Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-12 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of April 12, 2000 April 13, 2000 1. Call to order. AGENDA ITEM/ACTION 4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agendafrom the BOARD. · Jason Halbert, a volunteer with the Hedtage Forests Campaign, asked Board's support in protecting roadless areas in national forests. · John Martin spoke about the "Four Party Agreement" which established the RWSA, and the County's ability to be part of the final decision with respect to a new water supply. 6. ZMA-99-16. Glenmore Associates Ltd Partnership (Signs ~0&61). · DEFERRED until April 19, 2000 to the consent agenda (waiting for signed proffers). (Bowerman abstained due to conflict of interest) 7. ZTA-00-003. Transmission Lines. · DEFERRED untilApril 19, 2000. 8. ZTA-00-004 and ZMA-00-003. Entrance Corridor Roads. · ADOPTED the attached Ordinance. (Attachment A) 9. Approve FY 2000-01 County Operating Budget. · ADOPTED the attached Resolution (Attachment B) 10. Adopt FY 2000 Tax Rates. · ADOPTED the attached Resolution (Attachment C) 11. Approve FY 2000-01/2004-05 Capital Improvements Program and Adopt FY 2000-01 ClP Budget. · APPROVED the ClP and ADOPTED the FY 2000-01 ClP Budget. 13. Other Matters not Usted on the Agenda from the Board. · Ms. Thomas mentioned an article in the Washington Post concerning tougher fines for "cut-through" drivers in certain neighborhoods. · Mr. Tucker mentioned a request he received from Jim Campbell from VACo, asking if any members of the Board are interested in a Gubernatorial appointment to the Criminal Justice Sen/ices Board. Mr. Martin indicated that he was interested in the appointment. · Mr. Martin mentioned a call he received from a reporter at The Washington Post regarding wineries. · 9. Adjourn. Meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. ASSIGNMENT Meeting was called to Order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman. All BOS members present. County Executive: Prepare information for Board. County attomey: Prepare information forapdl 19th consent agenda. Clerk: Include on consent agenda for Apdl 19m. Clerk: Include on Apdl 19TM agenda. Clerk: Forward to County Attomey's office for inclusion in next update of County Code with copies to Planning, Zoning and Engineering. Clerk: Forward copy to Melvin Breeden and County Executive staff. Clerk: Forward copy to Melvin Breeden and County Executive staff. Clerk: Forward copy to Melvin Breeden and County Executive staff County Executive: Contact Jim Campbell. /ewc Attachment A - Ordinance Attachment B - Budget Resolution Attachment C - Tax Resolution ORDINANCE NO. 00-18(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is amended as follows: By Amending: Sec. 30.6.2 Application. Chapter 18. Zoning Article IlL District Regulations 30.6.2 APPLICATION The entrance corridor overlay district (hereafter referred to as EC) is created to conserve elements of the county's scenic beauty and to preserve and protect corridors: -Along arterial streets or highways (as designated pursuant to Title 33.1 of the Code, including section 33.1-41.1 of that title) found by the board of supervisors to be significant routes of tourist access to the county; or -To historic landmarks as established by the Virginia Landmarks Commission together with any other buildings or structures within the county having an important historic, architectural or cultural interest and any historic areas within the county as defined by section 15.2-2201 of the Code of Virginia; or -To designated historic landmarks, buildings, structures or districts in any contiguous locality. EC overlay districts may be applied over any basic zoning district and/or other overlay district. EC overlay districts are hereby established: (Added 11-14-90; Amended 9-9-92) To the full depth of all parcels of land in existence on the adoption date of section 30.6 of this ordinance which are contiguous to the rights-of-way of the following EC streets in Albemarle County; or b. To a depth of five hundred (500) feet fi:om the rights-of- way, whichever shall be greater, along the following EC streets in Albemarle County: 1. U.S. Ronte 250 East. 2. U.S. Route 29 North. 3. U.S. Route 29 South. 4. Virginia Route 20 South. 5. Virginia Route 631, South from Charlottesville City limits to Route 708, and from U.S. Route 29 North to Route 743. (Amended 11-14-90) 6. U.S. Route 250 West. 7. Virginia Route 6. 8. Virginia Route 151. 9. Interstate Route 64. 10. Virginia Route 20 North. 11. Virginia Route 22. 12. Virginia Route 53. 13. Virginia Route 231. 14. Virginia Route 240. 15. U.S. Route 29 Business. 16. U.S. Route 29/250 Bypass. 17. Virginia Route 654. (Added 11-14-90) 18. Virginia Route 742. (Added 11-14-90) 19. Virginia Route 649 from U.S. Route 29 North to Virginia Route 606. 20. Virginia Route 743 from U.S. Route 29 North to Virginia Route 676. 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 fiv___q_e to zero as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on April 12, 2000 ....... Cl~;~rd of County S~perviso/r,g' Aye Nay _X_Y_ Mr. Bowerman Mr. Dorrier Ms. Humphris Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins Ms. Thomas Y Y Ab~ain Y Y BUDGET RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the operations budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2000 be approved as follows: General Government Administration Judicial Public Safety Public Works Human Development Parks, Recreation & Culture Community Development Other City/County Revenue Sharing Refunds Capital Improvements General Government Debt Service Debt Service/Capital Reserve Education - Operations Education - Self-Sustaining Funds Education - Debt Service Contingency Reserve $6,504,818 $2,654,086 $13,886,200 $2,719,261 $9,580,625 $4,272,399 $3,874,843 $411,004 $6,093,101 $34,300 $2,397,000 $750,000 $1,290,000 $90,035,795 $8,207,047 $8,850,000 $278~978 TOTAL $161,839,457 I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy for a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on April 12, 2000. - Clerk, Board of S~rs RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby set the County Levy for the Calendar Year 2000 for General County purposes at Seventy-Six Cents ($0.76) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of real estate; at Seventy-Six Cents ($0.76) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of manufactured homes; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of personal property; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of machinery and tools; and at Seventy-Six Cents ($0.76) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of public service assessments; and FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect the taxes on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing wdting is a true, correct copy for a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on~Apdl 12, 2000.__ Clerk, Board of Supervi~).rs~__.~s~ Herita e Campaign · www. oudorests.org gSouthern Environmental Law Center April 3, 2000 Dear Elected Official: The Heritage Forest Campaign to protect the remaining roadless areas in our publicly owned national forests is a collaborative effort of over 600 environmental groups,, business owners, economists, scientists, and religious leaders, as well as over 500,000 citizens. We are working toward permanent protection of roadless areas in our national forests. Despite what most people believe, more than 80% of our national forests remain unprotected. Over half of the lands managed by the US Forest Service have already been impacted by decades of forest clearcutting, oil and gas development, mining, and other industrial uses. These 90 million acres are crisscrossed with 377, 810 miles of official roads - more than 8 times the US interstate highway system. The US Forest Service should adopt a policy that protects roadless areas of 1,000 acres and larger on all national forests, with no regional exemptions, from logging, road building, mining, commodity development, and other destructive practices. Although roadless areas in national forests represent less than 1 percent of the landmass in our country, they serve as a harbor for important public and ecological values~ This sliver of America's public lands stands as a crucial source of clean water, habitat for wildlife, prime hunting and fishing grounds, and refuge from the stress of daily life. As urban areas grow more congested, the importance of preserving our remaining natural spaces for recreation becomes more valuable. In fact, the US Forest service estimates that the economic value of recreation on national forests was $6.8 billion in 1993, and will grow to nearly $12.7 billion by 2045. There is broad public support in Virginia to protect the more than 400,000 acres of roadless national forest land as well as roadless areas on a national level. According to a recent nation- wide poll, more than three-quarters of Americans support permanent protection of roadless areas. That belief is shared by 62 percent of Republicans and 86 percent of Democrats polled (American ViewPoint, 2000). Also, more than 80 percent of hunters and anglers favor the protection of roadless areas. (Survey commissioned by the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Alliance.) Please join us in protecting the heritage forests of our great and beautiful country. We ask that you write a letter to the US Forest Service stating your support for the roadless areas policy. A sample letter is attached which may be used. Simply print the letter on your letterhead and mail to US Forest Service Chief, Michael Dombeck. Also, please fax or mail a copy of your letter to the address below. Senators Warner and Robb have previously exPressed their support for roadless area protection. We hope you will too. America's Heritage Forests are at Hsk. America's Heritage Forests comprise Just one-third of all the land managed by the U.S. Forest Service. and are not permanently protected from logging, road building and mining. These scenic unprotected wilderness areas provide unmatched opportunities for cam ping, hiking and other recreational pursuits, valuable habitat for fish and wildlife and abundant supplies of clean drinking water. We have a responsibility to future generations. We must permanently protect our scenic Heritage Forests as wilderness. Once they're gone, they're gone forever. ~.~ Thank you for your time concerning this important and timely issue. I will follow up with you in a few days, but in the mean time if you have any questions or would like further information please feel free to contact us. Virginia Organizer Heritage Forest Campaign 804.817.1330 (telephone) 804.977.1483 (fax) C/O Southern Environmental Law Center 201 West Main Street, Suite 14 Charlottesville, VA 22902 David Cart Public Lands Project Leader Southern Environmental Law Center MODEL LETTER FOR LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIAL Michael Dombeck Chief U.S. Forest Service P.O. Box 96090 Washington, DC 20090 Dear Mr. Dombeck, I am writing to express my support for a policy to protect roadless areas in our national forests. As a publicly elected official in Virginia, I urge you to move forward to protect these undamaged natural areas. The public is legitimately concerned about continued road-building, logging, mining, and other destructive practices in our last undeveloped national forest tracts. The George Washington and Jefferson National Forests here in Virginia are the Southeast's largest national forests, containing over 400,000 acres of these remaining roadless areas. These areas are important because they provide clean water for downstream communities, recreational opportunities, natural scenic beauty, and wildlife habitat. Roadless areas also help recharge aquifers and are often in the headwaters of municipal watersheds, providing the cleanest water and resulting in lower water treatment costs for local residents. For example, the cities of Charlottesville, Lynchburg, Roanoke, and Harrisonburg are all dependent on public land watersheds. I understand that you will be holding a public commem period for this proposal, which will give citizens an oppommity to express how they feel about this proposal. I commend your efforts in taking the time to listen to the public's needs. The public's interest will be best served if you succeed in establishing a strong roadless protection policy. