bowerman Nays: None The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) Wind River Road from the intersection of Route 614 (Station 0+00 centerline of Route 614) to the cul-de-sac (Station 15+97.77 end of off-set cul-de-sac) as shown on plat recorded 12/20/88 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1027, pages 508-510; and easement plats recorded 12/21/2000 in Deed Book 1978, pages 510-518, with a 50~foot right-of- way width, for a length of 0.30 mile. 2) River Ridge Road from the intersection of Wind River Road (Station 0+00 centerline of Wind River Road) to the cul-de-sac (Station 7+47 end of cul-de- sac), as shown on plat recorded 12/20/88 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1027, pages 508-510; with a 50~foot right-of- way width, for a length of 0.14 mile. Total Mileage - 0.44 mile. Attachment D The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 7th day of February 2001, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Forest Lakes South, Sections L and IV[, Subdivision de- scribed on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 16, 2001, fu ly incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Forest Lakes South, Sections L and M, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 16, 2001. to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to {}33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of- way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Charlotte Humphris Seconded by: Charles Martin Yeas: Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.; Charlotte Y. Humphris; Charles S. Martin, Walter F. Perkins; Sally H. Thomas, and David P. Bowerman Nays: None The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) Ashwood Boulevard from the intersection of Kendalwood Lane (Station 0+00 at the intersection center) to roundabout (Station 21+00) as shown on plat recorded 7/29/98 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1730, pages 37-53, with a 120-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.398 mile. 2) Stratford Glen Way from the cul-de-sac (Station 0-30, end of cul-de-sac, 0+00 center) to cul-de-sac (Station 9+76.64, end of cul-de-sac) as shown on plat recorded 7/29/98 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County n Deed Book 1730, pages 37-53, with a 40-foot right-of-way width for a length of 0.191 mile. 3) 4) 5) 6) Chimney Road from the intersection of AshwOod Boulevard (Station 0+00 enter roundabout) to the intersection of Chimney Ridge and Magnolia Bend (Station 4+68.36, intersection of center) as shown on plat recorded 7/29/98 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1730, pages 37-53, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.089 mile. Chimney Springs from the intersection of Chimney Road (Station 0+00, center of intersection) to the cul-de-sac (Station 4+70.48, end of cul-de-sac) as Shown on plat recorded 7/29/98 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1730, pages 37-53, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.089 mile. Chimeny Ridge from the intersection of Chimney Road and Magnolia Bend (Staiton 3+26.72, interseCtion Center) to the cul-de-sac (Station 0'30, end of cul- de-sac, Station 0_00 is at center cul-de-sac) as shown on plat recorded 7/29/98 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1730, pages 37-53, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.068 mile. Magnolia Bend from the intersection of Chimney Road and Chimney Ridge (Station 3+26.72 center of intersection) to the cul-de-sac (Station 13+39.47, end of cul-de-sac) as shown on plat recorded 7/29/98 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1730, pages 37-53, with a 40-foot right- of-way width, for a length of 0.192 mile. Total Mileage- 1.03 mile. Attachment E The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 7th day of February 2001, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Stonegate at Western Ridge Subdivision described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 16, 2001, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street .Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Boarcl of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Stonegate at Western Ridge Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 16, 2001, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of- way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Charlotte Humphris Seconded by: Charles Martin Yeas: Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.; Charlotte Y. Humphris; Charles S. Martin, Walter F. Perkins; Sally H. Thomas, and David P. Bowerman Nays: None The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) Stonegate Lane from the intersection of Route 1250 (Station 10+25 right-of-way line of ROute 1250)to the intersection of Stonegate Way (Station i 1+80.09 right- of-way line of Stonegate Way) as shown on plat recorded 1/2/99 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1778, pages 625-633, with a 50-foot variable right-of-way width, for a length of 0.029 mile. 2). Stonegate Way from the intersection of Stonegate Lane (Station 10+25 at right- of-way of Stonegate Lane) to the cul-de-sac (Station 15+32.73 end of Cul-de- · sac), as shown on plat recorded 1/29/99 in the office the clerk of CircUit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1778, pages 622-633; and with easement plat recorded on 1/8/01 in Deed Book 1982, pages 322; with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.096 mile. Total Mileage - 0.125 mile. Attachment G LEASE This DEED OF LEASE, entered into this 1st day of January, 2001, by and between the Commonwealth of Virginia, Board of Game and Inland Fisheries, hereinafter referred to as the Lessor, and the County of Albemarle, hereinafter referred to as the Lessee, ~ WITNESSETH WHEREAS, §2.1-504.3A of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, provides that when it is deemed to be in the public interest, real property owned by the Commonwealth may be sold, leased or other interests therein conveyed to political subdivisions, public authorities, or the federal government, for such consideration as is deemed proper, upon the written approval of the Governor, who shall have first considered the written recommendations of the Director of the Department of General Services; and WHEREAS, in a cooperative spirit, the aforementioned parties mutually agree to cooperate in this lease in order for the Lessee to provide public boating access to the boating public at the landing commonly refe fred to as "Howa rdsville". The aforementioned parties recognize that there is a contentious history with adjacent landowners concerning past operation of the boat landing; and WHEREAS, the plat attached hereto and made a part hereof as EXHIBIT A shows the 0.74 acres to be leased and the present physical location of a concrete ramp partially on such parcel; and WHEREAS, the Lessee and Lessor, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises and agreements herein contained, covenant and agree as follows: That the said Lessor doth let and demise unto the said Lessee, the following property (to include square 'fOotage of leased Space andi°r acreage), to-wit: The remainder of 0.84 acre of land and improvements appurtenant thereto located in the Scottsville Magisterial District, Albemarle County, Virginia, being all of the remainder (surveyed as 0.74 acre remaining) of the same land conveyed to the Lessor by deed dated May 21, 1964, recorded in Deed Book 400, Page 225 in the Circuit Court records of Albemarle County, Virginia. See EXHIBIT A. The herein described property and premises are hereby leased to Lessee to be used and occupied for the purpose of providing free and unfettered public boating access to the boating public. Such public boating access shall meet, but not be limited to the following criteria: Open to the public for boating and fishing access, Open to the public for parking vehicles and boat trailers, No fees charged for the use of the public boating access or its ancillary facilities. INITIAL TERM OF LEASE: This lease shall commence on the first day of January, 2001, and extend for a period of five (5) years, ending on the 31st day of December, 2005 yielding therefrom during the said term the rental of one dollar ($1.00), which amount shall be due and payable through Lessor's Agent designated in paragraph 6. RENEWAL OF LEASE: Unless otherwise terminated as herein provided, at the end of the initial term, this lease shall automatically renew and continue in full force and effect for 5-year terms ("renewal term") at the same rental as provided in paragraph 1, and subject to all terms, conditions, covenants, promises and agreements herein contained. Such renewal term shall continue to renew automatically unless terminated by Lessee in such manner and at such time as hereinafter provided for termination of the initial term. 3. The Lessor covenants and agrees: (a) (b) To deliver quiet possession of said property to the Lessee on the effective date of this Lease. To remove its existing signage and temporary improvements, and to cease its current law enforcement activities. 4. The Lessee covenants and agrees: (a) That he has inspected the property and premises and accepts them as is, where is, as shown on the illustration attached hereto as Exhibit A. (b) To pay the rent in the amount and manner herein provided without the necessity of demand being made therefor by the Lessor. (c) To equip and make such alterations and additions to the said premises and equipment of the Lessee as may be necessary at all times to comply with the provisions of Federal, State, and Local laws, ordinances, and regulations pertaining to health, safety, fire, and public welfare. (d) (e) That he will not injure or disfigure said property nor any part thereof in any way, nor allow the same to be done. To be responsible for the payment of any and all charges for repairs t~o the said premises, imposed or otherwise, including but not limited to structural repairs, during the original or any extended term of this lease agreement. That all personal property placed in or moved onto the leased property shall be at the sole risk of the lessee or owner of such personal property, and lessor shall have no liability for any reason for damage to same. (g) That beginning on the Commencement Date and continuing during the Term of this Lease and any renewals or extensions thereof, the Lessee, at the Lessee's expense, shall keep in force, with an insurance company authorized to transact business in Virginia, and in a form acceptable to the Lessor, an insurance policy with personal property and broad form liability coverage. The insurance policy shall include the Lessor as a named insured and have the following minimum limits and coverage: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for personal injury to or death of any one person, or more than one person, as the result of any one accident or disaster, and include coverage for property damage and medical payments. On or before the Commencement Date, the Lessee shall deliver to the Lessor a certificate of insurance showing the same to be in force and effect, together with a copy of a paid receipt for the first year's premium. The policy shall provide for notification to the Lessor in the event of cancellation. In the event that the Lessee fails to obtain and maintain the insurance required by this section, the Lessor may, at its 10Ption, cause the required insurance to be issued and maintained and the Lessee shall pay the premiums for such insurance as additiOnal Rent. (h) That he will not allow said property to be used for any illegal or immoral purpose, and that he will not do or suffer to be done any act which may be a nuisance, annoyance, inconvenience or damage to Lessor, Lessor's tenant, the occupants of adjoining property, or the neighborhood. (i) At the termination of the LeaSe, to deliver peacefully the said property in as good order and repair as the same was at the beginning of this Lease, reasonable wear and tear excepted. " (J) That no alterations, additions or improvements to said property shall be made without the written approval of the Lessor. Such alterations, additions or improvements shall be in accordance with Lessor's specifications. (k) That it will be responsible for daily operations, including law enforcement, and will install appropriate signage and barriers. (i) That it shall, at all times, maintain the property for the term of this lease; including all routine maintenance, trash and garbage removal, removal of debris, cutting weeds and brush, mowing the grass in order to provide public access and any other routine maintenance of the parking area and other areas as necessary for safe public use. 5. It is mutually covenanted and agreed by the Lessor and the Lessee: (a) (b) The Lessee shall not without the written consent of the Lessor use the said property for any purposes other than above mentioned, nor assign this lease nor sublet any part of the said property. This lease shall continue in force for a period of five (5) years; except, Lessor may cancel this lease at any time upon six (6) months written notice to Lessee, and Lessee shall vacate the property by the end of said six (6) month period after notice is served. (c) That any and all notices affecting this Lease may be served by the parties hereto or their duly authorized agents as effectively as if the same were served by any officer authorized by law to serve such notices. (d) This written Lease constitutes the entire agreement between the Lessor and the Lessee. For the purpose of accepting notice as may be herein provided, Lessor's agent shall be Real PrOperty Manager , at the VA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, whose address is 4010 W. Broad Street, P. O. Box 11104, RiChmond, VA 23230. Lessee's agent shall be Director of Parks and Recreation , whose address is CoUnty of Albemarle, County Office Building, 401 Mclntyre Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902,4596. LESSOr directs that the payments of all rents t° accrue hereunder shall be made by the Eessee to such Agent; and any and all notices hereunder, when served upon the said Agent, shall have the same force and effect as if served upon the Lessor in person. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have affixed their signatures and seals. Attachment H RESOLUTION WHEREAS, The residents of Riverrun Subdivision are concerned about traffic in their neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that play in the subdivision; and WHEREAS, The residents believe that a "Child At Play" sign would help alleviate some their concerns; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby supports the community's requests for VDOT to install the "Child At Play" sign(s) on Riverrun Drive (Route 1175) near the intersection of Wimbleton Way and Clifden Greene. Attachment I ORDINANCE NO. 01-A(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE ALBEMARLE COUNTY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE JAMES RIVER ALCOHOL SAFETY ACTION PROGRAM. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, pursuant to authority contained in Section 15.2-1300 of the Code of Virginia, as follows: WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia in the interest of highway safety has provided by law, programs for probation, education, and rehabilitation of persons charged with driving motor vehicles under the influence of alcoholic beverages and other self-administered drugs, such programs being collectively known as Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program or VASAP; and WHEREAS, § 15.2-1300 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, authorizes local units of government to exercise their powers, privileges and authorities under a Joint ExerciSe of Powers for the operation of a multi-jurisdictional venture; and WHEREAS, § 18.2-271.2 of the Code of Virginia requires the establishment of a VASAP Commission and that Commission establish procedures for the operation of local Alcohol Safety Action Programs; and WHEREAS, since July 1, 1982, one of those programs known as James River ASAP has been serving the City of Charlottesville, and the counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa. Greene, and Nelson, providing probationer monitoring, education and treatment of persons charged with alcohol and drug offenses with all powers and duties granted to it by the laws of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the VASAP Commission has issued directives that all local VASAP programs would establish and implement an independent Policy Board representative of all localities served by the Program to operate the Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the County of Albemarle does hereby join the City of Charlottesville, and the Counties of Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson to establish said Policy E~oard as administrative and fiscal agent subject to the following provisions: Section 1. The Board shall consist of not more than fifteen (15) members. One personal shall be appointed by the governing body of each participating locality and will serve for a term of three (3) years. The Board shall also include one General District Court Judge serving the area of the program, one attorney at law practicing in that area. one law enforcement official from that area, one driver education specialist, and one person ski~led in the treatment of alcoholism/drug addiction. The remaining members shall be elected by majority vote of the incumbent members for terms of three years. In addition to the members so selected, the Executive Director of the Program shall also be a member ex-officio without voting power. Section 2. The Officers of the Board shall consist of a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman a Secretary-Treasurer, and such subordinate offices as may from time to time be elected or appointed by the Board. The Secretary shall be the Executive Director of the Program. Each of said officers shall serve without compensation. The offices of Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be held by members from different participating localities. Each officer shall be elected at the annual meeting of the Board to serve for a term of one (1) year unless sooner removed by the Board, or until his successor be elected and qualify. Section 3. The Board shall be responsible for the operation of the Program within the participating localities, anti shall hire and supervise an Executive Director who shall be responsible for implementing operational policies for the Program. hiring and supervising the staff of the Program. and controlling all revenue and expenditures of the Program. Section 4. Regular meetings of the Board shall be held quarterly and are o~3en to the public. Special meetings may be called by the Chair at his or her discretion or by any four (4) board members upon five days notice to all members in writing or by telephone of the time, place, and purpose of the special meeting. A simple majority of members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for transaction of any and all business. Section 5. The Executive Director shall prepare and sUbmit an operating budget for approval by the Policy Board each fiscal year. The budget shall include projected revenue from client fees and other available funds as deemed appropriate by the E~oard and operating expenses. The participating localities will at no time incur any costs for the operation of the program. The Commission on VASAP shall be responsible for funding any deficit occurring in the operation of the Program. Section 6. The Commission on VASAP shall be responsible for conducting financial audits on the Program at such times as determined by the Commission. Section 7. The Executive Director shall prepare and submit an annual report for approval by the Policy Board within ninety days of the close of the fiscal year. The annual report shall be presented to the governing body of each participating locality after approval by the Policy Board. Section 8. The Program shall be operated by the Board in compliance with the Commission on VASAP Policies and Procedures. Section 9. Title to all property acquired by James River ASAP shall be vested with the Alcohol Safety Action Program so long as two or more localities continue to participate in its operation. In the event that all localities withdraw and the Commission on VASAP withdraws its endorsement, the property owned by the Program shall be disposed of in accordance with the then applicable provisions of the Code of Virginia. Section 10. This agreement shall remain in effect continuously from year to year until termination. Participating localities may withdraw at any time by official action of the governing body and after ninety (90) days written notice to the Policy Board. If a locality withdraws, its representative shall no longer serve on the Board. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vOte of_5 to 0, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on February 7, 2001. Attachment J CPA-2000~05, Transportation Improvements- Hollymead 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 Blvd," 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 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 and west sides ~etween Ashwood Boulevard and Timberwood Boulevard and on the west side between Hollymead Drive and Timberwood Drive. · 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. Attachment K The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 7th day of February 2001, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the General Assembly of Virginia approved the biennial budget for fiscal years 2001-2002; and WHEREAS, said budget included an increase of $10,000 for each planning district commission in the Commonwealth, and WHEREAS, the system of planning districts in the Commonwealth encourage cooperation, communication, and efficient use of resources, and WHEREAS, the planning district commissions throughout the Commonwealth have appreciated the support of the General Assembly, and WHEREAS, the proposed budget does not include the $10,000 previously appropriated to planning district commission, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby urge the General Assembly, in all its wisdom, to continue the level of funding anticipated in the original budget. Attachment L The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 7th day of February 2001, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly envisioned planning district commissions would serve the purpose, among other purposes, as a forum for cooperative and communication for locally elected officials; and WHEREAS, the commissions have, throughout their history, provided this unique forum for locally elected officials, and WHEREAS, there are no other state enabled organizations dedicated to general purposes, not restricted to a specific topical area, and WHEREAS, the current configuration of planning district commissions has fostered communication, cooperation, and an increase in efficiency for localities, and is valued by the local goverments, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby entreat the General Assembly to exclude planning district commissions from the requirements of HB1261 which limits the representation of locally elected officials on the commissions. David R Bowerman Rio I indsay G. Dottier, Jr. Scottsville Charlotte Y. Hurnphd~ Jack Jou~tt COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Rivarcaa Walter £ Perkins White Hall Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller February 7, 2001 Ms. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 Dear Mr. Bryan: At the February 7, 2001 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the Board took the following action regarding transportation matters: Agenda Item No. 6.9 Installation of"Child at Play" Sign on River Run Drive (Rt. 1175) in River Run Subdivision. The Board adopted the resolution (copy attached). Agenda Item No. 8. Other Transportation Matters. You advised the Board that a traffic light will be installed at the intersection of Rt. 250 W and Rt. 667. Ms. Thomas objected, saying that the Route 250 West Citizens Advisory Board has not been involved in the decision-making process as promised. Mr. Benish said Planning is drafting a summary, due to the Board on 2/14/01. Mr. Tucker said that the Free State Road and Rio Road public hearing on a connector road in lieu of a railroad bridge replacement, was held. Staff will provide comments to VD©T and a future public hearing will be held to provide construction information. Staff will then report back to the Board. Mr. Perkins said he and you have been working on the "Catterton Road compromise" (no details provided). Mr. Dorrier said that he and you recently "rode the Scottsville roads together" so that Mr. Dorrier could advise you Mr. Bryan of road conditions in that district. Ms. Humphris asked whether VDOT plans to work with County staff on the design of the Route 29 North parallel roads. You said VDOT will work with County staff once it resolves internal conflicts having to do with the project, and the cost of obtaining rights-of-way. . . Printed on recycled paper Ms. Humphris mentioned that the Board had received another letter regarding restricting truck traffic on Earlysville road. The author of the letter stated that County staff refused to provide the Earlysville League information on the subject. She asked that Juan Wade do so at this time. A~,achment cc: Robert Tucker Sincerely, Laurel A. Bentley, CMC Senior Deputy Clerk RESOLUTION WHEREAS, The residents of Riverrun Subdivision are concemed about traffic in their neighborlx)~ and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that play in the SUbdivision; and WHEREAS, The residents believe that a ~Child At Play" sign would help alleviate some their concerns; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby supports the community's requests for VDOT to install the 'Child At Play" sign(s) on Riven-un : Drive (Route 1175) near the intemection of Wimbleton Way and Clifden Greene. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of the Resolution duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of 6 - 0 on February 7, 2001. Clerk, Board of Supervisors /,/ David R Bowennan Rio Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr. Scottsville Charlotte Y. Humphris · Jack Jou~tt COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Rivanna', Walter F. Perkins White Hall Sally H. Thomas Samuel Millet February 9, 2001 Ms. Nancy Damon, Director Virginia Festival of the Book Virginia Foundation for the Humanities 145 Ednam Drive Charlottesville, VA 22903 Dear Ms. Damon: , As you know, at its February 7 meeting, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted the attached proclamation concerning the Virginia Festival of the Book. I have forwarded [he proclamation for your records. Thank you. Enclosure Sincerely, Laurel A. Bentley, C.M.C. Senior Deputy Clerk Printed on recycled paper 2000 BOOK FESTIVAL STATISTICS Virginia FOundation for the Humanities / (He[d: March 22-26, Ctzarlotte~ilIe, VA - Source: Returned Frog'ram evaluations - Sample size: 1,818) FESTIVAL RATING - "GREAT" OR "EXCELLENT'' ................................... 94% NUMBER OF PROGRAMS ............................. ' .......... 183 NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS ................................................................. 298 Authors and writers .................................................................. 265 Publishers, editors, and other professionals ...................................... 33 TOTAL AUDIENCE .......................... ........................, 13,520 AUDIENCE PROFILE: From CharlottesviLle/Albemarle ................................................. 55 % Other Virginia .......................................................................... 34% Out-of-state .............................................................................. 11% (Including AZ, CA, CT, DE, FL, GA, FL, KS; MA, MD, MN, ,,MT, NC, NJ, NM, NY, OH, pA, SC, TN, TX, WI, and WV) Audience Staying Overnight ....................................................... 21% FESTIVAL INFORMATION OBTAINED (mut~ipte resTonses per survey): Newspaper coverage/The Daily ?rog-tess Tabloid Progam ................ 290,/o Received Advance Program ........................................................ 23% Word of mouth ......................................................................... 19% Web site (www.vabook.or~.) .................... . .................... ~ ................ 13% Radio ....................................................................................... 5 % TV .......................................................................................... 4% Magazine .................................................................................. 1% Other ........................................................................................ 6% REACTIONS TO THE FESTIVAL: "Each March, CharlottesviLle becomes a literary, wonderland as the annual Virgima Festival of the Book creates a town filled with bookworms from near and far." -A[beraarie, Febraa_ry/March, 2000 "That's the thing about culture, about society. It's a mutual endeavor, a kind of cooperation, a balance of give-and-take. The Festival of the Book both exemplifies and promotes that mutuality." - Daily Progress, March Z2, 2000 "A sort of Woodstock of Words... [this] event urdeashes dozens of novelists and poets and non-fiction writers on the city of Charlottesville...It's a time when books talk...and writers climb out of their book jackets to become three-dimensional characters themselves." - Lynchburg Nezos and Advance, March 12, 2000 "Charlottesville draws writers the way Nashville beckons to musicians." - $outt¢rn Living, Februa_.-y 1998 2001 VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK: MARCH 21-25, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. For more ~on'na~on contact the Virgirda Foundalxon for the Humaruties, 145 Ednam Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22903 (804) 924-6890 or visit w,,wv.vabook.or~ VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK WHEREAS, Albemarle County is committed to promoting reading, writing, and storytelling within and outside its borders; and WHEREAS, our devotion to literacy and our support of literature has attracted between 200 and 300 writers and thousands of readers to our VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK; and the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK celebrates the power of books and publishing; and businesses, cultural and civic organizations', and individuals have contributed to the ongoing success of the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK; and the citizens of Albemarle and Virginia, and the world, have made the V1RG1N~ FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK the best book festival in the country; NOW, THEREFORE, L Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim Wednesday, March 21, 2001 through Sunday, March 25, 2001 as the seventh annual VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK and encourage community members to participate fully in the wide range of available events and activities. Signed and sealed this 7th day of February, 2001. CHAIRMAN ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS School Board Appreciation Month WHE~, as Virginians r~e have a responsibility to prepare our children for a successful and fulfilling future, and to educate the children of our great Commonwealth b~v increasing knowledge and understanding, and developing positive character traits; and IVHEREAS, parents are responsible for the education of their children, and teachers, principals and school board members are entrusted by parents to guide, direct and impart kno~vIedge to their children }vhile at school; and WHEREAS, School Board members, along ~ith the gror~ing and dynamic team of teachers, set the standard of excellence in Virginia's education of itsyoung people; and local school boards have devoted themselves to providing a high quali~y of education for all students in the Commonv;ealth; and WHEREAS, our great Commonwealth is proud of its educational system and is appreciative of the efforts of local school board members to make the Virginia public school system an excellent one to educate our children; NOtV, THEREFORE, L Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby recognize February 2001, School Board Appreciation Month in the County of Albemarle and call this observance to the attention of all citizens. DATED THIS 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2001. CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation: Funding for High Growth Coalition Lobbyist SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request Approval of Appropriation #20049 in the amount of $1,000 for the High Growth Coalition. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Breeden, Spencer BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: February 7, 2001 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: REVIEWED BY: / At its January 3, 2001 meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved funding to the High Growth Coalition for lobbying services during the 2001 General Assembly. DISCUSSION: The attached appropriation form authorizes funding of $1,000 for the County's share of the High Growth Coalition lobbying during the 2001 General Assembly. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached appropriation # 20049 in the amount of $1,000, which transfers funds from the Board's Contingency Account to the Dues and Memberships' Account for this expenditure. 01.009 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 00/01 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: CONTRIBUTION TO GROWTH COALITION. NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X YES NO X GENERAL 20049 EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1000 11010 580100 DUES AND MEMBERSHIPS $1,000.00 1 1000 95000 999990 CONTINGENCY (1,000.00) TOTAL $0.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL $0.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE JAN 3, 2001 The Board bf County Supervisors of Albemarle COunty, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 7th day of February 2001, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Wind River Subdivision described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 16, 2001, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Wind River Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 16, 2001, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to [}33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of- way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Charlotte Humphris Seconded by: Charles Martin Yeas: Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.; Charlotte Y. Humphris; Charles S. Martin, Walter F. Perkins; Sally H. Thomas, and David P. Bowerman Nays: None A Copy Teste: Ella ~1).' Carey, Clerk, CMC J The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) Wind River ,Eoad from the intersection of ROute 614 (Station 0+00 centerline of Route 614) to the cul-de-sac (Station 15+97.77 end of off-set cul-de-sac) as shown on plat recorded 12/20/88 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1027, pages 508-510; and easement plats recorded 12/21/2000 in Deed Book 1978, pages 510-518, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.30 mile. 2) River Ridae Road from the intersection of Wind River Road (Station 0+00 centerline of Wind River Road) to the cul-de-sac (Station 7+47 end of cul-de-sac), as shown on plat recorded 12/20/88 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1027, pages 508-510; with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.14 mile. Total Mileage - 0.44 mile. bbrm SI~-5/A) 11117 ~_nDITIONS FORM SR-5 (A) - PROPOSED ~nDITIONS TO THE SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGH~YS Attachment to (check one only) Board of Supervisors Resolution 0 Suret~ Instrument Dated: 16 J~n 2001 Atta~t i of i Name of Subdivision: Wind River Albemarle County Ref. Name of Street Street A_.~_ ~ tion Termini R-O-W Miscellaneous A~ ~ion Length No. Width (ft. } Notes Centerline Miles i Wind River Road F=o~: Intersa0tiO~ of Rt.614 (station 0+00 CL of Rt. 614} 50' 0.~0 To: cul-de-sac (station 15+97.77 end of off-set cul-de-sac) Plat Reoorded Date:12-20-88 Deed Book: 1027 Pages: 508-510 lasea~nt plats date: 12-21-2000 Deed Book 1978 Pages: 510-518 2 Rive= Ridge Road Fr~: Interse~tion of wind River Road (station 0+00 CL of Wind $0' 0.14 River Road) To: Cul-de-sao (station 7+47 end of cul-de-sac) Plat Recorded D&te; 12-20-88 Deed Book: 1027 Pages: 508-510 3 TO: Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page: 4 I From: To: Plat Recorded Date: n=~,~ ~,~: Page! To: Plat Reoorded De~e: Deed Book: P.aga: ,,, , , Total Mileage 0.44 Notes: Guaranteed width of right-of-way exalusive of any necessar~ easements for ~uts, fills, and drainage. C~RTIFICATION OF ATTACHMENT This attachment is certified as a part of the document indicated above: ~_....~....~ .... .,.j r' -- . ~... ' --I. . . ' . .--..,dr --.. (Name and Title) The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 7th day of February 2001, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Forest Lakes South, Sections L and M, Subdivision de- scribed on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 16, 2001, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats reCorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Forest Lakes South, Sections L and M, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 16, 200'!, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of- way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easementS for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Charlotte Humphris SecOnded by: Charles Martin Yeas: Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.; Charlotte Y. Humphris; Charles S. Martin, Walter F. Perkins; Sally H. Thomas, and David P. Bowerman Nays: None A Copy Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CIV)(3 Teste: The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) Ashwood Boulevard from the intersection of Kendalwood Lane (Station 0+00 at the intersection center) to roundabout (Station 21+00) as shown on plat recorded 7/29/98 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1730, pages 37-53, with a 120-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.398 mile. 2) Stratford Glen Way from the cul-de-sac (Station 0-30, end of cul-de-sac, 0+00 center) to cul-de-sac (Station 9+76.64, end of cul-de-sac) as shown on plat recorded 7/29/98 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1730, pages 37-53, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.191 mile. 3) Chimney Road from the intersection of Ashwood Boulevard (Station 0+00 enter roundabout) to the intersection of Chimney Ridge and Magnolia Bend (Station 4+68.36, intersection of center) as shown on plat recorded 7/29/98 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1730, pages 37-53, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.089 mile. 4) Chimney SI3rin_qs from the intersection of Chimney Road (Station 0+00, center of intersection) to the cul-de-sac (Station 4+70.48, end of cul-de-sac) as shown on plat recorded 7/29/98 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1730, pages 37-53, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.089 mile. 5) Chimeny Ridge from the intersection of Chimney Road and Magnolia Bend (Staiton 3+26.72, intersection center) to the cul-de-sac (Station 0-30, end of cul-de-sac, Station 0_00 is at center cul-de-sac) as shown on plat recorded 7/29/98 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1730, pages 37-53, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.068 mile. 6) Magnolia Bend from the intersection of Chimney Road and Chimney Ridge (Station 3+26.72 center of intersection) to the cul-de-sac (Station 13+39.47, end of cul-de- sac) as shown on plat recorded 7/29/98 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1730, pages 37-53, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.192 mile. Total Mileage - 1.03 mile. Form SR-S/A} IIIIT ADDITIONS FORM SR-5 (A} - PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS Attachment to (check one only) ~ Board of Supervisors Resolution [] Suret~ Instrument Dated: 16 J~n 2001 Attachment i ,, of 2 Name of Subdivision: Forest L~kes South( Sections L and M Albemarle County Ref Name of Street Street Addition Termini R-O-W Miscellaneous ~/~4_~ition Length · Width (ft.) Notes Centerline Miles No, - 0.398 1 Ashwood Boulevard From: Intersection of ~w~lwood Lane (station 0+00 int. center) 120' To: rou-~'~ut (station 21+00) Plat Recorded Date.'7-29-98 Deed Book: 1730 Pages: 37-53 2 Stratford Glen Way Fr~: ~ul°de-sec (station 0-30 end o£ ods., 0%00 center) 40~ 0.191 To: cul-d~.-sao (station 9+76.64 end of cul-deTsac) Plat ~4 Date: 7-29-98 Deed Book: 1730 Pages: 37-53 ~ro~: Intersection of A~hwood Boulevard (station 0+00 center 50 0.099 3 Chimney Road To: Intersection of Chi~me~ Ridge and Magnolia Bend (station 4+68.36 ia~. center) Plat ~rded Date: 7-29-98 Deed-~3~-~: 1730 Page: 37-§3 0.089 4 Chilmle~ Springs Pro~: Intersection of 1'~4~ ROSd (station 0+00 center of int.) 40 To:cul-de-sac (station 4+70.48 end of cul-de-sac) Plat ReCOrded Date: 7-29-98 Deed Book: 1730 P~ge: 37-53 5 Chin~e~ Ridge From: Intersection of Chinmey Road and Magnolia Bend (station 40 0.068 3+26.72 int. center) To: o~l-de-sac (station 0-30 end of cul-de-sac, station 0+00 is at Center cul-de-sac) Plat Recorded Date= 7-29-98 D~d Book: 1~30 P&ge: 37-53 Total Mileage 0. 835 (this sheet) Notes: c~.RTIFICATION OF ATTACHMENT This a tt~ohment ~fied as ~t of the ~cument indic~&~ .: Guaranteed width of rig~t-of-way exclusive of mn~ necessar~ easements for cuts, fills, and drainage. (Name and Title) Fom~ SR-StA) t2/1/93) i1117 ADDITIONS FORM SR-5 (A) - PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAY.~ Attac~ument to (check one only) [] Boa~d of Supervisors Resolution ~ 8uret~ Instzument Dated: 16 Jan 2001 Attachment 2 cf 2 Name of Subdivision: Forest Lakes South,, Sections L and M Albemarle Count~ Name of Street Street Addition Termini R-O-W Miscellaneous A~ition Length Width (ft.) Notes Center~in~ Miles Magnolia Bend Fxo~a: Intersection of Chi~ Koad and Chimney Ridge (station 40 5+26.72 ~enter ef int.) 0.192 To: ~ul-de-sao (station 13+39.47 end of cul-de-sac) Plat ~'-3~rded Date: 7-29-98 Deed Book: 1730 Pages: 37-53 Plat Reco~ ~-u3~ Date: n~ Book: Pages: Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page: Plat Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page: To: . . Plat Recorded_ Da~e: Deed Book: Page: Tots/ Mileage 1.03 (both sheets) ~l~aranteed width of right-of-way exclusive ~ ~ ,=~.~ ........ ~- = ............ .... cuts, falls, and drainage. CERTIFICATION OF ATTAC~NT This attachment is certified as & part of the doc~,mgnt indicated above: (Name and Title) llll? Name of Street Magnolia Bend ADDITIONS FORM SR-5 (A)- PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGH~YS Attac/~nent to (oheck one only) ~ Board of Supervisors Resolution D Sure~ Instrument D&ted: 16 J~n 2001 Na~e of Subdivision: Forest Lakes South_/ Sections L and M Street Addition Termini R-O-W Miscellaneous width (ft.) Notes Intersection of Chi~ey Roed ~.d chimne~ Ittc~e (station centa= Of int.) To: cul-de-sac (station_.____13+39-47 end of cul-de=sac) 7-29-98 Deed Book: 1730 plat 4O A!~marle County_ Centerline Miles 0 · 192 Date: Deed Book: To: Deed Book: pl&t To: Recorded Date: Deed Book: Page: Plat Reco=ded Date: Deed Book: ' - · f shy neOessar~ easements for cuts, falls, and drainage Notes Guarantee~ width of right-of-w&Y exo£us=ve o .~ ' CERTIFICATION OF ATTACHMENT This attachment is certified as a ~art of the document indicated above: 1.03 (bo'ch sheets) Form 4 , 11117 ADDITIONS FORM SR-5~A) - PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGH~YS Attachment to (check one only) ~ ~oard of Supervisors Resolution [] Surety Instrument Dated:_ 16 J~n 2001 Name of Subdivision: Forest Lakes South~ Sections L and M Name of Street Ashwood ~oulevard Stratford Glen Way Chimney Roa~ Street Addition Termini From; Intersection of Lane (station 0+00 int. cen~er} TO: roundabout (station 21+00} Plat P~Corded Date:7-29-98 Deed ~ook: 1730 P___ages: 37-53 ff~oza: unl-~e-snc (station 0-30 ~d o~ ~. 0+00 c~nt~r) To: cul-de-sac (station 9+76.64 end of cul-de-sac) ReCorded Date: 7-29-98 Deed Book: 1730 Pag____es: 37-53 Froa%: Interneotion of A~hwood ~oulevard (station 0+00 center To: Intersection of Chi~a~ey Ridqe a~dMagnolia Bead (station 4+68.36 int. center) Plat Recorded Date: 7-29-98 Deed Book: 173___~0 Page: 37-53 From: cf Chim~ey,.______~ad (stetion 0+00 ~enter of int. To:~ll-de-sao (station 4+70.48 end of cul-de-sac) Plat Recorded Date: 7-29-98 De~d l~ok: 1730 Fro~a: Interneotion cf Chimney Road and Maguolia B~nd (station 3+26.72 int. center} To: cul-de-sac (station 0-30 end of cul-de-sac, station 0+00 is at Center cul-de-sac} R-O-W Miscellaneous Width (ft.) Notes 120' 40' 5O 4O 4O P~cor~edDete: 7-29-98 Deed~ook; 1730 37-53 AtteSt __!__l of ~ Albemarle Cou~._.tz- Cen~erline Miles 0.398 0.191 0.089 0.089 0.068 To~l Mileage Notes: Guaranteed width of right-of-way exclusive of ~ny necessary easement~ for c~ts, fills, and drainage. 0.835 (thin ~heet) The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 7th day of February 2001, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Stonegate at Western Ridge Subdivision described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 16, 2001, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Stonegate at Western Ridge Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 16, 2001, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginial and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of- way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded vote: MoVed by: Charlotte Humphris Seconded by: Charles Martin Yeas: Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.; Charlotte Y. Humphris; Charles S. Martin, Walter F. Perkins; Sally H. Thomas, and David P. Bowerman Nays: None A Copy Teste: El'la ~TV. Carey,'"'Clerk, Crvl~ The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) Stone.qate Lane from the intersection of RoUte 1250 (Station 10+25 right-of-way line of Route ..1250) to the intersection of Stonegate Way (Station 11 +80.09 right-of- way line of Stonegate Way) as shown on plat recorded 1/2/99 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1778, pages 625-633, with a 50- foot variable right-of-way width, for a length of 0.029 mile. 2) Stone, ate Way from the intersection of Stonegate Lane (Station 10+25 at right-of- way of Stonegate Lane) to the cul-de-sac (Station 15+32.73 end of cul-de-sac), as shown on plat recorded 1/29/99 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1778, pages 622-633; and with easement plat recorded on 1/8/01 in Deed Book 1982, pages 322; with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.096 mile. Total Mileage - 0.125 mile. ' , 11117 IS~ECONDARY ROADS DIV. J ~nDITIONS FORM sa-5 (A) - Attaotu~ent to ((~heok one only) PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS Board of Supervisors Resolution [] Surety Instrument Dated: 16 J~n2001 Attachment 1 of I Name of Subdivision: Ston.egate at Western Ridge Albemarle County Ref. Name of Street Street A_~k~tion Termini R-O-W Miscellaneous lu-~4 tion Length NO. Width ~.ft' ) Notes Centerline Miles I S~nega~e Lane F=~,' Interseotion of Rt.1250 (station 10+25 r£ght-of-way line o£ 50' 0,029 Rt., 1250) (va=labia) To: Interseotion o£ Stnnegate Wa~ (station 11+80.09 right-of-way Plat ~e~o=~ Dete:l-12-g9 Deed ~ook: 1778 Pages: 625-633 2 $~onegata ~ F=~n: Interseution of Stonmgeta Lane (s~a~ion 10+25 at =ight-of-way 40' 0.096 To: Cul-de-sac (station 15+32.73 end of cul-de-sac) Plat Re~or~d Data: 1-12-99 De~d Book: 1778 Pages: 625-633 Eas~-~t .~l~-, =ecozd~ date= 1-8-01 Deed Book 1982 Page: 322 ,,, Plat P.-ee~-*''~4 Date: Deed ~ok: 4 Plat ~oF~ Date: ~ ~. Pegs: ,, , Plat R~r~ Date: ~ ~k: Page: Total ~leage 0.125 Notes: ~uarmntemdwidth of right-of-wa~ exclusiVe of any necessar~ easements for cuts, fills, and drainage. CERTIFICATION OF ATTACHMENT This. attadment is ~erigtfied asa part of theft inditted~.~bov~: ' (Name and Title) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Mutual Aid Agreement with Nelson County SUBJECT/PROPOSALIREQUEST: BOS approval of Chairman authority to execute the "Mutual Aid Agreement" between Albemarle County and Nelson County. AGENDA DATE: February 7, 2001 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Mutual Aid Agreement STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Pumphrey REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: / Albemarle County has proposed entering into written mutual aid agreements for fire and rescue services with each of its neighboring counties. These agreements would assure the terms under which such aid is delivered and would maximize the statutory immunity provided by Virginia Code §§ 27-2, 27-4, and 27-23,6, A standard agreement has been prepared and forwarded to each county for review and approval. Nelson County is the 6th county to approve the proposed agreement. DISCUSSION: A Mutual Aid Agreement prepared by the Albemarle County Attorney between Albemarle County and Nelson County has been approved by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the Mutual Aid Agreement on behalf of the County. 01.015 MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this 18th day of December , 2000, by and between Albemarle County, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as "Albemarle", and Nelson County, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as "Nelson", WHEREAS, it is deemed to be mutually beneficial to Albemarle and Nelson to enter into an agreement concerning mutual aid with regard to fire and rescue services; and WHEREAS, the parties desire that the terms and conditions of this Mutual Aid Agreement be established pursuant to Sections 27-2, 27-4 and 27-23.6 of the Code of Virginia; NOW THEREFORE WITNESSETH, that for and in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by Albemarle and Nelson from this Agreement, Albemarle and Nelson hereby covenant and agree each with the other as follows: 1) That Albemarle and Nelson will endeavor to provide fire suppression, fire prevention, rescue, hazardous materials response, and other related governmental services to the other county within the capabilities available at the time the request for such support is made. Such response may be by county-paid employees or by county volunteer company or department firefighters and rescuers. -1- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 2) That nothing contained in this Agreement should in any manner be construed to compel either county to respond to a request for services in the other county when volunteer companies or departments are, in their discretion, unable to do so, or when the resources of the county to which the request is being made are needed, or are being used, within the boundaries of its own county, nor shall any such request compel the assisting county to continue to provide services in the other county when its personnel, apparatus or equipment are needed within the boundaries of its own county. 3) That each county acknowledges that it is fully capable of providing fire services, rescue services, hazardous material response services, and other related governmental services to adequately serve its respective county. 4) That neither county shall be liable to the other for any loss or damage to property or personal injury or death of personnel resulting from the performance of this Agreement. 5) That each county shall indemnify and save harmless the assisting county from all claims by third parties for property damage or personal injury which may arise out of the activities of the assisting county resulting from the performance of this Agreement. 6) The county requesting assistance shall not be required to reimburse the assisting county for apparatus, equipment or personnel -2- occasioned by a response for assistance, or for damage to such apparatus or equipment, or injuries to personnel incurred when responding in the other county; provided, however, the county requesting assistance under the terms of this Agreement shall pay the responding entity from the other county the actual cost of specialized extinguishing or hazardous material mitigation agents used in rendering assistance pursuant to this Agreement. 7) That the county requesting assistance pursuant to this Agreement shall make such request to the emergency communications center of the assisting county, which will then contact the appropriate county officials to determine its response. 8) That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance, the personnel making such response shall not become employees of the county requesting assistance for the purposes of the Virginia Workers Corn pensation Act. 9) That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance, the personnel manning such responding units shall remain under the command of the senior responding officer, and shall work as a unified company and shall not be split apart during the emergency operations unless ordered by the senior responding officer. 10) That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance and the senior responding officer determines that the emergency -3- operations are being conducted in an unsafe manner, the assisting county may limit its assistance to a support service or withdraw the assistance to ensure the safety of its personnel. 11) This Agreement may be modified only by the mutual written consent of both counties. 12) This Agreement may be terminated at any time by either county giving thirty (30) days written notice of termination to the other county. IN WITNESS THEREOF, Albemarle's Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and Nelson's Chairman of the Board of Supervisors execute this Agreement, they being authorized to do so. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ~11,., /-/, Chairmarf, Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~::~a~C o u ~ Att orkney COUNTYJF NELSON By ~ Chairman, Board of Supervisors -4- BOARDOF SUPERVISORS GARY E. WOOD East District THOMAS H. BRUGUIERE, JR. West District THOMAS D. HARVEY North District HARRY S. HARRIS South District STEPHEN A. CARTER Administrator VIRGIE A. CARTER, CMC/AAE A~iministrative Assistant/ Deputy Clerk ELLA W. BROWNING Administrative Assistant/ FinanceOfficer January31,2001 Ella W. Carey, CMC Clerk, County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ella: As discussed, enclosed are two original copies of the "Mutual Aid A " greement between Albemarle and Nelson Counties. The Agreement was approved by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors on December 18, 2000. Upon approval and execution of the documents by Albemarle County, please return one copy to me. Thank you for your assistance. Please let me know if you have questions. Sincerely, Virgi~. Carter Deputy Clerk, Nelson County Board of Supervisors Enclosures cc: Phillip D. Payne, IV BOARD OF SUPERVISOR$ P. O. Box 3.36 · Lovingston, Virginia 22949 · (804) 263,-4873 · Fax (804) 263-4135 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Lease Agreement - Howardsville James River Access SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: County lease of DGIF property in Howardsville to maintain public access to James River. STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, and Mr. Mullaney AGENDA DATE: February 7, 2001 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: IN FORMATION: Yes / BACKGROUND: Since 1964 the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has maintained a river access at Howardsville. This access has been very popular with residents of Albemarle and other counties. The property was originally purchased from Mr. Charles Baber. Mr. Baber retained a 15-foot wide strip of property so he would always be assured the right of access to the river. There is also a state road right of way remaining from when there was a bridge over the river at Howardsville. Mr. Baber's property lies between the VDOT land and the DGIF land. Most of DGIF's land and the concrete ramp were lost due to hurricanes in the early 1970's. In early 1980 DGIF replaced the ramp but incorrectly sited it on Mr. Baber's 15-foot strip. Relations between Mr. Baber and DGIF have deteriorated over the years. He has demanded that DGIF put a barrier between his land and their land. This past May, DGIF advised the County of its intent to close the access due to the situation with Mr. Baber unless the County was interested in taking over responsibility for the access. Mr. Baber has stated that he will work with the County but not with DGIF. The access remained open this past summer and fall but the state has now taken action to close it. The access will remain closed unless the County enters into a lease agreement with DGIF. The attached lease is for a five-year term with the rental fee of one dollar ($1.00). At the end of the five-year term the lease automatically renews unless otherwise terminated. In the lease the County agrees to be responsible for the daily operation and routine maintenance of the area as necessary for safe public use. In addition the County agrees to maintain insurance coverage and include DGIF as a named insured. The lease has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. It has historically been the County's position to maintain existing public access to rivers whenever possible. RECOMMENDATION: staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the attached lease agreement. 01.012 PUBLIC NOTICE - HOWARDSVILLE BOAT RAMP CLOSURE The public is hereby notified that the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has closed the concrete boat ramp at its Howardsville Boat Landing on the James River in Albemarle County. A portion of the concrete boat ramp lies on property not owned by the Department. The landing will be closed until such time as an agreement with the adjoining property owner can be reached. The landing when re-opened will be managed by the County of Albemarle. Comments concerning this action can be mailed to: Capital Outlay Office, Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, P. O. Box 11104, Richmond, VA 23230-1104. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA James S. Gilmore, Governor Department of Game and Inland Fisheries John Paul Woodley, Jr. Secretary of Natural Resources December 4, 2000 Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney Director of Parks and Recreation County of Albemarle County Office Building 401 Mclntyre Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 William L. Woodfin~ Jr. Director RE: Proposed Lease of Howardsville Boat Landing to Albemarle County Dear Mr. Mullaney: Enclosed please find two (2) originals of the proposed lease agreement between the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) and Albemarle CoUnty for the Howardsville boat landing. The proposed agreement has received approval as to form by DGIF's counsel at the Attorney General's Office. You will note that changes on page 1 were recommended by the Assistant AttOrney General, and changes on pages 2 and 3 of the agreement were made in accordance with your July 24, 2000 letter. These changes are noted as follows: · page 1, third WHEREAS; acreage added; · page 1, fourth WHEREAS; property description revised to include surVeyed acreage; · page 2, paragraph 4g; indemnification clause deleted; · page 2, paragraph 4h (now paragraph 4g) regarding personal property and liability updated to reflect changes in coverage limits (I believe we discussed this by phone); and · page 3, paragraph 4m (now paragraph 41); last sentence deleted. Please have the County Executive indicate acceptance of the agreement by signing each original on page 4 where indicated. Once the documents have been accepted by Albemarle County, please return them to me for the required review and approval by the Department of General Services, and signature by the DGIF Director. I will then return a fully executed original to you. Please contact me at (804) 367-0811 or ipowell@d.qif, state.va.us if you have any questions or concerns. Enclosures Sincerely, /Jane W. Powell /~ Real Property Specialist 4010 WEST BROAD STREET, P.O. BOX 11104, RICHMOND, VA 23230-1104 (804) 367-1000 (V/TDD) EqUal OppOrtunity EmPloyment, Programs and Facilities FAX (804) 367-9147 LEASE This DEED OF LEASE, entered into this 1st day of January, 2001, by and between the Commonwealth of Virginia, Board of Game and Inland Fisheries, hereinafter referred to as the Lessor, and the County of Albemarle, hereinafter referred to as the Lessee, WITNESSETH WHEREAS, §2.1-504.3A of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, provides that when it is deemed to be in the public interest, real property owned by the Commonwealth may be sold, leased or other interests therein conveyed to political subdivisions, public authorities, or the federal government, for such consideration as is deemed proper, upon the written approval of the Governor, who shall have first considered the written recommendations of the Director of the Department of General Services; and WHEREAS, in a cooperative spirit, the aforementioned parties mutually agree to cooperate in this lease in order for the Lessee to provide public boating access to the boating public at the landing commonly referred to as "Howardsville". The aforementioned parties recognize that there is a contentious history with adjacent landowners concerning past operation of the boat landing; and WHEREAS, the plat attached hereto and made a part hereof as EXHIBIT A shows the 0.74 acres to be leased and the present physical location of a concrete ramp partially on such parcel; and WHEREAS, the Lessee and Lessor, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises and agreements herein contained, covenant and agree as follows: That the said Lessor doth let and demise unto the said Lessee, the following property (to include square footage of leased space and/or acreage), to-wit: The remainder of 0.84 acre of land and improvements appurtenant thereto located in the Scottsville Magisterial District, Albemarle County, Virginia, being all of the remainder (surveyed as 0.74 acre remaining) of the same land conveyed to the Lessor by deed dated May 21, 1964, recorded in Deed Book 400, Page 225 in the Circuit Court records of Albemarle County, Virginia. See EXHIBIT A. The herein described property and premises are hereby leased to Lessee to be used and occupied for the purpose of providing free and unfettered public boating access to the boating public. Such public boating access shall meet, but not be limited to the following criteria: Open to the public for boating and fishing accesS, Open to the public for parking vehicles and boat trailers, No fees charged for the use of the public boating access or its ancillary facilities. INITIAL TERM OF LEASE: This lease shall commence on the first day of January, 2001, and extend for a period of five (5) years, ending on the 31st day of December, 2005 yielding therefrom during the said term the rental of one dollar ($1.00), which amount shall be due and ' payable through Lessor's Agent designated in paragraph 6. RENEWAL OF LEASE: Unless otherwise terminated as herein provided, at the end of the initial term, this lease shall automatically renew and continue in full force and effect for 5-year terms ("renewal term") at the same rental as provided in paragraph 1, and subject to all terms, conditions, covenants, promises and agreements herein contained. Such renewal term shall continue to renew automatically unless terminated by Lessee in such manner and at such time as hereinafter provided for termination of the initial term. continue to renew automatically unless terminated by Lessee in such manner and at such time as hereinafter provided for termination of the initial term. 3. The Lessor covenants and agrees: (a) To deliver quiet possession of said property to the Lessee on the effective date of this Lease. (b) To remove its existing signage and temporary improvements, and to cease its current law enforcement activities. ' 4. The Lessee covenants and agrees: (a) That he has inspected the property and premises and accepts them as is, where is, as shown on the illustration attached hereto as Exhibit A. (b) To pay the rent in the amount and manner herein provided without the necesSity of demand being made therefor by the Lessor. (c) To equip and make such alterations and additions to the said premises and equipment of the Lessee as may be necessary at all times to comply with the provisions of Federal, State, and Local laws, ordinances, and regulations pertaining to health, safety, fire, and public welfare. (d) That he will not injure or disfigure said property nor any part thereof in any way, nor allow the same to be done. (e) To be responsible for the payment of any and all charges for repairs to the said premises, imposed or otherwise, including but not limited to structural repairs, during the original or any extended term of this lease agreement. (f) That all personal property placed in or moved onto the leased property shall be at the sole risk of the lessee or owner of such personal property, and lessor shall have no liability for any reason for damage to same. (g) That beginning on the Commencement Date and continuing during the Term of this Lease and any renewals or extensions thereof, the Lessee, at the Lessee's expense, shall keep in force, with an insurance company authorized to transact business in Virginia, and in a form acceptable to the Lessor, an insurance policy with personal property and broad form liability coverage. The insurance policy shall include the Lessor as a named insured and have the following minimum limits and coverage: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for personal injury to or death of any one person, or more than one person, as the result of any one accident or disaster, and include coverage for property damage and medical payments. On or before the Commencement Date, the Lessee shall deliver to the Lessor a certificate of insurance showing the same to be in force and effect, together with a copy of a paid receipt for the first year's premium. The policy shall provide for notification to the Lessor in the event of cancellation. In the event that the Lessee fails to obtain and maintain the insurance required by this section, the Lessor may, at its option, cause the required insurance to be issued and maintained and the Lessee shall pay the premiums for such insurance as additional Rent. (h) That he will not allow said property to be used for any illegal or immoral purpose, and that he will not do or suffer to be done any act which may be a nuisance, annoyance, inconvenience or damage to Lessor, Lessor's tenant, the occupants of adjoining property, or the neighborhood. (i) At the termination of the Lease, to deliver peacefully the said property in as good order and repair as the same was at the beginning of this Lease, reasonable wear and tear excepted. (J) That no alterations, additions or improvements to said property shall be made without the written approval of the Lessor. Such alterations, additions or improvements shall be in accordance with Lessor's specifications. (k) That it will be responsible for daily operations, including law enforcement, and will install appropriate signage and barriers. That it shall, at all times, maintain the property for the term of this lease; including all routine maintenance, trash and garbage removal, removal of debris, cutting weeds and brush, mowing the grass in order to provide public access and any other routine maintenance of the parking area and other areas as necessary for safe public use. 5. It is mutually covenanted and agreed by the Lessor and the Lessee: (a) The Lessee shall not without the written consent of the Lessor use the said property for any purposes other than above mentioned, nor assign this lease nor sublet any part of the said property. (b) This lease shall continue in force for a period of five (5) years; except, Lessor may cancel this lease at any time upon six (6) months written notice to Lessee, and Lessee shall vacate the property by the end of said six (6) month period after notice is served. (c) That any and all notices affecting this Lease may be served by the parties hereto or their duly authorized agents as effectively as if the same were served by any officer authorized by law to serve such notices. (d) This written Lease constitutes the entire agreement between the Lessor and the Lessee. For the purpose of accepting notice as may be herein provided, Lessor's agent shall be Real Property Manager , at the VA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, whose address is 4010 W. Broad Street, P. O. Box 11104, Richmond, VA 23230. Lessee's agent shall be Director of Parks and Recreation , whose address is County of Albemarlel County Office Buildinq, 401 Mclntyre Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596. Lessor directs that the payments of all rents to accrue hereunder shall be made by the Lessee to such Agent; and any all notices hereunder, when served upon the said Agent, shall have the same force and effect as if served upon the Lessor in person. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have affixed their signatures and seals. Lessee: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE by: County Executive Lessor: Commonwealth of Virginia Board of Game and Inland Fisheries APPROVED AS TO FORM: .by: Director, Department of Game and Inland Fisheries COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF , to-wit: The foregoing Lease Agreement was acknowledged before me by on the day of ,2000 in the jurisdiction aforesaid. My commission expires: Notary Public COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/CouNTY OF , to-wit: The foregoing Lease Agreement was acknowledged before me by on the day of ,2000 in the jurisdiction aforesaid. My commission expires: Notary Public 4 We recommend approval of the lease to the County of Albemarle of that certain property described in this instrument, belonging to the Commonwealth of Virginia, Board of Game and Inland Fisheries, pursuant to §2.1-504.3A of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Division of Engineenng and Buildings Department of General Services By:. Director By: Director APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR' Pursuant to Section § 2.1-504.3A of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, as the official designee of the Governor of Virginia, as authorized and designated by Executive Order 31 (94), dated October 25, 1994, I hereby approve the disposition of the demised premises pursuant to this lease agreement and the execution of this instrument, on behalf of, and in the stead of the Governor of Virginia. By: Secretary of Administration Date 3O 0 3O lllllllllll J [llllllllll GR~P,~C SCALE - ~ET Scale: I"= 30' D~te: 8-6-97 T-bar fnd. N ~3°3C 27.14' T-bQr - Charles A, Baber - D.B. 231, Pg. 37 Tax Map 139A- 17 T-bar i~nd, Surve)ed by Douglas Dean Hall, L.$., Dept. Of Game & Inland Fisheries 47:>5 Lee Highway (P.O. Box 996) Verona, VA Phone 540-:>48-9560 /~cfe 9ridge concrete 0 049 -- point Howardsville Boat Ramp (See Plat D.B. 400, Pg. 227) point S 65~03'56"W 17.71' point ramp Camm, Of VA Dept. Of Game And , Inland Fisheries D.B. 400, Pg. 225 Tax Map 139A- 17A Plat Of Survey Showing 0.049 Acre Of Land To Be Leased From Charles A. Bober By Scottsville District, Albemarle County, Virginia COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Riverrun Subdivision "Child At Play'' Sign SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQuEST: Request to install in the Riverrun Subdivision on Riverrun Drive (Rt. 1175) STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley,Cilimberg,Benish,Wade AGENDA DATE: February 7, 2001 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: × ITEM N UM.__~BER: INFORMATION: .INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The residents of Riverrun SubdivisiOn haVe requested for the Virginia Department of Transportation to install a "Child at Play" Sign on Riverrun Drive (Rt. 1175). This request requires a resolution of support from the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: The Board of Supervisors has established guidelines for the installation of "Child At Play" signs. Staff will use these new guidelines to review this request. "Child At PlaY" signs shall onlY be considered on secondary roads. The residents have requested the sign be located on Riverrun Drive (Rt. 1175), a State maintained secondary road. This will alert all vehicles to be cautious as they enter the subdivision. 2. The request must come from a Homeowner's Association where applicabl~:. Staff has received a letter requesting the sign from the President of the Riverrun Property Owners Association. (attached) 3. There must be child activity attraction nearby for the siqn to be considere, l~ This subdivision has many young children. The residents are concerned about the increase in conflicting pedestrian and vehicular activity near the intersection of Wimbledon Way and Clifden Green' The community swimming pool is located in the southeast quadrant of this intersection. The installation of the sign shall not conflict with any existin.q traf;';c control devices_ The proposed location of the sign will not conflict with any existing traffic control devices. Staff will work with VDOT to determine the exact location for the sign. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors endorse a resolution supporting a "Child At Play" sign in the Riverrun Subdivision on Riverrun Drive (Route 1175). 01.018 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, The residents of Riverrun Subdivision are concerned about traffic in their neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that play in the Subdivision; and WHEREAS, The residents believe that a "Child At Play" sign would help alleviate some their concerns; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of SuPervisors hereby supports the community's requests for VDOT to install the 'Child At Play" sign(s) on RivemJn Drive (Route 1175) near the intersectiOn of Wimbleton Way and Clifden Greene. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of the Resolution duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of 6 - 0 on Februa~' 7, 2001. Clerk, Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 2001/02 Revenue Projection Update SU BJECTIPROPOSALIREQU EST: Updated FY 2001/02 Revenue Projections STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters, White AGENDA DATE: February 7, 2001 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: No DISCUSSION: FiScal year 2001/02 revenues projected in October, 2000 at $129,069,604 have been revised to $128,903,379, a total decrease of $166,225. This increase is summarized in the chad below: Revenue Source October January $ % 2000 2001 Inc Inc Local Tax Revenue Other Local Revenue State/Federal Revenue Transfers/Fund Balance Total General Fund 113,180,100 112,687,509 (492,591) -0.44% 5,137,800 4,946,300 (191,500) -3.73% 10,608,504 11,102,570 494,066 4.66% 143,200 167,000 23,800 16.62% 129,069,604 128,903,379 (166,225) -0.13% Local tax revenues decrease by $492,591, the majority of which are personal' property taxes, penalties, and business licenses offset by increased anticipated consumer utility tax collections. The decreases are due to poor economic conditions experienced locally, as well as statewide and nationally. The consumer utility tax increase is due to cold weather conditions. Other local revenues were reduced by $191,500, reflecting downward revisions in permits and fees, charges for services, and decreased social services rent due to the relocation of the offices. State and federal revenues increase by $494,066, reflecting significant increases for social services (based on projected program costs), offset by reductions in 599 funds (based on the Governor's budget) and recordation fees. Based upon the normal allocation of local tax revenues, the School Division would receive $295,555 less in local tax revenues for FY02 and General Government would receive $197,036 (40%) less than the October allocation. The reduced allocation of funds and the resulting school transfer are summarized below: AGENDA TITLE: FY 2001/02 Revenue Projection Update February 7, 2001 Page 2 Reduced Allocation to the Schools Total Reduced Local Tax Revenues for Operations Schools @ 60% General Govt. @ 40% Therefore, Revised Transfer to Schools: Previous Transfer to Schools Less: Reduced Transfer Revenue ReVised Transfer to Schools (492,591 ) (295,555) (197,036) 60,961,081 (295,555) 60,665,526 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the FY 2001/02 revised revenue projections and the reduced allocation of local tax revenues to the School Division and General Government. 01.021 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA._._.~TITLE: Tip Fee Waiver following Storm Damage SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: PropoSal to Assist Citizens With the Disposal of Storm Debris from Private Property STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Mawyer, Muhlberger AGEND__~A DATE: February 7, 2001 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION.: X ATTACHMENT: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION,: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: An intense stOrm last year caused many properties in the County to accumulate a significant amount of vegetative debris, particularly downed trees and limbs. The Public Works Division subsequently received numerous inquiries from County residents regarding options for disposal of the storm debris. Supervisor Sally Thomas requested staff to review the feasibility of waiving tip fees at the Ivy Materials Utilization center (IMUC) for disposal of storm debris after significant storms. DISCUSSION~: The Virginia Department of Emergency Management and the County's Emergency Services Coordinator, Kaye Harden, indicated federal and state disaster relief funds are available for repair of public property such as roads, parks and water/sewer systems. Kaye also indicated that federal disaster relief funds are available to private property owners in the form of zero or Iow interest loans if there is both a federal and state disaster declaration and the priVate property is uninsured. However, there are no federal, state, or local funds available for storm debris cleanup of private property. Public Works contacted the City of Charlottesville and Henrico, Arlington, Chesterfield, and James City CountieSto find out about the storm debris disposal programs sponsored by those localities. As part of their ongoing waste disposal programs, Charlottesville, Henrico and Arlington will collect storm debris at the curb from residents. The City of Charlottesville will collect storm debris at the curb at no cost to residents, Henrico charges a $40 fee for each collectiOn and Arlington residents pay $54/quarter for collection of all wastes, including storm debris. Chesterfield and James City Counties do not collect storm debris at the curb from residents, but allow residents to drop off brush at a convenience center for a fee ranging from $1 to $4, depending on the vehicle size. In January 1999, a severe ice storm struck James City County causing extensive property damage throughout the County. Both the State and Federal Governments subsequently declared the County in a State of Emergency. This declaration enabled the County to seek reimbursement from the State, less a per capita deductible paid by the County to the State, to initiate cleanup of storm debris on public property. James City COunty paid Public Works Departments from the Cities of Virginia Beach and Newport News to assist with the collection of storm debris. Residents gathered storm debris and placed the material inside the State roadside right-of-way for collection. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) does not typically permit material placement in State rights-of-way; however, given the catastrophic nature of the storm and dedication of VDOT equipment to maintenance of 1-64, County officials proceeded with this program. Chesterfield County recently developed an informal program designed to help residents remove storm debris. The County's General Services Department maintains a database of telephone calls received from residents requesting County assistance following a major storm. Based on the level of requeSts in particular areas, County officials may establish "debris zones". Debris zones are specific areas of the county which are eligible for assistance for curbside collection of storm debris. County officials issue a press release establishing the collection dates and provide information regarding load dimensions, etc. In addition to this curbside collection program, the County will waive tip fees at its drop-off facilities for a limited period. A shortcoming of the debris drop-off program is accurate identification of storm and non-storm debris. AGENDA TITLE: Tip Fee Waiver following Storm Damage February 7, 2001 Page 2 The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) charges $32/ton for disposal of vegetative wastes at the Ivy Materials Utilization Center (IMUC). Operating as an independent cost center, the RSWA will not waive disposal fees. A storm debris amnesty program sponsored by the County would require funding. The RSWA reports that approximately 500 tons of debris was delivered to the IMUC after the April 2000 storm with a total tip fee cost of $16,000. Most of the debris, mainly logs and stumps, was delivered t° the IMUC by tree maintenance contractors. RECOMMENDATION: Develop a Storm debri's cleanup program similar to the program in Chesterfield County. The following program is proposed: Following a major/severe storm event, as determined by the County Executive, the County will offer the follOwing assistance to residents: Debris Zones The Public Works Division will evaluate the damage throughout the county. Based on the evaluation and the number of requests for assistance received from residents of a particular area, Public Works will prepare a recommendation to the County Executive for the location of temporarY/sh°rt term "debris zones", including an estimate of cleanup costs. With concurrence from the Parks Department, RSWA and VDOT, strategically located deposit areas will be established to serve as the debris zones. Deposit areas may include county parks, the Ivy MUC and the roadside right-of-way (for temporary storage only). Public Works will establish an "on-call" contract for rapid response to the cleanup services required in established debris zones. Residents would be required to deliver debris t° the debris deposit locations established by Public Works. The contractor would be required to mulch, transport and/or dispose of the debris from the specified location. Amnesty Period. The Board may also declare an "Amnesty Period" and pay the RSWA tip fee for all vegetative debris delivered to the IMUC during the authorized period. All vegetative debris delivered to the IMUC during the Amnesty period by vehicles with Albemarle County vehicle decals, or from contractors serving CountY residents for Storm debris clean up, would be eligible for County subsidy. In addition to this program, Public Works will continue to provide the following services for all storm eventS: 1. Coordinate with VDOT to remove debris from the roadside right-of-way. 2. Provide general information regarding hours of operatiOn and disposal costs at the IMUC. 3. Provide information to citizens about local tree contractors. 01.023 James S. Gilmore, III Governor John Paul Woodley, Jr. Secretary of Natural Resources COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Valley Regional Office Street address: 4411 Early Road, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801 Mailing address: P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, VA 22801-3000 Telephone (540) 574-7800 Fax (540) 574-7878 http://www.deq.state.va.us Dennis H. Treacy Director R. Bradley Chewning, P.E. Valley Regional Director January 19, 2001 Mr. Charles Martin Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0085979, Keswick STP Dear Mr. Martin: In accordance with the Code of Virginia, Section 62.1-44.15:01, I am enclosing a copy of a public notice regarding the referenced proposed permit action. If you have any questions regarding this proposed permit, please give me a call at (540) 574-7817. Sincerely, Janardan R. Pandey, P.E. Environmental Engineer Senior Enclosure cc: Permit Processing File OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC NOTICE REISSUANCE OF A VPDES PERMIT TO DISCHARGE TO STATE WATERS AND STATE CERTIFICATION UNDER THE STATE WATER CONTROL LAW -Firs~'PbS~li~'-N~{ice Issue Date! The State Water Control Board has under consideration the reissuance of the following Permit and State Certificate: Permit No.: VA0085979 Permittee Name and Address: Keswick Utilities, Inc., 701 Club Drive, Keswick, VA 22947 Facility Name and Location: Keswick STP, 1.4 miles south of Route 22/Route 616 intersection Discharge Description: Existing Municipal Discharge resulting from the operation of a privately owned sewage treatment plant; Existing Discharge Flow: 0.060 MGD; Proposed Discharge Flow: 0.099 MGD; 10utfall. Receiving Stream: Carroll Creek, U.T.; Stream Mile: 0.03; Basin: James (Middle); Subbasin: N/A; Section: 10; Class: III; Special Standards: None. On the basis of preliminary review and application of lawful standards and regulations, the State Water Control Board proposes to reissue the permit subject to certain conditions. This proposed permit action is tentative and consists of limiting the following parameters: pH 6.0 min, 9.0 max;cBODs 21 mg/I max; Suspended Solids 21 mg/I max; Total Residual Chlodne 0.010 mg/I max; Dissolved Oxygen 7.0 mg/I min; Ammonia-N 2.26 mg/I max; Fecal Coliform 200 NIl00 mi avg. - Sludge from the STP is pumped and hauled to either Louisa County Wastewater Treatment Plant or Town of Orange Wastewater Treatment Plant for further treatment and disposal. The dewatered sludge from the sludge drying beds will be disposed at Old Dominion Landfill. This permit will maintain the Water Quality Standards adopted by the Board. All pertinent information is on file and may be inspected, and arrangements made for copying by contacting · Janardan R. Pandey, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Valley Regional Office, P.O. Box 3000, Hardsonburg, Virginia 22801, Telephone No. (540) 574-7800, email: irpandey~deq.state.va.us. Persons may comment in writing or by email to the DEQ on the proposed permit action, and may request a public hearing, dudng the comment period. Comments shall include the name, address, and telephone number of the writer, and shall contain a complete, concise statement of the factual basis for comments. Only those comments received within this period will be considered. The Director of the DEQ.may decide to hold a public hearing if public response is significant. Request for a public hearing shall state why a hearing is requested, the nature of the issues proposed to be raised in the public hearing and a brief explanation of how the req uester's interests would be directly and adversely affected by the proposed, pe _.rrnit action. Following the comment period, the Board will make a determination regarding the proposed permit action. This determination will become effective, unless the Director grants a public hearing. Due notice of any public headng will be given. FAX (804) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832 TTD (804) 972-4012 Januaw 24,2001 Albert J. Lawson Estate Merle U. Lawson & Robert J. Lawson, Trustees 8258 Gordonsville Road Gordonsville, VA 22942 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS Tax Map 37, Parcel 11 (Property of Albert J. Lawson Estate) Section 10.3.1 Dear Mr. And Mrs. Lawson: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that Tax Map 37, Parcel 11 consists of two (2) separate parcels. Each of these two separate parcels contains five (5) theoretical development rights. The basis for this determination is provided below. Our records indicate this parcel contains 250.901 acres and one dwelling. The most recent deed for this property prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (December 10, 1980) is found in Deed Book 517 on page 434, dated May 25, 1972 between Albert J. Lawson & Merle U. Lawson and Virginia Electric and Power Company. This deed divided 9.389 acres from the parcel. There have been no off-conveyances from this parcel since December 10, 1980 so it retains its full compliment of development rights. Further, it is my determination that Parcel 11 consists of two separate parcels acquired by separate deeds. Deed Book 210, page 31 is dated September 17, 1930 between W. L. Flannagan and' W. M. Lawson. This deed conveyed 111.1 acres that are described and shown on a plat. Deed Book 210, page 32 is dated June 11, 1930 between W. G. Buckner and W. M. Lawson. This deed conveyed 149.3 acres by description. Each of the above mentioned parcels is entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are hypothetical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development right lots, a "parent parcel" may create as many parcels containing a minimum of twenty one acres as it has Lawson Parcel and Development Rights Determination January 24, 2001 Page 2 land to make. Be av~are that the development rights of the above noted parcels must be used within the bounds of each separate parcel. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia, If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $95. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Manager of Zoning Administration Copies: McChesney Goodall, ACE Program Coordinator Gay Carver, Real Estate Department Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors Reading Files One additional parcel by determination FAX (804) 972-4126 January 24, 2001 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, V~rginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832 TI'D (804) 972'4012 Arthur H. and Joann F. Freeman 6069 Windsor Farm Road Summerfield, NC 27358 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELs' Tax Map 69, Parcel 50, Parcel $0A, and Parcel 50C (Property Arthur H. or Joann F. Freeman) Section 10.3.1 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Freeman: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted properties. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that Tax Map 69 Parcel 50 contains one (1) theoretical development right. Tax Map 69, Parcel 50A contains three (3) theoretical development rights. Tax Map 69, Parcel 50C contains four (4) theoretical development rights. The basis for this determination is provided below. Tax Map 69, Parcels 50 & 50C: Our records indicate Parcel 50 contains 44.056 acres and 3 dwellings. One of the dwellings is a mobile home. Parcel 50C contains 66.074 acres and no dwellings. These parcels were combined in one parcel on the date of the adoption of the ordinance. The most recent deed for that property prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (December 10, 1980) is found in Deed Book 436, page 489. It is a taking for the Route 250 right of way dated November 15, 1967; Commonwealth .of Virginia v. Robert Goodloe Saunders & Mary Jana Saunders. Neither the area of the land taken nor the area of the residue was mentioned. Deed Book 269, page 530 dated June 24, 1946 between Robert Goodloe Saunders & Margaret McCue Saunders and the Commonwealth of Virginia. This deed conveyed 3.33 acres for Route 250 right of way. The area of the residue of the parcel was not mentioned. Deed Book 188, page 3, dated November 1, 1923 records a deed of partition. Mary McCue Brown was allotted a tract containing 105.9 acres. This is the parent parcel of 50A. Martha Jane' MCCue and William Hall McCue were jointly allotted a tract containing 113.4 acres. This is the parent parcel of 50. The residues of these parcels, Freeman Determination January 24, 2001 Page 2 after the above mentioned conveyances to the highway, each had five development rights on the date of the adoption of the ordinance. Deed Book 867, page 305 dated February 4, 1986 is between Andrew J. Gmeiner & Joanna L. Gmeiner and Michael K. Voth and Sallie C. Voth. This Plat inCluded an exchange of land between Parcels 50 and 50A. No development rights were exchanged between Parcels 50 and 50A. The resulting acreage of Parcel 50 was 119.48. It retained its full compliment of development rights. Deed Book 892, page 154, dated July 29, 1986 is between Andrew J. Gmeiner & Joanna L. Gmeiner and Carolyn Musselman & E. Shannon G. Shirley, Trustees for Mountain View Land Trust. It divided the 9.5 acre portion of parcel 50 located on the west side of Route 6. The notes on the plat conveyed 2 development rights. The residue of the parcel on the east side retained 3 development rights. However, based on Ann H. Sanford v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County, Virginia and City of Winston Salem v. Tickle, Parcel 50 is considered to be two separate parcels divided by Route 6. Therefore, as a result of this transaction and in spite of the note on the plat recorded with this deed, the portion of Parcel 50 on the East side of Route 6 retained its five (5) development rights. Deed Book 1845, page 57, dated July 23, 1999 is between Forbes R. Reback, Trustee of the Fiddlers Green Land Trust and Arthur H. Freeman and Joann F. Freeman. Attached to the deed is a plat that divided 44.056 acres from Parcel 50. One (1) development right was conveyed to this parcel. The residue of 66.074 acres retained 4 development rights. No other off-conveyances from Parcel 50 have occurred since this transaction. Therefore, parCel 50 has one (1) development right and Parcel 50C has four (4) development rights. Tax Map 69, Parcel 50A: Our records indicate this parcel contains 37.910 acres and no dwellings. As described above this parcel was established as a parcel of record in Deed Book 188, page 3. Deed Book 867, page 305, referenced above and dated February 4, 1986, between Andrew J. Gmeiner & Joanna L. Gmeiner and Michael K. Voth and Sallie C. Voth also affected Parcel 50A. This conveyed a 57.14 acre tract comprised of portions of parcel 50A and Parcel 50 that were added to Parcel 20. Two development rights were conveyed from parcel 50 A with this tract. This transaction also transferred 8.5 acres from Parcel 50A to Parcel 50. No development rights were included with the 8.5 acres. There have been no off-cOnveyances since February 4, 1986. As a result of these transfers, the residue of Parcel 50A retained 37.91 acres and three (3) development rights. Freeman Determination January 24, 2001 Page 3 Each of the above 'mentioned parcels is entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are hypothetical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development right lots, a "parent parcel', may create as many parcels containing a minimum of twenty one acres as it has land to make. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $95. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. if you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, ohn Shepherd Manager of Zoning Administration Copies: McChesney Goodall, ACE Program Coordinator Gay Carver, Real Estate Department Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors Reading Files FAX (804) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832 TTD (804) 972-40] Januaw 24,2001 James F. Powell, Jr. James F. Jr. & Cato Powell Estate 4446 Plank Road North Garden, VA 22936 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS, Tax Map 87, Parcel 64 Tax Map 99, Parcel 59 & Tax Map 99. Parcel 60A (Property of James F. Powell Jr.) SeCtion 10.3.1 Dear Mr. Powell: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted properties. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that Tax Map 87, Parcel 64 contains five (5) theoretical development rights. Tax Map 99, Parcel 59 consists of four (4) separate parcels. Each of these four separate parcels contains five (5) theoretical development rights. Tax Map 99, Parcel 60A contains one (1) theoretical development right. The basis for this determination is provided below. Tax Map 87, Parcel 64: Our records indicate this parcel contains 217.200 acres and two dwellings. The most recent deed for this property prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (December 10, 1980) is found in Deed Book 542, page 160. It is a plat dated October 16, 1973 showing an exchange of 5,310 square feet between James W. & Cato Powell and the Albemarle County School Board. There have been no off-conveyances from this parcel since December 10, 1980 so it retains its five theoretical development rights. Tax Map 99, Parcel 59: Our records indicate this parcel contains 194.380 acres and has no dwellings. The most recent deed for this property prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (December 10, 1980) is found in Deed Book 520, page 417. It is dated December 5, 1972 between Smith Land and Lumber Company and Mitchell O. Carr. That deed included the conveyance of 0.75 acres from Tax Map 99, Parcel 59 to Parcel 49A. The most recent deed since the adoption of the Ordinance is found in Deed Book 960 on page 747. It is dated September 9, 1987 between James F. & Cato Powell and David N. Reynolds & Elizabeth A. Pratt. This transaction conveyed 1.6 acres from Tax Map 99, Parcel 59 to Tax Map 99, Parcel 59A. The deed stated, "This subject property described in the attached plat, comprising 1.6 acres Powell Parceland Development Rights Determination January 24,2001 Page 2 appears as part of'Parcel 59, Tax Map 99, Deed Book 520, p. 417 which is 195.98 acres, before the sale." No development rights were conveyed in that transaction. There have been no other off conveyances from this parcel since the adoption of the ordinance. Therefore, this parcel is found to have its full compliment of development rights. Furthermore, it is my determination that Parcel 59 consists of four (4) separate parcels. This is based on Ann H. Sanford v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County, Virginia and .City of Winston Salem v. Tickle. The parcel is divided by State Route 813, State Route 712, and the Southern Railway. Each of these separate parcels has five (5) theoretical development rights. Tax Map 99, Parcel 60A: Our records indicate this lot contains 1.250 acres and has no dwellings. The most recent deed for this property prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (December 10, 1980) is found in Deed Book 456, page 10. It is dated February 7, 1969 between Richard & Ruby Kennedy and J.F. & W.C. Powell. This 1.25 lot was divided at that time from Tax Map 99, Parcel 60. No record of development since that date was found. Therefore, this parcel is found to contain one theoretical development right. The parcel is non-conforming because it contains less than 2 acres. Each of the above mentioned parcels is entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are hypothetical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development right lots, a "parent parcel" may create as many parcels containing a minimum of twenty one acres as it has land to make. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $95. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me. ger of Zoning Administration PoWell Parcel and Development Rights Determination January 24, 2001 Page 3 Copies: McChesne~y Goodall, ACE Program Coordinator Gay Carver, Real Estate Department Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors Reading Files Three additional parcels by determination FAX (804) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832 TTD (804) 972-4012 Januaw 24,2001 W. Brand McCaskill 5114 Dick Wood Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax Map 72, Parcel 51 (Property of W. Brand McCaskill & Elizabeth T. & William Brand McCaskill, Jr. or Cynthia Londree McCaskill) Section 10.3.1 Dear Mr. McCaskill: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted property. It is the County AttorneY's advisory opinion and my official determination that Tax Map 72 Parcel 51 contains nine (9) theoretical development rights. The basis for this determination is provided below. Our records indicate this parcel contains 167.602 acres and 1 dwelling. The most recent deed for this property prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (December 10, 1980) is found in Deed Book 304, page 549. It is dated April 14, 1953 between Bruce D. Reynolds & Downing Smith, Trustees and W. B. McCaskill & Elizabeth McCaskill, and Almeyda T. Spratley & G.L. Spratley. It conveyed 175.7 acres. Deed Book 810, page 398, dated July 25, 1984 between W. B. McCaskill & Elizabeth McCaskill and Lester L. Clark & Meredith Ann Clark conveyed 5.078 acres. The plat noted that the residue of Parcel 51 retains four (4) division rights. That plat also noted the residue contained 170.88 acres +/-. Deed Book 997, page 268, dated January 7, 1988 between Elizabeth Twist McCaskill & William Brand McCaskill and the Commonwealth of Virginia conveyed a strip of land for the improvement of State Route 637. This transaction did not involve the transfer of development rights. There have been no off-conveyances from this parcel sinCe January 7, 1988. Further, it is my' determination that Parcel 51 consists of two (2) separate parcels. This is based on Ann H. Sanford v. Board of Zoninq Appeals of Albemarle County, Virginia and City of Winston Salem v. Tickle. The Parcel is divided bY State Route 637. Each of McCaskill Determination January 24, 2001 Page 2 these separate parcels is considered to have had a full compliment of development rights on the effective date of the ordinance. Therefore, the portion of ParCel located on the North side of Route 637 has four (4) development rights. The Portion of Parcel located on the South side of Route 37 has five (5) deVelopment rights The above mentioned parcels are entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are hypothetical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development right lots, a "parent parcel" may create as many parcels containing a minimum of twenty one acres as it has land to make. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $95. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, John Shepherd Manager of Zoning Administration Copies: McChesney Goodall, ACE Program Coordinator Gay Carver, Real Estate Department. Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors Reading Files One additional parcel by Tax Map James S. Gilmore, llI Governor John Paul Woodley, Jr. Secretary of Natural Resources COMMONWEALTH of VIR( .iNIA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries December 4, 2000 William L. Woodfin, Jr. Director Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney Director of Parks and Recreation County of Albemarle County Office Building 401 Mclntyre Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 RE: Proposed Lease of Howardsville Boat Landing to Albemarle County Dear Mr. Mullaney: Enclosed please find two (2) originals of the proposed lease agreement between the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) and Albemarle County for the Howardsville boat landing. The proposed agreement has received approval as to form by DGIF's counsel at the Attorney General's Office. You will note that changes on page 1 were recommended by the Assistant Attorney General, and changes on pages 2 and 3 of the agreement were made in accordance with your July 24, 2000 letter. These changes are noted as follows: · page 1, third WHEREAS; acreage added; · page 1, fourth WHEREAS; property description revised to include surveyed acreage; · page 2, paragraph 4g; indemnification clause deleted; · page 2, paragraph 4h (now paragraph 4g) regarding personal property and liability updated to reflect changes in coverage limits (I believe we discussed this by phone); and · page 3, paragraph 4m (now paragraph 41); last sentence deleted. ~ Please have the County Executive indicate acceptance of the agreement by signing each original on page 4 where indicated. Once the documents have been accepted by Albemarle County, please return them to me for the required review and approval by the Department of General Services, and signature by the DGIF Director. I will then return a fully executed original to you. Please contact me at (804) 367-0811 or ipowell@d.qif, state.va.us if you have any questions or concerns. Enclosures Sincerely, ~ Real pr/' /Jane W;pPe°rtT~;pecialis! 4010 WEST BROAD STREET, P.O. BOX 11104, RICHMOND, VA 23230-1104 (804) 367-1000 (V/TDD) Equal Opportunity Employment, Programs and Facilities FAX (804) 367-9147 ~EASE This DEED OF.LEASE, entered into this 1st day of January, 2001, by and between the Commonwealth of Virginia, Board of Game and Inland Fisheries, hereinafter referred to as the Lessor, and the County of Albemarle, hereinafter referred to as the Lessee, WITNESSETH WHEREAS, §2.1-504.3A of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, provides that when it is deemed to be in the public interest, real property owned by the Commonwealth may be sold, leased or other interests therein conveyed to political subdivisions, public authorities, or the federal government, for such consideration as is deemed proper, upon the written approval of the Governor, who shall have first considered the written recommendations of the Director of the Department of General Services; and WHEREAS, in a cooperative spirit, the aforementioned parties mutually agree to cooperate in this lease in order for the Lessee to provide public boating access to the boating public at the landing commonly referred to as "Howardsville". The aforementioned parties recognize that there isa contentious history with adjacent landowners concerning past operation of the boat landing; and WHEREAS, the plat attached hereto and made a part hereof as EXHIBIT A shows the 0.74 acres to be leased and the present physical location of a concrete ramp partially on such parcel; and WHEREAS, the Lessee and Lessor, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises and agreements herein contained, covenant and agree as follows: That the said Lessor doth let and demise unto the said Lessee, the following property (to include square footage of leased space and/or acreage), to-wit: The remainder of 0.84 acre of land and improvements appurtenant thereto located in the Scottsville Magisterial District, Albemarle County, Virginia, being all of the remainder (surveyed as 0.74 acre remaining) of the same land conveyed to the Lessor by deed dated May 21, 1964, recorded in Deed Book 400, Page 225 in the Circuit Court records of Albemarle County, Virginia. See EXHIBIT A. The herein described property and premises are hereby leased to Lessee to be used and occupied for the purpose of providing free and unfettered public boating access to the boating public. Such public boating access shall meet, but not be limited to the following criteria: Open to the public for boating and fishing access, Open to the public for parking vehicles and boat trailers, No fees charged for the use of the public boating access or its ancillary facilities. INITIAL TERM OF LEASE: This lease shall commence on the first day of January, 2001, and extend for a period of five (5) years, ending on the 31st day of December, 2005 yielding therefrom during the said term the rental of one dollar ($1.00), which amount shall be due and payable through Lessor's Agent designated in paragraph 6. RENEWAL OF LEASE: Unless otherwise terminated as herein provided, at the end of the initial term, this lease shall automatically renew and continue in full force and effect for 5~year terms ("renewal term") at the same rental as provided in paragraph 1, and subject to all terms, conditions, covenants, promises and agreements herein contained. Such renewal term shall continue to renew automatically unless terminated by Lessee in such manner and at such time as hereinafter provided for termination of the initial term. continue to renew automatically unless terminated by Lessee in such manner and at such time as hereinafter provided for termination of the initial term. The Lessor Covenants and agrees: (a) To deliver quiet possession of said property to the Lessee on the effective date of this Lease. (b) To remove its existing signage and temporary improvements, and to cease its current law enforcement activities. The Lessee covenants and agrees: (a) That he has inspected the property and premises and accepts them as is, where is, as shown on the illustration attached hereto as Exhibit A. (b) To pay the rent in the amount and manner herein provided without the necessity of demand being made therefor by the Lessor. (c) To equip and make such alterations and additions to the said premises and equipment of the Lessee as may be necessary at all times to comply with the provisions of Federal, State, and Local laws, ordinances, and regulations pertaining to health, safety, fire, and public welfare. (d) That he will not injure or disfigure said property nor any part thereof in any way, nor allow the same to be done. (e) To be responsible for the payment of any and all charges for repairs to the said premises, imposed or otherwise, including but not limited to structural repairs, during the original or any extended term of this lease agreement. (f) That all personal property placed in or moved onto the leased property shall be at the sole risk of the lessee or owner of such personal property, and lessor shall have no liability for any reason for damage to same. (g) That beginning on the Commencement Date and continuing during the Term of this Lease and any renewals or extensions thereof, the Lessee, at the Lessee's expense, shall keep in force, with an insurance company authorized to transact business in Virginia, and in a form acceptable to the Lessor, an insurance policy with personal property and broad form liability coverage. The insurance policy shall include the Lessor as a named insured and have the following minimum limits and coverage: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for personal injury to or death of any one person, or more than one person, as the result of any one accident or disaster, and include coverage for property damage and medical payments. On or before the Commencement Date, the Lessee shall deliver to the Lessor a certificate of insurance showing the same to be in force and effect, together with a copy of a paid receipt for the first year's premium. The policy shall provide for notification to the Lessor in the event of cancellation. In the event that the Lessee fails to obtain and maintain the insurance required by this section, the Lessor may, at its option, cause the required insurance to be issued and maintained and the Lessee shall pay the premiums for such insurance as additional Rent. (h) That he will not allow said property to be used for any illegal or immoral purpose, and that he will not do or suffer to be done any act which may be a nuisance, annoyance, inconvenience or damage to Lessor, Lessor's tenant, the occupants of adjoining property, or~e neighborhood. · At the termination of the Lease, to deliver peacefully the said property in as good order and repair as the same was at the beginning of this Lease, reasonable wear and tear excepted. (J) That no alterations, additions or improvements to said property shall be made without the written approval of the Lessor. Such alterations, additions or improvements shall be in accordance with Lessor's specifications. (k) That it will be responsible for daily operations, including law enforcement, and will install appropriate signage and barriers. That it shall, at all times, maintain the property for the term of this lease; including all routine maintenance, trash and garbage removal, removal of debris, cutting weeds and brush, mowing the grass in order to provide public access and any other routine ,maintenance of the parking area and other areas as necessary for safe public use. 5. It is mutually covenanted and agreed by the Lessor and the Lessee: (a) The Lessee shall not without the written consent of the Lessor use the said property for any purposes other than above mentioned, nor assign this lease nor sublet any part of the said property. (b) This lease shall continue in force for a period of five (5) years; except, Lessor may cancel this lease at any time upon six (6) months written notice to Lessee, and Lessee shall vacate the property by the end of said six (6) month period after notice is served. (c) That any and all notices affecting this Lease may be served by the parties hereto or their duly authorized agents as effectively as if the same were served by any officer authorized by law to serve such notices. (d) This written Lease constitutes the entire agreement between the Lessor and the Lessee. For the purPose of accepting notice as may be herein provided, Lessor's agent shall be Real Property Manager , at the VA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, whose address is 4010 W. Broad Street, P. O. Box 11104, Richmond, VA 23230. Lessee's agent shall be Director of Parks and Recreation , whose address is County of Albemarle, County Office Buildinq, 401 Mclntyre Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596. Lessor directs that the payments of all rents to accrue hereunder shall be made by the Lessee to such Agent; and any all notices hereunder, when served upon the said Agent, shall have the same force and effect as if served upon the Lessor in person. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have affixed their signatures and seals. ._ Lessee,~. C~~ .~ ALBEMARLE Board of Game and Inland Fisheries APPROVED AS TO FORM: by: Director, Department of Game and Inland Fisheries COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF Albemarle , to-wit: The foregoing Lease Agreement was acknowledged before me by Robert' W. Tucker, on the 9th day of February ,.2.98¢in the jurisdiction aforesaid. Jr. My commission expires: June 30, 2001 No{ak/Public COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF , to-wit: The foregoing Lease Agreement was acknowledged before me by on the day of ,2000 in the jurisdiction aforesaid. My commission expires: Notary Public We recommend approval of the lease to the County of Albemarle of that certain property described in this instrument, belonging to the Commonwealth of virginial Board of Game and Inland Fisheries, pursuant to §2.1-504.3A of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Division of Engineering and Buildings Department of General Services By:. By:. Director Director APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR: Pursuant to Section § 2.1-504.3A of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, as the official designee of the Governor of Virginia, as authorized and designated by Executive Order 31 (94), dated October 25, 1994, I hereby approve the disposition of the demised premises pursuant to this lease agreement and the execution of this instrument, on behalf of, and in the stead of the Governor of Virginia. By: Secretary of Administration Date ~ NOTES ~ / I) According to Robert B<]ber, Ch<]rles Ao Baber, <]lso known as C.A. Baber, died intest<]te in 197¢>, He was survived by <] son, Robert Baber, <]nd two d<]ug~ters. One of the d(]ughters is now deceased. 2) This 40' wide R/W is shown on the pl<]t by G.R; Holl<]day (D.B. 400, Pg. ~'~'7) <]nd l<]bled "Common- we<]lth of VA Comm. of G<]me ~ Ini<]nd Fisheries". There is no mention of this R/W being conveyed in the deed (D,B. 400, Pg. 225). 3) This 15' wide R/W is mentioned in the deed (D.B. 400, Pg. 225) <]s reserved to Ch<]rles A. B<]ber It is not shown on the pl<]t by G.R. Holl<]d<]y (D.B, 400, Pg. 2;~5). 4) The technic<]l inform<]tion shown hereon is b<]sed on (]n actual field survey of 9-26-90, upd<]ted 8-2-00, (]nd is true (]nd correct to the best of my knowledge <]nd belief. Dougl<]s Dean Hall, L.S. Commonwealth of Virginie Dep<]rtment of Game (]nd Inland Fisheries, I;~7 Lee Highway, Veron<], VA £4482 Plat of Survey Showing Commonwealth of Department of and Virginia Inland Fisheries Howardsville Aeee'-' Area, 0.74 Acre 7icini!,y Ma,p , N ~ / [~ ~d~,~ ~-5 ~~ ~ss Area 5-6 7-8 8-9 BOUNDARY bearing distance S 23°30'00"E 57.20' S 49°49'00"W 37.50' S 85°28'00"W 41.80' N 79°£5'00''w 38,60' S 49°53'00"W 34,20' S 49°53'00"W 113.86' S 82° 19'5£"E 210.00' See Curve Data DATA from-to bedring 9-10 0-11 2-15 3ZI4 4-15 5-1 distance N 48019' I7"E 71.73' N 57°0£TM 20_+' N 57°02''5 I"W 12.39' N' 57 02 51 70.40' N 57002'5 I"W N 23°30'00TM 27. 'N 57°02'5 I"W £7. I T-bars set on dll property corners except numbers 7,8,9 and I0 30 0 30 60 90 GRAPHIC SCALE - FEET Date' 8-8-00 EP Old Route 602 _ _ EP-- ........ m' 626 I Charles\A. Bdber (dec'd) (see note End State Maint. Rte. 602. I Area "north of the dotted black line" (D.B. 400, Pg. 226) R/W reserved to Charles A. Baber (dec'd) for access to the 15' wide strip retained. pole 15 parking ,--.. oreo C Portion of concrete ramp encroaches upon 15' wide strip of land retained by Chories A. Bober (dec'd) D.B. 400, Pg. £25 I o~ °\d 12 romp Howordsville Access Area / (see 1964 plat by See Note/ G.R. Holladay, ~3 / 400, Pg. ~7) .." q 0.7.4 Acre de¢~o,je6 b'J ~\oO6 \o lO End of concrete ramp is covered by sand. (location uncertain) Curve Data (8 to 9) 9 L.C. = N 72 59 42 E 98.50' Cent. Ang. : 49°£0'51'' Length = I 01.61 '~,,¢.~//~ ' Rod. = 117.98' EXHIBIT A COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Citizen Participation in the 2001/2002 Budget Process. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Strategies Intended to Increase Citizen Education Regarding the Budget Process STAF,F CONTACT(S): AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: February 7, 2001 ~CTIO.N: INFORMATION.: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: BACKGROUND: Since the budget in its ideal form should be a document that lays out a shared vision of the community's needs and priorities, anything less than full participation by informed citizens hurts the process significantly. For the last several years staff has implemented various strategies aimed at improving the county's communication with citiZens about the budget with the goal of increasing awareness of and participation in the budget process. This year staff is looking to continue those efforts with several public outreach initiatives. Several communication efforts are planned and/or underway: · A slide presentation on the budget will be preSented to a vadety of community organizations including the Chamberof Commerce and the county's PTO Council; · An open meeting for the public will be held in partnership with the League of Women Voters at the end of February; · An enhanced budget website will feature in-depth, frequently updated budget information along with a direct email response option to allow comments; · An Annual Report insert in the Daily Progress in February will feature preliminary budget information along with other county data; and · A special budget-related insert in the Daily Progress in March will feature detailed budget data and recommendations as developed to that point. We would welcome any further ideas or suggestions from Board members about engaging the public in the budget process. -u IPI/ .... ..,;:~i.: RECOMMENDATION: ') ~' 0 :l ~' ~ ' ~ '" ~" No action is required on this item. 01.022 BOARD -TO -BOARD February 7, 2001 -9:00 a.m. A Monthly Communications Report of activities from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. Highlights: School Board Briefs (Attachment 1) - January 11 and January 25, 2001 RECENT DRIVER'S EDUCATION PROGRAM: At the June 12, 2000 Board meeting, Dr. William Orr presented the Board with a list of recommendations concerning drivers education procedures. The Board then asked the High School Steering Committee to comment on these recommendations. The High School Steering Committee felt that the recommendations would not be enforceable and asked for input from Richard Wharam, Community Education Specialist at Albemarle High School. Mr. Wharam provided two proposals for consideration. After input from Mr. Wharam and Health and Physical Education teachers the High School Steering Committee recommended: 1) Albemarle County Public SchOols hereby require a parent/student driving log of 35 hours of supervised driving to be submitted at the time a temporary license is preSented at each high school, and 2) exception may be made t° the additional driving log with the approval of the principal/designee for extenuating circumstances. This would effectively raise the current 15 hours of provided instruction to 50 hours. The Board approved the recommendations at the JanUary 1 lth meeting and asked that a form be provided in the back of the Division's driver's manual for parents to sign that they have read the manual. · UPDATE MURRAY HIGH SCHOOL CHARTER SCHOOL APPLICATION: At the January 25th meeting, the Board received an updated report and additional public testimony on the Murray High School Application. The Board also directed staff to provide additional information on the capacity of Murray High School and to add language in the application allowing the Murray High School to operate on a three-year contract, with reviews conducted every Year. The Board must decide before March 15, 2001 whether to grant the appliCation. At tonight's meeting the Board could (in compliance with School Board Policy LC-R): A. Accept without conditions; B. Accept with conditions; C. Reject; D. Place on a waiting list; E. Negotiate further with the applicant; F. Defer action; or G. Return with request for additional information. · NEW SCHOOL BOARD CLERK: Mrs. Jennifer Johnston, formerly our Deputy Clerk, was chosen as the new School Board Clerk. The decision came after narrowing the applicants down from 15 to 6 finalists. Ms. Johnston's outstanding overall qualifications and potential provided the Board abundant evidence to offer her the job. · FY 2001 - 2002 SCHOOL BOARD FUNDING REQUEST: We have worked on our Request for Funds after four separate work sessions, a public hearing, and several votes to modify the Request. We will be voting on the final document at tonight's meeting. If a majority of the Board agrees, we will be recOmmending what the Superintendent provided to the School Board in mid-January, a Request for Funds requiring an increase of about 7.6%, compared with 8.7% increase in the FY 2000-01 Budget. The majority of the increase results from the recommendationS of the Compensation Committee and Palmer & Cay Consulting Group. Of course, we will be providing more information on the specifics and look forward to working with all of you on this most important function! FUTURE ITEMS OF INTEREST CONSIDERATION TO JOIN THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: At its recent Retreat, the School Board directed staff and me to look at the possibility of joining the Chamber of Commerce. There appear to be some obvious advantages, to include establishing improved communications and in working 2 parmerships helping CATEC, the Charlottesville Albemarle Business Alliance, and our schools in general. We will hear more about this later this spring. REQUEST TO REVIEW BUDGET TIMELINE PROCESS FOR NEXT YEAR: As you know, the bulk of our Request for Funds discussions and deliberations comes during January. This involves special meetings in addition to our regularly scheduled meetings. I have been asked by the School Board to see if we could review the timelines for next year in order to allow for more time (not necessarily more meetings!) to discuss funding ideas with the community. I request that Ms. Thomas, Mr. Tucker, Dr. Castner and I, or others as you see fit, meet to see what can be done to allow more time to prepare our Request for Funds next year. This is part of an effort to establish a process for the School Board to follow so that the staff and community will know how and when we build our budget. JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Based on a School Board request from last fall, we have tentatively scheduled our first Joint meeting on Tuesday, March 13,2001. This meeting is intended to understand what the Planning Commission does and for them to provide an update on the Development Area Initiative Committee (DISC) study. Also, I've asked both staffs to work together to see if there are any recommendations to improve communications and/or processes between the staffs. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD BRIEFS "WE EXPECT SUCCESS" Also available at http://k12.albemarle.org SCHOOL BOARD MEETING:. January_ 11, 200..1. BOARD ACTION AND ACTIVITIES The Board appointed Dr. Charles Ward as School Board Chaimmn, Mr. Steve Koleszar as Vice Chairman, Mrs. Jennifer Johnston as Acting Clerk and Dr. Frank Morgan as Actin Deputy Clerk for a one-year term. The Board appointed Mr, Madison Cummings to serve a three-year term and Mr. Steve Koleszar to serve a one-year term on the CATEC Center Board. The Board appointed Mrs. Diantha McKeel as the representative for the Piedmont Regional Education Center Board for the Piedmont Regional Education Program (PREP). Mr. Gary Grant was appointed as the akemate. The Board approved the Year-to-Date Financial Report as of November 30, 2000 as presented. To obtain a copy of the report, call the Clerk's Office at 972-4055. The Board authorized Frank Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, to sign official correspondence, to attend Board meetings, and to act on behalf of the Superintendent accordingly in the absence of the Superintendent. As required by the Virginia Department of Education's Standards of Quality, the School Board Policy manual is available for public review and comment at all public libraries, school media centers, and the Clerk's office. In addition, the policy manual is on the Divis ion webske. · The high school student was expelled for 365 calendar days for possession of a loaded firearm on school property. · The Superintendent will present his 2001-2002 Budget to the School Board on January 17 at Monticello Ifftgh School beginning at 6:30 p.m. · The Board voted to ask the Board of Supervisors to approve naming the road leading into Baker-Butler Elementary School, Proffit Lane. 2001 SCHOOL BOARD MEETING DATES The Board set the following dates for its regular 6:30 p.m. meetings: January 25, 2001 Wednesday, February 7, 2001 and February 22, 2001 March 8, 2001 and March 22, 2001 April 12, 2001 and April 26, 2001 May 10, 2001 and May 24, 2001 June 7, 2001 and June 28, 2001 July 12, 2001 August 9, 2001 and August 23, 2001 September 13, 2001 and September 27, 2001 October 11, 2001 and October 25, 2001 November 8, 2001 and November 29, 2001 December 6, 2001 and December 13, 2001 January 10, 2002 All meetings are held on Thursday in Room 241 of the County Office Building unless otherwise noted. HIGH SCHOOL SWIMMING PROGRAM A group of parents approached the Division with a proposal to implement and fully fund (no cost to the Division) a high school swimming program on a club basis at each high school. The group was seeking official recogmtion of the programs so that they could participate in Virginia High School League (VHSL) sancuoned competitions. It was advised that the establishment of a new team sport (and the endorsement of the team for VI-ISL-regulated activities) should be presented for Board approval because of the absence of policy addressing.this kind of proposal. In addition, it was advised that if the parent-funded program concept was accepted, a formal agreement between the parent group and the School Board should be developed and adopted because of the unique nature. Board discussion occurred regarding the proposal. The Board asked that staff meet with a representative group of parents, students and staff to develop a proposal that would allow for the swim club to be recognized and able to participate in VHSL sanctioned competkions this year. The information is scheduled to be presented to the Board at ks January 23 Budget Work Session. However, the Board received the irr[onnanon at the January 17 Superintendent Funding Request Presentation. Board discussion occurred and a one-year "pilot" swim team was established. DRIVERS EDUCATION At the June 12, 2000 meeting, Dr. William Orr presented the Board with a list of recommendations concerning driven education procedures. The School Board asked for input from the High School Steering Committee on these recommendations. In considering the recommendations, the High School Steering Committee felt that the recommendations would not be enforceable and requested input from Richard Wharam, Community Education Specialist at Albemarle High School Mr. Wharam provided two proposals for consideration. After input from Health and Physical Education teachers, the High .School Steering Committee recommended the following: · Albemarle County Public Schools hereby require a parent/student driving log of 35 hours of supervised driving to be submitted at the time of temporary license presentation at each high school. · Exceptions may be made with approval of the principal/designee for extenuating situations. The Board approved the above recommendations and asked that a form be provided in the back of the manual for parents to sign saying that they have read the Driver's Manual. HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAM OF STUDIES As a result of the recommendations of the High School Task Force, a common Corrpr&ensiw High Sdeool Program cfStM/es was developed for core academic and core elective courses, and supplemented by elective courses offered at the individual high school level. The Board had approved the ~iveHigh Sdsool~amcfSudies for school years 1998, 1999, and 2000. The ~iveHigh Sdx~lProgramcf Studies and the supplement for each high school were revised and expanded for use in the 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 registration process. The Stardards cfA wred~t~ (SOA) requires local school boards to approve all elective courses at the high school level. The School Board also approves fees charged to students. At its December 14, 2000 meeting, there was Board discussion regarding clarifications that needed to be made in areas such as receiving credit when entering a class after the first 10 days of the semester. The Board asked that staff review the possibility of changing Atklefic Eligibility requirements. Board discussion occurred, and the High Sdm~l Program cf Studies was approved for two-years. EXTENDED LEARNING TIME UPDATE For the last several years Board members have expressed interest in learning more about structural calendar changes that extend learning time. Extended Learning Time was a Superintendent/Board priority in 1999-2000 and "Research on Extended Learning Tune" is a priority for 2000-2001. The Extended Learning Time report was originally reviewed by the Board at the December 14, 2000 Board Meeting. The Board decided at that time to defer discussion until the January 11, 2001 Board Meeting. The Department of Instruction asked for the Board's consideration and direction on the following questions: · Do we pursue a modified year-round calendar? · Do we look at interventtons throughout the year and summer that will reach all students in need and that will be more focused on the specific areas that are deficit? · As more of our students need verified credits, will our summer school for high school students need a different look~ · For example, how will we offer remediation recovery classes in addition to tuiuon classes? · Would a year-round school as a school-of-choice or school- within-a-school be a starting point? Board discussion occurred regarding extended learning tame including current practices and use of budgeted funds for extending learning time. The Board received the report for information. COMMENDATIONS Josephine Blount Jake Parks Chels ey Pippin Daisa Granger Janet Pan Eleven Albemarle County students received awards in the annual Writer's Eye Competkion sponsored bythe BaytyArt Museum. This year the Museum received almost 1,100 entries in prose and poetry categories, submitted in four age categories: grades 3-5, 6-8, 9-12, and university/adult. First place winners in each category (prose and poetry) and age level, will read their entry during a ceremony on February 4, 2001 at 3:00 p.m. in Campbell Hall 153. Honorable mention awards will also be recognized at the ceremony. Greer Elementary, First Place, Poetry, Grades 3-5 Meriwether Lewis Elementary, Second Place, Poetry Grades 3-5 Woodbrook Elementary, First Place, Prose, Grades 3-5 Cale Elementary, Second Place, Prose Grades 3-5 Burley Middle School, Second Place, Poetry Grades 6-8 The following students received Honorable Mention awards: Rebecca Fredrick Laura Campbell Fiona Balestrieri Walker McKusick Katie Connor Claire Whitenack Woodbrook Elementary, Poetry, Grades 3-5 Murray Elementary, Poetry, Grades 3-5 Meriwether Lewis Elementary, Prose, Grades 3-5 Hollymead Elementary, Prose, Grades 3-5 BurleyMiddle School, Prose, Grades 6-8 Albemarle High School, Poetry, Grades 9-12 Kimberly Anne Walters, an Sutherland Middle School eighth grader, was appointed to serve as a page in the House of Delegates for the 2001 General Assembly. Kimberly began her duties on January 7, 2001. The Board provided a Resolution of Appreciation to Mrs. Trna Fuller for outstanding service demonstrating the highest work ethic and total dedication to the School Board, schools and community as Board Clerk for the period of August 1995 to January 2001. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD BRIEFS "WE EXPECT SUCCESS" Also arMlable at bttp://kl2.Mbemade, ocg BOARD ACTION AND ACTIVITIES SCHOOL BOARD MEETING: January. 25, 2001 MURRAY HIGH SCHOOL CHARTER SCHOOL APPLICATION The Board expelled a high school student for 365 calendar days for possession of a loaded firearm on school property. The Board deferred making a decision on Policy BCF, A d~ory ~ to the Sobod B~ra~ The Board will take action on making the changes at its February 7, 2001 meeting. 2001-2002 SCHOOL DIVISION CALENDAR A Calendar Committee consisting of central office staff, school-based staff, and representatives from the Parent Council is working on the development of the 2001-2002 Division calendar. Recommendations from the Committee will be reviewed with Leadership Team, Teacher Advisory, and Parent Council for additional feedback prior to being presented to the School Board. The Board was asked to give preliminary direction concerning development of the calendar. A concept calendar that reflects the current year's calendar was provided to the Board. The Calendar Committee will use the concept calendar as starting point. The Board considered the following issues: Pre-Labor Day opening - The School Division is eligible for a pre-Labor Day opening based on the existing provision for waivers from the state law mandating schools to open after Labor Day. However, the Charlottesville City Schools will open afxer Labor Day becanse of building and renovation projects being completed over the summer. The number of makeup days for inclement weather and the possible nse of Spring Break and Memorial Day for makeup days. This year, ten makeup days are built into the calendar. Memorial Day is designated as the seventh makeup day, but Spring Break days are not designated for makeup. Placement of Wrater Holiday and Spring Break. The Board indicated that while k wished to see recommendations from the Cornmittee,' k hoped that as much continuity as possible in the calendar could be maintained. In January 1999, the School Board approved policy LC (amended October 1999) which established the guidelines and procedures for creating Charter Schools in Albemarle County. In March 1999, the Board appointed a Charter Schools Review Committee. In October 2000, the committee convened to review the Murray High School Charter School Application. The Committee met on October 9 and October 23 to review and discuss the application. On October 25, Dr. Vicki Crews-Miller was informed of revisions recommended by the committee. The revised application was again reviewed by committee members and referred to Mark Trank for legal review. On November 23, 2000, the School Board received the Murray Ifftgh School Charter School application for information and made recommendations for additional changes. In compliance with the General Assembly, policy LC (enclosure 3) identifies the purposes of the legislation to: (i) encourage the development of innovative programs; (ii) provide opportunities for innovative instruction and student assessment; (',ii) provide parents and students more choices; (iv) provide innovative scheduling, structure, and management; (v) encourage performance-based educational programs; (vi) establish high standards for teachers and administrators; and (vii) develop models for replication in other public schools. In compliance with LC-R, the Review Committee recommended the Murray High School Charter School application based on their application ratings, reviews and interview with Dr. Crews-lVftller. As the Board considers the Murray High School Charter School application, Policy LC-R, section D, # 1 states that the following criteria be used: ao do What are the recommendations of the Review Committee? Have the scheduled deadlines been met? Would establishment or operation of the proposed charter school be inconsistent with the Virginia Charter Schools Act or any federal or Virginia State laws concerning civil rights? Would the establishment or operation of the proposed charter school be in the best interests of the pupils and residents of Albemarle County? Also in compliance with the policy, notice was given via media release that the Board would receive public comment at ks January 25, 2001 Board meeting. The Board will receive the Murray High School Charter Application for final disposition in compliance with Policy LC-R, section D, # 5, at its February7, 2001 meeting: a. /~ccept without conditions; b. Accept with conditions; c. Reject; d. Place on a waiting list; e. Negotiate further with the applicant; f. Defer action; or g. Return with request for additional information. MIDDLE SCHOOL ELECTIVE COURSES Consistem with the Standards cfA (z~//ta~ established by the State Board of Education, the School Board shall approve course curricula and programs of instruction for all schools. The K-8 curricula in language arts, mathematics, sOCial studies, science, health and physical education, art, music, and practical arts were approved previously. New middle school elective course offerings are submitted to the Department of Instruction for review, recommendations, and approval prior to being added to registration materials each year. The Board received infOrmation on the new elective course offerings and the middle school program of studies for each middle Board discussion occurred regarding having a language arts teacher's approval in order to take Spanish I or French I and whether or not students were asked what types of courses they would prefer to take as electives. ~ *' The Board may take action on the middle school elective comes at its February 7 meeting. For a copy of the middle school elective courses, please contact the Department of Instruction at 296-5820 FY 2001.2002 SCHOOL BOARD FUNDING REQUEST On January 17, the Superintendem presented his FY 2001-02 Funding Request to the School Board. Following the presentation, two Public Discussions on the Budget were held on January 18 and 22. The School Board conducted its initial Budget Work Session on Tuesday, January 23. In the Board's Adopted Budget Development Calendar, a portion of the Board's regularly scheduled January 25 meeting was designated for a Budget Work Session. After January 25, another Work Session is scheduled for Monda~ January 29 and a Public Hearing on the School Board's FuMing Request is scheduled for Wednesda); January 31. After January 31, additional Budget Work Sessions are scheduled. Possible adoption of a Preliminary School 'Board Funding Request is scheduled for Wednesday, February 7 as part of the regularly scheduled School Board meeting. Board members reviewed the budgets for the Department of Building Services, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Technology. The Board will continue review of the funding request at its January29 Budget Work Session. OPERATING AND CIP BUDGET PROCESS FOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The timeline below represents the Board of SUPervisors budget preparation calendar:. February 13, 2001 Planning Commission Work session on Recommended CIP February 20, 2001 Public Hearing on Recommended CIP February 21, 2001' School Board Recommended Budget Submitted to County Executive March 7, 2001 March 14, 2001 March 19, 2001 March 21, 2001 March 26, 2001 March 28, 2001 Recommended Operating Budget, CIP Budget, and Final Agency Report Sent to Board Public Hearing on Recommended Operating and CIP Budget Budget Work Session for Board of Supervisors Budget Work Session for Board of Supervisors Budget Work Session for Board of Supervisors Budget Work Session for Board of Supervisors - Proposed Budget Finalized Aprilll, 2001 April l8,2001 Public Hearing on Board prOposed Operating Budget and (ZIP Budget Board Adopts FY01/02 Operating Budget, Sets Tax LeVY, Adopts FY01/02 (ZIP Budget and approved FY01/02-05/06 CIP (~ce the Bo~d of Supervisors adopts the FY01/02 erating Budget, the School Board will begin adjusting its budget as necessary. UPCOMING SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS Wednesda35 February 7, 2001 Thursday, February 22, 2001 Thursday, March 8,2001 Thursday, March 22, 2001 Regular Meeting Regular Meeting Regular Meeting Regular Meeting David P. Bowerman Rio I indsay G. Dottier, Jr. Charlotte Y. Huraphfis Jack Jouett COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Chades S. Martin Rivanna Walter F. Perkins White Hall Sally H. Thomas Samuel Mi"e~ March 27, 2001 Ms. Rita Moore, Executive Director James River Alcohol Safety Action Program 410 E. Water Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Moore: On February 14, 2001, I sent you an ordinance authorizing Albemarle County's participation in the James River Alcohol Safety Program. Recently several typographical errors were noted and corrected. I have enclosed the revised resolution. Please call me if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Laurel A. Bentley, C.M.C. Senior Deputy Clerk Attachment Printed on recycled paper Section 2. The Officers of the Board shall consist of a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman, a Secretary-Treasurer, and such subordinate officers as may from time to time be elected or appointed by the Board. The Secretary shall be the Executive Director of the Program, Each of said officers shall serve without compensation, The offices of Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be held by members from different participating localities. Each officer shall be elected at the annual meeting of the Board to serve for a term of one (1) year unless sooner removed by the Board, or until his successor be elected and qualify. Section 3. The Board shall be responsible for the operation of the Program within the participating localities, and shall hire and supervise an Executive Director who shall be responsible for implementing operational policies for the Program, hiring and supervising the staffofthe Program, and controlling all revenue and expenditures of the Program. Section 4. Regular meetings of the Board shall be held quarterly and are open to the public. Special meetings may be called by the Chairman at his or her discretion or by any four (4) beard members upon five days notice to all members in writing or by telephone of the time, place, and purpose of the special meeting. A simple majority of members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for transaction of any and all business. Section 5. The Executive Director shall prepare and submit an operating budget for approval by the Policy Board each fiscal year. The budget shall include projected revenue from client fees and other available funds as deemed appropriate by the Board and operating expenses. The participating localities will at no time incur any costs for the operation of the program. The Commission on VASAP shall be responsible for funding any deficit occurring in the operation of the Program. Section 6. The Commission on VASAP shall be responsible for conducting financial audits on the Program at such times as determined by the Commission. Section 7. The Executive Director shall prepare and submit an annual report for approval by the Policy Board within ninety (90) days of the close of the fiscal year. The annual report shall be presented to the governing body of each participating locality after approval by the Policy Board. Section 8. The Program shall be operated by the Board in compliance with the Commission on VASAP Policies and Procedures. Section 9. Title to all property acquired by James River ASAP shall he vested with the Alcohol Safety Action Program so long as two (2) or more localities continue to participate in its operation. In the event that all localities withdraw and the Commission on VASAP withdraws its endorsement, the property owned by the Program shall be disposed of in accordance with the then applicable provisions of the Code of Virginia. Section 10. This agreement shall remain in effect continuously from year to year until termination. Participating localities may withdraw at any time by official action of the governing ORI)INANCE NO. 01-A(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE ALBEMARLE COUNTY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE JAMES RIVER ALCOHOL SAFETY ACTION PROGRAM. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, pursuant to authority contained in Section 15.2-1300 of the Code of Virginia, as follows: WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia in the interest of highway safety has provided by law, programs for probation, education, and rehabilitation of persons charged with driving motor vehicles under the influence of alcoholic beverages and other self-administered drugs, such programs being collectively known as Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program or VASAP; and WHEREAS, § 15.2-1300 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, authorizes local units of government to exercise their powers, privileges and authorities under a Joint Exercise of Powers for the operation of a multi-jurisdictional venture; and WHEREAS, § 18.2-271.2 of the Code of Virginia requires the establishment of a VASAP Commission and that Commission establish procedures for the operation of local Alcohol Safety Action Programs; and WHEREAS, since July 1, 1982, one of those programs known as James River ASAP has been serving the City of Charlottesville, and the counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa, Greene, and Nelson, providing probationer monitoring, education and treatment of persons charged with alcohol and drug offenses with all powers and duties granted to it by the laws of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the VASAP Commission has issued directives that all local VASAP programs would establish and implement an independent Policy Board representative of all localities served by the Program to operate the Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the County of Albemarle does hereby join the City of Charlottesville, and the Counties of Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson to establish said Policy Board as administrative and fiscal agent subject to the following provisions: Section 1. The Board shall consist of not more than fifteen (15) members. One person shall be appointed by the governing body of each participating locality and will serve for a term of three (3) years. The Board shall also include one General District Court Judge serving the area of the program, one attorney at law practicing in that area, one law enforcement official bom that area, one driver education specialist, and one person skilled in the treatment of alcoholism/drug addiction. The remaining members shall be elected by majority vote of the incumbent members for terms of three (3) years. In addition to the members so selected, the Executive Director of the Program shall also be a member ex-officio without voting power. body and after ninety (90) days written notice to the Policy Board. If a locality withdraws, its representative shall no longer serve on the Board. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _5 to _0, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on February 7, 200~ Clerk, Board of County Supervisors..). Aye Nay Mr. Bowerman x Mr. Dottier x Ms. Humphris Mr. Martin x Mr. Perkins x Ms. Thomas x (absent) 3 David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr. ~ Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouett COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Chades S. Martin Rivanna Walter E Perkins White Hall Sally H. Thomas Samuel ~ Rita Moore, Executive Director James River Alcohol Safety Action Program 410 E. Water Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Moore: February 14, 2001 At its February 7, 2001 meeting, the Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance authorizing Albemarle County's participation in the James River Alcohol Safety Program. I have enclosed a copy of the signed ordinance. Please call me if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Laurel A. Bentley, CMC Senior Deputy Clerk Attachment Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: James River Alcohol Safety Action Program. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Adopt ordinance to authorize Albemarle County participation in James River ASAP. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker/Davis BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: February 7, 2001 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBE_._~R: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes Since July 1, 1982, Albemarle COuntY has participated in a regional lOcal AlcOhol Safety Action PrOgram with the counties of Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson, and the City of Charlottesville. This program is run under the direction of the Virginia Alcohol Safety Program Commission. The local programs are noTM undergoing a recertification process. As a result of that process each jurisdiction has been requested to reauthorize its participation and reestablish a local Policy Board. DISCUSSION: The James River ASAP is created pursuant to a shared services agreement authorized by Section 15.2-1300 of the Code of Virginia. This section requires that the shared services agreement be approved by ordinance. The attached ordinance has been prepared consistent with the request of the Executive Director of the James River ASAP. RECOMMENDATION: At the conclusion of the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached Ordinance authorizing Albemarle County's participation in the James River Alcohol Safety Program. 01.010 ORDINANCE NO. 01-A(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE ALBEMARLE COUNTY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE JAMES RIVER ALCOHOL SAFETY ACTION PROG~M. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, pursuant to authority contained in Section 15.2-1300 of the Code of Virginia, as folloWs: WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia in the interest of highway safety has provided by law, programs for probation, education, and rehabilitation of persons charged with driving motor vehicles under the influence of alcoholic beverages and other self-administered drugs, such programs being collectively known as Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program or VASAP; and WltEREAS, § 15.2-1300 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, authorizes local units of government to exercise their powers, privileges and authorities under a Joint Exercise of Powers for the operation of a multi-jurisdictional venture; and WHEREAS, § 18.2-271.2 of the Code of Virginia requires the establishment of a VASAP Commission and that Commission establish procedures for the operation of local Alcohol Safety Action Programs; and WHEREAS, since July 1, 1982, one of those programs known as James River ASAP has been serving the City of Charlottesville, and the counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa, Greene, and Nelson, providing probationer monitoring, education and treatment of persons charged with alcohol and drug offenses with all powers and duties granted to it by the laws of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the VASAP Commission has issued directives that all local VASAP programs would establish and implement an independent Policy Board representative of all localities served by the Program to operate the Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the County of Albemarle does hereby join the City of Charlottesville, and the Counties of Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson to establish said Policy Board as administrative and fiscal agent subject to the following provisions: Section 1. The Board shall consist of not more than fifteen (15) members. One personal shall be appointed by the governing body of each participating locality and will serve for a term of three (3) years. The Board shall also include one General District Court Judge serving the area of the program, one attorney at law practicing in that area, one law enforcement official from that area, one driver education specialist, and one person skilled in the treatment of alcoholism/drug addiction. The remaining members shall be elected by majority vote of the incumbent members for terms of three years. In addition to the members so selected, the Executive Director of the Program shall also be a member ex-officio without voting power. Section 2. The Officers of the Board shall consist of a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman, a Secretary-Treasurer, and such subordinate offices as may from time to time be elected or appointed by the Board. The Secretary shall be the ExeCutive DireCtor of the~program. Each of said officers shall serve without compensation. The offices of Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be held by members from different participating localities. Each officer shall be elected at the annual meeting of the Board to serve for a term of one (1) year unleSs sooner removed by the Board, or until his successor be elected and qualify. Section 3. The Board shall be responsible for the operation of the Program within the participating localities, and shall hire and supervise an Executive Director who shall be responsible for implementing operational policies for the Program, hiring and supervising the staff of the Program, and controlling all revenue and expenditures of the Program. Section 4. Regular meetings of the Board shall be held quarterly and are open to the public. Special meetings may be called by the Chair at his or her discretion or by any four (4) board members upon five days notice to all members in writing or by telephone of the time, place, and purpose of the special meeting. A simple majority of members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for transaction of any and all business. Section 5. The Executive Director shall prepare and submit an operating budget for approval by the Policy Board each fiscal year. The budget shall include projected revenue from client fees and other available funds as deemed appropriate by the Board and operating expenses. The participating localities will at no time incur any costs for the operation of the program. The Commission on VASAP shall be responsible for funding any deficit occurring in the operation of the Program. Section 6. The Commission on VASAP shall be responsible for conducting financial audits on the Program at such times as determined by the Commission. Section 7. The Executive Director shall prepare and submit an annual report for approval by the Policy Board within ninety days of the cl0se of the fiscal year. The annual report shall be presented to the governing body of each participating locality after approval by the Policy Board. Section 8. The Program shall be operated by the Board in compliance with the Commission on VASAP Policies and Procedures. Section 9. Title to ail property acquired by James River ASAP shall be vested with the Alcohol Safety Action Program so long as two or more localities continue to participate in its operation. In the event that all localities withdraw and the Commission on VASAP withdraws its endorsement, the property owned by the Program shall be disposed of in accordance with the then applicable provisions of the Code of Virginia. Section 10. This agreement shall remain in effect continuously from year to year until termination. Participating localities may withdraw at any time by official action of the governing body and after ninety (90) days written notice to the Policy Board. If a locality withdraws, its representative shall no longer serve on the Board. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of 5 to 0, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on February 7, 2001. Aye Nay Mr. Bowerman x Mr. Dorrier x Ms. Humphris (absent) Mr. Martin x Mr. Perkins ~x Ms. Thomas x Cierk,~'~oarc/-of coun~ S~p~e~ ALBEMARLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES ANNUAL REPORT TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR FY 1999 AND 2000 (This report was scanned under Social Services Department reports.) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SDP 00-158 Home Depot at North Town Center Preliminary Site Plan SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Applicant seeks preliminary site plan approval to allow the construction of a 130,184 square feet retail sales store, on approximately 15.9 acres, zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor. The property, described as Tax Map 45-Parcels 110, 110A, 111, 11 lA and 11 lB is located on the east side of Route 29 North, approximately 1/2 mile north of the intersection with Rio Road. This site is located in the Rio Magisterial District and is recommended for Community Service, in the growth area designated as Urban Neighborhood 2. STAFF CONTACT(S): Stephen Waller, Margaret Doherty, V. Wayne Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: Planning Commission: February 6, 2001 Board of Supervisors: February 7, 2001 ITEM NUMBER: SDP 00-158 CONSENT AGENDA: Yes ACTION: Yes INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: VWC BACKGROUND: At it's January 3, 2001 meeting, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to continue working with the apPlicant on addressing the issues raised by the neighbors and the Planning Commission. The Board requested that staff develop reasonable and practical conditions of approval, which would provide meaningful relief to the impacts associated with the proposed development. The conditions of approval relate to five directives expressed by the Board: 1) provide meaningful enhancements to the buffer; 2) reduce the sight and sound of rooftop mechanical equipment; 3) provide a bus stop and better pedestrian access into and throughout the site; 4) reduce or eliminate the sight of retaining walls from neighboring properties; and 5) improve the quality and quantity of run-off during and after construction. Staff was also directed to present the conditions to the Planning Commission for review and comment prior to the re-hearing the Board's re-consideration 0fthe site plan.. Staff met with the applicant on January 11, 2001 to discuss several of the options that could be implemented in order to lessen the impact of the proposed development upon the adjacent residential properties. Memos discussing staff's suggestions for addressing those concerns are provided as Attachments A and B. Staff notes that in order to allow enough time to perform the necessary review, the applicant was asked to resubmit any additional information as to how the Board's concerns could be addressed by kVednesday, January 17th. Because the applicant's complete set of responses were not received until Monday, January 22nd, this information is being presented to the Planning Commission on the evening prior to the Board's meeting. The Planning Commission's comments and any revisions to t, he recommended conditions will not be available as an attachment to this executive summary.~ Therefore, staff will provide this information during the presentation at the Board of Supervisors meeting. DISCUSSION: The applicant has provided information addressing staff's comments in the form of a revised site plan (Attachment C) and two letters from Engineering Services, Inc. (Attachment D). In response to the Board's directive, staff has reviewed the applicant's additional information to determine the extent of mitigation that could be anticipated with the proposed improvements. As a result of this analysis, staff has comprised additional conditions of approval to be included in the review -of the final site plan, should the Board choose to approve the preliminary site plan. All new conditions of approval should be considered in addition to the originally recommended conditions that would be required prior to the approval of the final site plan. Staffwill identify and provide comment on each of the concerns expressed by the Board, and the applicant's responses below: Provide effective enhancements to the 20-foot residential buffer. The applicant proposes the following: Clearly mark the limits of the buffer in the field for the inspectors to be able to identify existing vegetation and damage during construction to ensure that the applicant upgrades the vegetation and fills in gaps where necessary as noted on the landscape plan. Plant evergreen trees to further screen the site from the neighbors. Increase the buffer from 20 feet to 40 feet in width for a distance of approximately 640 feet, along the southern property line, where the site adjoins the properties within Woodbrook. o Construct 8' high screening fences. Fence posts should face the Home Depot property except where the ARB objects. Staff finds that the applicant's proposals in response to this issue should satisfactorily address the Board's concerns with the 20-f°ot vegetative buffer. This would not only result in creating a larger tmdeveloped area between the site and neighbors that live closest to the property, but by increasing the size of the buffer and height of the screening fence the applicant could also help to reduce the visual impact of the store and its parking areas on surrounding properties. Therefore, staff recommends the following conditions: The undisturbed buffer along the southern side of the property, adjoining the properties within Woodbrook, shall be increased to a width of 40-feet. Evergreen trees shall be provided in areas within the undisturbed buffer where existing landscaping does not provide sufficient coverage. These areas be identified on the landscape plan to be submitted for final approval. 3. The limits of the undisturbed buffer shall be clearly marked in the field for inspect!on. 4. The fence for reinforcing the natural screening provided by the buffer shall be 8-feet tall. 5. With the exception for the portions that are visible from the entrance corridor, the &foot tall screening fence shall be constructed so that the posts face internally toward the site. Reduce the visual and sound impacts of the rooftop mechanical equipment The applicant proposes the following: 1. Paint the entire roof and all mechanical equipment one color. Utilize planters with shrubs around mechanical equipment or some other methodology to screen the view of the equipment from neighboring properties. Cluster mechanical equipment into certain locations on the roof that can be enclosed in screening materials with mansard style roofs using materials found elsewhere on the proposed building. 4. Consider installing a "green roof" system or other types of natural vegetative screening. 5. The applicant has hired a qualified "sound" engineer to take readings of the existing background noise at points along the residential lot boundaries. 'Readings will be taken during both daytime and evening hours. Measurements of noise will then be taken from units on other Home Depot sites or from other similar sources. The "sound" engineer will compare the levels and report on the findings, as well as provide recommendations for any necessary mitigation. The applicant expects mitigation in the form of noise attenuation screening incorporated into staff's visual screening recommendations. Staff believes that all of the efforts described above could be effective in reducing impacts of visibility and noise associated with the mechanical equipment on the roof. However, staff also recognizes that · some of these possible solutions might also require additional research to ensure that they are practical from arChitectural and engineering perspectives. Therefore, conditions related to these issues are most significantly focused on the effort of screening the view and reducing the noise of the mechanical equipment, as well softening the visual presence of such a large roof. Staffrecommends the following conditions for treatment of the roof: The applicant shall investigate "green roof" technologies and provide a statement on the probability of providing a substantially landscaped rooftop. The rooftop mechanical equipment shall be treated and painted with natural colors in order to reduce the visual impact of the expansive roof. In addition to traditional screening walls, landscaped planters shall be installed on the roof in locations that provide screening of the rooftop mechanical equipment from the adjacent residential properties situated at higher elevations. In order to promote effective screening, the rooftop mechanical equipment shall be grouped in clusters and located as far away from the properties along the southern property lines as possible. 3 The applicant shall submit the findings of a professional engineer regarding the generation of sound from the proposed heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment. This shall include comments and recommendations for incorporating various measures for mitigating noise. Provide a bus stop. and better pedestrian access into and throughout the site The applicant proposes the following: The applicant has revised the plan to show additional sidewalks and crosswalks that pass through the interior of the parking lot and along the southern property line to provide pedestrian access from other sites that have been developed on the eastern side of Route 29. It is staff's opinion that this adequately addresses the need for connecting pedestrian access to the building. Prior to granting final approval, staff v~ould be responsible for ensuring that the final site plan is in accord with the approved preliminary. This would include the provision of the improved pedestrian access scheme. Staff originally attempted to address the issue of providing public transit opportunities during the site review process, and on several occasions the applicant has expressed concerns about the possible liabilities that a bus stop that is internal to the site might impose upon the property owner. Therefore, the site plan has been revised, to show a bus stop fronting on Route 29 in the northwest comer of the site. Although a bus stop. at that location does not provide' an internal drop off point, it would be connected to the store with sidewalks and crosswalks. This would prevent the need for the buses to enter the Home Depot parking lot, while providing safe pedestrian access to the building. Preliminary review and comment from the Virginia Department of Transportation does not support the proposed bus stop location, due to the improvements that would be required within the right-of-way (Attachment E). This is because this bus stop location would require extension of the right traffic lane of Route 29 into its intersection with Carrsbrook Drive. During the earlier stages of review for this site plan there was some concern expressed by the residents of Carrsbrook over the possibility that a right turn lane would be extended onto the main thoroughfare of the neighborhood. Additional informal comment ~eceived from VDOT and the Charlottesville Transit Services staff indicates that both agencies prefer that a bus stop be provided inside the site. Staff notes that there are several existing developments within the County and in the city where bus stops have been provided on private property and internal to sites. Therefore, staff recommends: 10. A public bus stop shall be located either internal to the site, subject to the approval of the Department of engineering and Charlottesville Transit Service, or located adjacent to the public right-of-way, subject to approval of the Virginia Department of Transportation and Charlottesville Transit Service. Reduce the visual impact of the retaining walls from neighboring properties The applicant proposes the following: The applicant has provided profile perspectives from select neighboring properties in order to demonstrate views of the development from four points on various adjacent properties. These profiles 4 demonstrate that the southernmost retaining ~all would be below grade and would not be visible from the properties Woodbrook. The applicant's letter indicates that the retaining walls at the rear of the property would not be visible from adjacent properties either, and therefore do not require screening. Staff's analysis does not agree with this explanation, because review of the perspective drawings indicates that the retaining walls adjacent to the detention pond would be visible from the neighbors to the east of the site. This is demonstrated by the view identified as Profile 3 on the drawings. Staff also notes that the trees that are indicated as providing screening of the wall are represented at a scale that is much larger than any species that would permitted in, or directly adjacent to a detention pond. Additionally, the fence which will be required for screening a proposed storage area along the top of the wall is not represented ori the profile. The Design Planner is currently reviewing the applicant's proposal to construct a terraced retaining wall with spaces for plantings where the southernmost retaining wall is visible form the Entrance Corridor. Staff's recommended conditions would require that the applicant provide a species ivy or some other type of evergreen vine' in order to soften the visual impact of the retaining wall and screening fence from neighboring properties. Staff is of the opinion that this could be done in a style that is similar to that which proposed to satisfy the Architectural Review Board's concerns with the ~a[! along the southern portion of the property. If plants that grow downward from the highest parts of the wall are implemented, it should not be necessary to terrace the retaining wall. Therefore, staff recommends the following conditions for the purpose of addressing the visual impact of the rear retaining wall: ! 1. The top of the rear retaining wall shall be landscaped with evergreen planting materials or vines, with the capability of growing downward, for the purpose of softening the visual impact Of its height. Improve the quality and quantity of run-off during and after construction The Department of Engineering and Public Works has reviewed the applicant's proposals and developed additional conditions for improving the quality and reducing the quantity of mn-off resulting from development of the site during and after construction. The Engineering Department's comments addressing the applicant's response are included in this report as two separate memos (Attachment F). The following conditions have been provided by the Department of Engineering for the Board's consideration of the applicant's attempt to address outstanding concerns: Stormwater Run-off Control and Water Quality Remove the "slip ramp "from the site plan to provide space to accommodate a biofilter or series of biofilters in the front (wesO parking lot with a total bottom area no less than 3500 square feet for adequate water quality treatment. Removal of the "slip ramp" will also have the additional benefit of enhancing pedestrian safety by eliminating the two proposed pedestrian crossings shown on the site plan. 2. Provide a dry detention basin that includes a large biofilter along the bottom, instead of the proposed "enhancedextended detention basin" (which is normally a "wet "facility) due to its proximity to residential dwellings. The combination of the front and rear biofilters will result in ~ ~ effective water quality ti'eatment and address the mosquito and safety concerns expressed by 7. adjoining property owners. All site biofilters must be designed to standards in the County's Interim Design Manual and Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook, with final design to be approved by the Engineering Department. The consultants stormwater detention concept is dependent on the basin having adequate storage volume to detain the increased runoff from the developed site. In the event that adequate volume cannot be reasonably achieved in the basin, the outstanding detention requirements must be handled with underground detention pipes and/or a pervious pavement system (including stone reservoir and underdrain system) for parking bays most remote from the building. As we stated in our September 28, 2000 comments, the downstream channel and stream system experiences existing problems and is likely not adequate for the increased volume of runoff. We must have confidence that the detention system is capable of complying with adequate channel and detention requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance. The detention basin must also be designed to store runoff from the I-year 24-hour storm event (or equivalenO, as well as the 2- and lO-year storm runoff. [17-314(D)]. The applicant has agreed to these criteria, ll/e also advise the applicant to be cognizant of recently adopted State Stream Channel Erosion Control Policy Guidance (Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook, First Edition, Technical Bulletin #0. These items may be addressed with the final site plan submittal. The outfall for the stilling basin is unclear. On the final site plan, please indicate the proposed grading and conceptual structures associated with this outfall. [18-32.5.6d, 18-32.5. 6kJ The applicant must satisfy VDOT requirementS for frontage improvements contained in a letter 'dated October 24, 2000. Sheet 4 of 8 indicates pavement designs for both "heavy" traffic and "light" traffic volumes. It appears that the "heavy" traffic design has no base course and has only a half inch more asphalt surface than the "light" design. This issue must be clarified with the final site plan. We feel the proposed spot elevations along the retaining walls are adequate for preliminary site plan approval. However, the following comments referring to the proposed grading on sheet 5 of 8 must be addressed with the final site plan submittal. [18-32. 6. 6dj a. The proposed 463 contour appears to be missing in the outparcel grading. Please revise the grading in this area. b. The software generating the proposed topography still seems to be having problems with contouring around the proposed retaining walls and along the U.S. 29frontage. This comment was previously mentioned in both our September 28, 2000 and October 27, 2000 reviews. Proposed contours should "skip" at retaining walls, not run along them. The tight contouring in these areas obscures the retaining walls. The proposed retaining walls are a significant feature of. the development of this site. Please revise the grading plan to correctly show the proposed contours in these areas. c. The parking lot grades along the northwest corner of the site (near the existing 54-inch storm sewer outfall) appear to exceed 5°.4. Please revise the grading plan in this area. 6 Erosion and Sediment Control The applicant shah be required to dredge and repair the stream below this site and the first downstream pond to address any inadequacies or failure of on-site measures that may occur during construction.. This requirement is limited to the dredging and repair work necessary to address damage that occurs during the period of the Home Depot construction and shall be done to the satisfaction of Engineerzng. Should the owner(s) of this pond or the property along the stream refuse permission.for the applicant to perform this work or place conditions on this permission that are considered unreasonable by Engineering, this requirement shall not be enforced for that part of the work. Unreasonable conditions will be considered anything to benefit the property owner(s) above and beyond the impacts associated with this activity. A letter of permission must be copied to Engineering before the start of work and the work must be included with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Engineering shall verify the owner(s) are refusing permission prior to issuing any permits if that is claimed by the applicant. 10. The applicant shah be required to supplement the typical erosion and sediment control measures to assure, to the Engineering Department's satisfaction, the applicant is providing high levels of effectiveness in controlling sediment during construction. These measures shall include a construction schedule that demonstrates the time of disturbance is minimized (e.g. phasing of the E&SC plan), the use of high efficiency sediment basins designed to include the use of flocculants, matting of exposed slopes as determined appropriate by the Engineering Department, and the contractor keeping a daily erosion and sediment control inspection log that demonstrates the construction is being closely monitored and deficiencies are being quickly repaired. ]1. If during construction damage is caused to downstream properties, the Engineering Department can require corrective action under E&SC law. This is independent of the other E&SC conditions presented here. CONCLUSION Should the Board grant approval of the critical slopes waiver and site plan, with exception of the aforementioned conditions (in italics) in this report, those conditions should be combined with the original conditions, as listed below, in the Board's action: Critical Slopes Waiver Conditions: Remove the "slip ramp "from the site plan to provide space to accommodate a biofilter or series of biofilters in the front (wesO parking lot with a total bottom area no less than 3500 square feet for adequate water quality treatment. Removal of the "slip ramp" will also have the additional benefit of enhancing pedestrian safety by eliminating the two proposed pedestrian crossings shown on the site plan. 2. Provide a dry detention basin that includes a large biofilter along the bottom, instead of the proposed "enhanced extended detention basin" (which is normally a "wet "facility) due to its proximity to residential dwellings. The combination of the front and rear biofilters will result in effective water quality treatment and address the mosquito and safety concerns expressed by adjoining property owners. All site biofilters must be designed to standards in the County's 7 Interim Design Manual and Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook with final design to be approved by the Engineering Department. The consultants stormwater detention concept is dependent on the basin having adequate storage volume to detain the increased runoff from the developed site. In the event that adequate volume cannot be reasonably achieved in the basin, the outstanding detention requirements must be handled With underground detention pipes and/or a pervious pavement system (including stone reservoir and underdrain system) for parking bays most remote from the building. As we stated in our September 28, 2000 comments, the downstream channel and stream system experiences existing problems and is likely not adequate for the increased volume of runoff. We must have confidence that the detention system is capable of complying with adequate channel and detention requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance. The detention basin must also be designed to store runoff from the 1-year 24-hour storm event (or equivalenO, as well as the 2- and' lO-year storm runoff. [17-314(D)]. The applicant has agreed to these criteria. We also advise the applicant to be cognizant of recently adopted State Stream Channel Erosion'Control Policy Guidance (Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook, First Edition, Technical Bulletin #1). These items may be addressed with the final site plan submittal. The outfall for the stilling basin is unclear. On the final site plan, please indicate the proposed grading and conceptual structures associated with this outfall. [18-32.5. 6d, 18-32. 5. 6k] The applicant must satisfy VDOT requirements for frontage improvements contained in a letter dated October 24, 2000. Sheet 4 of 8 indicates pavement designs for both "heavy" traffic and "light". traffic volumes. It appears that the "heavy" traffic design has no base course and has only a half inch more asphalt surface than the "light" design. This issue must be clarified with the final site plan. We feel the proposed spot elevations along the retaining walls are adequate for preliminary site plan approval. However, the following comments referring to the proposed grading on sheet 5 of 8 mUSt be addressed With the final site plan submittal. [18-32. 6.6d] a. The proposed 463 contour appears to be missing in the outparcel grading. Please revise the grading in this area. b. The software generating the proposed topography still seems to be having problems with contouring around the proposed retaining walls and along the U.S. 29frontage. This comment was previously mentioned in both our September 28, 2000 and October 27, 2000 reviews. Proposed contours should "slap" at retaining walls, not run along them. The tight contouring in these areas obscures the retaining walls. The proposed retaining walls are a significant feature of the development of this site. Please revise the grading plan to correctly show the proposed contours in these areas. c. The parking lot grades along the northwest corner of the site (near the existing 54-inch storm sewer outfall) appear to exceed 5%o. Please revise the grading plan in this area. The applicant shall be required to dredge and repair the stream below this site and the first downstream pond to address any inadequacies or failure of on-site measures that [nay occur during construction.. This requirement is limited to the dredging and repair work necessary to address damage that occurs during the Period of the Home Depot construction and shall be done to the satisfaction of Engineering. Should the owner(s) of this pond or the property along the stream refuse permission for the applicant to perform this work or place conditions on this permission that are considered unreasonable by Engineering, this requirement shall not be enforced for that part of the work. Unreasonable conditions will be considered anything to benefit the property owner(s) above and beyond the impacts associated with this activity. A letter of permission must be copied to Engineering before the start of Work and the work must be included with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Engineering shall verify the owner(s) are refusing permission prior to issuing any permits if that is claimed by the applicant. 