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Sincerely, cc: U.S. Senator ' niml tates m,ate WASHINGTON. OC 205 I0-1005 November 14, 1997 The Honorable Dan OIickman Secretary of Agriculture .ramie L. WRitten Building 1400 Independence Avenue Washin~on, D.C. 20250 Dear Secretary Glickman: ' We are writing to express our concern about the future of a number of special places' ha the natio~i'~'breSt$ of the Southern Appalachians. · ~...:.,;~ ~'. ¢.,;,'~ ~¢? .. To~ about, ,4,~6.,~on acres, the eight n~donal forests ha the region are prized as · )';'; .'o 'i.'- '. , ~.~ ."-" '~,',~.." ' ' .. · · , valuable en~ronm,'C~t~t ~d econormc assets for the southeast. Atthoush the mmonal forests are a source of timber, they lJ[;ovide vita[ watersheds for clean water-and se~e as important fish -.nd wildJLfe habitat for species of special concern such as neotropical miFato~ songbirds, trou~ and black bears. We support the continued process of revising forest plans from the mid-1980's with i;all public involvement. These new plans should update direction for their management ha view of changing needs and values in the region, such as the many useful findings in the recent interagency Southern Appalachian Assessment. The Assessment noted that only one percent of the overall region has been designated federal wilderness and only two percent of the overall region has been identified by the Forest Service as "roadless." In light of the public's strong interest ha the careful study of these roadless areas because of the permanent ramifications'that mac[ construction will have on the prospects of future wilderness designation as well as the Congressional stake in a studied review of the agency's recommendations, we request that the Forest Service defer new timber Sales and road buildhag in the federally inventoried roadless areas in the Southern Appalachians, pending the completion of forest plan revisions and subsequent Congressional review of roadless area recommendations. There would be numerous benefits from this deferral of sales including:' 1) securing high- quality, watershed and fisheries; 2) preserving the natural settings and forest habitat; and 3) meeting the increasing need for backcountry recreation. This would also enhance public fai~ in an extended planning process and reduce unneeded conflicts and polarization. Timber progmrns ought not to be affected'by this action. Many of these areas are largely out of the suitable b~e and are remote, rugged and difficult to log. In fact, according to the Forest Service, only one percent of the timber volume for FY 1998 and 1999 in the Forest Service's Southern Region is projected to come from roadless areas. In closiag, we urge you to defer timber sales in these scaxce sensitive areas wb_ile planning process and subsequent Congressional review are. completed. Thank you for your assistaace ia this matter. Sincerely, ritage orests Campaign www.ourforests.org The Basics Many Americans, young and old, fondly remember backpacking, camping, hiking, fishing, and picnicking in our country's spectacular national forests. Sadly, more and more of these scenic landscapes are being ripped apart by development and lost forever. Our Unprotected Public Lands Despite what most people believe, more than 80% of our national forests remain unprotected. More than 90 million acres (52%) of the lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service have been impacted by decades of forest clearcutting, oil and gas development, mining, and other industrial uses, These 90 million acres are crisscrossed with nearly 380,000 miles of official roads - more than 8 times the number of roads in the U.S. interstate system. Less than one-fifth of the 192-million acre National Forest System is protected and off-limits to logging, mining, drilling, and other destructive activities. This sliver of America's public lands stands as a crucial source of clean water, habitat for threatened and endangered species, biological diversity, recreation, hunting and fishing, and refuge from the stress of daily life. At stake are 60 million acres, just 30 percent of the National Forest System - still wild and roadless but unprotected from logging, mining, and road building. These wild lands make up America's Heritage Forests, consisting of all the unprotected wild_areas 1000 acres and larger managed by the U.S.. Why Protect Wild, Roadless Areas? They provide a variety of important public values. · They are sources of outstanding recreation, unique fish and wildlife habitat, and clean drinking water. · Road building and logging severely impact these scenic lands and render useless the forest's values. · Most importantly, we.have a responsibility to protect these special places as an enduring legacy for future generations. Logging, mining, road-building and other development activities in our national forests have already destroyed an enormous portion of our Heritage Forests. Conservation-- Roads built in the national forests primarily for industrial uses such as logging, mining, oil drilling, and other activities damage watersheds, destroy wildlife habitat, and ruin scenic vistas. Roads are a major source of erosion, stream sedimentation, and other environmental degradation. Furthermore, inadequate road maintenance has been' identified as a significant cause.of watershed deterioration. Clearcut logging removes entire stands of trees, leaving forest slopes bare from top to bottom - effectively eroding the land and choking streams and rivers with silt and runoff. Clearcutting also destroys important fish and wild life 'habitat by fragmenting forests into small isolated pieces, disruption critical ecological processes. Hard-rock mining has left a legacy of scarred earth and toxic mnoffthroughout our national forests. Abandoned mines leave behind mountains of waste, often places on steep slopes causing landslides and stream blockage. Mining one ton of ore can create over 100 tons of waste. Economics~ Nationwide, the value of recreation in national forests overwhelmingly exceeds the value of logging and mining combined. In 2000, the projected economic impact of recreation in the National Forest System will be $110 billion in contrast with $3,5 billion from logging. The national forests are America's single largest source of outdoor recreation, and the demand on them for recreation in the next century is projected to rise substantially. Economic studies project that the National Forest System will experience 1.2 billion in visitor-use-days in 2040, an increase from 860 million days during 1996. Public SuppOrt-- There is widespread Public support in all regions of the country--among men and women, Republicans and Democrats--for a federal policy to permanently protect roadless areas that are '1,000 acres of larger. Two-thirds of the American public, regardless of party affiliation or home region, want to protect our nation's scenic wild lands. Protecting Wild Areas We need to protect America's Heritage Forests. A sensible, permanent policy that protects all remaining 60 million acres of pristine roadless areas in our national forests is the only way to safeguard our rapidlY dwindling, unprotected Heritage Forests. January 1998 The Forest Service, recognizing the importance of national forest roadless areas for their recreational, habitat, and watershed values announced plans to temporarily halt road construction in roadless areas on public forest lands, and in March, 1999, an 18-month moratorium on the construction of new roads was implemented. Unfortunately, the interim moratorium halts new road construction in less than 60 percent of roadless areas and does not prohibit logging, mineral development, and other d~stmctive activities in those areas. October 13, 1999- President Clinton directed the U.S. Forest Service to develop a policy to protect up to 60 million acres of national forest wild lands. As a result the Forest Service is now in the process of developing a policy on how roadless areas should be managed and what form of protection they should be granted. What Next? In May 2000, the Forest Service is expected to release a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) which will include several alternatives for the policy, with the goal of releasing a. final policy by year's end. Through a series-of public hearings in close to 200 locations nationwi'de, the public will. have the opportunity to comment on the DEIS. If the plan is going to provide real and lastidg protection for nation's wild forests, it must: · Permanently protect all roadless areas of 1,000 acres or more on all national forests, with no exemptions. · Protect the wild forests from new road building, logging, mining, motorized vehicle use, and other destructive activities. · Use sound science, not politics, as the foundation for the forest protection policy. Americans care deeply about protecting our scenic Heritage Forests. We are on the verge of forever losing our unprotected wild lands to irresponsible development and careless stewardship. With most of our wild forests already destroyed, we can ill afford to lose any more of America's Heritage Forests. With the dawning of the new millennium, this is the lease we can do for future generations. My name is John Martin. I live in Free Union. I would like to address an issue raised by the Rivanna Board of Directors as to whether the governing body of Albemarle County will be one of the decision makers with respect to our new water supply. The issue is raised by a draft statement of the decision making process released to some members of the public last Thursday, April 6, by the Chairman of the Rivanna Board of Directors, apparently after legal review by Rivanna and Service Authority legal counsel, but not by the City Attorney or the County Attorney. I have provided you this evening with a copy of this Rivanna document. According to the Rivanna Draft of the decision making process, one sentence contained in the 1973 "Four Party Agreement," excludes you as a participant in the final decision making. The sentence, contained in Section 4.1, captioned "New Facilities," reads: Rivanna shall also undertake the provision of such additional facilities as may be agreed upon from time to time by the City, the Service Authority and Rivanna." Based upon this singular sentence in a 19 page document excluding attachments, the Rivanna draft concludes: The final decision about which alternatives to recommend for approval to the regulating agencies will be made as agreed upon by the City, the ACSA, and the RWSA Board of Directors. Following a discussion of this matter at the League Natural Resources meeting last Thursday, attended by both myself and the Chairman of Rivanna, my impression was, and remains, that it is unfathomable to think that in 1973, the Board of Supervisors intended essentially to cede decision making responsibility and power to the City Council. The language contained in the singular sentence in issue is, however, facially troubling when read outside the entire context of the "Four Party Agreement." On Sunday, April 9, I sent an e-mail to the Rivanna Chairman who asked for comments on the dratt. I have provided you with a copy my comments which included an opposing interpretation of the singular sentence in issue and the suggestion that it was neither the intention nor purpose of the "Four Party Agreement" to exclude the County in future decision making. I also suggested, however, that this is a matter which deserves intense legal scrutiny. Before deciding to raise this issue this evening, I considered whether it might be premature to raise this issue during the Board Session, because it will undoubtedly receive further study outside of this Chamber. On the other hand, time is of the absolute essence m surfacing this dispute and getting it resolved. According to this evenings agenda, this Board session will be adjourned to the April 18 meeting on Water Supply alternatives. As a member of t_he pubhc, it is somewhat disconcerting, that at this important meeting, the question of who is responsible for final decision making will be extant. Furthermore, Rivanna will have an important meeting next Friday in Fredericksburg, a meeting at which the public is not allowed, and I should think that the existence of an issue, outlined by Rivarma, indicating that this community is confused as to who will make the final decisions, is somewhat of an embarrassment to the community. Time, therefore, is of the essence. If Rivanna's interpretation is without legal merit, it should be swiftly rejected. If, on the other hand, Rivanna's interpretation is correct, then this Board may wish to take corrective action by joining with the City, for example, to amend the concurrent resolution entered with the City on June 7, 1972 establishing Rivanna. I am sorry to raise this issue on such an extraordinarily important evening, but I thought I should. The decision making process, in important respects, is as important as the final water supply decisions themselves. For if the decision making process is uncertain or flawed, the public can have no faith that the final decisions made were the best decisions by and for the community. Thank You DECISION-MAKING PROCESS for the NEW WATER SUPPLY Jack Marshall - 4/6(I>)/00 DRAFT In 1973 the "Four-party Agreement" established the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA); the four parties were the City of Charlottesville, the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA), Albemarle County, and the RWSA itself. Section 4.1 of that document deals with New Facilities, explaining that the RWSA will provide the water and wastewater facilities that were identified in 1973. The section further states that "Rivanna shall also undertake the provision of such additional facilities as may be agreed upon from time to time by the City, the Service Authority and Rivanna". Today the RWSA, on behalf of the ACSA and the City, and in collaboration with consultants hired to assist in the process and the appropriate regulatory agencies, is examining alternative means for meeting the community's water needs in the year 2050. The ACSA is involved in this process through the presence of its Executive Director, Bill Brent, on the RWSA Board of Directors. The Director of the City's Department of Public Works, Judy Mueller, is also on the RWSA Board. Elected officials of Charlottesville and Albemarle County have been, and will continue to be, kept informed and asked for input as alternatives are evaluated and the number of choices is narrowed. This is accomplished (a) by the systematic transmission to supervisors and councilors of documents, prepared by the consultants, that analyze the alternatives; (b) by the presentation of information at public meetings to which elected officials are invited; (c) by communications to city elected 'officials by Judy Mueller and Gary O'Connell, the City Manager and RWSA Board member, and to county elected officials by RWSA Board member Bob Tucker, the County Executive; and (d) by informal communications between elected officials and RWSA stalE. Periodic public meetings and publicly available documents also ensure that local residents are involved in the process; the RWSA's Citizens' Advisory Committee, in particular, is expected to speak out about both the process and the content of decision-making. The general public is encouraged to provide written and oral comments. At ail stages of the process state and. federal regulatory agencies play a critical role, for they ultimately determine whether or not appropriate permits will be issued for any given alternative - and may not necessarily reflect the preferences of the community. These agencies will weigh, for each alternative, the balance of effectiveness (estimated safe yield), practicability/cost, and impact on the environment (i.e., wetlands, threatened and endangered species) and cultural resources. The alternatives for the community's future water supply will be reduced through consensus, if possible, based on the informed opinions of everyone involved. The decision-making process is designed to occur gradually, so that there are no surprises to any of the parties. The final decision about which alternatives to recommend for approval to the regulating agencies will be made as agreed upon by the City, the ACSA, and the RWSA Board of Directors. Subj: Decision Making Process for the New Water Supply Date: 4/9/2000 10:15:09 AM Eastern Daylight ~me From: JCMartinl To: crijack@c~ille.net CC: sthomas@albemarle.org BCC: moormansr~email.msn.com, krhobbs@cstone.net BCC: Lpalmerl, joymatthews@compuserve.com Dear Jack: Since the LWV Natural Resources meeting on Thursday, a few hours prior to which you forwarded to me your draft statement describing the water supply project decision-making process, I have given the matters discussed at the meeting considerable additional review. I feel that I now have a better understanding of the matters we discussed, and I wanted to share with you some additional thougtts. I believe that close examination and definition ofthe decision-making process is a critically important matter, for if the decision-making process is uncertain, or flawed, one can never truly be certain that the ultimate derisions regarding our fi~mre water supply are the best decisions which could be made by and for this Comm~ty. In a dkect sense, therefore, the process by which the decisions will be made, is as important as the ultimate decisions themSelves. Principally in issue, is the meaning of one sentence contained in the '!Four Party Agreement" entered between the City, the Comty, RWSA and ACSA in 1973. The sentence reads: "Rivauna shall also undertake the provision of such additional facilities as may be agreed upon from time to time by the City, the Service Authority and Rivanna. As I understand your draft description of the decision-making process, and fi.om our discussion at the LWV meeting, you construe this sentence to provide that the final decision about which alternatives to recommend for permitting approval shall be made exclusively by the City, ACSA and the RWSA Board of Directors, and that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will not be involved in this decision, nor inferentially, in the decisibn making process. Since I have been a strong proponent of intimate involvement by our elected political representatives in what I think is the most important planning event in County history, I hope you can understand my distress over the sentence contained in the 't~our Party Agreement," and your interpretation thereof. As I railed at the LWV meeting, however, it is inconceivable to me, that our Board of Supervisors intended in 1973, by entering into the '!Four Party Agreement, " to divest itself of responsibility for decisions regarding future water supply, with the City Council remaining as a decision maker in such decisions. Moreover, in 1983, as you will recall, the Board of Supervisors and the City Council both acted as decision makers with respect to the decision to purchase land for a reservoir at Buck Mountain Creek. As you will further recall, that decision was made by a Joint Resolution to which the Board of Supervisors, the City Council, ACSA and RWSA were all signatories. In addition to there being a lack of clear logic as to why our Board of Supervisors would purportedly remove itself in 1973 fi.om the water supply decision making chain, therefore, the record of our water supply history since that time demonstrates that the Board of Supervisors, in fact, has been intimately involved in future water supply planning together with the City Council, ACSA and RWSA. This fact alone sheds doubt upon the construction of the singular sentence in issue that your draft contains. Although at the time of the LWV meeting I could offer no opposing interpretation ofthe sir~gular sentence in issue, a sentence which is indeed facially troubling, I now believe that I understand what the parties may have intended by this language. Please try to keep an open ~nd as I try to explain. The singular sentence in issue must be construed within the context of the entirety of the '~Four Party Agreement," and within the context of the Section of the agreement in which this sentence is contained. A reading of the '~Four Party Wednesday, April 12, 2000 America Online: JCMartlnt Page: I Agreement," in its entirety, demonstrates that, in general terms, it is intended to wed two separate water systems and two separate sewer systems to be operated as one community water system and one conununity sewer system by the newly created RWSA. Much ofthe document is devoted to property and financial matters. Article 111, for example deals with acquisition by RWSA of existing City and County water and sewer facilities; Article IV deals primara~y with construction by RWSA of specific new water and sewer facilities specifically identified and listed in two exhibits attached to the '~Four Party Agreement," as well as the financing ofthe same; Article V deals with obligations of RWSA; Article VI deals with the obligations ofthe City, ACSA and the County some provisions ofwhich seem intended to insure that these political subdivisions will not be competing with the RWS36 Article VII deals with the establishment of water and sewer rates to be charged by the RWSA; and, Article VIII deals with certain miscellaneous matters. Stated most generally, the '~our Party Agreement" was an agreement by which the City, the County and ACSA transferred to the RWSA the property and certain limited responsibilities necessary for RWSA to begin the business it was chartered to do by the City and the County, by their concurrent resolution establishing RWSA a year earlier, on June 7, 1972. Ifthe governing body ofthis County had intended in 1973 to remove itself fi.om future water supply planning and decision-making, by the transfer to AC SA of all responsibility in this area of gov~l responsibility, one would expect that such an important action would have been set forth in more explicit language. The ,Four Party Agreement" contains no such explicit statement of any such intent. With a clear understanding of what the ,Four Party Agreement" was intended to accomplish, one can mm to consm~tion of the singular sentence in issue. I would respectfully submit that the singular sentence was included to provide, that after RWSA constructed the specifically identified new facilities identified in the fa'st paragraph of the applicable section, and when there came a time to construct new, but as yet unidentified facilities, RWSA was restricted fi.om proceeding unilaterally_ with additional new construction, that would impose additional costs for RWSA's two wholesale customers (the City and ACSA), which in turn, would pass the costs on to water and sewer service consumers. This sentence was intended as a lknitation upon RWSA powers, not as limitation upon the future krcolvement ofthe governing body ofthis County in water supply planning and decision-making. I think it highly unreasonable to conclude that this sentence constituted an agreement, that henceforth, the governing body of Albemarle County would not be a party to water supply planning and decision-making A provision that would preclude RWSA fi'om taking unilateral action that would comr/t the Community to additional