10. The applicant shall be required to supplement the typical erosion and sediment control measures to assure, to the Engineering Department's satisfaction, the applicant is providing high levels of effectiveness in controlling sediment during construction. These measures shall include a construction schedule that demonstrates the time of disturbance is minimized (e.g. phasing of the E&SC plan), the use of high efficiency sediment basins designed to include the use of flocculants, matting of exposed slopes as determined appropriate by the Engineering Department, and the contractor keeping a daily erosion and sediment control inspection log that demonstrates the construction is being closely monitored and deficiencies are being quickly repaired. 11. If during construction damage is caused to downsti'eam properties, the Engineering Department can require corrective action under E&SC law. This is independent of the other E&SC conditions presented here. Site plan Conditions: The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until a tentative final approval for the following conditions have been obtained. The f'mal site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions have been met: 1. Architectural Review Board issuance of a certificate of Appropriateness. 2. Planning Department approval of the final landscape plan. o Planning Department approval of a plat combining all of the parcels included in the Home Depot site. Planning Department approval of an easement providing the Albemarle County Service Authority with unobstructed access to the existing Woodbrook pump station. o Virginia Department of Transportation approval of all construction activity within the right-of- way. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of the proposed relocation, or disturbance of the existing state maintained permanent drainage easement and stormwater management facilities located on-site. o The following items must be submitted with the final site plan for review by the Engineering Department. a. An erosion control plan, narrative and computations. [18-32.7.4.3, 17-203] b. A completed application and fee for erosion control and stormwater management. [17-203, 17-303] c. A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. Computations must include water quality, and detention routings for the lyr (24-hour), 2yr and 10yr storms. [17-304, 17-314D] d. Copies of all state and federal permits required for impacts to waters of the U.S. e. completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee. [ 17-323] f. Drainage computations. [18-32.7.4, Policy] g. Retaining wall plans and computations certified by a professional engineer for walls over 5 feet in height. [Policy] Engineering Department and VDOT approval of the southernmost entrance, including all signage, safety and traffic calming measures to be implemented. o Zoning Department approval of outdoor lighting for compliance with Section 4.17. Fire Official approval of fire lane locations. 1'1. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer construction drawings, and provision of easements to adjacent properties for possible extensions. 12. Documentation of Army Corps of Engineers and Virginia Department of Environment Quality approval and permitting of any activity resulting in disturbance of the wetlands areas. 13. The applicant must provide documentation that the consent of the abutting property owner has been obtained in any of the areas where the fence will be located on an adjacent residential · property line. 14. 15. No trees shall be of 6 inches or greater in caliper shall be removed for the purpose of constructing the fence. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the fence in a safe and suitable condition. 16. The site plan must list the conditions of approval for all waivers and modifications approved by the Planning Commission. New Conditions: 17. The undisturbed buffer along the southern side of the property, adjoining the properties within Woodbrook, shall be increased to a width of 40-feet. 18. Evergreen trees shall be provided in areas within the undisturbed buffer where existing landscaping does not provide sufficient coverage. These areas be identified on the landscape plan to be submitted for final approval. 10 19. The limits of the undisturbed buffer shall be clearly marked in the field for inspection. 20. 21. The fence for reinforcing the natural screening provided by the buffer shall be &feet tall. With the exception for the portions that are visible from the entrance corridor, the 8-foot tall' screening fence shall be constructed so that the posts face internally toward the site. 22. The applicant shall investigate "green roof" technologies and provide a statement on the probability of providing a substantially landscaped rooftop. 23. The rooftop mechanical equipment shall be treated and painted with natural colors in order to reduce the visual impact of the expansive roof. 24. In addition to traditional screening walls, landscaped planters shall be installed on the roof in locations that provide screening of the rooftop mechanical equipment from the adjacent residential properties situated at higher elevations. In order to promote effective screening, the rooftop mechanical equipment shall be grouped in clusters and located as far away from the properties along the southern property lines as possible. 25. The applicant shall submit the findings of a professional engineer regarding the generation of sound from the proposed heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment. This shall include comments and recommendations for incorporating various measures for mitigating noise. 26. A public bus stop shall be located either internal to the site, subject to the approval of the ~ .iDepartment of engineering and Charlottesville Transit Service, or located adjacent to the public right-of-way, subject to approval of the Virginia Department of Transportation and Charlottesville Transit Service. 27. The top of the rear retaining wall shall be landscaped with evergreen planting materials or vines; with the capability of growing downward, for the purpose of softening the visual impact of its height. Attachments: A- Planning Staff Comments on the Board's Concems (01/11/01) B- Engineering Staff Comments on the Board's Concerns (01/10/01) C- Revised Site Plan and Perspective Profiles D- Applicant's Written Responses (01/16/01 and 01/19/01) E- VDOT E-mail (01/30/01) F- Engineering Department Analysis (01/25/01 and 02/01/01) G- Minutes: Board of Supervisors Meeting (01/03/01) 11 ATTACHMENT A PAGE 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Ext.3385 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 MEMORANDUM TO: Ed Ogletree, Home Depot FROM: Planning Staff DATE: January 11, 2001 SDP 00-158 Home Depot Preliminary Site Plan The following items are intended to offer some recommendations for addressing the site design concerns that were expressed by the Board of Supervisors. In order to soften the visual and noise impacts of the proposed development, specifically the disturbance to the buffer area, the high retaining wall, the expansive roof with mechanical equipment, and noise associated with' air conditioning units, staff has the following recommendations. The applicant Shall provide perspective drawings, which show areas of visual impact, from neighboring properties. The following recommendations should serve to mitigate these impacts to staff's satisfaction. Buffer: The limits of the buffer need to be clearly marked in the field for the inspectors to be able to identify existing vegetation and damage during construction to ensure that the applicant upgrades the vegetation and fills in gaps where necessary as noted on the landscape plan. Areas where gaps are present should be identified on the plan along with the types of planting materials that will be used. Staff recommends evergreen plant varieties. 2. Replace proposed 6' fencing with 8' fencing. Fence posts should face the Home Depot property except where the ARB objects. Retaining Wall: Screen the retaining wall from neighboring properties with evergreen shrubs, trees and ivy or other types of evergreen vines, similar to that proposed to satisfy ARB requirements along the southern property line. Please see Exhibit A for recommended locations of plantings. Engineering input will be needed on whether or not plantings would be appropriate in proximity to the detention pond, Home Depot Board Recommendations 12 ATTACHMENT A December 11, 2001 Page 2 PAGE 2 Although the retaining walls facing the residential properties are not subject to ARB review, it is staff's opinion that if the treatment of those walls should be kept consistent with what is apPrOved by the ARB for lessening the visual impact on the entrance corridor at a minimum. Roof: 1. Paint the entire roof and all mechanical equipment one color. Staff suggests a dark shade of green as provided elsewhere. Install planters with shrubs around mechanical equipment that are at the same height of the equipment with evergreen shrubs that will grow to a height sufficient to screen the view of the equipment from neighboring properties. Cluster mechanical equipment into certain locations on the roof that could be enclosed in screening materials with mansard style roofs using materials found elsewhere on the proposed building. 4. Install a "green roof" system or other types of natural vegetative screening. Per En~neering memo: Hire a qualified "sound" engineer to take readings of the existing background noise at points along the residential lot boundaries. Readings should be taken during both daytime and evening hours. Measurements of noise should then be taken fi'om units on other Home Depot sites or from other similar sources. The "sound" engineer would then need to compare the levels and report on the findings, as well as proyide recommendations for any necessary mitigation. Staff expects mitigation to in the form of noise attenuation screening incorporated into the visual screening recommendations described above. 13 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering & Public works MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT B PAGE 1 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Wayne Cilimberg - Director of Plann/~ & Community Development Stephen Waller- Planner' ~. , ,~ Jack M. Kelsey, PE - Chief of Engineerin~~(.. 10 January 2001 /r '~ Home Depot Site Plan and CritiCal Slot~ver Based on our meeting Friday, 5 January 2001, this department has prepared conditions of approval, relative to the design of the site and the erosion & sediment control plans. The intent of these conditions is to address the Board of Supervisor concerns for stormwater runoff quality and loss of sediment from grading activity on "Critical Slopes" and from the completed site improvements; as well as the height of the proposed retaining wall at the rear of the property. Site Plan Conditions 1. Design the site to redUce the amount of proposed impervious cover by using a combination of the following measures: Use pervious parking paver blocks in the parking spaces along the outer perimeter of the site and/or within the parking rows. Areas of pervious paver blocks can also be .configured to intercept runoff from adjacent impervious parking, such as the impervious cover is disconnected. Reduce the number of parking spaces provided ( a waiver or another Zoning Department interpretation may be necessary) Provide biofilters in parking islands and/or vegetative strips between rows of parking. This pretreatment may reduce the size of the large stormwater management basin. Biofilters would require widening the parking islands to a minimum of 15 feet. Again, the biofilters would serve to disconnect impervious cover. · Remove the "slip ramp" entrance from Rte. 29. 2. Design the site and stormwater management measures to provide enhanced water quality protection by using a combination of the following measures: · Reduce the amount of proposed impervious cover on the site (see #1 above). · Reduce the size or eliminate the outparcel to provide more space for stormwater management measures and vegetated space within the parking area. Decrease the depth to area ratio of the stormwater management basin. This may accom;plished by using the following measures: Reduce the impervious cover of the site (see #1 above) and increase the surface area of the detention basin. 14 Remove the "slip ramp", decrease the size of the outparcel, and redesign parking to shift the building closer to Rte. 29 to create more space for the stormwater management basin. Provide a portion of the required detention storage volume in an underground facility so that more of the pond volume and surface area could be used for water quality treatment. - Extend the pump station access road to provide the maintenance access to the stormwater management basin. Provide a large biofilter instead of the proposed enhanced detention basin. Provide biofilters in parking islands and/or vegetative strips between rows of parking. This pretreatment may reduce the size of the large stormwater management basin/biofilter. Biofilters would require widening the parking islands to a minimum of 15 feet. Again, the biofilters would serve to disconnect impervious cover. If the large basin is converted to a biofilter instead of enhanced extended detention, then the detention storage volume must still be accounted for. Provide downstream channel and pond restoration/mitigation. The first pond and the section of channel between the site and the first pond are the critical areas that need to be restored because they have no capacity for additional runoff. Preferably, the first pond and this section of channel would be included in a permanent drainage easement so that they become a permanent part of the site's stormwater management responsibility. At a minimum, the channel must be improved/restored and the pond dredged after construction. The amount of credit, toward complying with on-site stormwater management requirements, for providing off-site improvements will be determined by this department. Reduce the height and/or terrace the retaining walls by using a combination of the following measures: Remove the "slip ramp", decrease the size of the outparcel, and redesign parking to shift the building closer to Rte. 29 to create more space to terrace the rear retaining wall. Reduce the proposed impervious cover of the site (see #1) to reduce the size of the stormwater management basin and to create more space to terrace the rear retaining wall. · Extend the pump station access road to provide the maintenance access to the stormwater management basin and create more space to terrace the rear retaining wall. I-- Z Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Conditions Under Section 4.2.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the County Engineer is required to assure the development avoids the excessive siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water below this site. Engineering believes the following conditions will satisfy this requirement. As on-site sediment control measures can never completely capture all construction related sediment, the applicant shall be required to dredge the first-pond downstream of this site once Engineering has determined the land disturbance associated with this project is complete and the site has been adequately stabilized. Should the owner of this pond refuse permission for the applicant to dredge this pond or place conditions on this permission that are considered unreasonable by Engineering, this requirement will not be enforced. Unreasonable conditions will be considered anything to benefit this property owner above and beyond the impacts associated with the dredging activity. A letter of permission must be copied to Engineering that allows this dredging before the start of work and the dredging operation must be included with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Engineering shall verify the owner of the pond is refusing permission or placing unreasonable conditions on this permission prior to issuing any permits, if that is claimed by the applicant. 2. The applicant is encouraged to use the immediate downstream pond for a final sediment control measure during construction. Should the applicant use this pond during construction as a final sediment control measure, Engineering shall require the pond to be dredged before construction commences and after the site is adequately stabilized. During construction, if Engineering determines sediment accumulations are preventing this pond from providing adequate sediment trapping, Engineering shall require the applicant to remove the excess sediment at that time. Removal of the excess sediment during construction shall not be construed to remove the requirement to dredge this pond upon completion of the project. Subsequent to completion of the construction and site stabilization, the applicant shall be required to return the receiving stream to a natural condition by removing sediment accumulations and using stream restoration techniques considered acceptable by Engineering. A letter of permission must be copied to Engineering that allows this work before commencement of the project and the work must be included with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. With use of the downstream pond for sediment 'control, on-site measures for erosion and sediment control shall be limited to those recommended.!n the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, 3rd Edition. o Should the applicant not dredge the immediate downstream pond prior to commencing construction, the applicant shall provide on-site erosion and sediment control and control of on:site runoff designed to minimize possible impacts to this downstream pond during construction. For erosion and ~ediment control, this shall include measures that demonstrate to Engineering's satisfaction that state of the art controls are being used. At a minimum, state of the art controls shall include measures such as phasing of construction to minimize the periods of disturbance, multi-stage sediment basins designed to include the use of flocculates, matting of all exposed slopes, and maintenance of a daily inspection log by the applicant's erosion and sediment control inspector that is available for Engineering staff to review. For control of on-site runoff during construction, this shall include measures to assure peak flow rates for the 1-year and 10-year, 24 hour storm do not exceed the predevelopment rates. Engineering shall verify design assumes worst case conditions for the construction period. CC; Bill Mawyer Glenn Brooks Mark Graham JeffThomas David Hirschman File: home depot conditions memo.doc 16 BG/TASK: PROd SCALE: 22,184 THE HOME DEPOT 108,000 SF TOTAL PARKING = 514 SPACES I LUI~ER DOOR .CUST~R PIiI~,-IJP ~ 0UTPARCEL \ ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA engineering services inc CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND SURVEYING 3351STONESHDRE ROAD, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. 2)452 (757) 468-6800 FAX I757) 468-4966 ATTACHMENT C PAGE 1 --e_ -- -~, '~' '%: .... -- H ~g (VARIAQLE WI.DTH /W~ -/, \ P~'oJ: O0220/R220Pr'ofl le2 I PROF .... i ....... t ....... 4 ........................ ' ........ ! ........ ~--; .... ! ......................................... ~' -' ............... '----' -' .......... i ~- .... i .... · '-'T'V.~ .--TV-' ' . --~ ~"T .............. --. TT..-VT_i. -~-------.--'-T~ :¥'._ .---VjT=-...---.¥~ -: ~ .----.~ ....... ~ ....... , ................ r ...................... , ....... , .............................................. , ................................... ENQUGH. F_'O._QBSCUI~,E-.-!i~ ; ..... , . -- -4~o ......... ~ ............... r .............. ~ ........ r ................................................................................. ! ....... ~..ROOE:TOR F'-OU _PMENT ..... l ....................... ., ..... ....... ' ............... i ........ i' ............. -i ........ ........ ~ .~ ...................................... I ....................... ' ................. 1 ---.C~ ......... ~ ................. 4 ........ .. ............... J ........ ~ ............... i .......... L .... ...... , , _ -48o-: ............... ~ ........ t .............. -t ............................... t ....................... I ........ t .................................. ~' .......... ~ .......................... ' ....... ~ ........ ~ ........ ~ ........ I ................ , ...... - ! ...... , __--_~ .... ~ ..... ~___J" _~ L:l ..... L;'! ......... t"480- ................ i ....... ! ................ ........ ! ................ ....................... 1 ........ ~ ................................. f ................................ , ........ ~:t:::: ~ ~ t ...... . t , , , I , - ........................................... I ................ , ................ ~. ....... ~ ........ ~ ...............................................::::l ' ............... -~o ............... ~ ........ . .............. ! ............... ..... ::.;~,~: ............................................1' t'"' ........ ~ ................"-t---'--'--!~ ...............................[~~ ~ ._1 ..... ~ ....... ~- -t---[ I i ~{ ~ ' ~1 .... ~I5o ...... ,._~__.~____.~~, , .... ~ .__.p___..~:, , .... ~:~ ....... -... r - - '< ................. ....... t ......... , ........ , ~. ................ ~ t ................ ~ ,, ....... ~., ...... ~, .......... ~ ,,- ........ ~' ........ j45o ....... ~ ........... ~. .... ~ -...,~._ ............... i ..... 1 ....... i ............ i ............... "- ~ ............. ~ ................. ~. ............. '. ....... ~ ....... ~ ........... i .............. .~ ........ I ....... ~ .......... ' ..... ~ _-T.- ....................................... t ................... -440 ~ ...... , ............... : ........... i ........ r ....... i ....... { ........ ; ..... m .~ ............. ~' .... ~ .... l ...... !- -. .... ~ ........ i ............... ~ ....... ~ ............... ~ ....... i ..... ]-- ~'- -- i ...... ~. ~ ......................... ~ ............. ..-'7:~ ~. ...... ~ ...... ,_ ., ........ .~ t , [ .... ~ ................................. t- ............................. 420___.__1~__~; .... , ,__.___~, ...... ~.. ...... ~l ............... ~ ....... ~ .............. ~' ............... , ............... _....~.~.' ............... t_ ~' ............................................................................................ j I ! ~ , "t ! ~ { ,' ........... :'~!!]420 ................ : ........ t ..... I ....... : ....... ~ ............... !. ........ .I. .......... .~ .............. / ---'K ~------K'-------'T --F~. _'~ -----r------'-i' .... T"-------P----i'~----- 'r ~------1- .................. , .... , -, ....... , ....... , .............. ! ....... ! ............. ,- ............ , ....... ~ ...... I: ....... ~ ....... :t ........ ~ ............ , ...... ::t ........ ~ ..................... ~ ....... 1 ......... '::::i ........ r ~ .................... l ................. 0+00 1 -I-O0 2+00 3'+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 PROF I LE 4 I ............................................................. ~ ................ ; ............................................ ~- ....................... ~- ........................... ,I ........ t ...... ~. ................... l ...... ............................................................................... ]'~ ~ ' ' ~-T' ' · - ~.-.~.--~ ........ , ....... ~ ........ ,- .............. ! ........ !: ......... ........ f ........ ~ ................. i~'- ...... -- ....... ~-~.-.-----= ...... "~-~..------ .~ ..... F--.~- .~---~'-- .~...~--' ....-. ~.=..--_ ..i___.~.~_.:--_ _~._ ~..~...--..- _..~.. _ ::%-..~7_~':...;...--_....~.~ .~._-. ~:-~;: ~-:7.~..~_'= ._ .~.-~=~.'~.=%..~_..:-!;: ._.~._~; ..... - '~ ....... t ....................... ' ' '-I. ....... I .................. I,~i'_'.~ ....... ]~ .............. 'r .............. ~ ....... ....... ~ ........ ~ ........ r .............. '~ ....................... ~ ........ ~ ........ l ........ ~ .............................................. ................ i ................ I ............... ~.'.-7.~..~-:..~..~E_.~ .... L~_n~. - -_---_~--~~~, ....... ~----T----~-~'----= .... r- -~ .... ~----~---- ...... T---~ ..... =---~-- ~ ., :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::"~:'~:-r ............... ,-----'-~--- .... i ........ ~ ........ ....... ........ ........ t ....... ~ .......,~ ........ i ........ I ....... ~ ......................... i ......... "--' .-5~ot ....... i ....... - ...... '--i ........ , ....... .~ ........ l ....... ! ................ l ..... ,,,, --::--~-,.~;:':~::i:::::;: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :!::::::; :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::''-' .......................t t ........ ~ ........ t ....... ~ ........ ; ........ r .................. w ....... , .... ~ ............. ~.~..~ ' --- -- -' ~-~--~ .... ~~ ........ ~ ....... ~ ....... i ................. , ....... ........ ~ ........ ~-' ...... ....... , ....... , ....... ........ ....... , ....... ........ , ....... , ................ , ..... ...... ........... . ................ ! ........ , ........ , ........ ....... ................ .............. , ........ , ....... ......... , · t ',~-:%--i---1 '~I ~ .... ! ............... , ................ t ................................. ........................................ ~ .............................. - ~-----m----- --:------ .... l , ~ ~ ~ . ........... .,~ ................................................................................ .~ .............. .~ ................................................ , - ........ ~ ....................................... :t:-' ............................~ ~ ........ I ....... I ............... ~ .......................................... .~ .... . ..... ........ ~ ....................... t ... I~: -- [ I ! , , -I , ~ , - .... , .............................. , .................... ~ ........ '~ ............... ,- ............. lO ..... ~ ........ ' ................ :.- .............. l ................ [ ....... ~ .... ~ ................. t ..... ~ ............ i ---' ....... · -4.o ......... t ....... ~ ........ .,- .............. .~ ........ ; ....... i ................................ ! ........ --.-I .... ~ ............. ,~- ......... ~ ....... , .......................... ~. ....... l ............. I ...... .~ ...... , ....... ~.._: ....... ~ ...... .,~- .... ! , I , , ' II ~: ........ .,- ................ ~ ........ ~- ....... ~--: .... ~ ................................. --, .... t ............... ~- .... , ....... : ........ ~ ......... ~- ................ ~ ........ ~- ........................ , ........ l ....... ~ ....... I ................ l ........ ............... .................................. ~. .............. ~ ............... ,~ ............................. ~ .. *~.~ , - ' ; ......... i ................ ~ ....... , ....... ~ ................ ~ ....................... , ........ ] ........ , ........ ~ ....................... , ....... ~o , .: .......... ~ ........ f ....... ~ ........ J ........................ : ............ ~.--~ .............. ~ ..... t ....... , ........................ t ................ r. ....... ~ ....................... t ....... ~ ........ t ................ 1 ................ I--,,..~- ....... ~ ........................ ~ ......... , ....... ~ ........ l ....... ........... t ................ ~- ....... ~ ....................................... ~ ................~ '-- - · '~ ..... '~ .... !'~'"'~ ............I i ........ · ....... F ............ ' ...............................~ I ................ I ................ i ................. . ............. ....... [ .... , ! , ~ , .~ ---1 .... .,. ..... ~ ...... : .............. , .............. ~- .............. ~ ............... ! ................................ ~ ........ l ............... ~ ....................... = ~ - .... ' ................. l ....... : ............... t ......... t ................. f ............... ~ ................ t ........ i .--~ ..... : ........ t ..... = ...................... l- ....... ~ ....... ~ ............ ; ....... , -~ ...... ~ ....... .... :'450 ......... -i-----~-~----=' ....... ' ....................................... , __ t ....... ~ ....................................... , ~ ............... ' ............................... ! ! ,= .............. i ....... t- .... ~ .' t 'r ..... 450 ............ , ----=---~- , ~ !, -~----~---~-- -_--~----=---L---~ .............. ,~ ..... ~______ ._ -~ ........... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..... -440 t ~ ..................... ; ...... i ...... p ....... ! ...... , ........................ ! ................ ~ ....... ! ................. L ..... i ............. ! .......... .~ ....... ~ .............. ~ .............. i ...... .~ ............... ! .............. : ....... ' ' : ' , ..... i i ,~ ......... : .... ~ I ; ....... I I £ , ' I ~ i. ~ .I ~ ~ ; ' ' ! I 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6-',-00 om-e~ denucr,( ~6, 2o01 ProJ = 00220/R220Prof! le2 ATTACHMENT D engineering sE PAGE 1 I~ivil Engineering Land Sur'veying runick, Jr.' C. · , Welton p. Burkh~mer, Jr., Christopher T. Ae~el, P.E. " C. Gregory Johnson, Janua~ 16, 2001 ... ', 4 ................. Ooseph A. Mathews, C.L.A. Jeffery ~. Morse, P.E. Michael ~heinharC, L.S. . · EdWard F. Rudiger, Jr., L.S. Mr. Stephen B. Waller, Planner Depa~ment 0f Planning & C0mmuni~ Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charl0Eesville, VA Reference: PROJECT ID 00220 "B" Dear Mr. Waller: SDP 00-119 HOME DEPOT AT NORTHTOWN CENTER PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - Highway 29 - CharlOtteSVille, Virginia Transmitted herewith via overnight delivery service are five (5) full sized copies and one (1) reduced size copy (11" x 17") of revised drawings/exhibits for the referenced project. Including are the following: a revised preliminary site plan, an exhibit drawing indicating four separate sight lines which also shows the surrounding houses, and two separate sheets of profile drawings indicating the vertical relationship of the Home Depot to various surrounding 'sites. We were only able to get five (5) Sets of everything to You today due to a problem with our print machine. HoWever, I will send anOther overnight package tomorrow With hoWever many sets you desire for distribUtion pUrPosesl Additionally, tomorrow I' will send you a letter addressing item by item all the issues in your correspondence and that of the Engineering Department. I had a conference call meeting with Jeff Thomas, David Hirschman and Mark Graham of Engineering this morning and have not had a chance to put all of my responses. However, I intend to get that out to you tomorrow which will hopefully allow you enough time to prepare your executive summary for the Planning Commission. We believe the drawings provided will illustrate answers to some of the questions elicited by the Planning Commission previously. Please note on the site plan that we have doubled the existing landscape buffer on the south side of the project adjacent to the Woodbrook residents, which are the closest properties to the development. All of the tree symbols shown around the perimeter are existing large diameter trees within the first 20' which was all we originally had surveyed as that was all that was required. I am certain there are additional large diameter trees located in the expanded buffer area. Furthermore, we have not shown the proposed landscaping within the perimeter of the parcel being developed. We are still working on resolving issues with the Architectural Review Board and do not want to send out a landscape plan at this time which is not current or correct. We will most likely have this submitted to you for distribution or at least an exhibit for display in time for the Planning Commission meeting. 20 3351 Stoneshore Road Vir-ginia Beach, VA 23452 (757) 468-B800 FAX: [757) 468-4986 email@emgnsrvcs, corn Mr. Stephen B. Wailer, Planner Reference: PROJECT ID 00220 "B" January 16, 2001 Page 2 ATTACHMENT D PAGE 2 SDP 00-119 HOME DEPOT AT NORTHTOWN CENTER PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - Highway 29 - Charlottesville, Virginia I hope the exhibits being provided and the forthcoming correspondence will be adequate to meet your' needs in preparing the aforementioned report. Should you desire any further information or assistance, please contact me. Very truly yours, ENG N SE , INC. /J R R; rr: :F:~PROJECT~00220~WALLERPC.REV enclosures cc: Mr. Ed OgletreeFFhe Home Depot (with set of drawings) Mr. Tom HenricksFFhe Home Depot (with set of drawings) Mr. Mario Cerrato/Greenberg Farrow Architecture (with set of drawings) Mr. Michael Schenker/CASCO Corp. (with set of drawings) Mr. Wendell Wood/United Land Corporation of America (with set of drawings) Ms. Valerie Long/McGuire Woods (with set of drawings) Ms. Gloria Freye/McGuire Woods (with set of drawings) 21 January 19,2001 engineering ATTACHMENT D PAGE 3 Land Surveying Mr. Stephen B. Waller, Planner County of Albemarle Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Christopher T. Ael~el, ~.~. Gregory Jota~son, P.E. Joseph A. Matheus, C.L.A. Jeffery F~. Morse, ~.~. Miomeel t--lheinhert, L.S. ~warcl ~. I~ucliger, Jr., L.~. Reference: PROJECT ID 00220"B" - SDP 00-158 HOME DEPOT 'AT NORTHTOWN CENTER PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - Highway 29 Charlottesville, Virginia Dear Mr. Waller: This correspondence shall serve as our response to memos received from the planning staff and the engineering staff in relation to the referenced project. We understand that the comments were generated to offer some recommendations for addressing the Site design concerns that were expressed by the Board of Supervisors. The purpose of the planning staff comments were to soften the visual and noise impacts of the proposed development, specifically the disturbance to the bUffer area, the high retaining wall, the expansive roof with mechanical equipment, and noise associated with air conditioning units. Our responses in numerical relation to the January 11, 2001 memo from planning staff are as folloWs: Buffer: the inspectors to be able to identify existing vegetation and' damage'during const~uc~un' to ensUre t~at we upgrade the vegetation and fill in gaps where necessary as noted on the landscape pian. We will delineate these gaps on the final plan and specify the type of planting materials that Will be Used; per our discussions with the neighbors and per your staff recommendations, we will use evergreen plant varieties. We will utilize an 8' screening fence rather than 6' as currently proposed. The fence posts will face the 'Home Depot property except where the ARB objects. Retaining Wall: We do not believe that it Will be neCessary to screen the retaining Walls from neighboring properties along the rear of this Site. Trees and shrubs Will be planted in the de~en[ion fability itself in accordance with the standards from the Engineering Department..LikeWiSe, there Will be an existing buffer maintained at the rear in addition to installing the 8' screening fence. We have provided a profile prospective which indicates why we believe that visibility of the retaining Wall at the rea~ Will not be a problem. As stated in the previous response, we do not believe that treatment of the retaining walls at the rear of the property is as critical as treatment of the tall retaining wall on the south side of the property to lessen its impact on the entrance corridor. We have devised a plan to create a step-down type of retaining wall with gabions backfilled with earth and planted with Vines Which Will quicklY., cover the entire slope. " ._.. 3351 Scone'shore Reed ". Vied hie Beach, VA 23452 (7~7) FAX: (7E57) 4BB-4~66 emeil@engnmrvcs.com 22 Mr. Stephen B. Waller, Planner Reference: PROJECT ID 00220"B" - SDP 00-158 - HOME DEPOT AT NORTHTOI PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - Highway 29 - CI PAGE 4 Virginia January 19, 2001 Page 2 ATTACHMENT D However, more horizontal space is necessary on the plan to accommodate this wall. We do not have · space to do that at the rear where the detention facility is proposed. Likewise, this wall is not nearly, as visible as the aforementioned wall at the front of this site. Roofs: 1. We will paint the entire roof and all mechanical equipment one color. We will discuss specifics with staff in regards to a dark shade of some color to minimize the visual impact. 2. We will utilize planters with shrubs around the mechanical equipment or some other methodology to screen all mechanical equipment from the view of the neighboring properties. 3. We will cluster the mechanical equipment into a certain location that can be enclosed in screening materials with mansard style roofs using materials found elsewhere on the proposed buildings. 4. We will consider installing a "green roof' system or utilize other types of natural vegetative screening to mitigate the view of the neighbors of the mechanical equipment on the roof. 5. We have already hired a qualified "sound" engineer to t~ke readings of the existing background noise at points along the residential lot boundaries. Readings will be taken during both daytime and evening hours. Measurements of noise will be taken from units on other Home Depots sites or from other similar sources. Our "sound" engineer will then compare the levels and report on the findings as well as provide recommendations for any necessary mitigation. The mitigation will probably be in the form of noise attention screening incorporated into the visual screening recommendations described above. The following responses relate to a memo dated January 10, 2001 and received from Engineering in regards to this project. My understanding from discussions with the Engineering Department after receipt of the memo are that these were simply brainstorming ideas that they had thrown out for us to consider to increase stormwater runoff quality and to decrease loss of sediment from the site over and above the minimum requirements. Our responses in numerical relation to the aforementioned memo are as follows: SITE PLAN CONDITIONS 1. A. Pervious paver blocks in the parking area would cause concerns with maintenance of the parking lot. These blocks tend to have deferential settlement and would probably get caught by snow plow blades dudng any clearing of the parking lot. My understanding is that the Engineering Department is currently testing these in a section of property owned by the County, but can not currently indicate successful testing of this product. B. Home Depot can not afford to reduce the number of parking spaces provided. The number shown on the plan now is the minimum that Home Depot believes they actually need and it is ·the minimum required by the County. We believe that the functionality of the project will be compromised if we eliminate any more parking spaces. C. We will consider using biofilters and/or vegetative strips in the parking lot. These will be utilized in the landscape islands which are currently propoSed. However, we will try to enlarge them to meet the minimum standards of the Engineering Department. ., D. We do not want to remove the "slip ramp" entrance from Route 29 as we believe tl~at is very important to the functionality of the project. Likewise, this access will minimize the impact on the 23 Mr, Stephen B. Waller, Planner Reference: PROJECT ID 00220 "B" - SDP 002;I'$8"~':i~HOME DEPOT AT NORTH'I PRELIMINARY SITE PLaN - Highway 29 - Vi January 19,2001 Page 3 ATTACHMENT D PAGE 5 3, A. existing signalized intersection on Highway 29. From strictly a traffic engineering standpoint and proper~y operating this facility, we feel strongly that the "slip ramp" is necessary and should not be removed. 2. A We have discussed above the' items for reducing the impervious cover on this site and found that none of them are viable. However, as stated above we will try to increase some of the green areas to incorporate biofilters. B. We can not reduce the size or eliminate the outparcel to provide more space for stormwater management measures and vegetated space within the parking area. The outparcel is of minimal size now and the economics of the project do not work if the outparcel is eliminated or if it becomes so small that potential users are restricted. C. It is not viable to decrease the depth to area ratio of the stormwater management basin with the suggestions provided. We can not really utilize any of the measures suggested above to decrease the impervious cover nor can we redesign the parking to shift the building closer to Route 29. We also believe that the ARB would have a problem with the building being closer to the roadway. Furthermore, our parking fields are at a bare minimum depth wise now. We would consider utilizing an underground storage facility if it could in some way help us decrease the detention facility at the rear. However, it appears that is not a viable solution. We will consider extending the pump station access road to provide maintenance access to the stormwater management basins. D. We did not originally consider a large biofilter at the rear due to the stormwater quality efficiency rating on it not being high enough. If we are able to provide enough biofilters in the front parking lot, then we may be able to use a large biofilter in the back in lieu of the enhanced extended detention facility as the combined measures should meet the efficiency rating necessary for this project. E. Per our previous responses to you, it would not appear to be within the requirements of the ordinance for the County to require us to correct an existing problem downstream which we did not create. Furthermore, we should not have to obtain downstream easements to do this work. As indicated above, we can not remove the "slip ramp", and decrease the size of the outparcel or redesign the parking to shift the building closer to Route 29 to increase the amount of impervious area. Likewise, these same measures can not occur to create more space to terrace the rear retaining wall. B. Same response as above. C. As stated above, we will consider extending the pump station access road to prOvide maintenance access to our stormwater management basin. However, I do not see how this can create more space to terrace the rear retaining wall. EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN CONDITION,~ 1. Although it can be stated that no erosion control plan can be 100% efficient and not allow any sediment to travel off-site, we are meeting the requirements of County Code and State Regulations with our prOposed plan. Furthermore, we are willing to incorporate additional measures to increase the efficiency of the system. However, at this point we are not willing to go off-site to correct existing problems created by others on land which has no easements existing on it for which rights to do the work would have to be obtained from pdvate owners. We believe this is an illegal and an unreasonable "requirement". 24 Mr. Stephen B. Waller, Planner Reference: PROJECT ID 00220"B" - SDP 00-158 - HOME DEPOT AT NORTH'I PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - Highway 29 - Virginia January 19, 2001 Page 4 ATTACHMENT D PAGE 7 2. We would consider using the immediate downstream pond for a final sediment control measure if we had any rights to use it. Once again, there are no existing easements over this pond and we would have to obtain permission from the land owner(s) to do any work on their property. 3. We are willing to incorporate additional measures to maximize the efficiency of our sediment controls system during construction. These measures shall include such things as minimizing the pedods of disturbance, multi-stage sediment basins designed to include the use of folcculates, matting of all exposed slopes, and maintenance of a daily inspection log by the erosion and sediment control inspector that is available for Engineering staff to review. For control of on-site runoff during construction, we shall include measures to assure peak flow rates for the 1-year and 10-year, 24 hour storm do not exceed the predevelopment rates. As of this time, we have done all that we believe we can do based upon the recommendations staff has made for this project. We will continue looking for ideas and may have additional measures to incorporate which we will make you aware of pdor to the Board of Supervisors meeting if we Can come up with anything. I hope this serves your needs for providing an executive summary for the Planning Commissioners. Should you desire any further information or assistance, please contact me. Very truly yours, CC: Mr. Ed Ogletree/The Home Depot Mr. Tom Hendcks/The Home Depot Mr. Mado Cerrato/Greenberg Farrow Architecture Mr. Bill Oswell/Greenberg Farrow Architecture Mr. Michael Schenker/CASCO Corp. Mr. Wendell Wood/United Land Corporation of Amedca Ms. Valede Long/McGuire Woods Ms. Gloda Freye/McGuire Woods 25 T£L:804 979 3759 Ke,,,,stemon, ,Jimmy ,,, , , From: Kesterson, J~mmy ~?%$er~t: Tuesday, January 30, 2004 11:50 AM To.' 'Stepl~en Waller' Subject: Home Depot. Rte. 2g ~ Proposed Bus Stopl ATTACHMENT E Stave: The Dept. believes the proposed bus stop would provide a better service if located internally. The location as proposect indicates an accelerafiot3 lane ~vh[ch was not required of this site. ff this portion was built the remaining segment should be constructed to provide a continuous turn lane to Carrsbrook Dr. The C;a~sbrook c~3mmunity was o~3posec[ to thai comment when the site was reviewed for Target. ].H.Ke. sl;erson Pen',nil: a Sub. Sl~ec, Sum' Tel # 80~293-001~., COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS ATTACHMENT F PAGE 1 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Stephen Waller, Planner (to be in SPIN) Jeff Thomas, Senior Engineer January 25, 2001 Home Depot Preliminary Site Plan, SDP 00-158, Review of Engineering Services letter The letter from Mr. J. Randall Royal, P.E. received on January 23, 2001 has been reviewed. This letter serves as the response from Engineering Services, Inc. and Home Depot to our suggestions for satisfying the Board of Supervisors conditions of site plan and critical slope waiver approval. As you know, our suggestions were presented in a January 10, 2001 memorandum. We feel it is important to note that with this memorandum the Engineering Department was attempting to offer suggestions and alternatives on how the applicant can meet the expectations of the public and the Board. Often this is not a matter of setting out the minimum requirements of the regulations as the applicant implies. Rather, it is a recognition that there are many ways to design a site to meet the regulations, some of which may be much preferable to neighbors and public decision makers. In addition, it is often beneficial to go beyond minimum regulation requirements in order to be granted waivers or special considerations where delicate concerns such as downstream conditions or adjacent properties and buffers are involved. We have summarized the applicant's responses to our suggestions below. For clarity, we have maintained the original numbering and topics from the January 10, 2001 memorandum. Additional Department of Engineering comments are in bold type. Applicant Responses to January 10, 2001 memorandum from Engineering Department Stormwater Management/Water Quality General comment: With regard to stormwater management and water quality issues, we need commitments from the applicant that additional measures will be employed to the maximum extent possible instead of statements they'll "consider" or "try" to use other alternatives. Design the site to reduce the amount of impervioUS cover. a) The applicant feels that the use of pervious paver blocks would cause concerns with parking lot maintenance, particularly during snow removal. We feel that this should not be a problem based on the normal frequency of snowfall in Albemarle . County, especially if the blocks are used in outlying phrking areas. In this configuration, the access aisles and most of the usable parking stall area can be paved normally and plowed as usual. Additionally, the paver blocks in the outlying parking areas can be used for plowed snow storage. The melting snow can then infiltrate through the pervious paver blocks. b) Home Depot states that they cannot afford to reduce the number of spaces provided. The number of spaces is the minimum the applicant needs and the minimum required by the County. c) The applicant states that. they will consider using biofilters within currently proposed landscape islands. They will also try to enlarge them to meet the minimum standards of the Engineering Department. Rather than "considering" the use of biofilters, we feel there must be a commitment on the part of the applicant to utilize these SWM measures to the maximum extent possible. d) The applicant does not wish to remove the "slip ramp" entrance from U.S. 29 because they feel it is important to the traffic circulation of the site. 27 ATTACHMENT F MEMORANDUM (to be in SPIN) Home Depot Preliminary Site Plan, SDP 00-158 January 25, 2001 Page 2 PAGE 2 It is our opinion that the "slip ramp" is an unnecessary site component and is not critical to safe traffic circulation for the area. Many large scale developments along U.S. 29 (Wal-Mart, Rio Hill, Albemarle Square) do not have such facilities and appear to function well. We believe the proposed right turn lane at the signalized intersection will serve the site adequately. 2. Design the site and stormwater management measures to provide enhanced water quality protection. a) The applicant states that "we have discussed above the items for reducing impervious cover on this site and found that none of them are viable." They will try to increase some of the green areas to incorporate biofilters. Please see our comments under condition labove. We also feel that this issue is related to item b below. b) The applicant claims that they cannot reduce the size or eliminate the outparcel due to project economics. Without more space on the site and/or a decrease in impervious cover, we feel it will be difficult to implement SWM measures to provide the added water quality protection desired by the Board of Supervisors. c) Home Depot and Engineering Services believe that is not viable to decrease the depth to area ratio of the SWM basin. They further contend that cannot redesign the parking lot to shift the building closer to U.S. 29 and that "the ARB would have a problem" with this. They will consider using underground detention to decrease the size of the basin, but do not believe it will be a viable solution. They will also consider extending the pump station road to provide maintenance access to the proposed basins. The preliminary site plan requirements call for conceptual BMP's only. The basin, as a concept, is a viable alternative. According to the preliminary computations submitted, we feel that it will be difficult in the detailed final site plan stage to have the necessary wetland surface area to accomplish enhanced extended detention. This is a key consideration in our above requests for biofilters and other measures in the parking areas. The applicant had previously proposed an underground ,~'~ infiltration facility. This structure was subsequently removed after we raisedconcerns regarding : I ~ ~ l°ng ~erni maintenance and functionality. Maintenance is a concern with any facility, but should be less problematic with a traditional underground facility. We feel underground detention can help decrease the size of the rear basin by "relocating" the required detention volume to another portion of the site so that much of the basin's volume can be reserved for water quality treatment. Of course, underground detention, by itself, provides no water quality benefits. d) The applicant may be able to use a large biofilter in the lieu of the basin if they are able to provide enough biofilters in the front parking area. Please see our comments regarding the parking lot biofilters (2a and 2b) above. e) The applicant feels that it is not within the requirements of the County ordinance to require repair of the channel and the downstream pond. They feel they did not create the problem and therefore should not have to fix it. We feel that Home Depot may worsen the existing downstream drainage problems by increasing the total volume of runoff. This may occur even with detention measures. We recommended this option in part because of the lack of space (on the current site plan) for enhanced on-site measures. It has the added benefits of protecting the stream channel and pond and providing an additional E&SC measure. Reduce the height and/or terrace the retaining walls.. a) The applicant feels they can not remove the "slip ramp" for the reasons expressed under 1 d above. b) Same response as on item #1. Space is the key issue, whether it be gained by less parking, no slip ramp, reeonfiguring the basin or access, etc. With more space available, tall walls can be replaced with slopes or a series of shorter walls. c) The applicant does not understand how extending the pump station access road will create more space to terrace the rear retaining wall. '~ Our reasoning behind this comment was that if access to the dam was provided by extending the existing access road, then the bench between the "rear parking lot retaining wall" and the "stilling basin retaining wall" could be used to provide another wall to create the terrace. Erosion and Sediment Control 28 ATTACHMENT F MEMORANDUM (to be in SPIN) Home Depot Preliminary Site Plan, SDP 00-158 January 25, 2001 Page 3 PAGE 3 I. Dredge the first downstream pond to repair any damage associated with land disturbance on the site. The applicant feels that they should not be responsible for correcting existing off-site problems created by others. The applicant is willing to incorporate additional measures on-site to increase the effectiveness of the E&SC controls. 2. Use the first downstream pond as a final E&SC measure during construction. The applicant will consider using the first downstream pond if they had any rights to use it. 3. Should the applicant not dredge the immediate downstream pond prior to commencing construction, provide on-site E&SC designed to minimize possible impacts. This includes the use of state of the art controls. The applicant is willing to incorporate additional measures to maximize E&SC efficiency, including the state of the art measures listed in our January 10, 2001 memorandum. Copy: File: 2148 (SDP 00-158) File: engineering services letter response.doc 29 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS ATTACHMENT F PAGE 4 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Stephen Waller, Planner Jeff Thomas, Senior Engineer February 1, 2001 Home Depot Slope Waiver and Preliminary Site Plan, SDP 00-158 In response to the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors during the public hearings for the "critical slopes" waiver, the Engineering Department has continued our review of the short term and long term impacts of the proposed development plan, afforded by the grading and filling of "critical slope areas, on the factors listed in section 18-4.2 "Critical Slopes". It should be noted that the conceptual stormwater management designs provided on the preliminary site plan dated November 3, 2000 meet the requirements of the County Water Protection Ordinance. The Engineering Department recommended approval of the preliminary site plan (with conditions) and the critical slopes waiver in two memorandums dated November 8, 2000. As part of the continued evaluation we prepared a memorandum, dated January 10, 2001 that suggested strategies and alternatives the consultant (Engineering Services, Inc.) could combine to address the concerns, including stormwat~i~ runoff control, water quality, and erosion & sediment control. In a letter received January 23, 2001, J. Randall Royal responded to our memo with the alternatives they would use, those they would consider or try, and those they felt were not viable. We reviewed Mr. Royal's letter and responded to the Planning Department with a memo to Stephen Waller dated January 25, 2001 (see attached). Based on our continued evaluation of the "critical slopes" waiver request, the Engineering Department recommends approval of the waiver request and the preliminary site plan with the following conditions to address the environmental concerns expressed by the Planning CommisSion and the Board of Supervisors' Stormwater Runoff Control and Water Oualit~ 1. Remove the "slip ramp" from the site plan to provide space to accommodate a biofilter or series of biofilters in the front (west) parking lot with a total bottom area no leSs than 3500 square feet for adequate Water quality treatment. RemOval of the "slip ramp" will also have the additional benefit of enhancing pedestrian safety by eliminating the two proposed pedestrian crossings shown on the site plan. 2. Provide a dry detention basin that includes a large biofilter along the bottom, instead of the proposed "enhanced extended detention basin', (which is normally a "wet" facility) due to its proximity to residential dwellings. The combination of the front and rear biofilters will result in effective water quality treatment and address the mosquito and safety concerns expressed by adjoining property owners. All site bio filters must be designed to standards in the County's Interim Design ManUal and Virginia Stormwater Management HandboOk, with final design to be approved by the Engineering Department. 3. The consultants stormwater detention concept is dependent On the basin having adequate storage volume to detain the increased runoff from the developed site. In the event that adequate volume cannot be reasonably achieved in the basin, the outstanding detention requirements must be handled with underground detention pipes and/or a pervious pavement system (including stone reservoir and underdrain system) for parking bays most remote from the building. 4~8 belOW were originally presentbd a~ C°nditi°ns of apProval in our November 8, 2000 mem°randum. We alsO recommend these COmments aS cOnditionS ofapprovall 4. As we stated in our September 28, 2000 comments, the downstream channel and stream system experiences 3O ATTACHMENT F MEMORANDUM (to be in SPIN) Home Depot Preliminary Site Plan, SDP 00-158 February 1,2001 Page 2 o o PAGE 5 existing problems and is likely not adequate for the increased volume of runoff. We must have confidence that the detention system is capable of complying with adequate channel and detention requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance. The detention basin must also be designed to store runoff from the 1-year 24-hour storm event (or equivalent), as well as the'2- and 10-year storm runoff. [17-314(D)]. The applicant has agreed to these criteria. We also advise the applicant to be cognizant of recently adopted State Stream Channel Erosion Control Policy Guidance (Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook, First Edition, Technical Bulletin # 1). These items may be addressed with the £mal site plan submittal. The outfall for the stilling basin is unclear. On the final site plan, please indicate the proposed grading and conceptual structures associated with this outfall. [18-32.5.6d, 18-32.5.6k] The applicant must satisfy VDOT requirements for frontage improvements contained in a letter dated October 24, 2000. Sheet 4 of 8 indicates pavement designs for both "heavy" traffic and "light" traffic volumes. It appears that the "heavy" traffic design has no base course and has only a half inch more asphalt surface than the "light" design. This issue must be clarified with the fmal site plan. We feel the proposed spot elevations along the retaining walls are adequate for preliminary site plan approval. However, the following comments referring to the proposed grading on sheet 5 of 8 must be addressed with the £mal site plan submittal. [ 18-32.6.6d] a. The proposed 463 contour appears to be missing in the outparcel grading. Please revise the grading in this area. b. The software generating the proposed topography still seems to be having problems ~vith contouring around the proposed retaining walls and along the U.S. 29 frontage. This comment was previously mentioned in both our September 28, 2000 and October 27, 2000 reviews. Proposed contours should "skip" at retaining walls, not run along them. The tight contouring in these areas obscures the retaining walls. The proposed retaining walls are a significant feature of the development of this site. Please revise the grading plan to correctly show the proposed contours in these areas. c. The parking lot grades along the northwest coruer of the site (near the existing 54-inch storm sewer outfall) appear to exceed 5%. Please revise the grading plan in this area. Erosion and Sediment Control 9. The applicant shall be required to dredge and repair the stream below this site and the first downstream pond to address any inadequacies or failure of on-site measures that may occur during construction.. This requirement is limited to the dredging and repair work necessary to address damage that occurs during the period of the Home Depot construction and shall be done to the satisfaction of Engineering. Should the owner(s) of this pond or the property along the stream refuse permission for the applicant to perform this work or place conditions on this permission that are considered unreasonable by Engineering, this requirement shall not be enforced for that part of the work. Unreasonable conditions will be considered anything to benefit the property owner(s) above and beyond the impacts associated with this activity. A letter of permission must be copied to Engineering before the start of work and the work must be included with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Engineering shall verify the owner(s) are refusing permission prior to issuing any permits if that is claimed by the applicant. 