costs, without its knowledge or consent, is a simple, understandable and necessary provisior~ This interpretation of the singular sentence in question is a reasonable one, and it undoubtedly has been followed in practice. To interpret this sentence as precluding the governing body of AIbemarle County fi.om being involved in decision-making regarding future water supply planning, however, is unreasonable because: 1) this provision was not so interpreted in 1983 when the Board of Supervisors was a full participant in decision making regarding the proposed Buck Mountain reservoir, 2) the Board of Supervisors and its Planning Commission are required by law to be involved in such planning by the requirement that proposed water supply facility plans be reviewed for substantial compliance tmcler the Comprehensive Plan; 3) as the governing body of Albemarle Commy, the Board of Supervisors has the fundamental duty to represent the interests ofthe residents ofthe County who have no voice or atthofity except through thek elected representatives; 4) there is not a scintilla ofhistodcaI evidence to suggest that the Board of Supervisors intended to esserrtia!ly cede the field offuture water supply planning to the City Council by agreeing that the ACSA would be exclusively respons~le for making decisions on behalf of the County with respect to future water supply planning; and 5) there is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that the Board of Supervisors intended to cede its responsibilities for commnity planning in the area ofwater resources to the ACSA. The construction of the singular sentence in question, that the Board of Supervisors cannot be involved in the decision making process for a new water supply, by its own action in 1983, is unfounded. Wednesday, Apffi 12~ 2000 America Online: JCMartlnl Page: 2 Moreover, to recall the adage that '~he past is prologue," the difficult experience with coming to an agreement with the City in 1983 over the Buck Mountain Reservoir signals the absolute need for the Board of Supervisors to be intimately involved in the water supply plmming process. As you may recall, the issue between the City and the County then, essentially was money. It would seem entirely likely, that at some point, the City v&l begin to question why City residents should be required to pay higher water rates to fund a new water supply the exclusive need for which is to accommodate County growth. In light of the past experience which resulted in a successful resolution, it is likely that a resolution ora similar dispute now will be eased; but the Board of Supervisors needs to be involved, intimately so, with the planning for our future. I believe, therefore, that no matter how well intended, the RWSA, by and through its Chairman, cannot, alone and urfilaterally, complete a draft of the decision making process for the new water supply. We need to know bom the City Council, for example, how it intends to proceed in this planning process. Only the City Council can describe its portion of the decision making process. Likewise, only the Board of Supervisors can explain how it intends to be involved in the process. Comprehensive Plan review is an essential part ofthis process, and we need to know when that w~l be conducted. S~hrly, we need to know whether the Board of Supervisors intends to hold a public hearing to hear bom County residents before it reaches a decision as the governing body of Albemarle CountY, in consultation with the ACS& and in supervision of the activities of the ACSA by virtue of the Board of Supervisors ability to amend the ACSA Articles of Incorporation to control its powers, and its respons~ility for the appointment of ACSA Board of Directors members. Finally, I would like to iterate the. suggestion I made at the LWV meeting This is a complex matter, and I think it would be appropriate to request the views ofthe City Attorney and the County Attomey in addition to RWSA and ACSA legal counsel. I would also submit that time is ofthe essence, for ifyour construction of the singulax sentence in issue is correct, our current Board of Supervisors may which to take action, by amendment ofthe ACSA Articles of Incorporation or by some other action, to reinsert itself into the plann~ process, which of course, is so important to this Comnta~s future. Additionally, I believe it crucial that this matter be resolved prior to the next meeting with the 'Regulators" scheduled for April 21. I should think that the process by which this comrmmity selects a particular water supply alternative, or a combination of alternatives, for permitting approval, is a relevant and important matter to the Federal and State '~Regulators." Thank you 'for Your consideration John John C. Martin 5115 Catterton Road Free Union, Virginia 22940 Phone: (804) 978-2872 FAX: (804) 978-4107 E-Mail: JCMartinl Gaol.eom Wednesday, April 12, 2000 America Online: JCMartlnl Page: 3 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 M¢Intire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 April 4, 2000 Don Franco The Kessler Group P O Box 5207 Charlottesville, VA 22905 ZMA-99-16 Glenmore Associates Limited Partnership Tax Map 79, Parcels 34, 35A, 35,, 28, and Tax Map 93, Parcel 62 Dear Mr. Franco: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 28, 2000, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to-the attached proffers dated 3/22/00. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on April 12, 2000. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Elaine K. Echols, AICP Senior Planner EKE/jcf Cc~ Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Bob Ball Amelia McCulley Steve Allshouse STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP MARCH 28, 2000 APRIL 21, 1997 ZMA 99 - 28 GLENMORE PRD - ADDITION OF LAND AND CHANGES TO PROFFERS SUB 00-18 GLENMORE SCOTTISH HOMES Applicant's Proposal: Glenmore Associates proposes to rezone 37.96 acres from RA, Rural Areas to PRD, Planned Residential Development in order to add adjoining land into the Glenmore PRD. Additionally, the applicant would like to change several of the existing proffers for the Glenmore development. The modified proffers would apply to all undeveloped parcels currently under the ownership of Glenmore Associates. Specifically, the attached revised proffers (Attachment A) would make the following changes: · Add 37.96 acres to the Glenmore development. · Increase the maximum number of single family units to 813. · Remove construction of a public road from an existing proffer and provide $70,000 (the value of the construction of that public road ) for design, construction, and other planning of another public road for the Village of Rivanna. · Extend the time period for the installation of a signal at the intersection of route 250 E and Glenmore Way. · Replace a proffer made in 1990 to provide up to $500,000 for traffic improvements on Route 250 East that had a sunset date of November 2005 with $1300/lot for the remaining unsold properties in Gleumore for other traffic improvements (value of approximately $273,000). · Remove a General Condition requiring common open space links to be 30 feet wide. · Remove a General Condition to make front yards in the cottage sections a minimum of 10 feet rather than 20 feet. Changes are also proposed to the Application Plan that is attached as "B". Attachment C shows the original Application Plan. The primary changes between the two plans are 1) attaching the new proffers and general conditions to the new properties as well as the unsubdivided parts of Glenmore and 2) removing part of the path system originally indicated on the Application Plan. The Scottish Homes subdivision is attached as "D" and shows the detail of the development proposed for the 38 new acres and 24 acres of property zoned PRD in Glenmore. The Scottish Homes plat contains 62 acres, common open space, and 72 lots for single family detached homes. Petitions: The petition is to rezone property described as Tax Map 93, Parcels 62 & Tax Map 79, Parcels 28, 32, 34, 35, and 35A to Glenmore PRD. The properties are located southeast of Piper way, west of Ashton Drive and north of Paddington Circle in the Glenmore Development. The properties are contained in the Rivanna Magisterial District and within the designated growth area of the Rivanna Village. The area is recommended for Neighborhood Density Residential (3 - - 6 dwelling units per acre). A petition is also made to approve a preliminary plat for the Glenmore Scottish Homes SeCtion, which shows 72 residential lots. Attachments E & F show the location of the proposal. Character of the Area: The parcels to be added to Glenmore are each developed with a single- family dwelling. The surrounding area contains iow-density single family homes, both inside and outside of Gtenmore.'The property and its surrounding area outside of Glenmore is heavily wooded with rolling to hilly terrain. By-right Use Of the Property,,: By-right, the applicant could theoretically develop a maximum of 38 dwelling units on the subject property, No fiscal impact analysis has been done for the property because the request is for 38 additional dwelling units. Specifics on the Proposal: Design of the proposed development for the added parcels is shown on the subdivision plat in Attachment D. Four cul-de-sacs and a connecting road from two other roads in Glenmore comprise the general layout with a central common area of almost 2 acres. Significant wooded open space is preserved on the site. A paved pedestrian path extends for the length of the connecting Road A. The proposed change in the overall Application Plan would leave the existing pedestrian and equestrian paths in place and remove additional paths from the Application Plan. Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant is requesting to add area to Glenmore PRD to continue development in the Village of Rivarma. His letter of explanation is attached as RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed these requests for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, conformity with the subdivision ordinance and conformity with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval. Planning and Zoning History: In December t989, the Board of Supervisors created the Village of Rivanna in the Comprehensive Plan. Density of development was acknowledged as suitable to Village Residential zoning which was 0.7 to 1.09 dwelling units per acre. In the 1996. Land Use Plan, the recommended density for the Village increased to 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre. In 1990, the'Board of Supervisors approved the Glenmore Planned Residential Development at a gross density of 0.63 dwelling units per acre. Between I990 and this submittal, there have been several minor adjustments/clarifications related to the original approval. In 1994; the Board approved the addition of 8.028 acres into Olenmore which was a property adjoining the parcels under review at this time. In 1995, the Board of Supervisors amended the setback requirements in the development. In 1997, the Board added eleven acres to the development and accepted modified proffers and general conditions. No planning and zoning history exists on the new parcels to be added to the development. Comprehensive Plan: The property, in question is designated for Neighborhood Density. 2 Residential (3 - 6 du/acre) in the Rivanna Village. Specific recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan relate to: preservation of floodplain and critical slopes · upgrading of Route 250 East · retaining the Village boundary as designated on the plan · reserving water capacity for a potential new school · not adding commercial area to the Village · encouraging the development of an internal road network for the Village · potentially allowing public service facilities in the Village that are consistent with the Community Facilities Plan In all but one way, the proposal is in keeping with the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Rivanna. The proposal would not increase density to the recommended minimum 3 dwelling units per acre. This issue is discussed in the Staff Comment section below. While the building of a public road to encourage the development of an internal road network for the Village is removed from proffers, it is replaced with a proffer to provide design and construction money for such a road or planning of a road. Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas (General Land Use Standards pp. 20 - 22) Development should be concentrated and clustered to protect environmental features. The addition to Glenmore shows a conventional type of development; however, it leaves undeveloped approximately 24 acres of woodlands. Existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions should be maintained. The applicant plans to retain forested areas that are not developed into lots or cleared for utilities. Buffers are not proposed with adjoining parcels nor does the staff view buffers as necessary to the development. Limiting access points should minimize the impact of development on major roads. The only access for the development is from Glenmore Way, which connects to Route 250. A sense of community should be maximized by providing connections between developments; such connections may provide for additional recreational facilities, increased open space area, bicycle/pedestrian links, improved public transit, emergency access, and access to schools, parks, and other public facilities. An internal connection is shown on the proposed subdivision plat and application plan. The subdivision plat for the added properties contains a single pedestrian link alongside the road. External connections are not provided because Glenmore is a gated community. Whether or not additional acreage should be added to this gated community that is served by a single point of access is an issue discussed in the staff comments below. Underground utilities should be provided in new developments. Glenmore will provide utilities underground. Features to prevent'impact from impervious surfaces on water quality should be provided. Best management practices (bmp's) are not shown on the subdivision plat or the application plan; however, significant open space should provide for these water quality measures. Building orientation should be to public streets; parking areas do not need to be located exclusively in front of buildings. A change to one of the General Conditions is made to reduce the front setback to ten feet in the cottage sections. While this development does not seek to provide for building orientation to the street with a curb, gutter, and sidewalk regime, it will allow for a better building orientation to the streets. The street form, though, uses the conventional, large lot design with rural cross section and asphalt paths. Where site illumination is proposed, down-directed and shielded lights should be used. This proposal does not call for any lighting. Historic buildings should be adaptively reused. There are no historic buildings on the added parcels. The phasing of developments should match service and infrastructure availability and capacity. Water and sewer capacity is available. Money for road improvements is proffered for Route 250. Overall development density should be as high a level as is practical The Land Use Plan suggests 3 - 6 dwelling units per acre. Development density in this proposal is 1 dwelling unit per acre. The density in this development does not meet the Land Use Plan recommendations. The density and character of development is consistent with the original density established for the Village of Rivanna and the original PRD for Glemnore. The integrity of adjacent residential areas should be maintained through use of buffering, screening, and separation of adjacent non-residential uses. Adjacent residential areas outside of Glenmore are rural residential uses. The proposed addition of 38 acres is interior to Glenmore and does not require screening. Developments should be designed with an internal orientation to foster a sense of place and avoid the image of continuous suburban sprawl. Glenmore has an internal orientation; however, expansions of the large-lot style development do not avoid the image of continuous suburban sprawl. Provisions should be made for innovative design that reduces housing costs. Innovative designs are not proposed to reduce housing costs in Glenmore. Lot design and residential layout should be based on a rational use of land that reflects topographic and other physical features rather than massive grading to eliminate or counteract those features. In this development, minor grading will be needed for road construction and lot development. No encroachment into critical slopes will occur for building sites. Critical slopes are protected along the stream and in the stream buffer. Within the stream buffer, the nature trail, utilities, and drainage improvements are proposed. 4 STAFF COMMENT Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district The purpose and intent of the Planned Residential Development is to · encourage sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site and toward impact on the surrounding area in land development · promote economical and efficient land use · provide an improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious physical development, and creative design · provide flexibility and a variety of development opportunities for residential purposes · use open space for recreation, protection of areas sensitive to development provide buffering between dissimilar uses and preserve agricultural activity The requested rezoning meets all of the requirements for a planned development with the exception of providing an economical and efficient use of land. This issue is discussed in a section below. Public need and |ustification for the zoning change In order to use the Development Areas most effectively, property zoned RA must be rezoned for higher density development. The rezoning of this property furthers the goal of having a higher density development than a strict RA zoning would provide in a designated Development Area. It does this by providing water and sewer service that allows for a decreased lot size from a large lot with a well and septic system. Anticipated impacts on facilities and services Staff has reviewed the proposal for any impacts on nearby and surrounding properties, traffic, public utilities, and schools. Little impact on nearby and surrounding properties is anticipated because the subject properties are surrounded by the existing Glenmore development on one side and low density wooded residential development on the other side. Transportation -- Regarding traffic, three proffers have changed since the original rezoning. The first change involves the cost for a traffic signal at the entrance to Glenmore from Route 250. At the request of VDOT, the applicant has proffered to extend the sunset date on the installation of a signal from 2005 to 2010. While VDOT would like to see this proffer extended indefinitely, staff believes that, if the signal is not warranted by 2010 after all of Glenmore is likely completed, the developer should not have to retain the money until some future date when called for by YDOT. The second change involves a previous proffer of up to $500,000 for road improvements to Route 250 East. This proffer has been replaced with a proffer for $1300 per lot to help pay for 5 any road widening needs for Route 250. The original proffer had a sunset date of November 2005. Rather than extend the $500,000 for road improvements that had no definite date for construction, the applicant has opted to provide $1300 per lot for the remaining lots in the development. The maximum amount to be spent could be approximately $235,000. While staff would have preferred to see the $500,000 retained, the developer felt that the road improvements would likely not take place in the near future and that, to provide money for alternate road projects was reasonable. Staff agreed with the developer and believes that this proffer makes other transportation projects serving the development more feasible. The third proffer involves the replacement of a proffer to construct a public road through Glenmore to the east of the development with $70,000 to be used for master planning the development area, or design and/or construction of a public road to be planned th/:ough a master planning process. Staff agreed that this proffer was appropriate since a master planning process is needed to establish a public road network for the rest of the Rivanna Village as well as address other community planning issues. Utilities -- For water and sewer service, the Albemarle County Service Authority has indicated that there is sufficient capacity of water and sewer service for the development of 38 additional houses. Schools - With the original zoning, the applicant proffered a school site for the County as well as $1000 per lot to defray school impacts of the development. These proffers continue to be in place and will be used to address impacts of 18 new students in Albemarle County schools. Of these 18 students, 9 would be added to Stone Robinson Elementary School, 4 students would be added to Burley Middle School, and 5 students would be added to Monticello High School. Fiscal impact to public facilities - No fiscal impact analysis was performed on this rezoning. The by-right and proposed units are exactly the same and additional analysis was not deemed necessary. Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources - No impact is anticipated on historic resources of the Village of Rivanna. Existing environmental resources: Environmental resources at Glenmore site include woods, steep slopes, streams, wetlands, and floodplain. The original rezoning covered treatment of all these items. The County's Open Space does not show significant features shown on the property proposed as an addition to Glenmore. This additional area is wooded with both mature trees and scrub trees. Although not proffered, the applicant intends to preserve as much of the tree cover as possible during grading. Any additional tree removal would occur with homebuilding, depending on the type of home anticipated for each lot. Steep slopes: No construction is proposed on steep slopes. Streams: No streams are on the additional area for the rezoning. Wetlands: There are no known wetlands on the property. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for density_: Staff has also reviewed the proposal for anticipated results of increased density for the Glenmorc Development and the results of modifying the proffers. These issues are addressed below: Additional acreage and increase in the maximum number of units: Section 19.