10. The applicant shall be required to supplement the typical erosion and sediment control measures to assure, to the Engineering Department's satisfaction, the applicant is providing high levels of effectiveness in controlling sediment during construction. These measures shall include a construction schedule that demonstrates the time of disturbance is minimized (e.g. phasing of the E&SC plan), the use of high efficiency sediment basins designed to include the use of flocculants, matting of exposed slopes as determined appropriate by the Engineering Department, and the contractor keeping a daily erosion and sediment control inspection log that demonstrates the construction is being closely monitored and deficiencies are being quickly repaired. 11. If during construction damage is caused to downstream properties, the Engineering Department can require corrective action under E&SC law. This is independent of the other E&SC conditions presented here. The following items must be submitted with the final site plan for review by the Engineering Department. A. An erosion control plan, narrative and computations. [18-32.7.4.3, 17-203] B. A completed application and fee for erosion control and stormwater management. [17-203, 17-303] C. A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. Computations must include water quality, and detention routings for the lYr (24-hour), 2yr and 10yr storms. [17-304, 17-314D] 31 ATTACHMENT F ' PAGE 6 MEMORANDUM ( to be in SPIN) : Home Depot Preliminary Site Plan, SDP 00-158 February 1, 2001 Di Copies of allstate and federal permit; reqUired fOr'imPactS to waters of the u.S' E. A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee. [ 17-323] F. Drainage computations. [18-32.7.4, Policy] G. Retaining wall plans and computations certified by a professional engineer for walls over 5 feet in height. [Policy] Attachments: January 10, 2001 memorandum; January 25, 2001 memorandum Copy: File: 2148 (SDP 00-158) File: bos conditions of approval.doc Minutes, January 3, 2001 Home Depot at North Town Center Preliminary Site Plan Appeal (Page 1) DRAFT ATTACHMENT G PAGE' 1 Agenda Item No. 18. SDP-00-119, Home Depot at North Town Center, Preliminary Site Plan Appeal. Request for preliminary site plan approval to allow construction of a 130,184 square foot building for retail sales store, on approximately 15.9 acres, zoned HC (Highway Commercial) and EC (Entrance Corridor). The property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 110, 110A, 111, 11 lA and 11 lB is located on the east side of Route 29 North, approximately 1/2 mile north of the Rio Road intersection. This site is designated as Regional Service in Urban Neighborhood 2. Rivanna Dist. Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this is a heavily wooded site with many large, mature trees. Two small streams converge and pass eastward through the property toward the rear boundary. There are areas of critical slopes on the property associated with the stream. He said the resources identified on the composite map in the County's Open Space Plan, and which are present on the property, are a buffer area to the rear of the property which is to buffer commercial from residential uses, and the Entrance Corridor Overlay District (EC) on Route 29. The buffer areas are intended to separate and protect dissimilar uses such as residences and commercial developments, and are recommended for protection in the Development Areas. Staff is requiring the applicant to construct a screening fence to reinforce the screening provided by vegetation within the buffer. Mr. Cilimberg said the Architectural Review Board (ARB) addresses development within the Entrance Corridor District (EC), and this development proposal has already been the subject of preliminary ARB review. Final ARB approval and issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness will be required prior to approval of the final site plan. He said the Site Review Committee has reviewed the preliminary site plan and staff could grant administrative approval of the plan, subject to Commission approval of the waivers and modifications, there being three needed: waiver of provisions for critical slopes; modification to allow a reduction in the number of loading spaces; and, waiver to allow a fence within the 20-foot undisturbed buffer. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has received comments from several abutting property owners in Carrsbrook and Woodbrook regarding the preliminary site plan itself. Staff notes that the proposed development is a by-right use in the Highway Commercial District, so the issue of whether the proposed use is an appropriate use for the site was not a consideration of the review. With the exception Of the requested waivers and modifications, review is limited to deciding if the site plan is in compliance with regulations set forth in Section 32.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. Because the subject property naturally drains in the northeastern direction to Carrsbrook, concern has been expressed as to the impact the proposed development could have on the subdivision's existing lakes and ponds which are already exposed to increased amounts of rUnoff and siltation from upstream development. The Engineering Department reviewed the conceptual stormwater management layout for compliance with preliminary site plan provisions in the ordinance and the County's Water Protection Ordinance. As a result of that review, the required changes have been made, and the Engineering Department's recommendation includes many conditions that will have to be addressed prior to approval of the final stormwater facilities and drainage calculations. Prior to approval of the final site plan, other issues related to the appearance of the site, such as landscaping, lighting, and building colors, must be reviewed by the ARB, Planning Department, and the Zoning Department for compliance with all relevant ordinances and design guidelines. Mr. Cilimberg said as to the proposal to waive provisions for critical slopes, the applicant is proposing to fill and construct in an area containing critical slopes. He said the 15.9 acres contains approximately 2.41 acres of critical slopes, which is about 15 percent the total site area. According to the site plan, a majority of the critic;al slopes would be filled and compacted in order to create an area 33 Minutes, January 3, 2001 Home Depot at North Town Center Preliminary Site Plan Appeal (page 2) ATTACHMENT G PAGE 2 sufficient for the building and parking lot, and portions of a stormwater detention facility. He said the Engineering Department has evaluated this request for potential movement of soil and rock, excess stormwater runoff and siltation, and water pollution, and they recommended approval. The fill activity to create the building site would require piping the two natural streams that converge and run through the center of the property. Although the lakes and ponds in the nearby subdivisions are mapped on the wetlands inventory map, staff analysis has determined that neither of the streams on the subject property are inventoried on the Open Space Plan Composite Map, or the U.S. Department of the Interior's Wetlands Inventory Maps. Any disturbance of wetlands located on the site are subject to all state and Federal regulations. Staff cannot grant approval of the final site plan unless all of the required state and Federal approvals and permits have been issued. Mr. 'Cilimberg said staff uses the Open Space Plan to objectively assess the possibilities for loss of aesthetic appeal. The property proposed for this development is bordered by a designated buffer'area and is adjacent to Route 29, an LC, and both of these items are identified as resources on the Composite Map. Staff found that none of the other aesthetic resources identified by the Open Space Plan are · present on this site. The ARB conducted a preliminary review of the site plan and its aesthetic impact on the LC, with an understanding that a develoPment of this size would require clearing nearly all of the trees on this wooded site, and filling the critical slopes. Since a majority of the critical slopes are internal to the site, the ARB review and comment focused on ensuring that development will be consistent with design guidelines for development in the LC. The ARB did propose conditions under which the development could take place and meet their guidelines. Staff recommended approval of the critical slope waiver request (Section 4.2.3.2) subject to conditions for approval of the final site plan. Mrl ~iiim'berg said ast0 th~ ~eqb~st t0 ~8i~ secti°n 4.12:712ai Required Off_street Loading Spaces (Retail), a strict application of the ordinance would require that 17 loading spaces be provided. The applicant says that in their experience, four spaces have provided adequate loading area. Although approval of this request would allow a substantial reduction in the required amount of loading spaces, similar requests for fewer than the required number of loading spaces have been approved in the past. Because it is the applicant who will coordinate delivery schedules with suppliers, staff feels they would be capable of determining the number of spaces sufficient to accommodate the loading and receiving operations. Staff recommended approval of this modification. Mr. Cilimberg said as to buffer areas, there is a requirement in the commercial districts that a 20- foot undisturbed buffer be maintained on commercially-zoned properties adjacent to residential and rural areas districts. Increasing the size of the buffer is not an option the applicant is willing to pursue. Therefore, staff required that privacy fencing be provided in order to reinforce the screening provided by the 20-foot buffer of natural vegetation. The applicant shows a fence on the site plan. However, in response to varying opinions of neighbors, the applicant has agreed to construct the fence either on the 20-foot buffer line, or directly on the lot lines shared with adjacent residential properties. The location of the fence in relationship to each property would be determined by the individual property owners. The applicant requests a waiver in order to allow the fence to be constructed on the property line, as desired by specific neighbors. It is not to reduce the 20-feet, only to allow that disturbance. Mr. Cilimberg said staff determined that the proposed wood fence is consistent with fencing that has been required for supplementing buffers between commercial and residential developments. It is staff's opinion that the construction of a WOoden fence would impose minimal disturbance within the buffer because its position could be easily maneuvered around any significantly-sized trees, and the r'~latively small foundations required for the fence posts could be spaced so as not to damage the underlying tree roots. Staff recommended aPproval of this particUlar modification with conditions. 34 ATTACHMENT G PAGE 3 Minutes, January 3, 2001 Home Depot at North Town Center Preliminary Site Plan Appeal (Page 3) Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval of the preliminary site plan and the waivers and modification requests with a number of conditions (listed in the staff's report). As to the Planning Commission's recommendation, at its meeting on November 28,' 2000, it denied the Critical Slopes Waiver request by a vote of 6:1, for three reasons: 1) The waiver would not forward the purposes of the ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest; the waiver would not provide alternatives that would satisfy the purposes of Section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree. This was based on the Commission's conclusions that the volume of the runoff, the siltation and the desire to protect the streams in proximity to the critical slopes and downstream water quality would not be satisfied by this critical slope waiver. The importance of protecting water quality is identified in the "Purposes" section of the Water Protection Ordinance. (Mr. Cilimberg said this does not fall under the Water Protection Ordinance because these are not perennial streams.) 2) Under Section 4.2.5.2(b) which deals with the size, topography, shape of the property or location of the property, the Commission found that there is no unreasonable restriction, because as noted in the staff report, critical slopes comprise approximately 2.41 acres of a 15+ acre lot. There are other uses that can be made of the property given the location of the critical slopes without disturbing these critical slopes. (Mr. Cilimberg said there has been no plan on this, so there has been no analysis by staff. Several years ago there was a plan for this property which showed development in smaller buildings, so it is reasonable to expect that alternative layouts could be proposed that would have less of an effect on the critical slopes.) 3) Under Section 4.2.5.2(c) which allows a waiver to be granted if it is found that it would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be served by a strict application of Section 4.2, the Commission found .that the waiver would not serve a greater public purpose for all the reasons set forth above. Mr. Cilimberg said that regarding the reduction in the number of loading spaces, the Commission unanimously approved the off-street loading space waiver. Also, as to allowing the fence within the 20- foot undisturbed buffer, the Commission unanimously approved this waiver request subject to three conditions as outlined in a letter dated December 1, 2000, from Stephen Waller, Planner, addressed to the applicant. Finally, the Commission denied by a vote of 6:1, the preliminary site plan for four reasons: 1) The project would disturb critical slopes and the critical slopes waiver was denied; 2) Failure to comply with Section 32.5.6(f) which requires that the name and location of all watercourses and other bodies, of water be identified on the preliminary site plan; 3) Failure to comply with Section 32.5.6(d) - The proposed grading to five-foot contours was inaccurately shown around the retaining walls; and, 4) Failure to comply with Section 32.5.6(n) which requires that the location and dimensions of proposed fences and other structures be shown (in this case, the fences) on the preliminary site plan. Ms. Thomas asked if Board members had questions. Mr. Dorrier said he noted that there have been other applications for use of this property which involved the critical slopes issue. In 1994, the Carrsbrook Retail Center was approved with a critical slopes waiver being granted by the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said it was a different development proposal. Mr. Dorrier said it basically involved the whole lot. 35 ATTACHMENT G Minutes, January 3, 2001 Home Depot at North Town Center Preliminary Site Plan Appeal (page 4) PAGE 4 Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Davis to clarify what action is expected of the Board today. Mr. Davis said this is an appeal of the decision of the Commission. Under Zoning Ordinance provisions, the applicant can appeal that decision to this Board instead of taking it to the Circuit Court. The Board can affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Commission on both the waiver of critical slopes, and on the preliminary site plan approval. The ordinance requires that the Board take into consideration the recommendation of the agent, which is the Planning Director, the Site Plan Review Committee, and the Planning Commission. It allows the Board to take into account any additional information it feels is necessary to properly make the decision. Site plan approval is a ministerial act and if the Board finds that the site plan meets all the requirements of the ordinance, the Board is required to approve the site plan. The waiver of the critical slopes provisions is also a ministerial act, but the criteria that are set forth in Section 4.2.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance is somewhat subjective in nature. The Board needs to make its decision based on facts that are before itl If it finds that the criteria in 4.2.5.2 have not been met, the waiver can be denied. If the Board denies this request, it is probably a matter of litigation. There are some legal issues the Board may wish to discuss in Closed Session before making a final decision, if the Board is inclined to consider denial. Mr. Cilimberg said he would like to clarify that the waivers cannot be granted by staff. By ordinance provisions, they are subject to Commission approval. Staff can administratively approve the site plan. Mr. Dorrier said he understands the waiver can only be granted by the Commission and then appealed to the Board. Without the waiver, the staff cannot approve the application. Mr. Davis said that is correct. Without the waiver, the proposed site plan ~s in violation of Section 4.2 of the ordinance, it is not a building site that does not disturb critical slopes. Without the waiver being granted by the Commission, the plan would have to be denied. Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board is limited to what the Commission and the Board can grant in the way of a waiver, or can the Board consider the whole site plan. Mr. Davis said before the Board today Is the waiver of critical slopes and the preliminary site plan. Mr. Bowerman asked if those were the only items appealed by the applicant. Mr. Davis said that is correct. Ms. Thomas said if the Board wanted to approve the site plan, it would have to grant the waiver, and both the waiver and the site plan can have conditions attached. The Board might also want to discuss those conditions further. It could ask the Commission to provide further conditions, or something in between those two. Mr. Bowerman asked if the plan could be returned for final review to the Commission. Mr. Tucker agreed. Ms. Thomas said there are no rules as to how the Board handles the public portion of an appeal, but in courtesy it always allows the applicant to speak. Today, the applicant will be allowed ten minutes to speak. The Board has also offered the two affected neighborhoods a like amount of time. She believes they have organized, and will have one speaker each. This is not an ordinary public hearing, and the Board is not required to hear from anybody. She then asked the applicant to speak first. Ms. Valerie Long, McGuireWoods, was present to represent the applicant. She introduced from Home Depot, Mr. Ed Ogletree, Real Estate Manager, and Mr. Randy Royal, Project Engineer, and Ms. Gloria Frye from McGuireWoods. She noted that the architects are also present. They ask that the Board grant a critical slopes waiver with the conditions suggested by staff, and to also reverse the decision of the 36 ATTACHMENT G PAGE 5 Minutes, January 3, 2001 Home Depot at North Town Center Preliminary Site Plan Appeal (Page 5) Commission and approve the preliminary site plan with the conditions suggested by staff. She said Home Depot did elect to appeal the decision to this Board instead of going to Circuit Court. Ms. Long said the Commission denied the site plan for four reasons, and of those four reasons, three could have been easily remedied. The plan could have been approved and the three items addressed on the final plan. The fourth reason is the essential reason for the denial, the denial of the critical slopes waiver. It is the position of the applicant, and the Site Review Committee, that the critical slopes waiver should have been granted. Ms. Long said the Commission has the authority to grant development waivers as provided in Section 4.2.5.2. provided they make one or more of three findings. Either a) that when the alternative proposed satisfies the purposes of the requirement to at least an equivalent degree, or b) when strict application of 4.2 would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property, or c) when granting the waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than that served by strict application of Section 4.2. of the ordinance. Ms. Long said the Commission concluded that the preliminary site plan did not meet any of these criteria. She thinks thatthey actually meet all three. First, the alternative Home Depot proposes will satisfy the five purposes of Section 4.2 at least to an equivalent degree. Regarding the concern for movement of soil and rock, County Engineering staff states in the report that proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any movement of soil, and that stormwater runoff will be diverted from the fill slopes by curb and gutter, storm sewer inlets and underground pipes. Regarding the second concern for excessive stormwater runoff, the stormwater detention pond will detain runoff from one-year, two-year, ten-year and one hundred year storms. The one-year storm design, they have been told, is more stringent than what has been required of other developers in the same area. This goes beyond the typical requirements of the Zoning Ordinance which are for a ten-year design. She understands this one-year requirement was made by staff in response to specific concerns of some downstream neighbors. She said the detention pond will provide for both water detention and water quality. All stormwater generated by the increase in impervious surfaces on-site will be impounded and detained, and then after filtering and solid settlement, it will be released at pre-development rates to preserve water quality. Ms. Long said regarding the third concern in Section 4.2, Siltation, inspection and bonding will insure that siltation control measures meet State Erosion Control standards during the site work period, which is a relatively short window of six to eight weeks. Following construction, the stabilization and maintenance proposed will insure long-term stability. Regarding the fourth concern of Section 4.2, regarding loss of aesthetic resource, the 20-foot buffer and fence between the property and adjacent residences will help mitigate loss from tree removal. In 'addition, the staff concluded that none of the other aesthetic resources identified by the Comprehensive Plan's Open Space Plan, often associated with critical slopes, are present on this site. Finally, according to correspondence from a member of the ARB (included in the staff's report), this stream is not visible from the EC, and the loss of critical slopes will not be noticed from the EC. Ms. Long said the. fifth concern of Section 4.2 regards septic effluent. Because this property is served by public sewer, that is not applicable. Therefore, because the alternatives proposed by Home Depot will satisfy all five of the purposes of Section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree, Home Depot meets the criteria for a critical slopes waiver contained in paragraph (a) of Section 4.2.5.2 of the ordinance. In addition, while they only need to satisfy one of the criteria, they believe they also satisfy the · following two criteria: In paragraph (b) of 4.2.5.2, due to the topography and the location of the property 37 Minutes, January 3, 2001 Home Depot at North Town Center ATTACHMENT G PAGE 6 downstream from other large-scale development, and given that evidence has been provided that the critical slopes waiver criteria has been met, they believe it would be unreasonable not to grant the waiver considering that it was granted for upstream developments, such as Lowe's. This is how they comply with paragraph (b) of 4.2.5.2 because it would unreasonably restrict the use of the property based on the evidence provided. Granting the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area as the property has been zoned this way for many years and is consistent with other development in the area. Nor will it be detrimental to adjacent properties because the slopes will be stabilized and maintained. It will be consistent with sound engineering practices. Ms. Long said that finally they feel they meet the criteria contained in paragraph (3) of Section 4.2.5.2 because granting the waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than a strict application of 4.2 because based on the stormwater control measures being provided, the quality of the water leaving the property will actually be improved over pre-development quality based on existing natural erosion and siltation. Also the water will be detained and released at a controlled rate equal to or less than the current rates. Finally, granting the waiver will permit the development to occur and will allow for the creation of approximately 150 new jobs and millions of dollars in tax revenues. Therefore, because Home Depot actually meets all three criteria contained in Section 4.2.5.2 and not just the one criteria that is required, it would be unreasonable not to grant the critical slopes waiver. In addition, as Mr. Cilimberg noted, despite some disagreement among Planning Commissioners, this is not a perennial stream under the definition of the County's Water Protection Ordinance, and thus it is not subject to the stream bank buffering requirements under Section 3.17 of that ordinance. .: ;~:: :~.-~' Ms. Long said she has shown that Home Depot meets the critical slopes criteria which was one of the four reasons why the plan was denied. The other three reasons were for not showing the exact fencing location, for some inaccuracies regarding grading contours, and for not showing the location of the stream. All three of these concerns could be easily remedied as a condition of approvak They could have been added as a condition of approval at the Commission level. She reiterated the extent to which the applicant has worked with County staff, as well as all of the neighbors. The proposal has undergone many changes in response to comments from the neighbors suggestions of the Site Review staff, many of which were specifically in response to concerns of the neighbors. They ask that the Board use the same criteria for evaluating this appeal as it has on other site plans and other critical slope waivers granted in the past. As Mr. Davis noted, it is a ministerial act guided by the ordinance. Ms. Long said they believe Home Depot deserves to be treated the same as all the other development in the area, both public and private. For all of these reasons, they ask that the Board grant the critical slo~3es waiver with the conditions noted, as well as the site plan, with the conditions recommended by staff. Next to speak was Mr. Frank Rice, a homeowner in Carrsbrook. He recognizes that it is by the indulgence of the Board members, and not by right, that he has the opportunity to voice the opposition of Carrsbrook residents to this request. He said SDP-00-119 is before the Board due to an appeal of the Commission's denial by the developer of the critical slopes waiver essential to site development. He said testimony and arguments at Commission and other meetings clearly showed that this site plan did not, and could not, comply with the provisions of the County's Code Section 4.2 which was the Commission's authority for denial of the requested waiver. After receiving the entire record of these proceedings, the Board is extremely informed as to the abundantly clear and compelling arguments for denial. He will not summarize all of them. He will address key points for special attention in the Board's decision-making process 38 Minutes, JanuarY 3, 2001 Home Depot at North Town Center Preliminary Site Plan Appeal (Page 7) ATTACHMENT G · PAGE 7 Mr. Rice said it is important to keep in mind that by-right development does not imply the right to waivers essential to the development. Such waivers are in the discretionary purview of the Board members who may grant them only when a variety of County Comprehensive Plan provisions are met, chief of which are the well-being of the people who elected the Board to serve, maintenance of the' communities and environs that give them identity and emotional stability, protection of their investments, and promotion of factors essential to their quality of life. Mr. Rice said it might be argued that the requested waiver be granted because in the past critical slope waivers have been granted in order to accommodate a site plan. However, it defies all odds to believes that a critical slopes waiver has been granted for another site where commercial development intrudes approximately 900 feet and is surrounded on three sides by established residential neighborhoods. Approximately 900 feet of a live stream will be piped, wetlands destroyed along with the various wildlife that it sustains. It would cause massive alteration of the existing terrain, destruction of the last forested area between the South Fork of the Rivanna River and the Charlottesville City limits, and would have devastating aesthetic results and would wreak havoc on the site and destroy the aesthetic resources of the site. It would adversely affect safety of entrance to and egress from a residential area due to increased traffic and vastly altered traffic patterns. The consequences of the waiver, in the words of the Commission, does not provide alternatives that would satisfy the purposes of Section 4.2. The volume of the runoff, the siltation and the desire to protect the streams in the proximity to the critical slopes and downstream water quality would not be satisfied 'by the critical slope waiver. Mr. Rice said the uniqueness of the situation disallows precedent and is the criterion for evaluating the request for waiving critical slope requirements on this particular site plan. He said the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has determined that the site of the subject plan has water and wetlands regulated under Section 404 of Virginia's Clean Water Act. The Corps also determined that the area to be developed is a headwaters of the Rivanna River. Construction requires a Department of the Army permit which is routinely granted when an acre or less is involved, albeit, there also must be compliance with State and .local regulations. However, the Corps has identified approximately 900 feet of this stream channel to be impacted. Piping any part of the stream will negatively impact the natural environment presently made possible and sustained by the natural flow of water. Any piping, with the accompanying fill, will constitute a degradation, if not the destruction, of the natural waterwaY officially recognized as a headwaters area. While building on regulated waters and wetlands areas may be perfectly legal, you need to ask yourselves whether it is right, especially when it would negatively affect ponds further downstream in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Rice said these factors are sufficient to warrant denial of the requested critical slope waiver, but much more compelling, the intent and the spirit of Albemarle County's Zoning Ordinance Section 1.4.10, "to include reasonable provisions not inconsistent with the applicable state water quality standards, to protect surface water and groundwater as defined in Section 62 of the Code of Virginia" makes it impossible to grant the requested waiver. Mr. Rice said he would refer the Board to SP-91-57. That site plan called for construction of a used car dealership on the same parcel for which SDP-00-119 is proposed. He said that the Entrance Corridor Overlay District requiring a special permit for plans featuring outdoor storage was the only reason for the Board considering that plan. A special permit in the EC District is limited to matters of aesthetic consideration. The then board of supervisors unanimously disapproved that plan as being aesthetically incompatible with the EC District standards. He cites this to provide statistics to emphasize the massive scope of the site plan presently being considered. SP-91-57 called for 159,201 square feet of impervious 39 ATTACHMENT G PAGE 8 Minutes, January 3, 2001 Home Depot at North Town Center PFelim!nary Site Plan Appeal (page 8) " area, or 3.61 acres. SDP-00-119 calls for 452,110 square feet of impervious area, or 10.25 acres. SP-91 - 57 called for 473 spaces for outdoor parking. SDP-00-119 calls for 514 parking spaces. If SDP-00-119 were being considered under EC regulations alone, for aesthetic reasons it would be denied. His point is that over 10 acres of the 15+ acre site will be covered with impervious material. Gas, oil and other fluids leaking from parked cars and other contaminants will find their way into streams and ponds in residential areas making them environmentally unsafe, eventually killing them, and leaching into subterranean water potentially contaminating the well water used by many residents. He said it is worth noting that one inch of rain on a ten-acre area produces over 275,000 gallons of water. Without the natural absorbency of the ground with all of its vegetation and natural contoursl drainage from this impervious area in just one heavy downpour will most certainly wash out at least one private driveway and street and could possibly washout and damage public streets, not to speak of damage to private property. (time expired) Mr. Dennis Mills said he is President of the Woodbrook Community Association. He is speaking on behalf of the residents in Woodbrook and Carrsbrook. They, along with the Commission, do not feel the critical slopes waiver is acceptable. They ask that the request be denied today. He had prepared comments, but in listening to Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Rice, and the technical data which a lot of people, including himself, do not understand, if all of that could be wrapped into some type of plan it could be sold to the shoe industry because we are trying to fit a size 12 into a size 10. All of the requirements, considerations and waivers, special permits, and putting streams into a pipe, are just asking to take something huge and try to insert it into a lot that doesn't fit. It also would affect greatly established communities in Albemarle County. He noted a map on the wall and the amount of critical slopes shown. One thing the map does not show are the number of homeowners in the area and where the critical slopes extend off of the property. ~:i ~iil'~ Said i~ ha~ seV~ ~i:'~:~i ~VoUI~ ii'~ t~ ~nt'i~'~ ~ :~i' '~ii:~t, t~e parcel is much too small for a development of this magnitude. The development places an irreversible negative impact on the natural environment and the quality of life of the residents who dwell on three of the four borders of the parcel. The development places a dangerous and inappropriate commercial entity, not merely on one border, but firmly in the midst of preexisting residential developments. The development deprives certain homeowners of proprietary interests and places egregious harm to the quiet enjoyment of homes of others, .and diminishes financial value of many of the properties without any recourse, accountability or compensation. There are other more suitable locations in the community for Home Depot to establish its business. There are other more suitable business opportunities for this parcel which would result in less economic and aesthetic harm to the community. Ms. Mills said they realize that the land is zoned commercial. In all probability, the owner can develop this site without having a building of this magnitude stuck in between two residential neighborhoods. He said the Board has the legal and moral authority to balance commercial and residential interests and to enforce critical slope restrictions in order to protect the natural environment and aesthetic advantages of the community. Few people in their communities understand the regulations about critical slopes. They have tried to educate people, and these people are becoming more aware of why such an important regulation exists. The Engineering Department of Albemarle County understands why careful consideration must be given to protecting the natural resources, and that is why the regulation is in place. Mr. Mills said that in a telephone conversation, Mr. Bowerman said to him that the real dilemma may be that the stream and slope regulation is out of date. Well, it is in place. Looking at the ~ap and the critical slOpe runoff, the slope and the stream run into their community. The Board's decision today will affect their community and their homes. It goes beyond just this development, and it will affect their 40 ATTACHMENT G Minutes, January 3, 2001 Home Depot at North Town Center Preliminary Site Plan Appeal (Page 9) PAGE 9 futures, The critical slope regulation was created to establish a definitive and sound protection for the people of Albemarle County and to protect its natural resources and its green space. The people in Woodbrook and Carrsbrook ask that the Board deny this request for an exception to County planning, The Commission said this clearly with a 6:1 vote in November. After all communications sent to the Board, if the Board has any questions about this site, they feel the decision should be deferred until it has more information. He suggests talking to people in these neighborhoods before deciding their future. As soon as something of this size is in place, the neighborhoods behind it will look like a "wood pile in a car lot." He said it has been mentioned that the critical slopes and stream cannot be seen from Route 29, but that is not important, .They do exist and have been there for a long time. They do not want their neighborhoods degraded financially or their quality of life degraded by a "big box" development of this size. He said there are other locations for this store. He offered to answer questions. Ms. Thomas said the applicant would be allowed a few minutes to respond to the statements made. Ms. Long said Home Depot has been meeting with people in both of the neighborhoods for months in an effort to hear concerns and suggestions and to accommodate their requests into the plans to the extent Possible. Originally, staff requested that the fence be added, and Home Depot agreed to the fence at the six-foot level. There were comments at the Commission meeting that eight feet would be more acceptable, and Home Depot is willing to do that. They would be willing to go even higher, but have been told by their engineers that this would require a larger foundation thus disturbing some of the trees in the buffer. There were concerns about noise and lighting, and they will comply with both the County's noise and lighting ordinances. There was a mention of donating some white pines to the neighbors on the Woodbrook side of the property so they could plant trees on their own property to supplement some of the buffer. Home Depot also agreed to do that. There are some concerns that they will not be able to accommodate to the neighbor's satisfaction. There was a comment about stormwater runoff, but their plans meet the stringent engineering requirements of the County. The last issue was the visibility of critical slopes from the Entrance Corridor. She said her reference to that was the issue of the aesthetic resource, which goes to the issue stated in Section 4.2. Ms. Long said she would appreciate the Board's consideration of this request. Mr. Bowerman said his name was mentioned, and the property does lie in the Rio District. His comments to Mr. Mills were based on the fact that the County is trying to get in-fill in the growth areas to a denser degree. It indicates that some of the County's requirements are outdated. In this particular case, he does not believe that applies. Assuming that this is a by-right use, then he believes the applicants have worked diligently with neighborhoods to mitigate the impact of the development to the extent that County ordinances require. The key to him is that there is a perennial stream in that critical slope area although it is not identified on the Critical Resources Plan. Since it does exist, and the Commission indicated that it should be shown on the site plan, and with the comments of the Corps of Engineers, it does become a critical resource. Everyone has to look at whether a waiver meets the conditions outlined in Section 4.2.5.2. He said there have been a couple of cases before the Board where critical slope provisions were waived because without the waiver, development of the site would have been denied. In this case, he does not think that is the case. With the perennial steam in place, and with it being a critical resource; although not identified, once it was identified by the Commission, he believes the Commission was right in their determination that they should not grant the critical slope waiver request for the reasons they outlined. He thinks it is critical that this Board recognize that the site is developable. A key element is the fact that the stream does exist and it should be identified and he thinks it furthers the public good to have it identified and to have it respected. It is his feeling that the Board should uphold the Co~mission's recommendation of denial for the reasons they stated. He said he would defer to Mr. Davis to make sure he has articulated properly the reason for a denial; he does not think the Board should take any action 41 ATTACHMENT G PAGE 10 Minutes, January 3, 2001 Home Depot at North Town Center Preliminary Site Plan Appeal (Page 10) today. Mr. Martin asked if this is the same kind of stream that was identified with the Northern Elementary School where staff used the rules in place to define the stream as not being perennial because under the current rules it is not. Mr. Bowerman said he can't speak to that issue. He knows it was important enough to have a connection into that neighborhood that the Board allowed the critical slope waiver in that case. Mr. Tucker said it might be helpful if the Engineering staff explained their thinking on this issue. Mr. Bowerman said he understands waivers are often given by the Commission and the Board but each case is specific. Mr. Martin said he is not talking about the critical slopes waiver itself. He is talking about Mr. Bowerman's rationale in terms of the perennial stream. He said it was brought up by the same Commission during discussion of the Northern Elementary School, and they were defining the perennial stream using definitions that are not on the books in this county. He did not like it then, and he wants to be sure the Board is not doing the same thing here. Mr. Bowerman said this is truly a perennial stream, it just was not identified on that map. Mr. Perkins said. there must be some basis for making that determination. He has stated before that topographic maps are used and if a solid blue line is shown on that map, it is a perennial stream. If a broken blue line is shown, it is an intermittent stream. Mr. Bowerman said he knows for sure that it is a solid blue line. Mr. Perkins disagreed. He said if it is, he believes the Engineering staff would have recognized that line. He said it is a real judgement call to say it is a perennial stream. He said the County needs to use the same basis all the time to determine if a stream is perennial. Mr. Bowerman said he agrees, but not all of the U.S.G.S. maps are up-to-date, and when one observes something, one cannot deny that. Mr. Martin said he will defer to staff because they are the experts. Mr. Dorrier said "perennial" means a constantly flowing stream. When he went out to visit the site, he was not convinced that it is a perennial stream because he did not see a cons[ant flow. It appeared to him to be a small stream1 at best, and if it was flowing, it was flowing into a holding pond. Mr. Bowerman said there are two ponds which are filled by that stream on a regular basis, and he has never seen those two ponds down. Mr. Dorrier said it appeared to be more like a creek than a stream. Mr. Bill Mawyer. Director of Engineering, said there seems to be confusion as to what constitutes a perennial stream. The confusion comes from the literal meaning of "flowing all the time." Biologists sometimes have an answer which is different from the definition in the County's ordinance, which defines the standard as being the U.S.G.S. map. They defined which are perennial streams and which are intermittent. All of the streams on this site have been defined by the U.S.G.S. as being intermittent. They are not perennial, and they are not protected by the buffer requirement of the County's Watershed Protection Ordinance. Ms. Thomas asked if they have not been found by the Army Corps of Engineers to be in a category which they regard as Waters of the U.S. Mr. Mawyer said that is correct. Mr. Martin said the Boarcl is on "a slippery slope." He is not just talking about this project. If the County has a way to define something, the County must use that way. In the case of the elementary school, the School Board and the Planning staff both followed the rules in deciding what that stream was. It was some of the Commissioners who wanted to redefine what is used to define a perennial stream. At that time, he said that is not the way he plays the game. 42 ATTACHMENT G PAGE 11 Minu~tes, January 3, 2001 Home Depot at North Town Center Preliminary Site Plan Appeal (Page 11 ) Ms. Thomas asked staff to clarify that the action taken by the Commission was not based on a determination by them or anybody else that this is a perennial stream. They discussed that during their meeting, but they did not make a contrary finding to the Engineering Department who said this is not a perennial stream. Mr. Cilimberg said they identified it as being perennial in a literal sense, but also recognized that it is a broken line on the U.S.G.S., so is not subject to the County's Watershed Ordinance provisions. Ms Humphris said in all of the input she received, to the benefit of the applicant, she did not get a tremendous influx of negative comments based on the fact that this was for a Home Depot store. In fact, there were a lot of comments about the store, and, in a sense, a warm welcome if the Home Depot were to go anywhere else but on this site. This was much contrary to the comments the Board received about the proposed "big box" on Fifth Street. When she read all of the material supplied to the Board from staff, the Commission, and the public on this request, she turned to the County Code to make her own interpretation (as a lay person). She was quite disappointed to find that part of Section 4.2.5, Modification of Regulations, had not been included in the Board's materials. Her reading of this was that the Board has the critical slopes provisions in the Code to protect and conserve steep hillsides together with the public drinking water supplies, etc.; to prevent excessive stormwater runoff; siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water; loss of aesthetic resource; and, these critical slope provisions are to direct building into terrains which are more suitable than might be found on some critical slopes. From there, moving to 4.2.5 which provides for the Commission to modify critical slope regulations, she found that her interpretation of 4.2.5.2. a, b, and c, was exactly in the reverse to those of the Home Depot representative. She agrees . with the Commission that they could not waive these provisions. She did not find that granting the waiver would serve a public purpose which is Of greater import than would be provided by the strict application of the ordinance. She agrees with Mr. Bowerman that the Commission was correct in not granting the critical slopes waiver, and she will support their decision. Mr: Dorrier said he looked at it a little differently. He went out to the site, examined it, and looked at the traffic flows. Admittedly, there are homes in the area which border the site. This site is designed for highway commercial. The site has been zoned that way for years. The site, admittedly, is problematic because it has a gully running through it, and the stream or creek, whatever it is called, running through it. The stream comes under Route 29, comes by Lowe's, and Lowe's was built over or near the stream, and it was protected. He looked at the engineering report and it appears that the engineers, who are the professionals dealing with grading and runoff feel confident that this can be dealt with in a way that protects both the stream and the residents in the area. Going through the conditions which must be met, to him it appears that from an engineering standpoint, the waiver can be justified. That appears to be the major reason the Commission denied the application. As he feels the waiver can be justified, he plans on supporting the applicant in this request. He is not willing to deny the waiver based on a definition of a stream whether it is perennial, intermittent or otherwise. He does not think that definition aspect would be upheld in the courtroom. Mr. Martin said he feels as Mr. Dorrier does. He realizes the homeowners are opposed to this application, realizes why, and does not disagree with them. However, the Board has been trying to target growth into the growth area. This proposal is in a growth area; it is a by-right request. It is the goal of the Board to protect the Rural Areas and the beauty of the County, noted by many on a survey as being the most important issue in the County. The Board often has to deny requests for things in the Rural Areas, so has to be willing to approve requests in the growth areas. It can't be both ways. He said the Board has competent staff people who he knows and trusts who have said that this request complies with ordinances. For this Board to say it does not, the Board members would need to be professionals and 'know more than staff. When he looks at some of the decisions which have been made and which this 43 ATTACHMENT G PAGE '12 Minutes, January 3, 2001 Home Depot at North Town Center Preliminary Site Plan Appeal (Page 12) Board reversed, he had to decide whether or not to be sued, whether or not staff is competent and made a legitimate decision, or whether or not this group of lay people know more than staff in terms of whether the requests meet the definitions. When people call him on the telephone and ask for his interpretation, he says he must call staff because they have the facts. He said staff is supposed to be giving just the facts, not politics or any outside issues. He trusts them to do that. Mr. Bowerman said he is not saying they did not follow to the letter the requirements of the review. He is saying that the facts differ from what is on the paper, and because of that he cannot accept that. He will say, although it is not germane to this discussion, that Home Depot is a regional use and he knows of no other regional uses sandwiched between two residential neighborhoods like this. This is a unique case. Ms. Humphris said it is a fact that the runoff will increase from about 35 percent to 85 percent on the neighboring properties because of the addition of impervious surface. Even though the siltation in that runoff will be contained to some extent, there is only so much that can be done. Only about 65 percent of the siltation is able to be contained. No matter what the engineers do, the downstream neighbors are going to be negatively affected. Mr. Dorrier said he thought the engineering staff told the Board that holding ponds for runoff would be sufficient to prevent that. Mr. Perkins said that is what the County's regulations require. Ms. Humphris said the total amount of water that will move from that site onto the neighbors will be two and one-half times what it is now. Ms. ThOmas said the pre:development rate haS to be the same, and will be the same with this proposal. They will have a holding pond, a standpipe with holes in it, so that the rate going out cannot be greater than the rate a two- or ten-year storm would have been from this site. But, the amount of water that will go out at the peak flow will be steady. She thinks that has been confusing to some people, and is why people can state that it is exactly the same, and other say it is two and one-half times more. An impervious surface does not allow any of it to settle in, so that is the difference between the quantity of water that will go out. The peak flow cannot be any greater than it was before development. Mr. Dorrier asked if Ms. Thomas is saying that because of the amount of blacktop on the site, it is not a critical slopes issue, but a blacktop issue. If'that is the case, why does the County allow development by-right on a highway commercial parcel of land that allows blacktop. Mr. Bowerman said he is limiting his thinking on this to the issue of the critical slopes and its relationship to the stream. Mr. Perkins said the County's rules and regulations have been developed and put into place over a number of years. The owner and Home Depet have looked at the site, and they think that using existing ordinances, the site can be developed. They have proceeded with their planning and staff has said they do meet all of the County's requirements. He thinks that if the site plan is denied, the County will end up in court. Ms. Humphris said if that does occur, would it not be better to know now that there is a prOblem with the ordinance that needs to be corrected. Mr. Martin said he has always taught his children to play by the rules. Ms. Humphris said she believes the Board is playing by the rules. 44 ATTACHMENT G PAGE 13 Minutes, January 3, 2001 Home Depot at North Town Center Preliminary Site Plan Appeal (Page 13) Ms. Thomas said she does not sense that any Board member is changing their mind. There can be a motion if the Board so desires. Mr. Davis said there are some legal issues the Board needs to be apprised of. Since the time is late, he suggests that the Board go into closed session so he can brief the Board on the legal issues, and the Board can take action when it returns from lunch. Agenda Item No. 22. Closed Session: Personnel Matters. At 12:40 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board go into Closed Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(a) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards and commissions, and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff to obtain legal advice regarding probable litigation relating to a site plan. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 23. Certify. Closed Session. At 2:27 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session. The motion waS seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Ms. Humphris. Return to Agenda Item No. 18. SDP-00-119, Home Depot at North Town Center, Preliminary Site Plan Appeal. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Martin, to defer the appeal of SDP-00-119 until February 7, 2001, to allow staff time to develop conditions for approval of the critical slopes waiver and the site plan which are acceptable to the Board of Supervisors so as to allow approval of this development with appropriate conditions. (Note: Ms. Humphris returned to the meeting at 2:29 p.m.) Ms. Thomas asked for some discussion about items that should be included in any negotiations. Mr. Bowerman said t'Je is in a position that he will be voting against the deferral. He would like to 45 ATTACHMENT G PAGE 14 Minutes, January 3, 2001 Home Depot at North Town Center Preliminary Site Plan Appeal (Page 14) see larger buffers included. He thinks there was.discussion by the applicant that they may be willing to' dredge a couple of ponds which are filling up, Also discussed was an allowance for better bus service or better pedestrian access. There was a question about the out-parcel and its use. He thinks that if this proposal is to go forward, the buffer should be increased to acknowledge the intense use on this site adjacent to the two residential communities. Ms. Thomas said she thinks that Mr. Bowerman has mentioned most items, at least in general terms. This is, in essence, an attempt to be mindful of what the Board is trying to protect and yet allow the applicant an opportunity to make this development fit this site. They have been willing to work in that direction, There is the possibility that it can be worked out~ Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms, Thomas could explain to the public the process from this point. Ms. Thomas said the staff is going to develop some additional conditions and get these agreed to by the Commission It will not be a total referral back to the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said staff will talk to the applicant first and develop those conditions, then go to the Commission to let them see what has been developed, and obtain their acceptance. Ms. Thomas said this is in recognition of the Board's split situation which the Board would rather have an agreement on, if possible, and hold out hope that there is a way to meet more of the goals of the people involved. This also recognizes the fact that the applicant has been willing, up to this point, to work with staff within existing regulations. Mr. Martin said the Board talked a lot prior to going into closed session as to how the individual Board members feel. The Board is not deferring, but moving forward based on the rules as they have applied to this point, and with the cooperation of the owners and applicants. Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: Mr. Bowerman. 46 January 24, 2000 Darren Pace Political Chair, Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club 627 Hinton Ave. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Sally Thomas Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Rd Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Thomas, On behalf of the members of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club I would like to voice our concerns and reservations regarding the propOsed Home Depot store on Rt. 29 North. Some of our concerns are similar to those of the County Planning Commission which already voted against the Home Depot Site Plan. The negative effects of building on this site include increased run-off and contamination of streams and ponds downstream and of the Rivanna itself due to the construction process and subsequent large paved parking lot. The construction of the Home Depot could even destroy the stream or wetlands on site altogether. We are also concerned about the general effects of sprawl in the area. The site is currently one of the last stands of trees in this commercialized section of road. The roads may also not be able to handle the increased traffic, and many even question whether we actually need another large store when a similar store exists across the road. The Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club would like to encourage you to consider these and other possible negative side effects when you return to the Home Depot Site Plan decision. We believe there are more suitable urban areas of town that could be redeveloped with fewer environmental costs than this site. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Darren Pace , Political Chair Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club Date: January 25, 2001 From: Professor Ash Gobar 220 Carrsbrook Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 To: Mr. Charles Martin This is in reply to your recent statements. It is reassuring Mr. Martin that you respect an argument based on logic rather than other considerations. Therefore you should appreciate this logical question: By what moral / legal right can you endorse a building proposal which admittedly (as admitted by the applicant repeatedly) w///nortake 100% responsibility for the 100% damaging consequences? You invoke the word "mitigate" -- that they will "mitigate" the circumstances of the critical slope -- but the word "mitigate" remains ambiguous: the wording of Home Depot implies something less than 100%, and your wording implies a satisfactory 100%. The discrepancy remains: and this discrepancy renders your argument invalid logically. You face the dilemma therefore: either you must require Home Depot to take 100% responsibility or you must admit that something less than 100% responsibility is acceptable. In the latter case you must face the question: Who should bear the burden of the discrepancy? If you insist that our Community, rather than the Big Corporation, should bear the burden of theirdeed (by slavishly accepting a deterioration in our environmental quality and quality of life) then your position is both illogical and morally questionable. All this follows from your unwarranted premise, that a "special case" has no place in legal ordinance. The wording of the Albemarle ordinance itself allows for an enlightened consideration of "special cases" in the interest of the good of the whole. Ironically, you fail to defend our Community, in this case, because you fail to see the logic of the case. Cc: David Bowerman Charlotte Humphris Sally Thomas Mr. Dorder Mr. Perkins BOARD OF SUPER¥ISORS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Henry L. Burton 'The Burton House" 103 Indian Spring Road Charlo t tesville, Virginia 22901 Telephone-(804) 9 73-3456 , _ ~ --~- ~",, ....... o/too 0~00~-~,~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-$823 January 18,2001 J. Randall Royal Engineering Services, inc 3351 Stoneshore Road Virginia Beach, VA 23452 RE: SDP-00-119 Home Depot at North Town Center Preliminary Site Plan Appeal Tax Map 45, Parcels 110, 110A, 111,111, 111B Dear Mr. Royal: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on January 3, 2001, unanimously deferred the above-noted petition to its February 7, 2001 meeting. The Board deferred this in order to allow staff time to develop conditions of approval of the critical slopes waiver request and the site plan that would be acceptable to the Board so as to allow approval of the development. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, V. Wayne Cilimberg / / Director of Planning & Co~evelopment VWC/jcf Cc: Ella Carey dsrooker@sprintmail, 12:01 AM 1/30/01 , Home Depot Fires and Toxic Che To: dsrooker@sprintmail.com, rodneychvlpress@aol.com, tchopp@juno.com, wdr@rieleyandassociates.com, suecradd@aol.com, eiimbill@aol.com, cjl@virginia.edu From: kawelch@esinet.net Subject: Home Depot Fires and Toxic Chemical Releases Cc: Bcc: Attached: C:\My Documents\Parents\Reports of Home Depot Fires and Toxic Chemical Releases.doc; >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:58:03 -0500 >To: bowerman@cstone.net, chumphri@albemarle.org, WriteinSal@aol.com, cmartin@albemarle.org, Idorrier@albemarle.org, wperkins2@albemarle.org, wcilimb@albemarle.org, jfarrar@albemarle.org, mdavisO2@albema~e.org ' >From: kawelch@esinet.net >Subject: Home Depot Fires and Toxic Chemical Releases >Cc: RWJWLADY1 @cs.com, Anne1919@aol.com, WLAFtrPIt@aol .com, BOBARMS@cstone. net, pondside@cstone.net, beckens@darden.gbus.virginia.edu, cpb6f@virginia.edu, aklOO@cotumbia.edu, rgcanar@esinet.net, Lch9h@virginia.edu, Jrctokens@aol.com, tjcc25@yahoo.com, jwc9e@virginia.edu, edenham@cstone.net, TFelger346@aol.com, GOVAPl@aol.com, egillasp@pen.k12.va.us, agobar@mindspring.com, Regbng@aol.com, ahastoglis@compuser~e.com, RHLEAR@ibm.net, tel@virginia.edu, coolkid138@juno.com, Npm953@aol.com, MOOREJ1923@cs.com, RAY_C_MUELLER@csi.com, PMuller123@aol.com, Robuy@aol.com, Farice135@aol.com, dfr@unix.mail.virginia.edu, rushia@cstone.net, ps5x@virginia.edu, RES@odpo:com, Cassiedarb@aol.com, KBTAYLOR@mwbb.com, jcrteague@juno.com, Frankncts@aol.com, atroelstra@yahoo.com, elt9w@unix.mait.virginia.edu, Topgun:lO38@aol.com, wolcott@cstone.net, ECAGLEY@earthlink.net, RWJWLADYi@cs.com, Betben31@aol.com, Scrawtit@aol.com, RWRowley2@aot.com, Ioisrochester@hotmail.com, kidbones@cstone.net, jkardan@cstone.net, Iwv@avenue.org, Fieldmaus@aol.com, 70302.16@compuserve.com, deirdrels@cstone.net, mills4@mindspring.com, pericac@cstone.net, Voltz4548@aol.com, kawelch@esinet, net, kcg2m@cs.virginia.edu, CharlTuna@aol.com, kropf@esinet.net, saw@thunder, swa.com, sbd4m@virginia.edu, AmyBobst@aol.com, jgallagh@us.ibm.com >X-Attachments: C:\My Documents\Parents\Reports of Home Depot Fires and Toxic Chemical Releases.doc; >1 n-RePly-To: <b5.65f27e9.27a72367@cs.com> > >To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors; Albemarle County Planning Commission; Albemarle County Attorney >From: Lee Freudberg and Katharine Welch > 2924 Idlewood Drive > Charlottesville, VA 22901 > Tel: (804) 974-1739 > email: kawelch@esinet.net >Date: January 29, 2001 > >Attached and also copied into the body of this message below are extremely alarming reports posted on the website for sprawl-busters.com of toxic spills and fires which have occurred in Home Depot stores. We have also independently obtained two "Emergency Response Notification System "(ERNS) reports, required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), concerning the fire which occurred in the Home Depot in Quincy, MA, in May, 1995. >Please take particular note that the site proposed for locating and storing these toxic, caustic, combustable industrial chemicals and compounds is approximately only 1000 feet from the Woodbrook Elementary School. The potential danger posed by this business thus extends not only to the families living in the adjoining neighborhoods, but also to the children, teachers and support staff of the school who commute or who are bussed in daily from a much wider area of our community. dsrooker@sprintmail, 12:01 AM 1/30/01 , Home Depot Fires and Toxic Che >Thank you for your attention and consideration. The reports follow below. > Lee Freudberg and Katharine Welch >REPORTS OF HOME DEPOT FIRES AND TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASES: >1. "Date: March 12. 2000 >Location: Atlanta, GA. Home Depot's Hazardous Spills >Breaking News Flash: Accidents will happen, and when your business is storing thousands of gallons ol hazardous materials, accidents can be serious. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency keeps tabs on reports called "Emergency Response Notification System" (ERNS) made to the National Resource Center. The EPA has Home Depot listed for 8 hazardous spills between 1992 and 1997. Several are minor in nature, but among the Home Depot spills are the following: 1) An employee at a Home Depot store in San Diego, CA in March of 1992 threw 287 lbs. of hyrochloric acid into a dumpster; 2) in January of 1994 in Los Angeles,CA, a pallet of pool acid fell over, releasing 495 lbs. of muriatic acid; 3) in Signal Hill. CA in November of 1994, there were 20 injuries at a Home Depot caused by inhalation exposure from smoke. 1.000 gallons of muriatic acid were released during a hazardous fire in the garden section of the store: 4) in West Quincy, MA in May of 1995, a multi-million toxic fire injured 16 firefighters due to contact with chemicals. Chlorine and pesticides were involved in the fire .... You won't find any of these reports in Home Depot TV ads, but the risk of careless handling of toxic materials is real. Spills happen." >11. "Fire Danger at HD: Clouds of Hazardous Smoke >Communities considering a Home Depot application need to seriously examine their fire-fighting capacity. In May, 1995. a fire broke out at the Home Depot in Quincy, MA. The >Patriot Ledger described the fire this way: > "Burning stacks of fertilizer, pool chemicals and plastic lawn furniture at Home Depot created billowing clouds of toxic smoke that sent dozens of firefighters to local hospitals last night... The fire created a toxic mix of hydrogen chloride and other gases...Every firefighter who went into the building was washed down at a decontamination station in the parking Iot...two school buses and 15 ambulances were called to take firefighters and police officers to hospitals." The smoke was considered hazardous enough to call the 26 members of the regional hazardous materials team. The firefighters were fighting chemicals that could have caused burns on exposed skin. The crush of customers in the parking lot hindered the arrival of fire engines and ambulances." According to reports, because of the way HD stacks its merchandise, much of the material continued to burn because water could not reach it. "You had about a minute to get out of the store--it happened that fast, "said the Quincy Wiring Inspector, who said it was a matter of seconds before the heavy, thick smoke spread through the store. "1 would say that anybody that lingered more than a minute wouldn't have got out," said the Inspector. >City Council President Mike Cheney said he was worried about the smoke danger. "It's scary, because you know there are a lot of chemicals in there. There was a blanket of smoke rolling through the neighborhood." "People were panicing," said a HD cashier. "What would you expect? The building was on fire." >111. "Date: February 27, 2000 > Location: Merrimack, NH. Home Depot's Hazardous > Waste Tub Printed for.kaWelch@esinet'net ' 2 dsrooker@sprintmail, 12:01 AM 1/30/01 , Home Depot Fires and Toxic Che >Breaking News Flash: Residents in the small town of Merrimack, New Hampshire have good reason t¢ feel like they got taken for a bath. Last March, the town's Planning Board approved a Home Depot project on undeveloped land that happens to sit on top of the town's acquifer. In approving the store, the Board came up with 2 conditions on the project, including one provision that calls for Home Depot to build concrete floors that are impervious to contaminents, plus a containment berm at least six inches high around the store, to keep hazardous materials inside the Depot from mixing with the town's nearby water supPf~,i Home Depot accepted these conditions, but now says they can't comply with the berm around the store, according to the Merrimack Telegraph newspaper. The berm would interfere with the store's handicapped access, Home Depot says. Instead, Home Depot has proposed that the company build a 276,000 gallon "large, sloping bathtub" inside the store, and a containment facility in the truck pit area.. Local residents who attended the Home Depot hearing, felt the company was not coming clean with this unusual proposal for an enormous sloping containment "bathtub". "You should hold them stringently to those conditions," said one angry resident. "If they can't meet them, tough luck." Another resident added: "You have a responsibility for the drinking water in this town. I don't really think you know how importanl the drinking water is." Late in the evening, after more than an hour of debate, the Planning Board voted to have their town engineer review Home Depot's plans. Residents told Sprawl-Busters that the agenda item was not even listed on the meeting notice, and they were tipped off to go to the meeting. The Planning Board opened the meeting up to resident's comments after it seemed apparent that the issue of hazardous materials was not getting enough emphasis from the Board." > >What You Can Do: A 276,000 bathtub to hold a hazardous materials spill inside the store? Many Planning Boards do not know that Home Depot has had two major fires in its facilities, in Tempe, Arizona, and Quincy, Massachusetts. Both were multi-million fires and involved hazardous materials. (see Home Towns, not Home Depot article). Local communities are becoming increasingly concerned about retail stores that have in stock large supplies of 'hazardous materials, especially when such stores are proposed in watershed protection areas or acquifers." > >END OF REPORTS. printed for kaWelCh@eSinet~et ....... 3 http://www.mapblast.com/myblast/mPr...BR%3E&PW=600&PH=400&bw.x=89&bw.y=73 j-~ MAPBLAST! Everyone needs o little direction in li~e 100 Woodbrook Dr Charlottesville, VA 22901-1147 [ Icon Latitude: 38.0875861' Longitude: -78.466584 ] 1 of 1 1/30/01 l:43 PM 3 of 100 DOCI/MENTS Copyright 1999 VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. ERNS: EmerHency Response Notification System VISTA-NO: 200379727 REPORT-NO: 292693 REPORT-DATE: May, 1995 22:51 HOME DEPOT WILLARD ST A DJ 1-93 NORTH WEST QUINCY, MA COUNTY: NORFOLK ID-NUMBER: '000440786 FACILITY-TYPE: PRIVATE ENTERPRISE CALLER INFORMATION: THE CALLER IS NOT THE SPILLER SPILL INFORMATION: DATE OF SPILL: May 23, 1995, 20:23 SPILL-TYPE: OTHER MATL-SPILLEDI: CHLORINE CHRIS-CODEI: CLX U1FDOTI: LIN1017 CASI: 0892351794 QTY-SPILLEDI: 00000001.00 UNK QTY-IN-LBSI: 0000000000.00 QTY-IN-WATERi: 0000001.00 UNK MATL-SPILLED2: PESTICIDE CHRIS-CODE2: NCC CAS2: 0538976288 QT¥-SPILLED2: 00000001.00 LTNK QTY-/-N-LBS2: 0000000000.00 QTY-IN-WATER2:0000001.00 UNK TANK- CAPAC~: DDD.OODO0 TRANS PORT-~OI1E: FIX.ED FrED IUM- AFFECTED: 'WATER WATERWAY: STOP. M~DRAIlq~C O. VIC W CAUSE: OPER3tTOR ER!ROR DESCRIPTION: AID T3%KE N TO HOSPITAL-LTN/fNOWN NO. OF EVACS AND LOCAL ROADS CLOSED THERE WERE 16 ImI~G]ETERS !NJITRED, AS A RESULT OF CONTACT WITH CHEM. AIDE LEAKED AS A ltESLTLT OF FTRE//CAUSE OF FIRE UNDER INVESTIGATION STORE FIVE ALARM FIRE AT STOt%E~/~OOL '.~'U~PI~IES DEPT//CJ=LLORINE AND PESTIC INJURIES: 016 DEATHS: 000 EVACUATION: NO DAMAGES: NO EPA-REGION: 01 ACTION: VE ALARM RESPONSE//AREA AROUND INCIDENT IS ISOLATED PIAZMAT TEAM FROM BOSTON FIRE DEPT AND LOCAL RESPONSE CREWS ON SCENE FI SPILL LOCATION INFORMATION: WILLARD ST ADJ 1-93 NORTH WEST QUINCY, MA 02169 COUNTY: NORFOLK NOTIFICATION: EPA NOTIFIED/UNKNOWN AGENCY NOTIFIED REPORT INFORMATION: DUTY-OFFICER: TUCKER ENTRY-DATE: June 06, 1995 AGENCY: MSIS 4 of 100 DOCUMENTS Copyright 1999 VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System VISTA-NO: 200378G64 REPORT-NO: 292693 REPORT-DATE: May, 1995 22:51 HOME DEPOT WILLARD ST ADJ 1-93 NORTH WEST QUINCY, MA ID-NLTMBER: 000437925 FACILITY-TY~E: PRIVATE ENTERPRISE CALLER INFORMATION: CALLER-NOTIFIED: MA DEP, LOCAL FIRE AND POLIC THE CALLER IS THE SPILLER SPILL INFORF~ATION: DATE OF SPILL: May 23, 1995, 20:23 SPILL-TYPE: DISCOVERED MATL-SPILLEDI: CHLORINE CHRIS-CODEI: CLX QTY-SPILLEDI: 00000000.00 UNK QTY-IN-LBSI: 0000000000.00 QTY-IN-WATERI: 0000000.00 UNK MATL-SPILLED2: PESTICIDE CHRIS-CODE2: NCC QTY-SPILLED2: 00000000.00 UNK QTY-IN-LBS2: 0000000000.00 QTY-IN-WATER2: 0000000.00 UNK TRANSPORT-MODE: FIXED MEDIUM-AFFECTED: WATER WATERWAY: STORM DRAIN>ATLANTIC O. VIC WOLASTON BC DESCRIPTION: ND TAKEN TO HOSPITAL-UNKNOWN NO. OF EVACS AlqD LOCAL ROADS CLOSED THERE WERE 16-Ft~EFI~HTERS INJURED, AS A RESULT OF CONTACT WITH CHEM. AAKED AS A RESULT OF ~/]tE//CAUSE OF FIRE LrNDER INVESTIGATION FIVE ALARM FIRE AT STORE//POOL SUPPLIES IIEPT//CHLORI1FE AND PESTICIDE LE INJURIES: EVACUATION: NO DAM_AGES: NO PROP-DAMAGES= 0D0000D000 EPA-REGION: ACTION: E AI~"~EEPO/~E//~REA~ARO~ INCIDET~T IS ISOLATEDPIAZM-AT TEAM FROM BOSTON FIRE D~TltND LOCAL RESPONSE CREWS ON SCENE FIV SPILL LOCATIOE''l/~FOPJ4ATION: WILLARD ST AD-J-I-93 NOR'TH WEST QUINCY, 9IA 'D2169 COUNTY: NORFOLK NOTIFICATION: EPA NOTIFIED;STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES NOTIFIED;FEMA NOTIFIED;BOSMS REPORT INFORMATION: DUTY-OFFICER: MAL ENTRY-DATE: May 24, 1995 CHANGE-DATE: June 06, 1995 EPA NOTIFIED AT 23:16. USCG NOTIFIED AT 23:12. OTHER AGENCY NOTIFIED AT 23:12. Conditions Recommended by the Planning Commission, Including Revisions Suggested by Home Depot Accepted by the Planning Commission Critical Slopes Waiver Conditions: Remove the "slip ramp" from the site plan to provide space to accommodate a biofilter or series of bio filters approved by the Engineering Department in the front (west) parking lot with a total bottom area of no less than 3500 square feet for adequate water quality treatment. [CSW 1] [Note: At the request of the Engineering Department, the Planning Commission did not accept the changes suggested by Home Depot. The Engineering Department stated that the slip ramp prevented the applicant from assuring that there would be an adequate area to install the required biofilters, and raised concerns regarding safe and convenient access, for both vehicles and pedestrians. To address the safe and convenient access concerns as a site plan issue, this condition is repeated in a different form' in Site Plan Condition 23. This is the only condition in which the Engineering Department asked the Planning Commission to not accept the changes suggested by Home Depot.] Provide a dry detention basin on the Home Depot site, subject to the following: a. The basin shall include a large biofilter along the bottom. [CSW 2] b. The basin shall be designed to store runoff from the 1-year 24-hour storm event (or equivalent), as well as runoff from the 2- and 1 O-year storm events. [Albemarle County Code § 17-314(D)]. [CSW 4] c. If adequate volume cannot be reasonably achieved in the basin, the adequate channel and water detention requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance shall be addressed by an underground detention pipe and/or a pervious pavement system (including stone reservoir and underdrain system) for parking bays most remote from the building approved by the Engineering Department. [CSW 3] d. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department that the detention system or systems required by this condition will satisfy the requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance. [CSW 4] e. The basin shall be landscaped, and the landscaping shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Board if the basin is visible from the Entrance Corridor. [Note: The Planning Commission accepted the changes to subsections (d) and (e) suggested by Home Depot. ] All biofilters required by Conditions 1 and 2 shall be designed to standards in the County's Interim Design Manual and Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook unless otherwise approved by the Engineering Department, with final design to be approved by the Engineering Department. [CSW 2] [Note: The Planning Commission accepted the change suggested by Home Depot. ] The applicant shall dredge and repair the stream below the site and the first downstream pond, subject to the following: All dredging and repair work shall be shown on the applicant's erosion and sediment control plan. The applicant shall submit a letter of permission to the Engineering Department before the start of any dredging or repair work. If the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department that it does not have permission to access the property necessary to perform Conditions 4(a) and (b) prior to engaging in land disturbing activity on the site, it shall submit for review and approval by the Engineering Department plans to address erosion and stormwater impacts that would have been mitigated by Conditions 4(a) and (b). The applicant shall not engage in any land disturbing activity on the site unless it first demonstrates to the Engineering Department that it has obtained the permission required by Condition 4(b), or has obtained approval of the plan submitted under Condition 4(c). [CSW 9] In addition to all other erosion and sediment control measures that may be required by the Water Protection Ordinance, the applicant shall provide erosion and sediment control measures to assure, to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department, that it is providing high levels of effectiveness in controlling sediment during construction. These measures shall include, but not be limited to: a. A construction schedule that minimizes the duration of disturbance (e.g., phasing of the erosion and sediment control plan). b. Using high efficiency sediment basins designed to include the use of flocculants. c. Matting exposed slopes as determined appropriate by the Engineering Department. d. The contractor shall have a certified Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Inspector on the site throughout the period during which the site is under construction. The Inspector shall maintain a daily erosion and sediment control inspection log demonstrating that erosion and sediment control measures are being closely monitored and deficiencies are being quickly repaired. The Inspector shall assure that all control measures are being maintained in optimal condition. The log shall be made available for inspection by the Engineering Department at any time during regular business hours. If determined to be necessary_ by the Engineering Department, the surety required by Albemarle County Code .{ 17-207 shall include an amount determined by the Engineerin~ Department to be reasonably necessary to take corrective action to repair or restore downstream properties damaged during construction by runoff or sediment. [CSW 10] [Note: The Planning Commission accepted the changes to subsection (d) suggested by Home Depot. The Commission recommends that subsection (e) be added.. The Commission asks the Board to be aware of Critical Slope Waiver Condition 11 in the Executive Summary, which is not included as a recommended condition because it imposes no obligation on the applicant. That condition stated: "If during construction damage is caused to downstream properties, the Engineering Department can require corrective action under E&SC law. This is independent of the other E&SC conditions presented here. "Both the Engineering Department and affected owners may require corrective action under Albemarle County Code ~ 17-214 and 17-215. The 2 Commission recommends that, if there is evidence of damage to downstream properties during construction, the Engineering Department shall require corrective action.] The parking areas shall be paved with pervious areas to the maximum extent practical as determined by the Planning Department and the Engineering Department. [Note: The Planning Commission recommends that this condition be added in order to reduce increased runoff that would otherwise occur because critical slopes will be covered by impervious surfaces, rather than remain undisturbed without the waiver. The Planning Department will determine the appropriate amount of pervious area to be paved by considering peak and off-peak parking volume and other factors. The Engineering Department will determine the appropriate paving materials to satisfy this condition.] In order to reduce the impervious surface on the property, the building shall have a "green roof" technology approved by the Engineering Department providing for the installation and maintenance of a substantially landscaped rooftop. If the Engineering Department determines that a "green roof" technology is not practical, then this condition shall have no force or effect. [Note: The Planning Commission recommends that the applicant fully explore using a "green roof" technology as a strategy to reduce the volume and peak rate of runoff, and that the technology be installed unless the Engineering Department determines that it would not be practical for the building proposed. If the green roof technology is not practical for these purposes, it remains available as an option for the applicant to satisfy Site Plan Condition 16 (see Condition 16(d)] In addition to the design requirements for the dry detention basin set forth in Condition 2(b): a. Co The stormwater management plan shall include additional measures determined by the Engineering Department to be necessary in order to capture, to the maximum extent practical, the runoff from the site, both during and after construction. The stormwater management plan shall include measures to prevent, to the fullest extent possible, damaging conditions to downstream properties and receiving waterways from occurring as a result of the development of the site, both during and after construction. In order to allow the Engineering Department to develop appropriate measures to satisfy Conditions 8(a) and (b), the applicant shall submit data demonstratin~ the peak flow of runoff from the site and the peak flow of runoff coming onto the site. [Albemarle County Code § § 17-312, 17-314(D)] [Note: The Planning Commission recommends that this condition be added to assure that both the volume and the peak rate and velocity will be minimized as much as possible, both during and after construction.] Site Plan Conditions: The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until a tentative final approval for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be 1, [Note: 3. o signed until the following conditions have been met: Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project shown on the final site plan. [SP 1] Planning Department approval of the final landscape plan, consistent with final approval by the Architectural Review Board. In addition to any other landscape plan requirements set forth in Conditions 15 and 19 or otherwise required to satisfy Albemarle County Code 5 18-32.7.9, the final landscape plan shall show the following: a. The installation of landscaping along the borders of the outparcel. b. The installation of staggered rows of Red Oak trees between the Entrance Corridor and the southern retaining wall. c. The installation of oak trees along the entrance drive on the north side of the outparcel. [SP 2] The Planning Commission accepted the change suggested by Home Depot. ] Planning Department approval of a plat combining all of the parcels included in the Home Depot site. [SP 3] Planning Department approval of an easement providing the Albemarle County Service Authority with unobstructed access to the existing Woodbrook pump station. [SP 4] Virginia Department of Transportation approval of all construction activity within the public right-of-way. [SP 5] Virginia Department of Transportation approval of the proposed relocation or disturbance of the existing state-maintained permanent drainage easement and stormwater management facilities located on-site. [SP 6] The following items must be submitted with the final site plan for review and, in the case of required plans, approval, by the Engineering Department. [SP 7] a. An erosion and sediment control plan, narrative and computations. [Albemarle County Code 55 17-203, 18-32.7.4.3] b. A completed application and fee for erosion control and stormwater management. [Albemarle County Code 55 17-203, 17-303] c. A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. Computations must include water quality, and detention routings for the 1-year (24-hour), 2-year and 10-year storms. [Albemarle County Code 55 17-304; 17-314D] d. Copies of all state and federal permits required for impacts to waters of the U.S. completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee. [Albemarle County Code 5 17-323] e. Drainage computations. [Albemarle County Code 5 18-32.7.4, Policy] f. Retaining wall plans and computations certified by a professional engineer for walls over 5 feet in height. [Policy] 4 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Engineering Department and Virginia Department of Transportation approval of the southernmost entrance, including all signage, safety and traffic calming measures to be implemented. [SP 8] Zoning Department approval of all outdoor lighting to confirm compliance with Albemarle County Code § 18-4.17. [SP 9] Fire Official approval of fire lane locations. [SP 10] Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer construction drawings, and provision of easements to adjacent properties for possible extensions. [SP 11] Documentation of Army Corps of Engineers and Virginia Department of Environment Quality approval and permitting of any activity resulting in disturbance of the wetlands areas. [SP 12] The applicant shall install and maintain a solid screening fence between the site and all abutting residential properties as determined by the Planning Department, subject to the following: a. The fence shall be constructed of wood. b. The fence shall be 8 feet tall. [SP 20] c. Except for those parts of the fence that are visible from the entrance corridor as determined by the Architectural Review Board, the fence shall be constructed so that the posts face internally toward the site. [SP 21 ] d. No trees of 6 inches or greater in caliper shall be removed for the purpose of constructing the fence. [SP 14] The applicant shall provide documentation that the consent of each abutting property owner has been obtained in any areas where the fence will be located on the abutting property. [SP 13] The .applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the fence in a safe and suitable condition, including all parts of the fence installed on an abutting property. [SP 15] eo The site plan mUst list the conditions of approval for all waivers and modifications approved by the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors. [SP 16] New Site Plan Conditions: The applicant shall maintain an undisturbed buffer between the site and all abutting residential properties as determined by the Planning Department, subject to the following: a. The buffer along the southern side of the property abutting the residential properties within the Woodbrook subdivision shall be a width of 40 feet, [SP 17] b. In all other areas for which a buffer is required by Albemarle County Code § 18- 32.7.9.8, the buffer shall be a width of 20 feet. 5 do eo The limits of the buffer, including those parts of the site to which a 20-foot buffer is required, shall be clearly marked in the field for inspection and protected by construction fencing. [SP 19] Evergreen trees shall be installed and maintained by the applicant in areas within the buffer where existing landscaping does not provide sufficient screening. These areas shall be identified on the landscape plan to be submitted for final approval, and the Planning Department shall specify the species, size, spacing and location of the evergreen trees to be installed in its approval in order to achieve screening that is equivalent to a triple staggered row 15 feet on center, ~ 12 feet in height. [SP 18] Upon request of any owner of abutting residential property within the Woodbrook subdivision, the applicant shall provide white pine trees ~ between 5 and 12 feet in height as specified by the owner, for planting by the owner on his or her property, as determined by the Planning Department to be reasonably necessary. The applicant shall provide a bond or other surety in an amount determined to be necessary bv the Engineering Department to assure that the existing and planted landscaping in the buffer is maintained, and to replace any landscaping that dies durin~ construction or during the three-year period after a certificate of occupancy is issued. The bond or other surety shall be in a form approved by the County Attorney. The release of the bond or other surety shall not relieve the applicant of its obligation to maintain the screening required by this Condition 16 after the bond or surety is released. [Note: The Planning Commission accepted the change to subsection (e) suggested by Home Depot. The Commission also recommends that the height of the screening trees in the undisturbed buffer be at least !2feet in height (subsection (d)), and that trees provided by the applicant to homeowners be between 5 and 12feet in height to allow homeowners a range of sizes appropriate for their yard and screening needs. The Commission also recommends that subsection O0 be added to require a bond or other surety to assure that landscaping, particularly trees, in the buffer will be replaced The Commission recommends that the period the bond or other surety is in place extend three years after the completion of construction (measured from the date the certificate of occupancy is issued) because it may take that long for any damage to root systems occurring during construction to affect the landscaping. ] 16. The roof of the building shall be subject to the following: a. The roof, including all screening walls and other structures, architectural features, and mechanical equipment on the roof, shall be treated or painted in a uniform color approved bv the Planning Department. Only that part of a structure or architectural feature that is part of the exterior building fagade visible to any abutting residential property shall be treated and painted in the uniform natural color. [SP 23] b. All mechanical equipment on the rooftop shall be screened from abutting residential properties that are at higher elevations than the roof of the building by screening walls and/or landscaped planters approved by the Planning Department. [se 241 c. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be grouped in clusters and/or located as far away as possible from the abutting properties along the southern property lines, as approved by the Planning Department. [SP 24] d. As an alternative to complying with Conditions 16 (a), (b) and (c), and if Critical Slope Waiver Condition 7 is not implemented, the applicant may install a "green roof" technology approved by the Planning Department that would provide for the installation and maintenance of a substantially landscaped rooftop providing screening to at least an equivalent degree. [SP 22] [Note: The Planning Commission revised the changes to subsections (b) and (c), and rejected the change to subsection (d), suggested by Home Depot. Subsection (d) will apply if Critical Slope Waiver Condition 7 is determined to be impractical. ] 17. [Note: The applicant shall submit the findings of a qualified sound engineer regarding the generation of sound from the proposed heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment. If these findings demonstrate that the sound levels will exceed the maximum sound levels authorized for the proposed use under Albemarle County Code § 18-4.18, the applicant shall submit for review and approval' by the Engineering Department proposed noise attenuation measures to reduce the sound levels to an authorized level. [SP 25] The Planning Commission accepted the change suggested by Home Depot. ] 18. A public bus stop shall be located adjacent to the public right-of-way or, if that location is not approved by the Engineering Department, the Charlottesville Transit Service, and the Virginia Department of Transportation, then internal to the site, subject to the approval of the Engineering Department and the Charlottesville Transit Service. [SP 26] [Note: The Planning Commission accepted the change suggested by Home Depot, but added that if the location adjacent to the public right-of-way is not approved, then a bus stop is to be provided internal to the site.] 19. The retaining wall facing any abutting property or visible from the Entrance Corridor shall be subject to the following: a. The retaining wall along the south sides of the property shall be terraced and landscaped using earth-filled gabions on the front, using a minimum of 10 steps, each of which shall not exceed 2 feet in height for each 1 foot of depth. b. The top of the rear retaining wall facing abutting residential properties shall be landscaped with evergreen planting materials or vines having the ability to grow downward. c. In its approval of the final landscape plan, the Planning Department shall specify the species, size, spacing and location of the planting materials or vines to be installed to satisfy Conditions 19(a) and (b) in order to mitigate the visual impacts of the retaining wall. [SP 27] 20. The following grading matters shall be clarified or addressed in the final site plan to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department [Albemarle County Code § 18-32.6.6d]: a. The proposed 463-foot contour appears to be missing in the outparcel grading. Revise the grading for this area. 7 bo The software generating the proposed topography still is not contouring around the proposed retaining walls and along the U.S. 29 frontage. Proposed contours should "skip" at retaining walls, not run along them. The tight contouring in these areas obscures the retaining walls, which are a significant feature of the development of this site. Revise the grading plan to correctly show the proposed contours in these areas. The parking lot grades along the northwest comer of the site (near the existing 54- inch storm sewer outfall) appear to exceed 5%. Revise the grading plan in this area. [CSW 8] 21. The final site plan shall incorporate pedestrian walkways as follows: a. Pedestrian walkways incorporating architectural treatments approved by the Planning Department shall be provided to the main entrance of the building from the northwest comer of the site, the southwest comer of the site, and from the center of the west side of the site. b. A pedestrian walkway and stairs shall be provided from the southwest comer of the site to the property line of the property to the south to provide pedestrian access between that property and the site. 22. The following matters shall be clarified or addressed in the final site plan: a. The final site plan shall identify to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department the outfall for the silting basin, and shall indicate the proposed grading and conceptual structures associated with the outfall. [Albemarle County Code §§ 18-32.5.6d, 18-32.5.6k] [CSW 5] b. The applicant shall satisfy Virginia Department of Transportation requirements for frontage improvements contained in a letter dated October 24, 2000, from the Virginia Department of Transportation to Jeff Thomas of the Engineering Department, a copy which is attached hereto. [CSW 6] The final site plan shall identify the pavement design to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. If designs for both "heavy" traffic and "light" traffic volumes will be included, the differences in such designs shall be explained to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. [CSW 7] Co 23. Remove the slip ramp from the site plan. [Note: This condition is recommended by staff to reflect that the removal of the slip ramp is suggested by the Engineering Department for not only water-related purposes (Critical Slope Waiver Condition i), but also for reasons associated with providing safe and convenient vehicle and pedestrian access, l 24. The final site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. [Note: The Commission recommends that this condition be added] Proposed Conditions Showing Revisions Suggested by Home Depot Critical Slopes Waiver Conditions: ................ ~, .... ~, .............. e ..... _rovide space to accommodate a biofilter or series of biofilters approved by the Engineering Department in the front (west) parking lot ~,~,Sth a total bosom area cf no !ess th~n 3500 square feet for adequate water quality treatment. [CSW 1] Provide a dry detention basin on the Home Depot site, subject to the following: a. The basin shall include a large biofilter along the bottom. [CSW 2] b. The basin shall be designed to store runoff from the 1-year 24-hour storm event (or equivalent), as well as runoff from the 2- and 10-year storm events. [Albemarle County Code § 17-314(D)]. [CSW 4] c. If adequate volume cannot be reasonably achieved in the basin, the adequate channel and water detention requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance shall be addressed by an underground detention pipe and/or a pervious pavement system (including stone reservoir and underdrain system) for parking bays most remote from the building approved by the Engineering Department. [CSW 3] The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department that the detention system or systems required by this condition will satisfy the ~ ..... *~ -~' .... ~ ~"~ .... *~ ~*~^~ requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance. [CSW 4] The basin shall be landscaped, and the landscaping shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Board if the basin is visible from the Entrance Corridor. eo All biofilters required by Conditions 1 and 2 shall be designed to standards in the County's Interim Design Manual and Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook unless otherwise approved by the Engineerine Department, with final design to be approved by the Engineering Department. [CSW 2] The applicant shall dredge and repair the stream below the site and the first downstream pond, subject to the following: a. All dredging and repair work shall be shown on the applicant's erosion and sediment control plan. b. The applicant shall submit a letter of permission to the Engineering Department before the start of any dredging or repair work. c. If the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department that it does not have permission to access the property necessary to perform Conditions 4(a) and (b) prior to engaging in land disturbing activity on the site, it shall submit for review and approval by the Engineering Department plans to address erosion and stormwater impacts that would have been mitigated by Conditions 4(a) and (b). d. The applicant shall not engage in any land disturbing activity on the site unless it first demonstrates to the Engineering Department that it has obtained the permission required by Condition 4(b), or has obtained approval of the plan submitted under Condition 4(c). [CSW 9] In addition to all other erosion and sediment control measures that may be required by the Water Protection Ordinance, the applicant shall provide erosion and sediment control measures to assure, to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department, that it is providing high levels of effectiveness in controlling sediment during construction. These measures shall include, but not be limited to: a. A construction schedule that minimizes the duration of disturbance (e. g., phasing of the erosion and sediment control plan). b. Using high efficiency sediment basins designed to include the use of flocculants. c. Matting exposed slopes as determined appropriate by the Engineering Department. d. The contractor shall have a certified Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Inspector cra qualified Professional Engineer on the site throughout the period during which the site is under construction. The Inspector ~ shall maintain a daily erosion and sediment control inspection log demonstrating that erosion and sediment control measures are being closely monitored and deficiencies are being quickly repaired. The Inspector ~ shall assure that all control measures are being maintained in optimal condition. The log shall be made available for inspection by the Engineering Department at any time during regular business hours. [CSW 10] Site Plan Conditions: The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until a tentative final approval for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions have been met: Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project shown on the final site plan. [SP 1] Planning Department approval of the final landscape plan, consistent with final approval by the Architectural Review Board. In addition to any other landscape plan requirements set forth in Conditions 15 and 19 or otherwise required to satisfy Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.9, the final landscape plan shall show the following, ..r~,;.*,.,...~..--~..~'~n *.u~ .... .~uj~';~'* +~v a. The installation of landscaping along the borders of the outparcel. b. The installation of staggered rows of Red Oak trees between the Entrance Corridor and the southern retaining wall. c, The installation of oak trees along the entrance drive on the north side of the outparcel. [SP 2] Planning Department approval of a plat combining all of the parcels included in the Home Depot site. [SP 3] o o o 10. 11. 12. 13. Planning Department approval of an easement providing the Albemarle County Service Authority with unobstructed access to the existing Woodbrook pump station. [SP 4] Virginia Department of Transportation approval of all construction activity within the public right-of-way. [SP 5] Virginia Department of Transportation approval of the proposed relocation or disturbance of the existing state-maintained permanent drainage easement and stormwater management facilities located on-site. [SP 6] The following items must be submitted with the final site plan for review and, in the case of required plans, approval, by the Engineering Department. [SP 71 a. An erosion and sediment control plan, narrative and computations. [Albemarle County Code §§ 17-203, 18-32.7.4.3] b. A completed application and fee for erosion control and stormwater management. [Albemarle County Code §§ 17-203, 17-303] c. A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. Computations must include water quality, and detention routings for the 1-year (24-hour), 2-year and 1 O-year storms. [Albemarle County Code § § 17-304, 17-314D] d. Copies of all state and federal permits required for impacts to waters of the U.S. completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee. [Albemarle County Code § 17-323] Drainage computations. [Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.4, Policy] Retaining wall plans and computations certified by a professional-engineer for walls over 5 feet in height. [Policy] eo Engineering Department and Virginia Department of Transportation approval of the southernmost entrance, including all signage, safety and traffic calming measures to be implemented. [SP 8] Zoning Department approval of all outdoor lighting to confirm compliance with Albemarle County Code § 18-4.17. [SP 9] Fire Official approval of fire lane locations. [SP 10] Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer construction drawings, and provision of easements to adjacent properties for possible extensions. [SP 11] Documentation of Army Corps of Engineers and Virginia Department of Environment Quality approval and permitting of any activity resulting in disturbance of the wetlands areas. [SP 12] The applicant shall install and maintain a solid screening fence between the site and all abutting residential properties as determined by the Planning Department, subject to the following: 14. 15. 16. ao eo The fence shall be constructed of wood. The fence shall be 8 feet tall. [SP 20] Except for those parts of the fence that are visible from the entrance corridor as determined by the Architectural Pieview Board, the fence shall be constructed so that the posts face internally toward the site. [SP 21 ] No trees of 6 inches or greater in caliper shall be removed for the purpose of constructing the fence. [SP 14] The applicant shall provide documentation that the consent of each abutting property owner has been obtained in any areas where the fence will be located on the abutting property. [SP 13] The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the fence in a safe and suitable condition, including all parts of the fence installed on an abutting property. [SP 15] The site plan must list the conditions of approval for all waivers and modifications approved by the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors. [SP 16] New Site Plan Conditions: The applicant shall maintain an undisturbed buffer between the site and all abutting residential properties as determined by the Planning Department, subject to the following: a. The buffer along the southern side of the property abutting the residential properties within the Woodbrook subdivision shall be a width of 40 feet. [SP 17] b. In all other areas for which a buffer is required by Albemarle County Code § 18- 32.7.9.8, the buffer shall be a width of 20 feet. c. The limits of the buffer, including those parts of the site to which a 20-foot buffer is required, shall be clearly marked in the field for inspection and protected by construction fencing. [SP 19] d. Evergreen trees shall be installed and maintained by the applicant in areas within the buffer where existing landscaping does not provide sufficient screening. These areas shall be identified on the landscape plan to be submitted for final approval, and the Planning Department shall specify the species, size, spacing and location of the evergreen trees to be installed in its approval in order to achieve screening that is equivalent to a triple staggered row 15 feet on center, 5 feet in height. [SP 18] Upon request of any owner of abutting residential property w~ithin the Woodbrook subdivision, the applicant shall provide white pine trees at least 5 feet in height for planting by the owner on his or her property, as determined by the Plannin~ Department to be reasonably necessary. ; The roof of the building shall be subject to the following: a. The roof, including all screening walls and other structures, architectural features, and mechanical equipment on the roof, shall be treated or painted in a uniform color approved by the Planning Department. Only that part of a structure or architectural feature that is part of the exterior building faCade visible to any 4 17. 18. 19. 20. bo abutting residential property shall be treated and painted in the uniform natural color. [SP 23] All mechanical equipment on the rooftop shall be screened from abutting residential properties that are at higher elevations than the roof of the building by screening walls_.~"'~ .~-'~p~ r,~.,~,o~"+~ approved by the Planning Department. [SP 24] All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be grcu~ed in clusters and located as far away as possible from the abutting properties along the southern property lines. [se 24] ~,,~,~, ....... :~: ........ ~-~ ,^ ~, ~,,oo, ~,, equD:~er2 ,degree. The applicant shall investigate "green roof" technolo.~ies and provide a statement on the probability of providing a substantially landscaped rooftop. [SP 22] The applicant shall submit the findings of a pr-o-f~o~m~ qualified sound engineer regarding the generation of sound from the proposed heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment. If these findings demonstrate that the sound levels will exceed the maximum sound levels authorized for the proposed use under Albemarle County Code § 18-4.18, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Engineering Department proposed noise attenuation measures tO reduce the sound levels to an authorized level. [SP 25] A public bus stop shall be located adjacent to the public right-of-way, subject to the approval of the Engineering Department, and the Charlottesville Transit Service, and the Virginia Department of Transportation. [SP 261 The retaining wall facing any abutting property or visible from the Entrance Corridor shall be subject to the following: a. The retaining wall along the south sides of the property shall be terraced and landscaped using earth-filled gabions on the front, using a minimum of 10 steps, each of which shall not exceed 2 feet in height for each 1 foot of depth. b. The top of the rear retaining wall facing abutting residential properties shall be landscaped with evergreen planting materials or vines having the ability to grow downward. c. In its approval of the final landscape plan, the Planning Department shall specify the species, size, spacing and location of the planting materials or vines to be installed to satisfy Conditions 19(a) and (b) in order to mitigate the visual impacts of the retaining wall. [SP 27] The following grading matters shall be clarified or addressed in the final site plan to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department [Albemarle County Code § 18-32.6.6d]: a. The proposed 463-foot contour appears to be missing in the outparcel grading. Revise the grading for this area. 5 21. 22. b4 Co The software generating the proposed topography still is not contouring around the proposed retaining walls and along the U.S. 29 frontage. Proposed contours should "skip" at retaining walls, not run along them. The tight contouring in these areas obscures the retaining walls, which are a significant feature of the development of this site. Revise the grading plan to correctly show the proposed contours in these areas. The parking lot grades along the northwest comer of the site (near the existing 54- inch storm sewer outfall) appear to exceed 5%. Revise the grading plan in this area. [CSW 8] The final site plan shall incorporate pedestrian walkways as follows: a. Pedestrian walkways incorporating architectural treatments approved by the Planning Department shall be provided to the main entrance of the building from the northwest comer of the site, the southwest comer of the site, and from the center of the west side of the site. b. A pedestrian walkway and stairs shall be provided from the southwest comer of the site to the property line of the property to the south to provide pedestrian access between that property and the site. The following matters shall be clarified or addressed in the final site plan: a. The final site plan shall identify to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department the outfall for the silting basin, and shall indicate the proposed grading and conceptual structures associated with the outfall. [Albemarle County Code §§ 18-32.5.6d, 18-32.5.6k] [CSW 5] b. The applicant shall satisfy Virginia Department of Transportation requirements for frontage improvements contained in a letter dated October 24, 2000, from the Virginia Department or'Transportation to Jeff Thomas of the Engineering Department, a copy which is attached hereto. [CSW 6] c, The final site plan shall identify the pavement design to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. If designs for both "heavy" traffic and "light" traffic volumes will be included, the differences in such designs shall be explained to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. [CSW 7] February 7, 2001 RE: SDP-00-158 HOME DEPOT Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board: I am writing this hasty note following the Planning Commission's meeting last night. We all realize that the critical slopes issue is the most important reason to reject a proposal of this magnitude for this site. However, last night the public was not allowed to speak; therefore, some things that were not presented accurately could not be disputed. My main concern is that no one seemed to have an accurate understanding of the location of the waterways in that area, including the Commissioner who lives close by. Planning and Engineering representatives certainly should have had a better understanding of where streams, ponds, and lakes were and to where they fed and where they all interconnected. The largest stream that runs closest to Carrsbrook Drive goes directly into the large lake east of Indian Spring Road (south). It also goes through the Burton property where there is a private well and septic system. Part of this stream goes south around McQueeney's. The conditions reviewed last night specified "pond" only. The pond they were speaking of is on the McQueeney property with a dam, which has been washed out before, and a pipe goes under Indian Spring Road near this pond into the lake. I have witnessed water running over the road from the pond into the lake. The engineers have suggested dredging this off-site pond to be used as a catch basin. This is ludicrous. They say this has been done in other areas, but not in Albemarle County. There are no guarantees that this would work here with our unique soil. This is no time to start experimenting with our community. This should be tested in a lower-impact situation first. I have enclosed a copy of my email to each of you, as I am afraid you may not have received it earlier. This project is far too large to be accommodated on this site. Home Depot has essentially admitted so themselves many times, when they refused to comply with certain recommended conditions. We are counting on your vote to REJECT this proposal altogether and vote for the interests of Albemarle County residents. Best Regards, ynd~i Burton THIS SITE MAY BE RIGHT FOR HOME DEPOT ... BUT HOME DEPOT IS NOT RIGHT FOR THIS SITE! Subj: RE: SDP-00-t58 Home Depot Site Plan Date: 2/5/01 11:46:54 PM Eastem Standard Time From: Cyndihburton To: WdteinSal, chumphdS@albemade, org To: dbowerman@albemade.org, cmartin~albemade.org To: Idorrier@albemade. org, wperl<ins2@albemade, org To: dsrooker@spdntmail.com, Rodneychvlpress To: tchopp@juno, com, wdr@fieleyandassociates.com To: Suecradd, ELIMBILL, cjl@virginia.edu Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission: I am wdting on behalf of my in-laws, Henry and Maxine Burton, who as adjoining landowners on Indian Spring Road will be greatly impacted by this proposed development. Consequently, my husband and I will be indirectly effected by this high- impact overuse of area proposed by Home Depot. The properties on Indian Spring Road (south) rely on pdvate wells and septic systems. Certainly if their water supply isn't depleted, it will be contaminated by run-off and their quality of life will be destroyed by the noise and traffic. Health and safety will be compromised if this site plan is approved. The strict application of Code 4.2 would serve the general public purpose of greater importance than that which would be served by granting a critical slopes waiver to the applicant. The by-right use will disturb critical slopes and the increased run- off and siltation will harm the streams, groundwater, and downstream water quality. In their ambiguous letter of January 19, 2001, the Home Depot's engineers failed to adequately address the critical slopes issues which would indicate their lack of regard for these legitimate concerns. Another subject'l'd like to mention is the noise pollution. To quote an UVA Engineering SchOOl ProfeSsor and sound engineer, "It is a well known fact that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to predict with any degree of certainty the noise of outdoor activity .... it's a scientific fact that time of day, humidity, wind direction, and cloud cover have a major beadng on sound propagation ... Iow frequency components can be felt even by residents who are hearing impaired." In addition, I'd like to point out that any sound test conducted now would be negated aEer the trees are removed and more grading is done. The magnitude of this project is far too great to be accommodated on this site without significantly impacting the neighbors' lives, surrounding properties, property values, natural resources, and the environment. I am sure you all would agree that Mr. Wood could find some less invasive and profitable commercial use of the land. I ask that you deny any critical slopes waivers and this site plan altogether in the interest of protecting the residents' rights to public health, safety, and welfare; and of also protecting their residential areas with healthy surroundings for family life. THIS SITE MAY BE RIGHT FOR HOME DEPOT ... BUT HOME DEPOT IS NOT RIGHT FOR THIS SITE! Sincerely, Cyndi Burton 295-4416 Wednesday, Februaw 07, 2001 America Online: Cyndlhburton Page: I Subj: Fwd: SDP-00-158 Home Depot Site Plan Date: 2/6/01 10:25:24 AM Eastem Standard Time From: Cyndihburton To: Idorfier@albemade.org Hello Lindsay, I don't think I have seen you or Jane since the campaign. I hope everyone is doing well. I just wanted to say again to you personally how strongly I feel this project is wrong for this site. Other commercial uses could be applied to this land without disturbing the critical slopes. Home Depot would be overuse of the area, and would significantly impact the community. The letter from Home Depot's engineers essentially says that this land is not large enough to accommodate them if they must comply with the County's concerns, and in some areas, they refused to even consider these recommendations. Page 2 of letter. "However, more horizontal space is necessary on the plan to accommodate this wall. We do not have space to do that at the rear where the detention facility is proposed .... " Page 2, Site Plan Conditions: 1. - they refuse to comply. Page 3, 2.B - We cannot reduce the size or eliminate the outparcel to provide more space for stormwater management measures ...... The outparcel is of minimal size now and the economics of the project do not work if the outparcel is eliminated or if it becomes so small that potential users are restricted." ***This is the area in which a convenience store and gas station is proposed, which will really add to the downstream water problems. 2. - they refuse to comply. 3. - they refuse to comply. Page 3, Erosion and Sediment Control: They admit there is an existing problem, but refuse to do anything to make it work. Page 4, "...we have done all that we believe we can do based upon the recommendations staff has made..." Home Depot has essentially said the site is too small for their proposed development. Isn't this a reasonable and legal reason to reject the site plan? Surely, this coupled with the high-impact on the communitY, the BOS would be within their rights to reject this. As I recall from the Sorenson Institute's comprehensive planning session, the Virginia Code 15.1-427, 446.1, and 447 are provisions which were designed to protect our dghts in relation to our general welfare and health. VA Code 15.1-447 is a mandatory provision which provides for protection of natural resources, groundwater, surface water, geologic factors, environmental factors, drainage, flood control, etc. I sincerely hope we can count on you to reject this proposal by Home Depot as a project too large to be accommodated by this land without causing a significant negative impact on the community. Give my regards to Jane... With regards, Cyndi Burton P.S.: For the record, while I was stopped at the intersection of Rt. 29 and Carrsbrook Ddve last summer, someone ran into the back of my car causing more distress to my back. Forwarded Message: Subj: RE: SDP-00-158 Home Depot Site Plan Date: 2/5/01 11:46:54 PM Eastern Standard 3qme From: Cyndihburton To: WriteinSal, chumphris@albemarle, org To: dbowerman@albemarle, org. cmartin@albemarle, org To: Idorrier@albemarlelorgl wperkinS2@albemarle. Org COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Work Session ~ CPA 2000-05, Transportation Improvements, Hollymead SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To amend the ComPrehensive Plan Hollymead Community Profile to include new recommendations for transportation improvements, primarily related to improvements along the Rt. 29 corridor South of Airport Road. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish AGENDA DATE: February 7, 2001 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY:/~~ BACKGROUND: On December 13, 2000, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this Comprehensive Plan text amendment which will provide recommendations for transportation improvements along the Route 29 corridor in the Hollymead Community from Airport Road south. Also included is a recommendation for improvements to Proffit Road. DISCUSSION: Attachment A is the proposed additional language to be included in the Transportation Improvements section of the Hollymead Community Profile (p. 80). It has been slightly modified since the Board of Supervisors' public hearing to make the appropriate references. The descriptions of the road classifications noted in the Transportation Improvements amendment ("neighborhood street" design, etc.) are part of Attachment B. Attachment C is a letter from Steve Blaine, which provides suggested changes to both the Transportation Improvements section under consideration and the proposed Town Center amendment (not under consideration at this time) proposed by four property owners in the proposed Town Center area. There are two substantive recommendations in this letter regarding transportation improvements. The first reduces the intended bicycle lanes to one east- west corridor and one north-south corridor. Staff believes bicycle lanes should be an element of all proposed roads, with more detailed consideration on any particular road left to the more specific development and design phase. The second substantive recommendation is that the western parallel road system connects to Ashwood Boulevard. The Planning Commission has recommended that the western parallel road system terminate at Hollymead Drive extended. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment (Attachment A). Attachments: A: Recommended Transportation Improvements text amendment B: Descriptions of noted road classifications C: Letter, Steven Blaine-suggested changes to amendment language D: Hollymead Community Land Use Map 01.016 ATTACHMENT A Transportation Improvements (additional language added to pp. 80-81 of Hollymead Community Profile) 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 shall be 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 BIvd," 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 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, from the parallel roads to the Route 29 should be provided on the east and west sides between Ashwood Boulevard and Timberwood Boulevard~ · 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. The Neighbor. ODd Model: 8uildincj Block for the Development Areas A. Neighborhood Thoroughfares ATTACHMENT B Boulevard Definition: .A boulevarc {s a muln-lane r. horeu_~:tfare separated by severai med./Ms. Taken fiom Re Lar/n worcL "bulwark." which. means the wail surrounding ancient Em'opean cities, boulevards are "~and avenues" built in the space left: behind when the European wails were tom down. A ,ou[evard would transform a highway on the Edge ora Development .Area into an urban street in a General .~ea or Center. Feamr~ of Boulevards: · Desi_m't speeds of boulevards should be J5 mph.. · 'r'he side media.ns separate slower tr-aJ:Yic and parking activity at the edges fiom the r.h.rou_~.-trafi:~c in ~e center fanes. L-his arrangement creates an alternative to ~he "stop h_i_~.way." by aiIoW~ng building fiontages, sidewalks, and pedesman act/v/fy fight ~t the edge of the nsc of,.vav. Appropriate locations: Centers and where a "semn" is created be~veen adjacent aei~borh, oods The Neic~borttood Model: Building Block for the Uevelopment Areas ATTACHMENT B FT?ure ~:9 Avenue or Residential BoUlev ird An avenue or residential (small) boulevard has center medians that break thc thoro-gh~'ar¢ into d/sm'ere channels of movement. Features of Avenues or R~sidential Boulevards: · rn Centc'rs, the mcdiaa may be w~de enough to hold monu- menu (see Monument Avenue m Richmond, · In General Areas, mcdians may be planted formally with t~ees or landscaped informally. create ~e appearance ora [Near park. Appropriate locations: Centers and General Areas The NeicjhbOrlnoOd Model: Buildiaq Block for the Development Areas ATTACHMENT B ,3 F~ure $:! I Main Street (Commercial Street) Features of Main Street~: · Main streets have raised curbs and ctos~d storm · Sidewalks am adjacent max/mum widtfi o~ I0- * Trees can block ¼ews to storefroau and are ~herefore not always desir- able. V~e~ us¢~ plamers md ]rove ~tear ~ and high canopies. A single species should be used and a series shouki be planted m a/i~enr_ · Street ~rnJna'e is desirable. Appropdate locadon: Cem='s Ccun~ ot ,M~-emat~e, ~eoar:mem[ ot P!anmmcJ amc: .~"mmum['/ The Neighborhood Model: B, ATTACHMENT B .Neighborhood_ Street or Road .. Definition: A neighborhood street or road is a local slow-movement thoroughfare. A neighborhood street is urban in character and a road is rural in character. Features of Streeta · Streets have an "urban". cross sect/on which/ncludes curb, gutter, street trees, and sidewalks. · S~reets are used to establish an "urban form" which supports densities o£3 dwetl/ng units per acre or greater. · Parallel park/rig is allowed along the shoulder of streets. Building fi'onts are alined with small setbacks. Dm/nage system is closed. Appropriatelocarlon: Edge. General Are~s amd Centers Features of Roads: · Roads use a "rural" cross-section which hactudes open drainage d/tches and no curbs. · Paths instead of sidewalks are used adjacent to r. he drama~re ditches. Setbacks can be Roads are used to characterize a more "rural form" and are used in areas w/th very. tow rraf-fic volume. Roads are the "exception" rather ran the mle m ~e Development Appropriate location: Edges w/th dens~rv of less t,San ~ dwelling unir~ per acre F~,ure 5:I2 ATTACHMENT B T'ne Neighborhood. Model: Building Block for the Development Areas Way (Small Street also known as a Queuing Street) Definition: A way is nam, ower :hah a street or road: it is desi_zned for "yield" movements Feature~ of Ways · Ways are desired for very slow trafSc movement - [5 mph. · They may be one- or cwo-way. · Tlte¥ are never s~ped. · One car must pull over to ailow ?or oncoming cr~f,~c to pass. · Ways axe appropriate for tmnor neighborhood s~-eets: however, they should ~xtend for no more than cwo to :kree :ontinuous blocks before ending at a T-intersection. Appropriate {o~don: =dz-s and General .a¢=~: at C~'nters on a [irrUced basis RICHMOND OFFICE: TELEPHONE: (804) 783-2003 tNN$1~ROOK OFFICE: TELEPHONE: (804) 270-0070 BLACKSBURG OFFICE: TELEPHONE: (540) 961-2762 NORFOLK OFFICE: TELEPHONE~ (7§7) 624-'1454 ALEXANDRIA OFFICE'. TELEPHONE: (703) 684-8007 VIA HAND DELIVERY LECLAIR RYAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION A'I-FORNEYS AT LAW POST OFFICE BOX 2017 123 EAST MAIN STREET EIGHTH FLOOR CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902-2017 TELEPHONE: (804) 971-7771 FACSIMILE: (804) 296-0905 January 25,2001 ATTACHMENT C STEVEN W. BLAINE EMAIL; sblaine@le¢lairryan.corn RECEIVED PLANNING AND GOMMUN~TY DEVELOPMENT Mr. David Benish Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: CPA-98-03; Hollymead Town Center Dear David: Enclosed please find the recommended language for the Town Center and Hollymead Community Profile (transportation only) sections for the Land Use Plan. The attached incorporate changes from my client, Dierman Realty, Dr. Hurt and The Kessler Group. Mr. Wood also has approved this version. Please call me to arrange a follow-up meeting or conference call to discuss our concerted approach for the Board of Supervisors meeting on February)/4//2 Very trul~,,~6,,ufs, ' Ste~¢~/W. Blaine ' /dwp CC: Mr. Steven Runkle Mr. Katurah Roell Mr. Jeffrey B. Dierman Mr. Wendell W. Wood ATTACHMENT C Submitted January 25, 2001 Post Office Land Trust (Charles w. Hurt, Trustee) The Kessler Group Dierman Realty Company LLC United Land Corporation TRANSPORTATION, TOWN CENTER AREA (See also th e TRANSPOR TA TION IMPR 0 VEMENT 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 shall accommodate future transit service [within the street system for the Town Center]. · All roads should be designed with the intent of providing pedestrian friendly[,] neighborhood]-]oriented streets. All [public] roads in this area, including the north/south parallel road, [generally] should be constructed as an urban cross-section, with sidewalks~aihe4am~ and street landscaping. [Internal drive aisles, driveways and service roads shall not be considered public roads for the purposes of this section.] Lower design speeds and minimizing road width (number of through lanes) should be encouraged. ~ [On]-street parking should be encouraged where appropriate. · 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 [(including the north-south connector proposed by VDOT)] 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 600 feet]; provided however that block lengths may need to be longer due t° site design sensitivities and topography and provided further that simulated blocks may be achieved by parking entrances, bicycle and pedestrian ways providing connections to commercial or residential uses. Due to the grade and topographic cOnditions that exist at the area designated Regional Service, (42 acres) and the north/south parallel road proposed by VDOT, compliance with the desired block design criteria shall not be required for this area. · r~ ...~ T~,~,,.. ....... ,~,~..,~. j~ [The Town Center] road network shall include connections to Route 29 at Timberwood Boulevard, Hollymead Drive and minimum of~ ..^;.., ...... r...:,~^..+ ........... ~ [tw th p i of ]b th r ..........., ...................:, o- fee onts access etween e Hollymead and Timberwood connections. Access shall be provided to Airport Road at two (2) locations: 1) the future North Fork Research park access on Airport Road; and, 2) a future cross over located ~ west of the U. S. Post Office Building. · The north/south parallel road ]proposed by VDOT] should be designed ~ [similar to a "BOulevard'' or] "Main Street"(as defined in the DISC report), recognizing that while carrying a higher volume of traffic, it also serves as important Neighborhood Street within the town center concept. As such, the ~[north/south parallel road proposed by VDOT] needs to accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, transit service and contribute Positively to the character of the area. Other streets in the Town Center Area may be designed as a "Main Street," ATTACHMENT C "Avenue," "Neighborhood Street," or "Way" depending on the character and intensity of development in the area. ]Streets and roads in the Town Center may be private or publicly dedicated. Provision should be made for linkages to existing developed areas where possible (e.g., Deerwood, Forest Springs).] Pedestrian and bicycle systems and transit access shall be provided throughout the r+~.,.,.. ....... .,.,..~.,.,+ ..... v..~u;*~'~ [Town Center. A bicycle and pedestrian system of sidewalks should be devised to provide] a continuous walkway and~" .... .....~.~ wa3' v.v ..... [bicycle way from the exterior of the Town Center to its core area, including] from Airport Road and Route 29 North [to the core area. Bicycle lanes shall be included along at least one east-west corridor and one north-south corridor]. Pedestrian activity is encouraged. Sidewalks on both sides of [public] streets built 144~ [ten (10)] feet wide or greater shall be provided ;- r~:~, ~-~:, ......... -.---.-.~:~: ....... ..,~.:~+*' ,,.o,,..,..,,. ~~ ..... *'~ ~ [areas of highly concentrated pedestrian activity; sidewalks with a six (6) feet minimum width shall be provided in areas of less concentrated pedestrian activity, including residential and some mixed use areas.l A park and ride lot shall be establishe nea~ ~..~ within or nearby the Town Center] and may utilize existing facilities (shared facilities). .......................................... ~ ..... sep~ated vehic~ crossings of Route 29 ~e reco~ended m Timbe~ood Boulevard ~d Hollymead DriVe. Bicycle/pedes~i~ hcilities shall be provided as p~ of grade sep~ated crossings to provide pedestrian co~ectivity between the east and the west sides of Route 29. ~ :~"~ ~"~ [Until grade separated vehicular crossings of RoUte 29 at Timbemood Boulevard and HoUymead Drive are built, pedestrian connectivi~ be~een the east and the west sides of Route 29 should be accommodated by holding areas in the median, or similar means. Alternative locations for crossings of Route 29 should be explored as part of VDOT's Route 29 improvement project(s), including linMng a green way to the east side of Route 29]. ........ a~a · .......... ~ ~' '~:~ ................ ':~ F :"* .... ':"- only]} [Additional language to be added to Hollymead Communi~ prOfile]] Transportation Improvements (additional language added to p. 80-81 of Hollymead Community profile) -Recommended [publicly funded] improvements along the Route 29 Corridor: ATTACHMENT C )* Road design and alignment improvements to Route 29 shall be in keeping with the emerging community, a rapidly urbanizing community consisting of residential neighborhoods and commercial and employment centers. Improvements related to upgrading Route 29 should be consistent with an overall network of roads that balance the need serve both the local and regional transportation demands. ~ Any system of parallel roads to augment Route 29 shall be constructed as an urban cross-section design (curb/gutter) with sidewalks r.,.~.~.. ,.;~.~.~... !~nes} [. Bicycle lanes shall be constructed along at least one east-west corridor and one north-south corridor]. 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 -{he-}- [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 Blvd," or "Neighborh°od 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 in the proposed Town Center transitioning to "Avenue/Residential Boulevard'' or "Main Street" south to Ashwood Boulevard. 3, The eastern parallel road system should extend to Polo Grounds Road (Route 643). )* Parallel roads on the western side of Route 29 shall coincide with the road network and design proposed for the Hollymead Town Center area. ~ The southern end of the parallel road system [on the east and West sides of Route 29] shall include a connection to Ashwood Boulevard. Long term consideration should be given to continuing western parallel road to connect with Meadow Creek Parkway and/or other parallel roads in the Urban Area. )~ Ashwood Boulevard, Hollymead Drive and Timberwood Parkway should be designed with grade-separated crossings of Route 29, without ramps, to connect with the road system on the western side of the Srmut-e-}- [Route] 29 and accommodate east-west vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle movements. Pedestrian and bike facilities shall be provided with the grade separated crossings. Provide a grade-separated crossing without ramps at Airport Road to accommodate east- west vehicular and pedestrian/bike movements. Pedestrian and bike facilities should be provided on the crossing. i N,- ! I /.03~T. Pm~S~/ '% ATT..ACHMENT I '1 ./ · ~' -, ,'a. " ~::.~:.; - ,, ~ · 7'~._ :'I'",i ~ ~ ~1. .... .,-. ..'" 7 ' ~~: ~::.-i t '" ~- ~-..~. j/' '". ~ ~o~ Pu~ MAP F ~ "'~ "~"'= " AL~E~A~LE COUNTY .. . . VO~gNiA COMMUNIT[E5 OF "' ~ m ~ C~EPTU~ HOLLYMEAD AND P=~M~JS.~ff~N~~ P I NEY MOUNTA I N January 3, 2001 CPA-98-03 and CPA-2000-05 Public hearings ._ (Page 1) DRAFT (Note: The next two agenda items were heard concurrently.) Agenda Item No. 25. CPA-98-03. Post Office Land Trust/Theater. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend the Comp Plan desig for approx 180 acs w/in the Community of Hollymead by changing land use desig from Industrial Service, Office Service & Regional Service to mixed-use Town Center Designation. Loc on W side of Rt 29N (Seminole Trl), S of Rt 649 (Airport Rd), and bounded on S & W by unnamed stream (which crosses Rt 29 N of Rt 29/Hollymead Dr intersec). (Notice of this public hearing originally scheduled for December 13, 2000, was given in the Daily Progress on November 27 and December 4, 2000. Because of inclement weather, the hearing was postponed to this date.) Agenda Item No. 26. CPA-2000-05. Rt 29-Hollymead. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend the Comp Plan, Land Use Plan, by amending recommendations for transportation improvements for Hollymead Community. (Notice of this public hearing originally scheduled for December 13, 2000, was given in the Daily Progress on November 27 and December 4, 2000. Because of inclement weather, the hearing was postponed to this date.) Mr. David Benish said CPA-2000-05 is a proposal to provide recommendations for transportation improvements along the Route 29 corridor in the Hollymead Development Area from Airport Road south to Polo Grounds Road, including a recommendation for improvements to Proffit Road. CPA-1998-03 is a proposal to amend the land use designations for approximately 175 acres within the Hollymead Development Area from Industrial Service, Regional Service and Office Service to a Town Center designation. This amendment also includes recommendations for the development of that area. The Planning Commission held public hearings for both of these CPA's and unanimously recommended approval of each to the Board of Supervisors. The Board had held work sessions on each amendment. It has been suggested that staff provide at least a conceptual map for the transportation improvements to make it easier for people to follow the recommendations in the text. He referenced a map which was posted in the Board Room today. Mr. Benish said the Board members had been sent comments from owners of the property in the town center area, along with suggested changes to the Planning Commission's proposed language (on file in the Clerk's Office). He offered to answer questions. At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing on both of these proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. Mr. Bruce Appleyard said he is the Transportation and Land Use Planner for the Southern Environmental Law Center. He said SELC strongly supports the two amendments before the Board believing the purpose of creating an appropriately scaled, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly community, is essential to addressing the loss of open space and mounting traffic congestion impacting the County. SELC also supports the idea of developers working together with the community and the County to design their properties in a more attractive, liveable environment. In addition, they commend the Planning staff and the Planning Commission for their hard work in ironing out the details of these amendments. In light of the major transportation development proposals for this area, and the enormous impacts of these proposals, SELC hired Walter Kulach to help them determine the best way to approach the growth in the Hollymead community. His analysis, which was forwarded to the Board earlier, concluded that if development guidelines such as those called for in the Hollymead Town Center CPA are implemented in concert with the creation of a network of comprehensively-linked streets as called for in the transportation January 3, 2001 CPA-98-03 and CPA-2000-05 DRAFT Public hearings (Page 2) improvement CPA, .the widening of Route 29 is not necessary in either the near future or in the long-term. Mr. Appleyard said a town center where people can either walk or make just one automobile trip will lower the need to rapidly expand the Route 29 corridor. Creating such a town center requires a comprehensive disciplined approach to development. While SELC is cognizant of the developer's need to keep profits in the bottom line, they ask that the Board adopt these amendments. This is one of the hottest areas for development in the County. It is centrally located in the Hollymead growth area and is in close proximity to both Forest Lakes and the Hollymead neighborhoods. VDOT has major plans to expand Airport Road, as well as Route 29, and the Airport itself is undergoing a multi-million dollar upgrade. Clearly, there will be no shortage of a desire to invest in and develop this area. The question is not whether, but how this area will develop. Mr. Appleyard said rather than change the Comprehensive Plan to the Hollymead Town Center as currently drafted, SELC urges the Board to adopt it and work to redirect a portion of the millions of dollars which VDOT wants to spend on the expansion of Route 29 for the expansion of a road network that facilitates the type of development envisioned by the Hollymead Town Center CPA. By offsetting a developer's costs, such targeted infrastructure investment has proven itself an effective strategy in creating vibrant community environments. By adopting the CPAs drafted by the Planning Commission and the Planning staff, everybody wins. This will happen because the County will have laid the groundwork for creation of a valuable and successful town center that strengthens the integrity of the growth areas and will have utilized the land in a more efficient manner. SELC urges the Board to seize this moment and adopt these amendments as currently drafted. Ms. Elizabeth Hare said she is a resident of Hollymead. She said anyone traveling Route 29 during the rush hour knows that a road bisecting the Hollymead subdivision will not provide any significant alleviation of the current traffic problems in the area. The proposed additional lanes do not match those proposed by VDOT. She understands the proposed addition would put two lanes into Hollymead and two lanes west of Route 29. She proposes that instead of bisecting Hollymead, Route 29 currently going north be converted into an access road going north with a 35 mph speed limit. What is currently Route 29 South be converted into the 55 mph limited-access road. Then take the other four lanes that were planned, and put them as complementary lanes on the west side of 29 which is basically open farm land. This would not create the need to condemn homes. She has lived in 24 different places, and in a number of them they had to evacuate. She said there would be no way to evacuate her community now. If an access road is put through Hollymead, it would do nothing to help with an evacuation situation. She thinks that if more roads are going to be put in, they should help move people out of town. Mr. Martin said he would like to comment. The issue brought up by Ms. Hare is not the issue before the Board today. She is talking about VDOT's plans to build parallel roads, and one of those plans includes a parallel road on the west side. This amendment before the Board today is what the County is proposing for the whole area. It is not a VDOT issue although they are somewhat connected. The VDOT issue Ms. Hare mentioned is now completely dead in its tracks. Mr. Steve Blaine said he was present to represent Gherman Realty Group. His client has an interest in this amendment since it has a contract to purchase 42 acres within the acreage being considered for the town center proposal. The client has been working with Wendell Wood who has the controlling interest in the eight parcels which front on Route 29 North. The current land use plan designation for'these parcels is Regional Service. It is not clear under the amendment what the land use designation of this property would be. His client wants to support the town .center concept, but cannot January 3, 2001 CPA-98-03 and CPA-2000-05 Public hearings ._ (Page 3) DRAFT support the existing version of the proposal because of specific development guidelines. Some of the guidelines are too inflexible. Some may actually be in conflict with some of the objectives of his client. They have talked to some experienced developers who have shown an interest in their proposal, and they believe that with their input and his client's input, they can develop an integrated approach to the town center that will actually achieve some of the objectives' in concept. His client intends to pursue a master plan for a retail project. After learning of this initiative, they met with owners who are interested, including the Southern Environmental Law Center, and they feel that with experienced developers involved, and by addressing some of the development guidelines that contain weaknesses, they can come up with a financially viable approach that will be a blueprint for success. He presented a handout to the Board (copy on file) which lists improvements needed to the development/design guidelines. He said these issues must be addressed in order to address concerns about development outside of the growth areas. Mr. Katurah Rouel showed a sketch of a small portion of the town center, representing about 20 acres. He said it shows a walkable area, integration of buildings, connecting streets, and access from Forest Lakes. He and Mr. Steve Runkle have worked together, and think this is an opportunity to do something which is a new trend-setting initiative. It is something that has not been done in this county before. He said the proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would not allow them to do anything at this time. He sees this as an opportunity to create some initial structures at the lower end of the FAR, but as time progresses and land values increase, it is a perfect area for in-fill where a second building could be added, and'then put parking over the existing ground parking, and increase density. In Northern Virginia, in order to buy land for $25-$40 a square foot, to put on a parking deck at $12+ a square foot, makes economic sense. In this area where land is $10 a square foot, to put in a parking deck at $12+ a square foot does not work mathematically. There are too many other places where people can buy land cheaper and spread out. To maintain that as a minimum effective level now would essentially kill any activity there is in the immediate future. He said they are in favor of an increase in density, but it will take staff some time to get there. Mr. Steve Runkle said they have 25 acres on the west side of the proposed town center area. As developers and property owners, they get very nervous when there are specific requirements mentioned which they know economically cannot be met. There are other things which have not been mentioned which should also be a concern of this Board. VVhether they are mentioned as requirements, or just implied, there is a grid system proposed. The size of that grid has significant implications on the amount of grading that may be needed on the site. This site is not unusual in the County in terms of its underlying grades, but to overlay a grid system with 200 foot blocks would imply massive grading. That implies that the natural condition of the site would be equivalent to WaIMart's parking lot. He knows of no place in the County where that natural condition exists, He wants to support this amendment, and be a participant in the development of an urban environment in which people will live and shop, and within that environment diminish their automobile dependency. He wants to help create some viable public spaces which are viable to the public, and also help enhance the value of his property. He thinks this process has to be guided by the 12 principles which are enumerated as part of the DISC recommendations rather than by specific individual requirements that establish a particular tract which may not be appropriate. He suggests that the principal landowners come together, work with staff and propose a master plan which tries to meet as many of those goals as possible without first requiring specific requirements. Mr. Wendell Wood said Mr. Runkle, Mr. Rouel and Mr. Blaine have had numerous meetings since the last discussion on this matter. Before that, he wrote a letter to the Board stating his opposition to what was happening. He was opposed basically to the conditions being imposed. He did not think the market in t6iS area could suPPort the addition of a parking deck. A grocery st0reI Under the present conditions, January 3, 2001 CPA-98-03 and CPA-2000-05 Public hearings (Page 4) DRAFT would reqUire deck parking. They know that a grocery store in this area could not afford this, so would locate elsewhere. Under the proposal put forth by Mr. Blaine, and Mr. Deerman who has a contract on a portion of the property, there may be the possibility for a town center under this concept. He thinks there would need to be a lot of things worked out. He represents 11 of the 13 owners (125 acres of the 180 acres) who are willing to try. Given the guidelines proposed to the Board, there is the possibility and it may be worth the effort to try. There are two parcels in this acreage where the owners are not willing to participate, and it would require everyone's cooperation. It would take quite an effort to make it happen. He said the total concept is a good one, but it will require everyone's cooperation. With no one else from the public rising to speak the public hearing was closed at 3:55 p.m. Mr. Bowerman asked if what is being suggested is that the principals work together and bring in a plan that could work looking at the economics and the recommendations of the DISC Committee without using specific criteria. Mr. Martin said the last time this was discussed, there was a major player in total opposition to this amendment. Basically, it will be hard to move forward and accomplish anything listed in the DISC Committee report without the cooperation of the people who own the property and who will develop that property. Since that time there have been a lot of meetings, and everyone has moved toward supporting this type of development for a town center. A couple of issues have gotten in the way. One is the recommendation for Floor Area Ratio. It has gone a little farther than he believes anyone expected. He did not expect to see a requirement for parking decks for a grocery store. He asked if Mr. Runkle could explain to the Board where they are with the overall recommendation, and where they would like it to go. Mr. Martin said he thinks this is reasonable because most of the time the Board is in a situation of imposing its guidelines, and they are saying that they would like to put together a plan using the 12 principles of the DISC Report, and then let the Board look at it, instead of the Board putting together rules and regulations which they cannot work under. Mr. Bowerman asked if whatever were brought back would be in the way of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Runkle commended staff on the work they have done. He has had a difficult time from the beginning understanding how this Comprehensive Plan amendment could be executed in the real world without some significant adjustments in the zoning and regulatory climate. He thinks the best thing would be to develop a zoning overlay for this town center to deal with these issues. As an example, in order to produce the kind of environment envisioned, it implies either significant cooperation or a single grading plan on the whole site. Otherwise, a lot of plateaus would be generated which could not be connected. The kinds of issues that need to be addressed are how the plan will be developed, executed and what happens if there is not cooperation. Is there any relief in road design standards which would permit a tighter grid to happen than can happen today under the same conditions? What are the appropriate mix of uses? VVhat will cause the town center to work? Some people think there should be no big users for fear it will drive away small users. He thinks there need to be the big users to draw people to the facility and create the demand for the smaller users. Mr. Dorrier asked if the proffer system is still being used as part of this. Mr. Runkle said that at some point the property would have to be rezoned. There are public facilities mentioned in the recommendations. How are they provided, and what is the location of them, and who pays? He would not want to be the developer who provides all of those public facilities. Part of this plan is the Route 29 January 3, 2001 0PA-98-03 and CPA-2000-05 DRAFT Public hearings (Page 5) and ~ff-site transportation 'improvements. He said if the developers have to fund those improvements, this proposal will not work. Also, building any kind of parking structure will not happen in the foreseeable future. He suggests, with the agreement of the others; that they be allowed to put together some kind of a master plan which addresses the goals expressed and in a way they think is economically viable. As part of that process, let them identify some of the issues which will have to be resolved before the plan can be executed. A couple of things which need to be addressed are: how to accomplish grading over multiple parcels under a tight grid system, and how to handle stormwater on a regional basiS. ThiS may be particular to this area only. In considering something similar in the fUture, the underlying physical conditions may be different site-to-site. Mr. Dorrier asked if the developer is being asked for public facilities in return for increased density. Mr. Runkle said the Comprehensive plan amendment alludes to public facilities which will be provided on some basis, not necessarily in exchange for density. It does not specifically say who will provide them or how they will be maintained. He cannot say that could be paid for through increased density. Another thing envisioned is a type of infrastructure which the developer will be asked to provide which will be more expensive. Hopefully, some of that cost could be recovered through increased density. If this amendment is adopted, he does not see how the County will get the propertY owners together, and there is no other way to execute this plan. Mr. Cilimberg said certain issues have been raised which will be difficult to solve in order to proceed with any plan, particular in today's market. The real question is whether to try and work out the master plan concept before amending the Comprehensive Plan, or whether to get guiding language in the Plan from Which a master plan could be developed. It is a timing thing. Staff is willing to work in either way with the landowners. Mr. Bowerman said it is also a practical question of the landowners coming together with a unified plan and then proposing a structure under ordinances which allow that. Mr. Cilimberg said the ordinance is a step beyond. There are steps which must be taken along the way in order to get this in place, and the last step is the ordinance. Mr. Runkle made a good point that first you need to decide what you are trying to achieve and then look to see if it is possible under existing ordinances. Staff was not trying to write ordinances; these are guidelines from which plans are developed and submitted to the County for review and approval. The question is what those guidelines should be and whether they should be based on a picture which has been presented in a master plan first. He thinks that will delay a decision on the amendments, but since these are already in process, there will be no need for another Comprehensive Plan amendment. What this will mean is that the Comprehensive Plan will not contain the amendments needed for dealing with VDOT. Mr. Humphris said she remembers that one of the reasons the Board pushed for this amendment was to meet a deadline and have something in place to prove to VDOT that the County has a different plan and it had been adopted and Was in place. She asked if it is possible to adopt CPA-2000-05 alone. Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks that theoretically it is possible. The recommendations from Mr. Blaine were mostly in the land use element and not the transportation element. If the Board wishes to do so, CPA- 2000-05 could be adopted, and then the staff would work further on the land USe element. Mr: Martin said he does not think the Board needs to adopt the transportation portion today. He thinks these folks should be allowed to talk and kick around the idea. He believes this is one of the best opportunities the County has to do something on a larger scale, something which will move the County in the direction of the DISC principles. There is a large block of land, and there are some willing participants. January 3, 2001 CPA-98-03 and CPA-2000-05 Public hearings (Page 6) DRAFT There might be another opportunity to do this with The Towers property, but this is what the Board has before it now. He thinks the Board should allow them to put together a proposal based on the 12 principles. Let the Board see the proposal, and see what'problems the community might face. He said this might work better if the Parks & Recreation department is involved. They might also bring back recommendations for ordinance changes. Ms. Humphris said her only worry is that in addition to any deadlines the property owners might have, there is also VDOT's public hearing looming. Mr. Martin said the whole Route 29 proposal is shut down completely. Ms. Humphris asked how Mr. Martin knows this for a fact. Mr. Martin said it is connected to the lawsuit over the Western 29 Bypass. He found out about this about six weeks ago from Mr. Mills at VD©T. Mr. Mills said the whole project is tied up with the lawsuit, and VDOT will make no moves with that project until the lawsuit is decided. Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Cilimberg if that is his understanding of the project. Mr. Cilimberg said he has not heard that from any official source, but has heard it from others who say that has happened. He does understand that for some reason, the Route 29 Corridor improvements have been linked into the lawsuit about the Western Route 29 Bypass. Ms. Humphris said when the Board saw the maps of the Route 29 corridor improvements, they had no link to the Western Bypass. Mr. Martin said it was the Southern Environmental Law Center which made the connection. Ms. Thomas said it is her understanding of the situation that the Board wants to be ready to go when VDOT puts pen to paper and it does not want to be scrambling to catch up as it did a year ago. Now before the Board are two Comprehensive Plan amendments, one dealing with land use and the other with transportation improvements. She is delighted with the comments received about the land use amendment, and glad to see the kind of work going into that. She asked Mr. Appleyard if he would like to comment about what is going on with VD©T. Mr. Appleyard said SELC amended its complaint in the lawsuit in July, 2000. That was at the time the public information meeting was held. VDOT's next step was to hold a public hearing, but the public hearing required a 30-day advance release of the environmental assessment. FHWA said that while the amended complaint was being contested in court, they would not sign off on the environmental assessment, which gave the opportunity to get the public hearing process to occur. On December 29, the Judge came down with his decision on the amended complaint. He understands this opens the door for everything to go forward for the public hearing. Ms. Thomas asked exactly what happened on December 29. Mr. Appleyard said that their amended complaint on July 29 was that the widening project north of the Rivanna River and the two parallel frontage roads should be part of their case. That was the main point of the amended complaint. That decision was received last Friday. Ms. Thomas asked what the opinion was. Mr. Appleyard said it is a 17-page document, and it is still being studied. Ms. Thomas asked if there was a bottom-line decision. Mr. Appleyard said "no." However, it is his understanding that now that the decision has been laid down, the stipulation that FHWA put on not to sign the environmental assessment has been removed. Ms. Thomas asked if the Board might expect to receive the environmental assessment soon. Mr. Appleyard said it is possible. Ms. Thomas said it would then be possible for VDOT to announce that in 30 days they would have a public hearing. Mr. Appleyard said that is possible. Mr. Martin said he understands from Mr. Mills that VDOT shut down all action, so it would not January 3, 2001 CPA-98-03 and CPA-2000-05 Public hearings (Page 7) DRAFT happen within 30 days. Ms. Thomas said VDOT's planning has not been moving on during this time, so it would take them sometime to get ready, maybe four months away, not an indefinite period of time away. Mr. Martin said he brought this up to indicate that taking action this week versus next week will not make a huge difference. He does agree that the Board should move forward with the transportation aspect. Ms. Humphris asked if the Board was faced with an emergency, could it at its next meeting adopt the transportation improvements amendments. Mr. Tucker said staff can find out more from Mr. Appleyard, and also from VDOT as to their plans. These amendments can be deferred until February 7 thus giving staff and the landowners an opportunity to bring back some suggestions. He asked if these two amendments can be segregated so the Board can go ahead with the transportation planning amendment. Mr. Dorrier asked if in the interim a committee can be set up to deal with the FAR issue, the building footprint issues, and the one hundred foot buffer requirement (ail as noted on handout from Mr. Blaine earlier in the meeting). Ms. Thomas said there are a couple of issues here. There is the Floor Area Ratio issue, the other problems with the proposed language, and the land use issue. There is the issue of whether the transportation planning can be separated from the land use issue and this needs an answer first. She assumes there is continual work on the land use issues. She thinks everybody is excited about this. She said it provides the opportunity for what DISC and a lot of other people have been working very hard to develop. (Note: Mr. Martin said he had another meeting he must attend, so left at 4:19 p.m.) Mr. Appleyard said SELC has talked to VDOT officials about this Comprehensive Plan amendment. They talk often about their willingness to work with local land use planners, but if there is not a plan in place which is meaningful, they defer to the existing plan. It is very important to get this in place well in advance of any advancement of their plans. The money which VDOT plans to spend on these parallel frontage roads could be redirected to providing the road network for this town center. He said Mr. Runkle had mentioned the need for a comprehensive grading plan. If the County could get VDOT to work with it in developing a road network which would relieve traffic on Route 29, there would be a way to help developers develop this site in a fashion which makes for a more vibrant community. Ms. Thomas said she does not think the Board will be taking any action today. She asked for comments. Mr. Tucker suggested that the amendments be deferred to a date specific. Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to defer CPA-98-03 and CPA- 2000-05 until February 7 to allow staff and the landowners time to work together on the land use and transportation issues and bring back a recommendation. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. January 3, 2001 CPA-98-03 and CPA-2000-05 Public hearings (Page 8) DRAFT Mr. Cilimberg said staff would like to clarify one point. The public hearing today was held on a particular recommendation. Staff recognizes that there may be a need to modify that language based on the discussions which are to take place. He said the proposed language sets out a vision for 20 years and beyond, and he wants to be sure that the vision this represents is what the Board wants to achieve. Ms. Thomas said she has not heard anything today that would indicate this is not the vision. Mr. Benish said some of the speakers had complimented the staff for their work in this matter, and he would like to compliment them for their patience with staff and their willing to work With staff for this long time. Overall, it has been a very good.process. Mr. Cilimberg said to get multiple landowners working together on something like the proposed master plan will be quite a feat. Staff looks forward to doing that. Southern Environmental Law Center VIA HAND DELIVERY 201 West Main Street, Suite 14 Charlottesville, VA 22902-5065 804-977~4090 Fax 804-977-1483 selcva@selcva.org February 7, 2001 County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors, We are writing in regards to the material sent by Steve Blaine suggesting significant changes to the Hollymead Transportation Improvements Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA 2000-005, before you for approval today. We were not given a copy of these recommended changes until the end of the day yesterday. Since this CPA is the product of countless hours of public hearings and worksessions, suggesting such radical changes at this late date is inappropriate. This CPA, as currently drafted, presents the best opportunity for the County to successfully guide VDOT's transportation proposals for this area in a way that is consistent with sound planning practices and with the County's vision. We urge you to adopt this CPA in its current form. In addition, the materials provided by Steve Blaine provide extensive changes to the Hollymead Town Center CPA, CPA 98-03. Again, this CPA is the product of countless hours of public hearings and worksessions. These suggested changes would undermine the intent of this CPA and compromise its effectiveness. We urge you to reject these changes, and adopt the Hollymead Town Center CPA as soon as possible in order to facilitate the creation of a meaningful town center and to guide VDOT's plans for this area. Sin~cerety, ~ Transportation and Land Use Planner cc: Steve Blaine Carolinas Office: 200 West Franklin St., Suite 330 · Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2520 · 919-967-1450 Deep South Office: The Candler Building · 127 Peachtree St., Suite 605 · Atlanta, GA 30303-1800 · 404-521-9900 100% recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: 2001 Redistricting. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of Schedule and Preliminary Guidelines. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. TuckedDavis AGENDA DATE: February7,2001. ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: IN FORMATION: IN FORMATION: The Virginia ConstitUtion requires the County to redraw its election districts in 2001 to meet all constitutional and statutory requirements for election districts based on the 2000 Census. To meet election deadl!nesfor the 2001 d!~td~t primaries and elections, it is necessary that the process be completed as soon as possible after the 2000 Census data is available. It is anticipated the Census data will be available in early March. In order to proceed expeditiously, guidelines and a procedure need to be established so that staff can use that data to generate 2001 Redistricting plans for the Board's consideration and a 2001 Redistricting Ordinance for adoption. DISCUSSION: A. Schedule Attached is a proposed 2001 Redistricting Schedule. The draft Schedule provides for a February public meeting to obtain input from community organizations and individuals; a March status report to the Board with an opportunity for public comment; at least one April Board work session with a second work session scheduled, if necessary; and a May 9th public hearing on the redistricting ordinance. Additional meetings and work sessions can be scheduled, if necessary, to address issues or concerns that may arise during the process. It is important to adopt a redistricting ordinance no later than May to provide adequate time to submit the redistricting changes to the United States Department of Justice for pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act. This process combined with the State's notice requirements to affected voters requires a minimum of 90 days to be completed. This is a very tight schedule even assuming that any district primaries will be held on September 11, 2001. Candidates who may be unsure whether or not they reside in a new district will have little time to qualify to run for office.' B. District Guidelines In the 1991 Redistricting the Board, in addition to other legal requirements, directed that proposed redistricting plans: 1. Maintain six magisterial districts; 2. Contain both urban and rural segments of the County in each district; and 3. Minimize changes to existing magisterial district boundaries. In providing direction to staff for the 2001 Redistricting, the Board should again consider whether the 1991 guidelines remain desirable. In addition staff recommends that the following criteria be approved as guidelines: 2. 3. 4. 5. Population equality within a deviation of +/- 5%; Geographical compactness; Geographical contiguity; Preservation of communities of interest, including neighborhoods, within the same district; Avoidance of the pairing of incumbent Board or School Board members in the same district; 6. Providing for voter convenience and effective administration of elections to the greatest extent possible (including locating appropriate polling places and creating properly sized precincts within each district); 7. Avoidance of splitting of census blocks to assure accuracy of the data; 8. Providing cleady defined and observable district and precinct lines which include roads, rivers, and other permanent features recognized on official maps; 9. Assurance that the change in districts does not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group; and 10. Avoidance of splitting precincts with Virginia Senate and House of Delegate district lines and United States House of Representatives district lines (if these lines are not established prior to Board action, the lines may have to be adjusted prior to 2002 elections). If there are additional criteria or guidelines, it would be helpful to identify them at this meeting so that staff can answer any questions Board members may have and so that the public can comment on the preliminary guidelines at the proposed public meeting on February 26th. C. Precinct and Polling Place Guidelines State law requires that precincts have no more than 5,000 and no less than 100 registered voters. State law also requires that there must be at least one polling place for each precinct which must be located in or within 1,500 yards of the precinct boundary, meet accessibility requirements, and be located in a public building whenever practicable. The County Registrar and the Electoral Board are reviewing precinct and polling place criteria and options. Proposed criteria for precincts suggest: A target population of not more than 2,500 voters; and Easily identifiable boundary lines (including streams, ridges, railroads, primary roads, but avoiding secondary rOads, if possible). Proposed criteria for polling places suggest: 2. 3. 4. 5. A central location within a precinct so that the maximum travel time for a voter does not exceed 20 minutes; Location within a public building, if practicable; Accessibility pursuant to Americans with Disabilities Act standards; Maintaining existing polling places, where possible; and Accessibility to public transportation, where appropriate. A list of existing precincts and polling places indicating the number of registered voters is attached. Jackie Harris will provide advice and recommendations during the process on how and where precinct lines and polling places can be best located for voting efficiencies. D. Staff Resources The staff redistricting work group includes the County Registrar and representatives from the County Executive's Office, the County Attorney's Office, and the Planning Department. Planning staffwill be providing maps to visually show existing and proposed district and precinct lines, polling place locations, and other relevant information to be considered during the redistricting process. They also will have software that can generate information from the 2000 Census data electronically so that accurate information can be obtained by census block as proposed districts and precinct lines are analyzed. A map of existing districts containing other relevant information is attached. Tex Weaver will be available to answer any questions regarding the available technology. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board preliminarily adopt the attached 2001 Redistricting Schedule and the above guidelines for planning purposes in the development of the 2001 Redistricting plans. The guidelines will be reviewed with the Board again on March 7th along with any public input received prior to that time. At the March 7th Board meeting, after considering any additional public input, staff will request that the Board affirm the criteria and guidelines to be used to prepare the redistricting plan or plans for the Board's consideration at its April work sessions. 01.013 .RAFT (2-7-01) 2001 Redistricting Schedule December, 2000 February 7, 2001 February 26, 2001 March 7, 2001 April 4, 2001 April 11, 2001 May 9, 2001 May, 2001 Staff redistricting work group established. Approval of 2001 Redistricting Schedule by Board of Supervisors; Discussion and preliminary approval of guidelines and criteria for districts, precincts, and polling places. Public meeting to obtain input from community organizations and individuals on redistricting issues, concerns, and preliminary guidelines. The meeting will be publicized and advertised to reach all interested parties. Report to Board of Supervisors on comments received from the public and on 2000 Census data; Board of Supervisors receive public comments on redistricting process; Board of Supervisors finalize redistricting guidelines and provide direction to staff to proceed with redistricting plans. Board of Supervisors' work session on proposed redistricting plan(s). ( This work session could be delayed if census data is not received in time for the work group to properly prepare plans for discussion.) Second Board of Supervisors' work session on proposed redistricting plan(s), if necessary. Board of Supervisors' public hearing on 2001 Redistricting Ordinance; Adoption of 2001 Redistricting Ordinance. Submittal of 2001 Redistricting Ordinance to U. S. Department of Justice for preclearance pursuant to Voting Rights Act. County of 1 wemarte Virginia KN~OMKf~IL~ w :TI-F iS iV~4P IS I'~I~.r~DED FOR DISI~A Y PURPOSES ONLY. OF i SCOTTSVILLE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTS (BASED ON 1990 US CENSUS) ~,',~ JACK JOUETT RIO ~ RIVANNA SAMUEL MILLER SCOTTSVILLE ,~ WHITE HALL ¢4O~,~CELO PRECI~CT PP, F~CT$ SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS ~" BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I~1 .EMBERS (Adopted May ~Sth, 1991 Amended June 2nd, 1993 & May 7,1997) FEBRUARY 7, 2001 CLOSED SESSION MOTION I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION ;2. I -344(A) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA · UNDER SUBSECTION (I) TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS; AND COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: 800 MHz Radio System SU BJECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Approval to begin contract negotiations with Motorola. AGENDA DATE: February 7, 2001. ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Hanson, Campagna BACKGROUND/INFORMATION ATTACHMENTS: Yes R__EVI EW._E_~D .B_Y_: ~ In 1995, the County, City and University jointly contracted for a radio cOmmunicationS study to examine Public Safety and Public Service independent radio communications systems currently in use and develop a multi-agency radio communications plan. Over the past five years, members of County, City and University staffs under the direction of the ECC Management Board, and through the assistance of radio communications consultants and citizen volunteers have analyzed the entities joint needs for public safety and public service radio communications. PROBLEMS WITH CURRENT RADIO SYSTEM Many deficiencies and critical ShOrtcomings Were identified in the existing conventional analog radio systems, particularly the public safety radio systems. The most critical of those were: Lack of Interoperability ·Interoperability is the ability of Public Safety and Public Service personnel to communicate by radio with staff from other agencies, on demand and in real time. In the present independent/individualized radio systems (i.e.; VHF & UHF) - police, fire and EMS agencies are unable to communicate via radio with each other during day-to- day, mutual aid, task force, or emergency operations. The same is true between Public Safety and Public Service. 75-80% of current radio equipment is older than the normal useful life Radio equipment manufacturers are generail~i legally ~ ~ · bound to provide pads for seven (7) years after initial production for subscriber units (mobile/portable radios) and ten (10) year for infrastructure equipment (transmitters/receivers). · The average age of present radio system infrastructure is 15 years. · The average age of radio equipment in the present ECC is 15 years. Inadequate in-street radio coverage and in-building (radio signal) penetration ·Present independent public safety radio sYStemS do nOt prOvide 95% in-street pOrtable coverage reliability or 95% in-building portable coverage reliability for public safety responders. This results in inadequate communication and creates a safety issue for emergency responder personnel. Inadequate radio channel capacity for present public safety radio systems · Radio frequencies determine the number of channels that are aVailable for one ortwo way communi~ti0ns. These frequencies are a finite natural resource, which cannot be created or discovered. · The inability to acquire these scarce frequencies results in congestion and interference, limiting the ability of public safety personnel to communicate. · Present City and County Fire Departments operate on only two one way channels in the Iow band frequency. This does not allow sufficient channels for multiple operations. Present systems experience daily radio interference · VHF and UHF bands dO not have sufficient co-channel interference protection. · Not enough frequencies are available for public safety use, and even less are available for interoperability purposes. · The only frequency band with relatively clean (free of interference) frequencies is 800 MHz. · Public safety is moving to the 800 MHz frequency band for protection from co-channel interference and because of the availability of slow growth options (see Attachment A for list of 800 MHz Radio Systems currently planned or in use in Virginia). 6. Systems Unreliable · Unable to obtain parts (USed Pads UtiliZed to maintain syStems), · No system backup (Poor redundancy). Based on a thorough review of the information presented it was the consultant's belief that the only radio system that could effectively address the deficiencies and objectives identified in the radio communications study would be an 800 MHz Analog/Digital Simulcast Trunked Radio System. The Emergency Services Providers Advisory Committee (ESPAC) concurred with this recommendation after conducting its own subsequent review of the consultant's study, and other additional radio communications information. RADIO FREQUENCIES Application was made to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1995 for a sufficient number of frequencies in the 800 MHz radio frequency range to upgrade and develop a public safety/public service radio communications system for the County, City and University. A radio license for twenty channels (forty frequencies to allow two-way communications) was obtained from the FCC on September 15, 1995, under a five-year slow growth plan. Most of these frequencies were extremely limited in their availability and were secured at a time when the window of opportunity presented itself. This window has now closed and similar frequencies are not available. The 800 MHz frequencies originally licensed were primarily from the general pool and were specifically targeted because they had less restriction on their use and would allow the development of a radio system infrastructure utilizing less tower sites. The use of frequencies from other public safety radio communications plans or pools (i.e.: police/fire/ems VHF Lo Band/High Band service, UHF public safety, NPSPAC 800 MHz) generally have more restriction on their use, requiring more tower sites and equipment resulting in higher infrastructure costs. Because our 800 MHz license was scheduled to expire on September 15, 2000, and there was a high probability our radio frequencies could be forfeited, assigned to other entities, or even auctioned by the FCC it was agreed additional radio consultant services should be obtained to assist with additional system design review and (FCC) regulatory matters. In March of this year RCC Consultants, Inc. was hired and tasked to assist with the following responsibilities: 1. Federal Communications Commission Frequency and Regulatory Coordination; 2. Site Acquisition; 3. Technical Proposal Review; and 4. Contract Negotiation Assistance. With the assistance of RCC Consultants, Inc. our 800 MHz license has been successfully renewed with the following FCC implementation requirements: 1. The regional 800 MHz Radio System must be "fully constructed and operational" by September 15, 2002. 