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance says that, for Planned Residential Districts (PRD): "Additional area may be added to an established PRD district if it adjoins and forms a logical addition to the approved development. The procedure for an addition shall be the same as if an original application .were filed, and all requirements shall apply except the minimum acreage requirements of Section 19.5.1." At present, there are 1167 acres in Glenmore. The request to rezone parcels totaling 38 acres would result in 1205 acres for the development. The applicant previously proffered that the number of dwelling units in Glenmore would be no greater than 775. A proffer with this development proposal would result in 38 more dwelling units or a total of 813 dwelling units for the entire development. The parcels under consideration for rezoning adjoin Glenmore. While staff believes that the properties make a logical addition to the development, the proposed density is less than that proposed in the Land Use Plan. Staff requested that the applicant increase density in the proposed Development Area to make better use of the land designated for development in the Village of Rivanna. The applicant believes that Glenmore should not provide for greater density than it is already providing. He believes that Glenmore provides an attractive alternative to large lot rural development and that the niche Gleumore fills decreases pressure on the rural areas. Additionally, the applicant does not want to provide for a second gated entrance into the development and additional lots could put pressure on the need for a second legitimate point of ingress and egress. He has said that the type of development proposed retains many of the natural features in a way that could not be achieved with higher density development. Residents in the neighborhood have also expressed a desire to retain the large lot development of Glenmore. For these reasons the applicant has not provided a greater density than one dwelling unit per acre. Staff believes that, unless better use is made of the Development Areas, including Glenmore, pressure to expand the Development Area boundaries will accelerate. This philosophy is consistent with the Development Areas Initiative Project (DISC) recommendations; however, the proposed strategies for the Development Areas have not yet been adopted. Previous requests for additions to Glenmore have been approved with the understanding that, alter the adoption of the DISC recommendations, higher density should strongly be considered. Staff can support this development because it,is an extension of a previously approved plan for Glenmore and the previously approved plan's purposes and characteristics. Future development in the Rivanna Village, including expansions to Glenmore, should be in keeping with a Master Plan for the Village that emanates from the process recommended by DISC and consistent with the form of development recommended by the County through the DISC process. Staff strongly suggests that no furore additions to Glenmore take place without a) further master planning of the Rivanna Village to include planning for an internal road system and consideration of land uses to support the increasing population in the Village and b) analysis of the need for a second primary point of ingress and egress to this development. Changes to Lot Characteristics: In the General Conditions, the original application for Glenmore setlot guidelines as follows: From yard: Depth of from yard should be no less than twenty-five (25) feet except the from yard may be reduced to ten (10) feet for a maximum lineal distance of twenty-eight (28) feet for garages provided that there should be no openings except for garage doors in any exterior wall of the enclosed structure parallel to the street between twenty-five (25) and ten (10) feet from the front lot line. The applicant has requested to change this from yard requirement to the one below: Front yard: Depth of from yard shall be no less than twenty-five (25) feet except in the future cottage sections, the front yard may be reduce to ten (10) feet. The applicant has explained that future cottage sections will be noted on plats and the ScottishHomes section is proposed as a cottage section. Removal of Additional Pedestrian Trails -- A "gray area" has existed for several years in the requirement for pedestrian paths in Glenmore. Over time there have been different interpretations of how the application plan applies to subdivisions in the development. The original application plan showed a series of pedestrian paths and equestrian trails. Several of these trails were constructed over the last ten years; others were not. Within the application for the original Glenmore rezoning was a Description of Uses which indicated that pedestrian paths "may be provided". The applicant has said that these paths were "optional"; staff has held that the pedestrian and equestrian trails shown on the original application plan should be provided. The applicant has indicated that residents do not want additional pedestrian paths because they will cut across their front yards or into their backyards. Since there was a gray area in the application of the requirement for paths in past subdivisions in Glenmore and the applicant does not wish to provide such trails in future sections of Glenmore, staff has said that the way to remove the requirement is through a rezoning. This rezoning request seeks to have only those trails shown on the current application plan. With a more dense form of developmem using an urban cross-section of road, sidewalks would be strongly recommended for Glenmore. Because of the density requested for the development and because of the letter received by the Homeowner's Association saying that additional paths are not necessary, staff has not recommended that the paths shown on the original master plan be required. An asphalt path system is in place, which supplements nature trails that exist throughout the development. Staff has stated to the applicant, however, that future sections to be added to the development may need to provide for a more urban form of development with pedestrian paths or sidewalks. These issues would also be discussed during a future master planning process. Specific subdivision features for Preliminary Plat - Glenmore Scottish Homes The Scottish Homes section of Glenmore constitutes a detailed plan of development for the additional 38 acres of land. It has been reviewed by all Site Review Committee members and recommended for approval. The 72 lots shown are from-the land to be added to' the development as well as land already zoned PRD for Glenmore. 35% open space is shown on the plat in areas totally 21 acres. Pedestrian paths follow the main thoroughfare that connects two roads in Glenmore. A park is also shown as a central area for nearby residents to enjoy. This preliminary plat meets the minimum requirements set by the subdivision ordinance. SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: o The proposed addition to the PRD provides for a unified form of development consistent with the purpose and characteristics of the original development with a high level of amenities. Proffers of land and cash in the amount of approximately $480,000 are made to offset the public costs to the County. Use of the proffers is for a school, road widening on Route 250, additional planning for the Village of Rivanna, school costs, a traffic signal, and design of a public road to serve the Village of Rivanna. The developer has provided public utilities. Other than form and density, the request meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Rivanna and neighborhood density in a Development Area. Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request: Density of development of I dwelling unit per acre does not meet the minimum density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan of 3 dwelling units per acre. The form of the proposed development continues a sprawling large lot development design not consistent with the form intended for the Development Areas in the Comprehensive Plan. The requested changes for the Glenmore development reflect adherence to a conventional form of development in Albemarle County that has had economic success. It has also captured a portion of the market, which might have otherwise developed large lots in the rural areas. Its continued use after'this rezoning, however, does not ensure the ability of the County to efficiently use its Development Area and keep its boundaries firm. The Glenmore developers have been conscientious in the preservation of environmental features and in providing amenities for this development in the County's urban area. Extensive amounts of open space exist. And the development is proposed in a unified fashion with private streets and roads that meet the subdivision street standards of the subdivision ordinance. Because the Development Areas report has not been endorsed yet by the Board of Supervisors and this addition of 38 acres constitutes only 3% of the total development, staff can support the developers request to amend the PRD with this additional acreage. In ways other than providing for an efficient use of Development Areas land, the proposal meets the requirements for planned residential developments. Proffers in an amount of approximately $480,000 are made to offset the impacts &this development on the facilities and services provided by the County. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of the rezoning with proffers, changes to the general conditions and changes to the application plan. Staff notes that the County Attorney has seen previous versions of the proffers, but may suggest minor changes to the proffers between the Planning Commission meeting and the Board of Supervisors meeting as to form. Staff also recommends approval of the preliminary subdivision plat. Staff also strongly believes that future additions to Glenmore should be planned in accordance with a master planning process for the Village of Rivanna. ATTACHMENTS: A - Proffers dated 3/22/00 B - Application Plan dated April 12, 2000 C - Original Application Plan D - Preliminary Plat for Scottish Homes Section of Glenmore E - Tax Parcel Map F - Vicinity Map G - Applicant's Justification H - Letter from Homeowner's Association 10 OI..I?.NMORB PL. ANNBI7 ~5117BNTIAL D~Vlf. L. OPMBNT / ,/ Proper.hie9 kiot, 5ublcd. f¢ ZJVV~ ¢Q'(')l(~ f' iX,urc P~, i~.Jn,'tJ'4~-~ ':)ed,iorl ...... P.av,¢,:t P,,~,~ "' L ,mrt.,, * : ': .... Nabze/J~qu4.:¢/ialn 'f'raiJ ---- J~.rrt,:.:roczr~;u 5anilart4 Sewer Plafih., ; 'u .... -- - t ;i .Il I / GLENMORE SUBDIVISION SCOTTISH HOMES SECTION PRUMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT II __.s~._ _:!'~SH HOMEs SECTION ? / { ,? ?A ? /'1 SH,AOW£t.t. ATTACHMENT E 43 45F U~¥E'R$ITY OF l Z6 ATTACHMENT F VICINITY N .-.T.S. lq'AP J GLENMORE SUBDIVISION THE KESSLER GROUP ATTACHMENT G Don Franco, P.E. I October 18, 1999 Mr. Wayne Cilimberg Director of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Re: Glenmore PRD Dear Wayne: I would like to amend the Glenmore PRD to add 6 adjacent parcels, increase the maximum residential units by 38, revise proffer 7(c) to improve development of a network of public roads within the Rivanna Village, clarify secondary access requirements, and finally to better define the internal system of pedestrian trails and bridle paths. To this end, I met with planning, zoning, and engineering staff a number of times. Staff asked that we describe our request and allow the County Attorney to suggest the appropriate proffer language. I am pleased to submit the attached rezoning application requesting the below listed revisions to the proffers and application plan. Requested Revisions to the Proffers Proffer # 1 Increase the specified residential limit from 775 to 813 single family units to reflect the addition of just under 38 acres to the PRD. The new acreage consists of 6 adjacent parcels (TMP 79-34, TMP 79-35A, TMP 79-35, TMP 79-32, TMP 79-28, and TMP 93-62). The additional single family dwellings requested represent 1 unit for each acre added. TMP 79-34, TMP 79-35A, and T/VIP 79-35 are owned by Glenmore Associates. TMP 79-28 and T/VIP 93-62 are owned by the Howard Estate and are under contract by Glenmore Associates. Closing is contingent upon rezoning and will occur within 30 days of BOS approval. TMP 79-32 is owned by Charles F. Carmichael. The Carmichaels and Glenmore Associates are in contract P.O. Box 5207, Charlottesville, Va. 22905 (804) 979-9500 FAX (804) 979-8055 Glenmore PRD October 15, 1999 negotiation. Closing will be comingent upon rezoning and should occur in 2000. Letters of Authorization for Glenmore Associates to act on behalf of these owners are attached. Proffer # 7(c) Proffer 7(c) was designed to facilitate construction of a public road from Glenmore Way to the properties northeast of the PRD. It was envisioned that this link