2. The FCC has granted "a one-time extension" that extends the original 5-year (September 15, 2000) construction schedule by only two additional years to September 15, 2002. Note: It will take approximately eighteen months to construct the radio system. If we fail to meet these requirements the region risks losing or being forced to share frequencies, which will not eliminate the problems in our current system. PROPOSED SYSTEM The proposed system is an 800 MHz Analog/Digital (20) Channel Simulcast Trunked Radio System (see Attachment B for system description) that will be capable of serving the needs of the City, County, and University public safety and public service agencies. The new system is designed to enhance public safety and provide a high quality, reliable communications service with an infrastructure life cycle for a minimum of 15 years. Analog/Digital Technology The design of this system will allow the use of both analog and digital mobile/portable handheld radios. While analog radios are included to help minimize the cost of subscriber equipment to be purchased by Public Service users, digital technology offers several distinct advantages and features that are not provided by'an analog system. Implementation of a digital system will provide: 1. The ability to send messages in a format that takes up less space in the frequency ndwidth compared with analog, allowing more information to be sent over the same bandwidth without interfere Digital transmissions of higher quality throughout a given base station transmitter range compared to analog, where the closer the analog receiver is to the transmitter, the better the radio signal quality will be. As the analog receiver moves farther away, the signal gradually deteriorates, becoming weak, scratchy and eventually can no longer be understood. 3. A digital signal will be stronger and of a higher quality within the same coverage area compared to an analog signal. 4. With additional technology, the digital receiver will likely be able to hear 100% of the message at 100% quality within the coverage area of the transmitter. 5. Digital transmissions are secure and difficult to monitor providing a level of security not currently experienced in our present radio systems. 6. Digital infrastructure will allow Public Safety to utilize present available digital technology and will provide a foundation and the capacity to move forward and migrate with developing digital technologies (ex: NClC 2000, Mobile Data & Photo Imaging). Infrastructure (Tower Sites) A competitive negotiation process (RFP) was initiated and is described in attachment C. The RFP specified the development and implementation of a radio system infrastructure that would incorporate the minimum number of tower sites possible while meeting the coverage requirements specified. These criteria were established in an effort to keep the cost of this radio system as Iow as possible and to be sensitive to Albemarle County tower policies. The proposal submitted by Motorola on April 30, 1999 has received several modifications from the original radio system infrastructure design. As a result, the 800 MHz Regional Radio System now consists of the following system design/site configuration. Fan Mountain · Bucks Elbow · Peters Mountain · Carters Mountain · ECC · KI0ckner Stadium Special use permit applications were submitted to the County of Albemarle for these towers on December 18, 2000. The planning review process will take ninety (90) to one hundred and twenty (120) days. SYSTEM COST Motorola's proposed base cost (Design Price) of the radio system for the County, City, University and the Airport Authority is $t3,565,898. This includes the radio equipment required for the infrastructure (tower sites, ECC, and associated equipment), subscriber units (mobiles and individual portable units), and accessories and installation costs. In comparison had this system been designed as an analog system only, loosing the above-mentioned benefits, the cost difference would be approximately $2 million (15%). The Emergency Communications Center (ECC/9-1-1) Management Board has agreed to a formula to share in the cost of the infrastructure based on the total number of public safety, mobile, portable, and desktop units utilized by the County, City, University, and Airport Authority (see Attachment D). What this cost does not reflect would be the cost for any specific in-building antenna solutions that may be required for system coverage inside specifically identified buildings as a result of system coverage testing. Motorola's proposed cost for the 60 buildings (City, University & County) identified in the RFP was $1.9 million. It was the consultant's recommendation that this requirement be suspended until Field Testing and System Acceptance procedures are conducted to determine the true need, if any, for specific in-building coverage. The consultant estimates these costs may more realistically be 25-35% ($474,000- $665,000) of the cost proposed by Motorola should in-building solutions be desired or required. (Note: The method of sharing all or part of these costs has not been determined at this time since they have not been incurred yet.) Also not included in Motorola's proposed base cost is approximately $65,000 in estimated costs for site work that will need to be performed at the tower sites located at Fan Mountain, Bucks Mountain and Klockner Stadium. This is work that is required but Motorola was not asked to provide a cost proposal. The ESPAC Radio Committee believed it would be more cost effective to contract these services directly. Finally, one other cost not reflected in the base proposal price is $110,747 for a logging recorder system for radio voice traffic at the new ECC. Although Motorola included this price in their proposal it was proposed as requested as an optional cost. This gives the ECC the flexibility to compare Motorola's price to other procurement options. It is important to note here that the infrastructure cost shares are based on the allocation of the number of Public Safety subscriber units being purchased initially for this system. The County, City, University and Airport will b® able t° add their Public Service providers or additional Public Safety subscriber units to the radio system at a later time for only the cost of the added number of subscriber units. However, other service providers (ex: independent authorities) not sharing in the initial radio system infrastructure cost and who wish to become users of the system at a later date will be required to pay some form of compensation and ultimately share in the infrastructure costs. This would be in addition to their Subscriber unit costs. The Request for Proposal specified that pricing of the final system must be valid through the date of final acceptance and that the entities may purchase or lease additional equipment at the proposal price until date of final acceptance. After this time a five year extension of pricing with an annual adjustment (upwards or downwards, depending on most favored customer status and the market price for equipment) for additional equipment is desired. Motorola took partial exception to this requirement which must be resolved as part of contract negotiation. Finance committee representatives for each of the entities and ECC have reviewed alternatives for the financing of this project. After a thorough review of options the finance committee feels the special finance program (Interest Rate: 5.53%) offered through Motorola Credit Corporation is the best option available for the financing of the radio system infrastructure (10 years) and system maintenance costs (5 years pre-paid). The overall cost of this project is $18,85t ,181 when you include the base cost, maintenance cost and finance costs together. The chart below identifies each participating entities share of this cost. A spreadsheet prepared by Melvin Breeden, Albemarle County Finance Director, details the financing program and payment milestones and is attached for additional information (see Attachment E). Entities Base Cost Maintenance Cost Finance Cost Total Albemarle $6,902,200 $1,079,464 $1,600,703 $9,582,367 Charlottesville $4,195,942 $ 665,219 $ 986,432 $5,847,593 University $2,046,819 $ 319,944 $ 474,434 $2,841,197 Airport $ 420,937 $ 64,074 $ 95,013 $ 580,024 Total $13,565,898 $2,128,701 $3,156,582 $18,851,181 In addition to the capital costs of the new system, some tower sites not owned by the entities will have annual land lease and road maintenance costs estimated to be $60,000. Although it appears several of the sites may not incur annual rental Or maintenance costs, a final determination has not been completed at this time due to ongoing negotiations. Additionally, the cost for electric service, fuel tank rental and fuel for the generators at these sites will be approximately $15,000 annually. Combined, these annual costs will be $75,000, and will need to be incorporated into the annual ECC operating budget. The land lease costs should be planned for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2001, and the electric and fuel tank service costs should be planned for the fiscal year beginning July 1,2002. Some of these costs are currently being paid from agencies existing budgets for these services at the current radio tower sites. SYSTEM MAINTENANCE · Two options were considered. One option was to pre-pay 3 to 5 years of maintenance costs and incorporate this cost in the radio system finance package. Another option was to pay maintenance costs annually through the ECC operational bUdget. The original proposed cost for maintenance of the infrastructure was $2,504,354 for years 2-6 after warranty. However, if we chose to pre-pay these costs Motorola would provide a lump sum discount of $375,653 thereby reducing the total maintenance costs to $2,128,701 for years 2-6. This amount would also be financed based on the 5.53% interest rate. In consideration of these savings it is recommended by the finance committee that the five years of annual maintenance costs be pre-paid and financed through the same special finance program offered by Motorola which was discussed previously in the sYstem cost section. The cost for maintenance of subscriber units will be approximately $7.50 per unit/per month if a subscriber maintenance program is desired. This cost will be incurred and budgeted by each entity through their annual operational maintenance budgets after expiration of the first year warranty, The ECC believes any administrative functions required as a result of the new radio system can be accomplished with existing personnel. No additional on-going personnel costS of the system are anticipated at this time. Construction of the infrastrUcture (tower sites) and installation of equipment will take 18 months from date of contract signing. The first year warranty will begin once the system has been fully tested and accepted. This will also be approximately eighteen months after the contract has been signed. BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC The proposed system is designed to address a critical shortcoming in the region's current emergency communications system. This shortcoming not only results in the inefficiency of regional operations, but seriously hinders the provision of critical emergency services to our citizens. Some of the benefits this system will provide to our citizens include: · Provides enhanced radio communications coverage reliability (in-building/in-street) in the County, City and University through use of microwave (wireless) technology rather than wire-line technology. · System is more secure and is not vulnerable to loss of coverage or service as a result of wire-line connections being severed by construction accidents or motor vehicle accidents. · Provides a stand-alone communications system available to Public Safety/Public Service agencies during disasters, local emergencies and major events and is not dependent on commercial entities. Commercial Service Providers do not provide dedicated channels for Public Safety use or provide Public Safety with priority clearance for use of their system during disasters and emergencies (IE; Tropical Storms, Tornadoes, News Breaking Events, etc.). Provides interoperability (the capability of different Public Safety and Public Service agencies to communicate with each other on a daily basis as well as in times of emergencies, disasters and major events from anywhere within the system coverage). Several years ago there was a drowning incident in the County where a young child had fallen into an unattended swimming pool. 9-1-1 was called and EMS, Fire and Police units were dispatched. A fire unit was first to reach the scene and given the seriousness of the situation initiated a transport to the hospital in a fire truck. The fire truck planned to meet the responding EMS unit to transfer the child for final transport to the hospital since the fire truck was not equipped with critical life saving equipment. Unfortunately, because of our current radio system, the Fire and EMS units could not communicate directly with each other and had proceeded beyond each other on different routes to the call, thereby delaying the time to meet and transfer the child. This loss of valuable time was not the fault of the responders, but resulted from the radio system and its lack of radio communication interoperability capabilities. · System capable of handling multiple incidents and provides sufficient co-channel interference protection. Current Fire and EMS radio communications will not support multiple channel operations which allow for the necessary segmenting of radio traffic to different emergency incidents occurring simultaneously (IE: Structure Fires, Mass Casualty Incidents, Hazardous Materials Incidents, etc.). · Improved communications coverage over present independent systems, which ir~ turn improves response by Public Safety and Public Service Agencies throughout the County, City and University. The current radio system has many dead spots in its coverage for the transmit and receipt of emergency radio communications. Especially for Fire and EMS responders when attempting to use their portable radios in the field while working an incident. Also, because of the heavy co-channel interference the responder is unable at times to communicate with the ECC or Fire Communications creating responder and citizen safety situations. Talk group assignments can be added or reconfigured to meet emergency communication needs. This flexibility insures emergency responder and service personnel have the capability to provide better and efficient customer service in times of urgency. When an emergency situation or event occurs, such as past incidents like the Sugar Hollow Dam flood, the fire and evacuation of 300 elderly patients at the Piedmont Health Care Facility, or the remnants of a hurricane or tropical storm, the 800 MHz radio system will have the capability of reconfiguring or creating new talks groups to allow for the provision of radio communications (Interoperability) between ~oth Public Safety and Public Service personnel responding to an emergency. The current radio system is not capable of performing these features. · Keeps pace with present and future radio communications technology, especially digital technology. Public Safety Communications is moving to the 800 MHz Band (see attachment A) for protection from co- channel interference and because manufacturers are placing a heavy emphasis on the research and development of this technology. In addition, serious limitations have been placed on the availability of frequency spectrum. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve moving forward with final contract negotiations with Motorola based on the above information. 01.014 800 MHz Radio Systems (Active or Planned) In The Commonwealth of Virginia 1. City of Alexandria-ND 2. Amherst County-A 3. Arlington County-A (plan to convert to digital next 2-3 years) 4. City of Bedford-A 5. Bedford County-A 6. Town of Blacksburg-A (Procurement Phase) 7. City of Chesapeake-D (Contract Negotiation) 8. Chesterfield County-D (Upgrade/Installation Phase) 9. City of Colonial Heights-D (Installation Phase) 10. Town of Culpeper-A (Contract Negotiation) 11. Culpeper County-A (Contract Negotiation) 12. Dulles Airport (MWAA)-D 13. City of Fairfax-D 14. Fairfax County (Installation Phase)-D 15. City of Falls Church-A 16. Fauqier County-ND (Procurement Process) 17. City of Fredericksburg-A 18. City of Hampton-A 19. City of Herndon-D 20. Hanover County-A 21. Henrico County-D 22. City of Hopewell-D 23. James City County-D (Active Procurement Phase) 24. Loundon County-D (Installation Phase) 25. City of Lynchburg-A 26. City of Manassas / Manassas Park-D 27. National Airport (MWAA)-D 28. City of Newport News-ND 29. City of Norfolk-A 30. City of Portsmouth-A 31. Prince George County-D 32. Prince William County-D (Signed Contract 12/99- Installation Phase) 33. City of Richmond-D (Installation Phase) 34. Richmond International Airport-D 35. City of Roanoke-A 36. County of Roanoke-A 37. Spotsylvania County-A 38. City of Suffolk-A 39. Sussex County-D (Recently Obtained Licenses) 40. City of Vienna-D 41. City of Virginia Beach-D (Upgrade/Installation Phase) 42. Virginia Power-A (North Anna/Surry Nuclear Plants) 43. The College of William & Mary-A 44. City of Williamsburg-A 45. York County-D (Application Process ) ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT B KEY: A-Analog D=Digital 800 MHz ANALOG/DIGITAL SIMULCAST TRUNKED RADIO SYSTEM DESCRIPTION The technology utilized in a trunked radio system is similar to that used in a trunked telephone system in which the system basically allows the shared use of available access lines instead of each individual station being assigned its own unique line. Key features and benefits of the 800 MHz simulcast trunked radio system are: · All County, City and University users will be on a single common infrastructure, · The automatic time-sharing of a fixed number of radio channels over a large number of users using computer controlled channel assignment resulting in better channel efficiency (allows more users per channel). · Improved inter-agency and intra-agency communications. · Available to any user providing interagency communications through talk groups. · Each radio owned by each agency is programmed for access to talk groups designated or assigned by their agency, plus some or all of the entire "common" talk groups. · We no longer think in terms of "channels." Instead we think in terms of "talk paths." (More than 2000 talk paths are available for assignment/150-200 talk groups) · In reality, the radios are remote computers. · Provides good interference isolation, coverage and audio quality. · Enhanced operational and signaling features. · Push-to-talk (PTT) identification. · Priority emergency signaling · Improved reliability and redundancy · Inherent user privacy · SIMULtaneous broadCAST of identical signals · All simulcast sites have identical frequencies · Wide area coverage · Improved in-building coverage · Supports digital applications System Design · Four (4) remote simulcast sites · Carter's Mountain · Buck's Mountain · Fan Mountain · Peters Mountain · One (1) relay site · Klockner Stadium · One (1) master control and dispatch facility · Emergency Communications Center (ECC) · One (1) secondary PSAP/dispatch facility · Charlottesville Fire Department Headquarters System Desitin (Di.qital Microwave Network) · Six (6) site point-to-point digital microwave network (6&10.6/11.2 GHz) · Provides reliability needed for Public Safety communications. · Audio transport for the simulcast radio system · Interconnects radio simulcast sites with the ECC · Provides loop diversity signal routing (redundancy) · Provides additional future voice and data transport ATTACHMENT C January 26, 1999: Request for proposal (RFP) issued and four firms were invited to submit proposals. March 5, 1999 Addendum · Clarified RFP specifications · Granted 16 day extension for proposals March 26, 1999 Addendum · Additional RFP clarification April 2, 1999 Addendum · Additional RFP clarification April 16, 1999 Addendum · Additional RFP clarification April 30, 1999 · Received single proposal from Motorola, Inc. for an 800 MHz analog/digital simulcast trunked design. Proposal includes an 18-month implementation process from the contract signing date. Attachment D 2/1/01 Albemarle County, Charlottesville, UVA Public Safety Communications System Cost m! $274,060 $70,623 --*:. $695,074 $49,318.5 ~ $47,111 $265,677 $o $1,027,181 $71,906 675 $1:~923i862 $~075 ~9 ~90 ~8 ~: $~95~756 $6~200 $139,160 $67,525 I I ~ $352,680 0 I ~~ o $~7,507 ~ $24,795 TOTALS 3~7 { 200 { 25 { 729 205 {5 2,332 { $~,775,6~8 {$253,942.25 { $279,099 { 20~ { $9,457,229 $23,565,898 800 MHZ RADIO SYSTEM Project Cost (with financing) Total FY 01 FY 02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Maintenance $2,436,106.71 $487,221.34 $487,221.34 $487,221.34 $487,221.34 $487,221.34 Accessories & installation 333,041.25 66,608.25 266,433.00 Subscriber Units 3,775,638.00 755,127.60 3,020,510.40 Infrastructure 12,306,395.37 1,230,639.54 1,230,639.54 1,230,639.54 1,230,639.54 1,230,639.54 1,230,639.54 1,230,639.54 1,230,639.54 1,230,639.54 1,230,639.54 Total Project Cost $18,851,181.33 $821,735.85 $5,004,804.28 $1,717,860.88 $1,717,860.88 $1,717,860.88 $1,717,860.88 $1,230,639.54 $1,230,639.54 $1,230,639.54 $1,230,639.54 $1,230,639.54 Locality Shares UVA 2,841,197.23 $125,079.83 $758,513.82 $258,194.49 $258,194.49 $258,194.49 $258,194.49 $184,965.12 $184,965.12 $184,965.12 $184,965.12 $184,965.12 Airport 580,024.28 $27,254.99 $160,727.59 $51,707.61 $51,707.61 $51,707.61 $51,707.61 $37,042.25 $37,042.25 $37,042.25 $37,042.25 $37,042.25 City 5,847,592.40 $248,112.10 $1,529,279.92 $536,631.52 $536,83t.52 $536,831.52 $536,831.52 $384,574.86 $384,574.86 $384,574.86 $384,574.86 $384,574.86 County 9,582,367.42 $421,288.92 $2,556,282.95 $871,127.25 $871,127.25 $871,127.25 $871,127.25 $624,057.31 $624,057.31 $624,057.31 $624,057.31 $624,057.31 Total Locality Shares 18,851,181.33 821,735.85 5,004,804.28 1,717,860.88 1,717,860.88 1,717,860.88 1,717,860.88 1,230,639.54 1,230,639.54 1,230,639.54 1,230,639.54 1,230,639.54 UVA Maintenance $366,146.84 $73,229.37 $73,229.37 $73,229.37 $73,229.37 $73,229.37 Accessories & Installation 36,280.16 7,256.03 29,024.13 Subscriber Units 589,119.00 117,823.80 471,295.20 Infrastructure $1,849,651.23 184,965.12 184,965.12 184,965.12 184,965.12 184,965.12 184,965.12 184,965.12 184,965.12 184,965.12 184,965.12 Total $2,841,197.23 $125,079.83 $758,513.82 $258,194.49 $258,194.49 $258,194.49 $258,194.49 $184,965.12 $184,965.12 $184,965.12 $184,965.12 $184,965.12 Airport Maintenance $73,326.81 $14,665.36 $14,665.36 $14,665.36 $14,665.36 $14,665.36 Accessories & Installation 9,802.97 1,960.59 7,842.38 Subscriber Units 126,472.00 25,294.40 101,177.60 Infrastructure $370,422.50 37,042.25 37,042.25 37,042.25 37,042.25 37,042.25 37,042.25 37,042.25 37,042.25 37,042.25 37,042.25 Total $580,024.28 $27,254.99 $160,727.59 $51,707.61 $51,707.61 $51,707.61 $51,707.61 $37,042.25 $37,042.25 $37,042.25 $37,042.25 $37,042.25 City Maintenance $761,283.34 $152,256.67 $152,256.67 $152,256.67 $152,256.67 $152,256.67 Accessories & Installation 104,375.50 20,875.10 83,500.40 Subscriber Units 1,136,185.00 227,237.00 908,948.00 Infrastructure $3,845,748.56 384,574.86 384,574.86 384,574.86 384,574.86 384,574.86 384,574.86 384,574.86 384,574.86 384,574.86 384,574.86 Total $5,847,592.40 $248,112.10 $1,529,279.92 $536,831.52 $536,831.52 $536,831.52 $536,831.52 $384,574.86 $384,574.86 $384,574.86 $384,574.86 $384,574.86 County Maintenance $1,235,349.72 $247,069.94 $247,069.94 $247,069.94 $247,069.94 $247,069.94 Accessories & Installation 182,582.62 36,516.52 146,066.10 Subscriber Units 1,923,862.00 384,772.40 1,539,089.60 Infrastructure $6,240,573.08 624,057.31 624,057.31 624,057.31 624,057.31 624,057.31 624,057.31 624,057.31 624,057.31 624,057.31 624,057.31 Total $9,582,367.42 $421,288.92 $2,556,282.95 $871,127.25 $871,127.25 $871,127.25 $871,127.25 $624,057.31 $624,057.31 $624,057.31 $624,057.31 $624,057.31 Executive Summary 1995- The County, City and University, through the ECC Management Board, commissioned a Radio Communications Study Study Findings > Inadequate radio coverage ~ Lack of ability to provide basic communication in some areas - "dead spots" 'Inadequate radio channel capacity } Lack of ability to handle multiple incidents Daily interference Current equipment'older than useful life Study Findings (continued) '~ Lack of interoperability ~ Police, Fire and EMS agencies unable to communicate with each other during an emergency ~ Systems unreliable ~ Unable to obtain replacement parts ~ No system backup (poor redundancy) Consultant Recommendation ~ 800 MHz ~ 20 Channel ~ Trunked ~ Simulcast ~ Dual Mode (Analog/Digital) Cellular Technology > Doesn't allow for multiple-unit conversation ("talkgroup calls"l > Can't operate together on emergency scene. > Can't dispatch multiple agencies simultaneously Ultra Wide Band (Linear)Technology > Not Currently Available > Untested technology Satellite Technology ~ More expensive than 800 MHz ~ Practical application too restrictive for public safety uses Other Frequency Bands and All Other Methods ~ Lose fUnctionality, i.e., no ability to communicate among multiple emergency service agencies ~ More difficult to meet Public Safety radio communication standards Trunked Technology (800 MHz) Only technology in one package that best meets the standards of Public Safety communications in terms of ... · Functionality (e.g., emergency alerting of a downed police officer, firefighter, or rescue worker in the field) · Redundancy (e.g., if transmitter goes down, can switch to another and continue operations uninterrupted) · Interoperability (e.g., ability to communicate among and between all agencies) · Versatility (e:g, can divide multiple and varied agencies [police, fire, rescue, gas, transit, water, public service] into task forces to deal with emergencies specific to a defined geographic area or location More Effective Service to the Community for Critical Public Safety Needs > Improved coverage will significantly improve current "dead spots" where communication is unreliable Additional channels will allow simultaneous communications during multiple incidents Increased safety and convenience for emergency service workers Participating agencies can communicate directly with each other using a common system The system will be more reliable with better operational back up Significantly reduces interference Replacement of Current Inadequate Communication Systems Implement Industry-wide Public Safety Radio Communications Standards Considerate 'of Local Concerns ~ Minimize number of tower locations ~ Minimize tower height ~ Minimize costs Meet Communication Coverage Requirements Site Confi. _uration Required Sites ~ Fan Mt. Bucks Elbow Peters Mt. Carters Mt, ECC ~ Klockner Stadium Public Safety Tower Information Fan Mountain Technical } 800 MHz/Microwave } Construct 120' self-supporting tower to replace existing 120' guyed tower Acquisition & Zoning } UVA approval received } May need to establish agreement with UVA } Special use permit required Bucks Elbow Technical > 800 MHz/Microwave } Add 20' to existing 100' guyed tower Acquisition & Zoning } No lease required (County owned) } Special use permit required Carters Mountain Technical ~ 800 MHz/Microwave ~ Construct new 250' self-supporting tower adjacent to current tower farm Acquisition & Zoning } Lease required (land owned > Special use permit required Peters Mountain Technical } 800 MHz/Microwave } Construct 125' self-supporting tower Acquisition & Zoning ~ Land lease or deed of easement required (AT&T) ~ Special use permit required · ECC Technical ~ Serves as primary control site/microwave } Construct 110' monopole tower Acquisition & Zoning ~ UVA approval received. No lease required. } Special use permit required Public Safety Tower Information Klockner Stadium Technical } Microwave relay hop (Peters to ECC) } Lowers ECC & Peters Mountain tower heights } Replace existing light tower Acquisition & .Zoning } UVA approval received } May .need to establish agreement with UVA } Special use permit required Estimated Cost System Price: ~ ~ Fixed net equipment ~ Radio subscriber-units ~ Radio accessories ~ Installation ~ Subject to final design & negotiation 5-Year Maintenance Agreement: Proposed Financing ~ System financed at 5.53 % over 10 years ~. Maintenance financed at 5.53 % over 5 years FCC Deadline FCC Implementation Requirements September 15, 2002 (19 months) } FCC:" fully constructed and operational FCC has granted a one-time extension 99 Original 5-year. construction schedule was extended two additional-years FCC: "No further extensions will be entertained." Region riSks losing or being forced to share frequencies if deadline not met Tasks Required to-Meet FCC Deadline · · · · · · February 2001 April 2001 April 2001 July 2001 December 2001 July 2002 June 2002 August 2002 Oct 2002 December 2002 Board of Supervisors/City. Council approval to proceed with contract negotiations Special use permit consideration Award of contract Begin construction Begin site installation Begin sUbscriber installation Begin system acceptance 'testing Begin system training System cut over System acceptance for our Communit_-> Improves Radio Communications Coverage Eliminates the many dead spots which currently exist -- particularly for emergency responders using portable radios while in the field Supports Multiple Channel Radio Communications Allows public safety and public service agencies to communicate during different emergency incidents .occurring simultaneously Significantly Reduces Interference > Provides clear, immediate, reliable communication among public service providers during both normal and emergency operations for our. Communit_:-- Allows Formation of Specialized Talk Groups > More efficiently meets emergency cOmmunications needs during, major events, e.g., > Sugar Hollow Dam floods > Fire and' evacuation of 300 elderly patients at Piedmont Health Care Facility Provides Independent, Dedicated Radio Communications System > Operates without outside assistance from commercial service providers during natural disasters and local emergencies. More Secure than our Current System ~ Microwave technology less vulnerable to a loss in service Discussion COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Quarterly Financial Report SUBJECTIPROPOSAL/REQUEST: Presentation of Year to Date Quarterly Financial RePort for Six MOnths Ended December 31st. AGENDA DATE: February 7, 2001 ACTION CONSENT AGEN DA: ACTION: STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters, MSs. White, Spencer BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ~/' X The attached quarterly financial report provides information on the county's general fund and the fund balance as of December 31, 2000. Also included is a bar-chart-based report that compares this year,s r-egenue and expenditure data with data from the previous year. DISCUSSION: ($ in millions) A. Attachment A: General Fund Quarterly Financial Report: 1. Revenues: While the Finance Department anticipates that current year projected revenues will decrease slightly, since the first quarterly report, overall, revenues continue to reflect a stable local economy. Local revenue projections have decreased slightly since the laSt quarterly report. However, revenues are still showing growth over last year: While real estatetaxes have increased, Personal property taxes, sales tax, business licenses revenues and other local tax revenues continue to show decreases over the initial budgeted revenues. State revenue is estimated to increase by $3.856 million. This is primarily due to the reporting changes associated with the personal property tax relief program. Federal revenues are predicted to decrease by $0.214 million during this current fiSCal year. Current revenue projections of $121.521 million reflect a $2.329 million (2%) variance or increase in the revenue projection over what Was appropriated on JUly 1, 2000. When anticipated revenues are combined with the budgeted fund balance and use of other funds, the total estimated available resources in the current fiscal year is $129.759 million. Expenditures: Expenditures are within appropriate levels (50%) for the first one half of the year: · Total expenditures are 48.4% of current budget. Since the July 1-September 30 quarterly report, additional appropriations have been approved by the Board for revised expenditures of $127.483 million. These appropriations, approximately $6.3 million, are the result of the November reappropriations that included uncompleted FY 00 projects, FY 01 projects approved during budget workSessions and approximately $4.5 million in new capital projects, $2 million of which was designated for the capital reserve. Revised Revenues less Revised ExPenditureS (yellow boxes in lower right-hand corner): · There could be $2.276 million in unObligated revenues bY the end of thiS current fiSCal year (jUne 30,2001) based on staff estimates as of December 31,2000. · Fund Balance Available is $0.223 million. See the Fund Balance report for details. If projected revenues are realized, $2.499 million in "Projected Unobligated Funds" could be available at the end of the current fiscal year for contingencies, capital projects or other one-time needs which may be identified in upcoming budget worksessions. Attachment B: Annual Budget Comparison Report as of December 31, 2000 This bar-chart-based report tracks changes in revenue and expenditure changes over time: Revenues: · Revenues from personal property tax, sales tax, other local taxes, and federal revenues are anticipated to decrease from last year. · Revenues from real estate taxes, state revenues, meals taxes, 'and utility taxes and other local revenues are anticipated to increase over amounts received last year. · No revenue growth is anticipated in business licenses this year. Expenditures: This report reflects those changes resulting from reappropriations approved by the Board in November 2000. The most significant expenditure increase based on approved appropriations to date are the administration, public safety, public works and the community development areas. Appropriations include $4.5 million for new projects in the Capital Improvements Fund, as well as approved projects such as thermal imaging cameras, groundwater and hydrogeologic studies, county-wide tax map/parcel conversion project, and planimetric mapping services. Attachment C: Fund Balance Report This report indicates that the County: Reported a preliminary (unaudited) June 30th fund balance of $20.376 million for the previous fiscal year (FY 99/00); 2. Adjusted June 30th fund balance by $0.123 million resulting in an audited fund balance of $20.499 million; 3. Appropriated $0.830 million in approved projects in the FY01 Adopted Budget; Appropriated an additional $6.946 million for projects between July1 and December 31, 2000. These projects were ones not completed by 7/1/00, projects approved during the budget process, and new capital and operating projects approved by the Board; Has committed to maintain a minimum fund balance of $12.5 million for cash liquidity purposes. The $12.5 million balance remains Within the County'S financial pOliCy of maintaining a fund balance "equal to no less than 8% of the County's General Fund, plus School Fund;" 6. The current year net fUnd balance available as of 12/31/00 is $0.223 million. Fiscal Impact Discussion 1. Current Year Revenue Estimates are based on a January 25th Department of Finance report, which analyzes FY00 actual revenue collections, as well as any trend indicators gleaned from the first quarter collections. There is a perception at the federal level that the national economy seems to be slowing down as evidenced by recent cuts in interest rates by the Federal Reserve. This slow down may affect the state and localities during the course of the next fiscal year. Albemarle County's projected revenues for the upcoming fiscal year in real estate, personal property, local sales and use, as well as total local state and federal revenue are consistent with projections from several comparable jurisdictions in the state. Because of the possibility of a changing economic climate, higher construction costs than anticipated, and other variables, the County's Projected UnObligated Funds ShoUld alWays be viewed as subject to change as the fiscal year unfolds. Use of Projected Unobligated Funds: As indicated on the Fund Balance Report, the available fund balance is $0.223 million after subtracting all appropriationsfrom the June 30 fund balance. This amount, when combined with the Board's budgeted contingency reserve, of $0.124 million gives the Board approximately $0.347 million to use for any unanticipated needs in the current year. If those needs should exceed that amount, then the Projected Unobligated Funds from the higher than estimated revenue growth will be the only additional source of funds for the current fiscal year. If and when additional appropriations are approved, the bottom line Projected Unobligated Funds highlighted in yellow On the report will be reduced. Future Commitments for the Unobligated Funds: Should the Board decide to reduce the tax rate by $0.01 cents for the FY01 tax year, there wOuld be a revenue reduction of approximately $0.357 million leaving projected unallocated funds at $2.1 million. A one-cent tax reduction in calendar or tax year 2001 will impact current fiscal year revenues due to split-billing. (The first half of the tax year is billed in June of the current fiscal year 01 .) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board accepts the second quarter report for FY 00/01. 01.019 3 Albemarle County General Fund Quarterly Financial Report Year-to-Date (YTD) For Six Months Ended December 31st ($ in millions) Attachment A Revenues Real Estate Taxes Personal Property Taxes Sales Taxes Business Licenses Utility Tax Meals Tax Other Local Taxes Other Local Revenue State Revenue Federal Revenue Total Revenues Use of FY99/00 Fund Balance Use of Other Funds Total Prior Year - FY 99~00 Full Year 12/31/99 YTD YTD Actual as I 07/01/00 Actual Actual % of Full Year I Aporopriated (1) I $43,738 $20,995 48.0%~ $47,676 15,990 8.260 51.7%~ 16.596 9.462 4,028 42,6%1 9.750 6.184 0,553 8.9% 5.954 5.488 2.147 39.1% 5.867 3.367 1.717 51.0% 3,325 7.832 2,870 36.6% 8.024 4,905 1.908 38,9% 4.751 12.945 4.655 36.0% 13.963 2.927 0,690 23.6% 3.28.6. 112.837 47.821 42.4% 119,192 0.000 0.000 0.235 0,083, 35,3% $113.072 $47.904. 42.~4%o Current Year - FY 00/01 12/31/00 YTD YTD Actual as Actual % of Full Yea[ $22.492 47.2% 7.426 44.7% 4,090 42.0% 0.608 10.2% 2.182 37.2% 1,817 54.6% 3,162 39.4% 2.515 52.9% 6.869 49.2% 1.195 36.4% 52.358 43.9% 0.830 0.000 0.0% 0.468. 0.011 2.4% $120.49~0 $52.36~9 43.$.._.% Revised Revenue Estimate (23 Projected Revenue Variance Projected Variance as % of Appropriated 6.952 ~ 3.525 7.926 5.257 / 17.819 /!3.856~ 3.071 / 0.(~_~ 2.0% 7.776 6.946 0.462 (0.006) Expenditures Prior Year - FY 99~00 Administration Judicial Public Safety Public Works Human Development Parks, Rec & Culture Community Development Subtotal Operations Full Year 12/31/99 YTD YTD Actual as Actual Actual % of Full Year Transfer to School Division NomDept (revenue share; reserves; refunds) Subtotal $6.184 $3.125 50.5% 2.533 1.271 50.2% 12.294 5.959 48.5% 2.538 1.456 57.4% 8,719 4,122 47.3% 4.015 1.187 29.6% 2,994 1,713 57.2% 39,278 18.834 48.0% Transfers to Capital Fund and Debt Service Total Expenditures 51.686 22,503 43.5% 5.881 0,013 0.2% 96.845 41.350 42.7% 12.461 8.026 64.4% $109.306 $49.377 46.2% (1) July I, 2000 Appropriated General Fund FY00/01 Budget. (2) Finance Department Revised Revenue Estimate as of January 26, 2001. (3) Revised Expenditure Appropriations as of December 31,2000. Current Year - FY 07/01/00 12/31/00 YT.D., YTD Actual as Aoprooriated (1) Actual % of Full Year $6.512 $3.187 48.9% 2.729 1,323 48.5% 13,890 6.396 46.0% 2.719 1.680 61.8% 9,604 4,233 44.1% 4.307 1.299 30.2% 3,378 1.947 57.6% 43,140 20,065 46.5% 56.674 28.337 50,0% 6,662, 0,093 1.4% 106.476 48,495 45.5% 14,015 9.780 69.8% $120.49~1 $68.27_~_~5 00101 Projected Revised Expenditure Expenditure Appropriations (3) Vadance $6.983 ~ 2.789 0.059 14,178 ~ 2.981 9.657 0.053 4,345 0.038 4 lZ6. ~ 45.110 1.970 56.674 0.000 6,662 0,000 108,446 1.970 19,037 5.023 $6.99___~2 $.8% Revised Revenues less Revised Expenditures $2.276 I Fund Balance Available $ 0.223 I ProJectad Unoblin,=_ted Funds $2.499 Albemarle County General Fund General Fund Quarterly Financial Report Year-to-Date (YTD) For Six Months Ending December 31st ($ in millions) Attachment B Revenues 60.0 50.0 - 40.0 - 30.0 20.0- 10.0 Real Estate Taxes Personal Property Taxes Sal~ Tn¥~ R, ~=in~ I Ifilifv T~v I~/I,=nl,= T~v ('lfh=r I nnal Other Local B99/00 Actual B00/01 Appropriated ,00/01 Revised Revenue State Revenue Federal Revenue 16.0 14.0 12.0 ~ lO.O 'F~ 8.0 ._ ~ 6.0 4.0 2.0 Administration Expenditures Judicial Public Safetv Public Works · 99/00 Actual · 00/01 Appropriated Human Parks. Rec & Community Non-departmental · 00/01 Revised Development 66.7 56.7 Transfer to School Division C:Wly Documents~[FinanclalReport thru 12_003,xls]summaPJ 2/2/01 t6:57 Albemarle County General Fund Quarterly Fund Balance Report Year,to-Date (YTD) For Six Months Ended December 31st, 2000 ($ in millions) Fund Balance as reported on 9/30/00 report Adjustment per Final Audit Final 6/30/00 Fund Balance $20,376 $0.123 $20.499 Attachment C Less Appropriations approved 7/1/00 to date: FY01 Budgeted Anticipated Fund Balance FY00 Outstanding Purchase Orders FY00 Projects not completed by 711100 FY01 New Projects in the Operating Fund FY01 Projects approved during the budget process FY01 New Projects in the Capital Fund 0.830 0.371 0.543 0.577 0.300 4.538 Specific Projects: ECC Dispatch Consoles QUIP Coordinator Polo Grounds Property Purchase Ward Center Property Purchase Electoral Board Assistant Damage to Sheriff's Vehicle Sheriff's Part-time Wages Total Approved Appropriations to date 0.073 0.013 0.485 0.004 0.021 0.001 0.020 7.776 Current Fund Balance Less: Proposed Committed Projects Net Fund Balance Less: Minimum Required Cash Flow Balance Net Fund Balance Available 121723 12.723 12.500 $0.223 C:~ly Docurnents~[FinancialReport thru 12_003,xis]fund balance 2/1/0t 15:47 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) SUBJ ECTIPROPOSAL/REQU EST: Presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2000. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White AGENDA DATE: February 7, 2001 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: The 1999/2000 Audit has been completed and is submitted for your review. The field work and audit testing was completed by Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates, the County's external auditors. DISCUSSION: Certificate of Excellence This Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) was submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for the Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting. This award has been received by the County for the last five years and is coveted by localities throughout the United States and Canada. We anticipate approval and expect to receive notification within six months. General Fund The General Fund balance of $20,499,280 increased as of June 30, 2000 by $3,770,118, resulting from a combination of revenues in excess of budget and expenditures being less than budget. The current FY 2000/2001 appropriations anticipate using $7,776,083 of this amount, reducing available Fund Balance to $12,723,197. School Fund Due to reporting requirements that require that school activities be shown as a component unit of local govemment, it is very difficult to compare the audit amounts to our actual records. A number of Federal Programs and what we consider self-sustaining activities are combined in the audit for reporting purposes. The fund balance for what we consider the School Fund is $1,612,662, a decrease of $297,448 in FY 1999/2000. Fund Balances The Combined Balance Sheet on pages 4 and 5 of CAFR's Financial Section details the assets, liabilities, and fund balances for vadous funds as of June 30, 2000. The schedule below is intended to recondle these funds balances to those used in the monthly reports presented to you. AGENDA TITLE: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) February 7, 2001 Page 2 Fund Balances General Fund Capital - General School Fund Capital - School Per Audit 06/30/2000 $ 23,079,613 $ 6,954,699 $ 163,965,645 ~; 0 Fixed Assets (155,004,280) Debt Service (1,364,508) Jail Reserve Fund (300,000) Capital Projects (3,232,786) 3,232,786 Fire Service Fund (2,000,000) Cafeteria Fund (887,404) Storm Water Fund (689,290) Combined Funds (684,875) Inventory (36,614) (238,419) Sales Tax Reserve (850,240) (711,416) Tax Reserve (1,190,979) Prep Advance (229,295) Reserves - VDOT (500,000) Reserves - Waldorf (2,500) Adjusted Balance $ 20,499,280 $ 3,965,409 $ 1,612,662 $ 3,232,786 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the FY 1999/2000 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and for a better understanding of the County's financial status that you review the letter of transmittal included in the Introduction Section and the Notes on pages 13 -46 of the Financial Section. 01.020 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended 6/30/00 (This report was scanned under Financial Reports - 2001.) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Board of Supervisors Laurie Bentley, C.M.C./~/ Senior Deputy Clerk ~ February 2, 2001 Vacancies on Boards and Commissions I have updated the list of vacancies on boards and commissions through May 31, 2001. Please advise me if you want me to advertise any of the vacancies. Thank you. Cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis Chamber of Commerce WISH TO BE NEW TERM RE- MAGISTERIAL BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER TERM EXPIRES EXPIRES APPOINTED? APPOINTMENT? One application sent under David T. Paulson 08-13-00 08-12-01 No separate cover. One application sent under Roxanne White 09-30-00 09-29-03 No separate cover. No applications received. Margaret Borwhat 09-30-00 09-29-03 No (Readvertised; applications due Michael G. Stewart 12-31-00 12-31-01 No Rio 2/14) (Applications due 2/14) Michael R. Matthews, Jr. 12-01-03 <(finish out N/A (moved to Joint position) Matthews' term) One application sent under Leigh B. Middleditch, Jr. 12-31-00 12-31-03 Not eligible separate cover. One application sent under Daniel Montgomery 12-13-00 12-13-02 No separate cover. (City will make recommendation) John F. Marshall (Joint 12-31-00 12-31-02 No City/County appointee; .. se~es on this commi~ee by vidue of se~ing on RWSA) (City will make recommendation) John F. Marshall (See 12-31-00 12-31-02 No RSWA) WISH TO BE NEW TERM RE- MAGISTERIAL BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER TERM EXPIRES EXPIRES APPOINTED? APPOINTMENT? Applications sent under separate New committee (3 -? TBD cover, vacancies) Michelle Sirch-Stasko 06-30-02 Resigned Eddie Lynch 01-04-01 06-03-02 Resigned William B. Harvey 05-31-01 05-31-03 Yes He is ineligible to serve again. Mitchell E. Neuman 05-22-01 05-22-04 Not eligible Would the Board want to pass (see note to another resolution extending his the left) term another 3 years? COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors FROM: Laurie Bentley, C.M.C. ~,,~J Senior Deputy Clerk DATE: February 2, 2001 RE: Applications for Boards and Commissions I have attached the applications received for vacancies on various Boards/Commissions. Thank you. Attachments cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis BOARD OR COMMISSION NEW TERM APPLICANT/ INTERVIEW, EXPIRE INCUMBENT IF DATE SCHEDULED Nathaniel D. Perkins Carolyn J. Fowler Nathaniel D. Perkins Nathaniel D. Perkins Nathaniel D. Perkins Ross L. Stevers County of Albemarle Office of Board of County Super~4sors 401 Mclntire Road CharlOttesville, VA 229024596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE -/ (Please ~ or print;) Board/Commission/Committee '"~OY-~I~ 'De~O~L-Ol~OxEt, a"~ Applicant's Name ~t~. AtlT/-]~l&t.. T)- Full Home Address 4~'Z> di~L~',/C~ ][;~L..~_~. , Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Employer ']~al{-r~l t~ r,x'D (.. Phone Business Address O.[ff- 'l~Oa~5 ].]~c~p Pa~diE-' Occupation/Title Years Resident in Albemarle CoUnt7 Previous Residence ~'/-uff-~'/l~L.f'~ / Education ,(Degrees and GraduatiOn Dates) ¢6v__.,tce. r ci~, ic ~--dgi,,let-ejd4 - / qq3 Memberships in Fraternal. Business. Church and/or Social Groups Home Phone Date of Employment //~::~ Spouse's Name E.e-~O~ Z--~. Number of Children Public. Civic ~nd Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or Interests Reason(5) for \$Ssking tO Serve on this Board/Conwnission/Committee ."~:~"~ ~.~ The information provided on/t~s ~:~plication will be released to the public upon rte7. Signature Date Return to: Qerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlotte~ville, VA 2290245% FAX: (804) 296-5800 David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Charlotte Y. Humphd$ COUNTY OF AIB~E Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter E Perkins White Hall Sally H. Thomas Samuel February 14, 2001 Mr. Nathaniel D. Perkins Bfinkman MDC One Boar's Head Pointe Charlottesville, VA 22903 Dear Mr. Perkins: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 7, 2001, the Board appointed you to the Housing Committee, with said term to run from January 1, 2001 through December 31,2003. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/lab Enclosure cc: James Camblos Ron White Printed on recycled paper County of Albemarle Office of Board of County Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 229024596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE (Please type or print.) Board/Commission/Committee ~////e~-~t~/4 Applicant's Name ~. /~lnT/-}~Ji~t.. 'F~- 17~.-.~]r--}~ Home Phone Full HomeAddress 48~'zD gi~l'/btb'10~ ]PLg,~F... , ~.~ZLI;rlI~V[LI~; Magisterial District in which your home residence is located ~ ~ iTEI-]/:iLL. Pi:mi CT' Employer ,'~a}(__~ Y~D~- Phone Occupation/Tide, ~.~i,'JC ~)J~--~/~ Years Resident in Albemarle County ~ Previous Residence ~'/..t~'tl~/..f'~ / Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates) ~:a~/'/ff-L~,P-- O/:: / ~Sv__.,tr.e_ ,' civic f-dgi,,l~e. M4 - l q~?3 Memberships in Fraternal. Business, Church and/or Social Groups ,4"n~t'~.~d ~7 PubEc. Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or Interests gz3-Izz3' Date of Employment ! Spouse's Name ~-)~ /---~- Number of Children ~" C)wL ~-',//---;de~3"/4 -- lqqZ 5 aF Reason(~) for Wishing tO Serve on this. BOard/Commission/Committee The information provided 9~ this application Signature will be released to the public upon rTu/st. D~tea Return to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road CharlotteSville, VA 2290245% FAX: (804) 296-5800 County of Albemarle Office of Board of County Supermsors 401 Mclndre Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE (Please type or print.) Applicant's Name ~t~. /dQT/Jqdi~.,t.. -¥~. ~E.IZlg-.)4.5, Home Phone Full Home Address ..4g~l) .~g'l[a~~l_~__.~___,~ Ma~stefifl Dismct in wNch your home residence is located ~mploy~ ~a~ ~DC BUsiness Address Occupation/Title Years Resident in Albemarle County. Previous Residence ~:'L~-t~/t~.L.? , ! Education .(Degrees and Graduation Dates) Memberships in Fraternal, Business, Church and/or $odal Groups ~,~n~t't.~4 Public, Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other Agtivities 9r Interests Date of Employment Spouse's Name Number of Children M- Reason(~) for Wishing to Serve On this Board/Commission/Committee .,)~T'" /~ The information provided on this ;replication will be released to the public upon request. Signature' ' ' Date Return to: Qerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 FAX: (804) 296-5800 County of Albemarle Office of Board of County Supervisors 401 McInfire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE (Please type or print.) ~oa~d/Com~ssion/Conm.ee ,4r.~- A~aJSaC ~-~. Applicant's Name k4. /~lUT/lt~,~iet~ T~- $:~.~1r-9,,~ Home Phone Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Employer '~ald-t'rl/k4 r,xI) (_. Phone Business Address O~/&. '~g'a~ /']~qP ;/Pa/diE'-, Occupation/Tide ~.5~½6 F_d/,3,/~r~/Tqe. z,vr:o~ Years Resident in Albemarle County Pre,,ious Residence Education .(Degrees and Graduation Dates) ~:a~,R-. O/:: ~O~_~/O~_. 6cSe_.~ce. r Ci,,iL ~tgideee~4 - / 9q3 Membe~hps in Fraternal. Business, Church and/or Sodal Groups of- Date of Employment //2z~:> ! Spouse's Name Number of Children '~' C;~,;L ~.//~;deoz;,¢4 - lqqz 5 ,,.,as're_e. Publicl Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or Interests Reason(s) for Wishing to Serve on this Board/Commission/Committee The information provided on t~al~plication will be released to the public upon re~uetst. Signature Dl[te * Return to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 229024596 FAX: (804) 296-5800 County of Albemarle Office of Board of County Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 229024596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE (Please type or print.) Applicant's Name '~-~% ~' ,.0~O4-~Ae.. ,~Ox.~q~ Homeehone Magisterial District in which your home residence is located ~' ,~ we..t /t~, '{ ]~ Employer ~:~%-~. & ,~x~,~XZ.,-W~~ ' ' Phone ~Oc{- ~ ~{ Occupation/Ti e Years Resident in Albemarle County Previous Residence Education .(Degrees and Graduation Dates) Date of Employment Spouse's Name Number of Children Memberships in Fraternal, B.usines~, Church and/or Social Groups J~.',m'vt,x4.o~ {. C ~ ~s, pUblic, Civic and Charitable Office and/or.Other Activities o< Interests Reason(s) for Wishing to Serve on this Board/C0mmis$ion/C.ommitte¢ ~r°Td ° n' n' n'~))~/~aPff~cati°n wSbe released t° the public up°n request' Signature Date Return to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 229024596 FAX: (804) 296-$800 County of Albemarle Office of Board of County Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 229024596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE (Please type or print.) F~ Home Address Ma~stefi~ Dis~ct ~ w~ch your home residence is located Employer Business Ad.ss Years Resident ~ ~bem~e Coun, Previous Residence Education ~egrees add Graduation Dates) Home Phone Date of Employment Number of Children Memberships in Fraternal, Business, Church and/or Social Groups Public, Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or Interests Reason(s) for Wishing to Serve on this Boarct/Commission/Committee ~r°~qted °n~ai~P~pcafi°n Zbe released t° the public up°n request/:z~~ Signature Date Return to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville~ VA 22902-4596 FAX: (804) 296-5800 David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr. Scottsville Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouett COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter F. Perkins White Hall Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller February 7, 2001 Mr. William B. Harvey 2721 Timberlake Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Harvey: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 7, 2001, you were reappointed to the Advisory Council on Aging, with said term to run from June 1, 2001 through May 31,2003. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/lab Enclosure cc: James Camblos Gordon Walker Lida Arnason Printed on recycled paper David R Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Scotts~le Charlotte Y. Humphds Jack Joueti COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Chades S. Martin Rivanna Walter E Perkins Wl~te Hah Sally H. Thomas Samuel Mill~r February 14, 2001 Ms. Carolyn J. Fowler 3215 Malbon Dr. Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Ms. F~ At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 7, 2001, the Board appointed you to the JAUNT Board, with said term to run from September 30, 2000 through September 29, 2003. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SliT/lab Enclosure CC; James Camblos Donna Shaunesey Printed on recycled paper County of Albemarle Office of Board of County Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlo~e, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE (Please type or print.) Board/Commission/Committee "~ ~ ~ ~ ~' Applicant's Name o,. f' o Lq_ iq '~. ~ W 1,. ~ , nome Phone Full Home Address 3 a [ ~ M ex. L-lo Orh ~ lVlagisterial District in_which your _la?me r, esid~nce is located '~-~ Employer[~ . ['~- ~'~ }c>~ ) Phone Business Address ,~ ~ Occupation/Title H ~ 0 ~-- O ~- SS;lO ~Ck (,. Years Resident in Albemarle County o~ ~ Spouse's Name "~O iq v~ Previous Residence I~:~c~' XJF~0llkC-~ ~ Number of Children Education (]Degrees and Graduation Dates) (~. S- ~ ~ ~ (O/~ ! · Memberships Ln Fraternal, Business, Church and/or Social Gro_ups ~.v'v~ and Charitable Office and/or Ot~her Activities or Lqterests ~ Reason(s) £or Wishing to Serve on this Board/Commission/Commktee Con ~ o/ The information provided on this a~a)o,~ will be released to the public upon request. Signature O [,..,J Date Return to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 FAX: (804) 296-5800 From: Subject: Date: Members, Board of Supervisors , Ella Washington Carey, CM~ Reading List for February 7, 200 f January 26, 2001 October 18, 2000 November I, 2000 November 8 (A), 2000 December 6, 2000 December 14, 2000 January 10, 2001 January 17, 2001 /ewc pages I-17 (end Item #7) pages 17 (Item #7) - end pages I- 15 (end Item # 10) pages 15 (Item # I 0) - end Mr. Dorrier pages 1-20 (end Item # 15) pages 20 (Item # 15) - end Ms. Thomas Mr. Martin Mr. Bowerman Mr. Dorrier Mr. Martin Mr. Bowerman Ms. Humphris Mr. Perkins Ms. Thomas David R Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. t)order, Jr. Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouelt COUNTY OF AI_REMARLE · Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter E Perkins White Hall Sally H. Thomas Samuel Millet February 13, 2001 Ms. Nancy O'Brien Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission P.O. Box 1505 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. O'Brien' At its February 7, 2001 meeting, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors adopted the attached resolutions. One entreats the General Assembly to exclude planning district commissions from the requirements of HB1261 which limits the representation of locally elected officials on the commissions, and the other urges the General Assembly to continue the level of funding anticipated in the original budget. Sincerely, /~,,~,. , / /~ Laurel A. Bentley, CMC Senior Deputy Clerk Enclosures Printed on recycled paper The Board of CountY Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 7th day of February 2001, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the General Assembly of Virginia approved the biennial budget for fiscal years 2001-2002; and WHEREAS, said budget included an increase of $10,000 for each planning district commission in the Commonwealth, and WHEREAS, the system of planning districts in the CommonWealth encourage cooperation, communication, and efficient use of resources, and WHEREAS, the planning district commissions throughout the Commonwealth have appreciated the support of the General Assembly, and WHEREAS, the proposed budget does not include the $10,000 previously appropriated to planning district commission, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby urge the General Assembly, in all its wisdom, to continue the level of funding anticipated in the original budget. Recorded vote: Moved by: Charlotte Y. Humphris Seconded by: Walter F. Perkins Yeas: Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.; Charlotte Y. Humphris; Charles S. Martin, Walter F. Perkins; Sally H. Thomas, and David P. Bowerman Nays: None A Copy Teste: EB Iol ~1 rdW; fC~euY~o r s The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 7th day of February 2001, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly envisioned planning district commissions would serve the purpose, among other purposes, as a forum for cooperative and communication for locally elected officials; and WHEREAS, the commissions have, throughout their history, provided this unique forum for locally elected officials, and WHEREAS, there are no other state enabled organizations dedicated to general purposes, not restricted to a specific topical area, and WHEREAS, the current configuration of planning district commissions has fostered communication, cooperation, and an increase in efficiency for localities, and is valued by the local goverments, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby entreat the General Assembly to exclude planning district commissions from the requirements of HB1261 which limits the representation of locally elected officials on the commissions. Recorded vote: Moved by: Charlotte Y. Humphris Seconded by: Walter F. Perkins Yeas: Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.; Charlotte Y. Humphris; Charles S. Martin, Walter F. Perkins; Sally H. Thomas, and David P. Bowerman Nays: None A Copy Teste: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CM~ Board of Co~ors