would help establish a network of public roads within the Village of Rivanna. Based on the development patterns to date within the village, the location detailed in the original proffer no longer serves the original intent. In lieu of Proffer 7(c), Glenmore Associates wishes to provide $70,000 for planning, designing and building/improving public roads within the village. Consistent with previously escrow funds, the County should be responsible for establishing and managing the fund. Payment into the account should be tied to final plat approval of the remainder of Section S. Proffer # 10 Amend the reference to the Application Plan to the date of the revised Application Plan. Proffer # 14 Amend the reference to the set of proffers being replaced to specify the current proffers dated 8/28/97. Requested Revisions to the General Conditions General Condition #2 Increase the specified residential limit from 775 to 813 single family units to reflect the addition of just under 38 acres to the PRD. General Condition #3 Clarify that "open space linkages" are provided in order to interconnect large areas of primarily undeveloped open space. As such, these linkages should be no less than 30' in width, Strips of common area open space are often provided to eliminate the titling issues encountered when community improvements, such as trails and utilities, are on placed lots. These strips of common area open space should not be subject to open space linkage requirements. General Condition #4 The intent of a second point of access, as well as the impact of the strict application of this provision, has often been the center of discussion throughout the County. Revise this general condition so that the Director of Planning has the flexibility to require a second point of access after considering site specifics (i.e., topography, location relative to existing and proposed THE KESSLER GROUP development), construction impacts (i.e., environmental disturbance, economic feasibility) and comprehensive plan goals and objectives (i.e., recommended development area densities, future and existing internal road networks). General Condition ti 12(a) Amend the lot setback criteria in future cottage sections to eliminate the provision for "no openings except for garage door(s) in any exterior wall of the enclosed structure parallel to 'the street between twenty-five (25) feet and ten (10) feet from the front line." Our goal in this instance is to allow greater architectural flexibility. We are currently considering designs which include courtyard entries. In such cases, the garage would be accessed frOm the courtyard, not directly from the street. If the structure is shii~ed into the 10' - 25' area, we want the ability to insert windows and other architectural features to improve the appearance of the wall parallel to the street. Under current zoning, the wall could have no openings. Requested Revisions to the Application Plan Plan Features In past discussions, County staff has indicated a desire for an updated Application Plan showing platted lots and fight-of-ways, future development areas and existing and proposed pedestrian trails and bridle paths. The outstanding question is how to present this information without requiring all property owners in Glenmore from needing to participate in this rezoning. It is my understanding that the County Attorney will make that determination before we revise the Application Plan. While Glenmore Associates wants to work with staff, they do not think a rezoning which requires signature of all property owners is realistic. Conceptual Pedestrian Trails and Bridle Paths Glenmore Associates has developed a functional network of paths and trails based on their vision and the input of residents. Amend the Application Plan to eliminate the conceptual paths and trails currently shown. Several of the conceptual locations remain available options since they are protected by common area open space. However our desire is to eliminate the requirement to construct all the conceptual trails shown on the current Application Planas paved paths. The revised plan Will show the "as-built" location of paved pedestrian trails and the established bridle path. Since these type improvements can be added within common area open space as deemed necessary, additional improvements will be added where and when deemed appropriate by the developer and community association. THE KESSLER GROUP Glenmore PRD October 15, 1999 Plan Scale In past discussions, County staff'has also indicated a preference for a plan that fit on a 24" x 36" sheet (the current Application Plan measures 4' x 6' and has been mended via 11" x 17" sheets). I further understand that either you or the PC must approve a plan scale greater than 1" -- 100'. Glenmore Associates agrees to work with staff'on this matter if it is acceptable to you and the PC. Thank you for your attention in this matter. I look forward to working directly with your staffto refine the details of this request. Sincerely, Don Franco DF/js THE KESSLER GROUP 4 Janua~ 13,2000 GLENMORE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 5207 Charlottesville, Virginia 22905 ~- .... ATTACHMENT H Ms. Elaine K. Echols Senior Planner Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Echols, Happy New Year from the Glenmore Community Association (GCA). Sorry for the delay in responding to your letter; however the holiday season and the new year set us back a few days. We sincerely appreciate your interst and concern about the development of Glenmore, specifically about the current and future walking pat network within the community. The GCA is extremely fortunate to have a true partnership with the Glenmore Associates. The developer is represented on our board and has always been receptive to feedback from the GCA and from our residents. We believe the developer is committed to maintaining the quality of life within Glenmore. Based on feedback from our residents, the current path situation meets the needs of the community. The residents want walking paths along the main roads and prefer to use the cul-de- sac roads as their entry to the paved walking paths. Ultimately, the GCA will own and maintain the walking path network and our current and out year budgets reflect our commitment to maintaining the current and planned network. If you have any questions, please write me at Glenmore Community Association P.O. Box 5207, Charlottesville, VA 22905. Sincerely yours, Marshall Hunt President, GCA MGH/sl COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Research and Special Projects March 30, 2000 ZTA-00-03 Transmission Lines The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 28, 2000, unanimously recommended approval of the of the above-noted zoning text amendment. Attached please find a staff report, which outlines this amendment. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to hear this amendment at their April 12, 2000 meeting. ATTACHMENT Cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZTA-00-03 PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND 3.0 DEFINITIONS OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADDITION OF DEFINITION OF 'OIL OR GAS TRANSMISSION LINE.' $.UBSECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Resolution of intent by Board of Supervisors STAFF CONTACT(S): Amelia McCulley, Ron Keeler AGENDA DATE: Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: Yes INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: March 28, 2000 April 12, 2000 BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of intern to amend Section 3:0 DEFINITIONS of the Zoning Ordinance to define the terms 'gas or oil transmission line. ' (Attachment A). DISCUSSION: The purpose of this amendment is to codify these terms consistem with the longstanding meaning given them by the Zoning Administrator. Proposed language of the amendment is consistent with prior interpretation given by the Zoning Administrator and sustained by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Therefore, this amendment is viewed as a 'housekeeping' measure. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends amendmem of Section 3.0 Definitions of the zomg Ordinance as represemed by Attachment B. ATTACHMENTS A- Board Resolution of Iment B- An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance establishes the regulations applicable to the several zoning districts in Albemarle County and those zoning regulations allow "lines for distribution of local service" as a matter of right and "transmission lines" by special use permit; and WHEREAS, it is desired to amend Section 3.0 by adding definitions of the terms "lines for distribution of local service" and "transmission lines," and to define those terms consistent with the longstanding meaning given those terms by the Albemarle County Zoning Administrator. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby adopts a resolution of intern to amend Section 3.0, Definitions, of the Zoning Ordinance as described herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on this zoning text amendment and will present its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date. Draft: 03/13/00 ATTACHMENT B ORDINANCE NO. 00-18( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 3.0. Definitions. Sec. 3.0 Defmitions. Chapter 18. Zoning Article I. General Provisions Transmission line, gas or oil: The term "gas or oil transmission line" means a pipeline that. conveys ga~q or oil for the primary purpose of supplying gas or oil to a System, rather than distribming ga~q or oil to customers. Pipelines owned and operated by the City of Charlottesville extending from the Columbia Gas Transmission System at the Buck Mountain Gate Station to the City of Charlottesville's Route 29 Substation are gas transmission lines. 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 to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Mr. Bowerman Mr. Dorrier Ms. Humphris Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins Ms. Thomas Aye Nay Clerk, Board of County Supervisors STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONFLICT OF INTERESTS ACT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT For Officers and Employees of Local Government [Section 2.1-639.14(G)] 1. Name: David P. Bowerman 2. Title: Ri° District Supervisor 3. Agency: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 4. Transaction: ZTA-00-004 and ZMA-00-003. Entrance Corridor Roads Nature of Personal Interest Affected by Transaction: Ownership interest in property to be-included in the proposed Overlay District. o I declare that: I am a member of the following business, profession, occupation, or group, the members of which are affected by the transactiOn: Property owners with property which would be included in the proposed expansion of the Overlay District. (b) I am able to participate in this transaction fairly, objectively, and in the public interest. Dated: April 12, 2000 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development April 4, 2000 ZTA-00-004 and ZMA-00-003 Entrance Corridor Roads The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 28, 2000, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted amendment to section 30.6, Entrance Corridor Overlay District, of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code (Zoning) by adding to section 30.6.2, Applicability, Virginia Rome 631 from U.S Rome 29 North to Virginia Route 743, Virginia Route 743 from U.S. Route 29 North to Virginia Rome 676, and Virginia Route 649 from U.S. Route 29 North to Virginia Route 606, and to amend the official zoning map to designate to the full depth of each parcel in existence on October 3, 1990 contiguous to the rights-of-way of such routes, or to a depth of five hundred (500) feet from such rights-of-way, whichever is greater, as being subject to the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to review the above-noted petitions at its April 12, 2000 meeting. Attached please find a staff report which outlines this proposal. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. ATTACJMENT VWC/jcf COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: 1) ZTA-00-004- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE EC ENTRANCE CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT BY ADDITION OF SEGMENTS OF RTES. 649, 743 AND 631. 2) ZMA-00a004- TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO DESIGNATE PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO SEGMENTS OF RTES. 649, 743 AND 631 AS BEING SUBJECT TO THE EC ENTRANCE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Direction to staff by Architectural Review Board STAFF CONTACT(S): Margaret Pickart; Ron Keeler AGENDA DATE: Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: ACTION: YES INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: YES March 28, 2000 April 12, 2000 BACKGROUND: The Architectural Review Board (ARB) has recommended designation of segmems of roadways as EC Entrance Corridor Overlay roadways (Attachment A). These roadway segments consist of: --- Route 631 (Rio Road) from US Rte. 29N to Rte. 743; --- Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) from U.S. Rte. 29N to Rte. 676; and --- Route 649 (Airport Road) from U.S. Rte. 29N to Rte. 606. As recommended by the Architectural Review Board, the Planning Commission on February 22, 2000, adopted a resolution of intent to amend the EC Entrance Corridor' Overlay District to include these roadways. Attachment B is the EC Entrance Corridor Overlay District zoning text. As outlined in section 30.6.4.1, in addition to site plan and other developmem review requirements, EC designation allows the ARB to "specify any architectural feature as to'appearance, such as but not limited to, motif and style, color, texture and materials together with configuration, orientation and other limitations as to mass, shape,, height and location of buildings and structures, location and configuration of parking areas and landscaping and buffering requirements to the extent such practices are authorized under adopted design guidelines without regard to regulations of the underlying zoning district or [site plan] regulations." These powers are qualified later in this section to be subordinate to considerations of health and safety as may be exercised by the Planning Commission DISCUSSION: Since adoption of the EC district in 1991, VDOT has re-categorized Airport Road, Hydraulic Road and (west) Rio Road as 'arterial' roadways, one oftwo State enabling legislation criteria for local EC designation. The other criterion is that the roadway represent a significant tourist access route to the locality or to designated historic sites within the County or adjoining localities (Attachment C). All of these routes provide access from the airport to the University, downtown Charlottesville and other historic areas and sites of the community. Designation of these roadway segments automatically applies EC Entrance Corridor Overlay zoning to adjacem lands. Mapping of the properties affected by possible EC designation required uncommon analysis since such designation would apply: ao To the full depth of all parcels of land in existence on the adoption date of section 30.6 of this [zoning] ordinance which are contiguous to the rights-of-way of the following EC streets in Albemarle County; or b. To a depth of five hundred (500) feet from the rights-of-way, whichever shall be greater .... This language required staff to analyze properties as they existed on October 3, 1990 to ensure maximum application of the designation. The mapping of affected properties is Attachment D. Notification has been sent to about 800 owners of affected properties together with an explanatory letter as well as the text of the EC zoning district (Attachment E). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors amend Section 30.6 Entrance Corridor Overlay District to add as designated EC roadways: 1. Rome 631 from U.S. Route 29North to Route 743; 2. Rome 743 from U.S. Route 29North to Rome 676; and 3. Route 649 from U.S. Rome 29North to Rome 606. More specifically, staff recommends adoption of the ordinance as recommended by the County Attorney's office---- which is Attachment F. ADDITIONAL COMMENT: This report has responded to the request from the ARB. Other roadways may have been re-classified to "arterial" roadways by VDOT since the last re-classification in 1992. Staff will pursue this issue with VDOT and report to the Planning Commission in a timely manner as to any other roadways which should be considered for EC designation. ATTACHMENTS: A- ARB action of January 18, 2000 B- 30.6 EC Entrance Corridor from County Zoning Ordinance C- Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2306 D- Map of Properties subject to EC designation E- Notification letter to affected property owners F- An ordinance to amend Section 30.6 EC Entrance Corridor Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance ATTACHMENT A TO: FROM: RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM File Margaret Pickart, Design Planner ARB Action- January 18, 2000 January 19, 2000 The Architectural Review Board took the following actions at their regular meeting on January 18th: ARB-F(SIGN)-99-88 - Flooring America - Review for a Certificate of Appropriateness for 1 new wall sign and one new freestanding sign. The Board unanimously approved a final Certificate of Appropriateness as presented. ARB-F(SDP)-99-75 - Avis/Northway: Above Ground Fuel Tank Addition - Review of a proposed revision to a Certificate of Appropriateness, consisting of the addition of an above ground fuel tank to the site. The Board unanimously approved the addition of the above ground fuel storage tank, to be located directly to the east of the proposed service building, with the chain link fence, subject to the following conditions: That the tank be painted a flat shade of tan to minimize visibility. That the leyland cypress trees be changed to 6-8' in height at planting. ARB-F(SDP)-98-40 and ARB-F(SDP)-99-41 - Seminole Commons at Forest Lakes: Landscape Changes -Review of proposed revisions to the landscape plan, resulting from grading changes on site. The Board approved the deletion of the five interior parking islands in the front parking lot, and the creation of the two larger central islands, subject to the following conditions as outlined on the sketch dated January 18, 2000 and initialed MP: 1. Three trees shall be planted in each of the two new parking islands. 2. Trees in those islands shall measure 3½" caliper at planting. 3. Trees in those islands shall be trees that are substantial in appearance. The species may be approved administratively by staff. 4. Trees at the ends of the parking row that is situated directly in front of the buildings will also be 3 ½" caliper at planting and shall match the island trees in species. Minutes - The review of the minutes from the February 1, 1999 and April 12, 1999 meetings were deferred to the next meeting. New Entrance Corridors Update - The Board unanimously voted to direct staff to take the necessary steps to have the portions of Rt. 631 from Route 29 to Route 743; Route 743 from Route 29 North to Route 676; and Route 649 fi'om Route 29 to Route 606, designated as Entrance Corridors. Court Facilities Study Group - Staff indicated that a new ARB member was needed for the Court Facilities Study Group. The Board directed staffto obtain and distribute meeting minutes to the ARB members, thus providing the ARB thc opportunity to comment as necessary. Next Meeting: Staff reminded the ARB that the next meeting was scheduled for Monday, February 7, 2000. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m. 3 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ATTACHMENT B 30.5.6.3 (Repealed 9-9-92) 30.5.6.3.1 (Repealed 9-9-92) 30.5.7 (Repealed 9-9-92) 30.5.7.1 (Repealed 7-8-92) 30.5.7.2 (Repealed 7-8-92) 30.6 ENTRANCE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT - EC (Added 10-3-90) 30.6.1 INTENT The entrance corridor overlay district is intended to implement the comprehensive plan goal of protec, ting the county's natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources including preservation of natural and scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose; to ensure a quality of development compatible with these resources through architectural control of development; to stabilize and improve property values; to protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the county from tourism; to support and stimulate complimentary development appropriate to the prominence afforded properties deemed to be of historic, architectural or cultural significance, all of the foregoing being deemed to advance and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the county and visitors thereto. 30.6.2 APPLICATION The entrance corridor overlay district (hereafter referred to as EC) is created to conserve elements, of the county's scenic beauty and to preserve and protect corridors: -Along arterial streets or highways (as designated pursuant to Title 33.1 of the Code, including section 33.1-41.1 of that title) found by the board of supervisors to be significant routes of tourist access to the county; or -To historic landmarks as established by the Virginia Landmarks Commission together with any other buildings or structures within the county having an important historic, architectural or cultural interest and any historic areas within the county as defined by section 15.2-2201 of the Code of Virginia; or -To designated historic landmarks, buildings, structures or districts in any contiguous locality. EC overlay districts may be applied over any basic zoning district and/or other overlay district. EC overlay districts are hereby established: (Added 11-14-90; Amended 9-9-92) To the full depth of all parcels of land in existence on the adoption date of section 30.6 of this ordinance which are contiguous to the rights-of-way of the following EC streets in Albemarle County; or 18-30-19 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE' To a depth of five hundred (500) feet from the rights-of- way, whichever shall be greater, along the following EC streets in Albemarle County: 1. U.S. Route 250 East. 2. U.S. Route 29 North. 3. U.S. Route 29 South. 4. Virginia Route 20 South. 5. Virginia Route 631 South from Charlottesville City limits to Route 708. (Amended I 1-14- 90) 6. U.S. Route 250 West. 7. Virginia Route 6. 8. Virginia Route 151. 9. Interstate Route 64. 10. Virginia Route 20 North. 11. Virginia Route 22, 12. Virginia Route 53. 13. Virginia Route 231. 14. Virginia Route 240. 15. U.S. Route 29 Business. 16. U.S. Route 29/250 Bypass. 17. Virginia Route 654. (Added 11-14-90) 18. Virginia Route 742. (Added 11-14-90) 30.6.3 PERMITTED USES 30.6.3.1 BY RIGHT The following uses shall be permitted by right in any EC overlay district: a. Uses permitted by right shall include all uses permitted by right in the underlying districts except as herein otherwise provided. 30.6.3.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT 18-30-20 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE a. Uses permitted by special use permit shall include all uses permitted by special use permit in the underlying districts; Outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or associated with permitted uses, any portion of which wouldbe visible from an EC street; provided that review shall be limited to the intent of this section. Residential, agricultural and forestal uses shall be exempt from this provision. (Amended 9-9-92) 30.6.4 AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS; MINIMUM YARD AND SETBACK ' REQUIREMENTS; HEIGHT REGULATIONS; LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING; PRESERVATION OF NATURAL FEATURES Area and bulk regulations, including options for bonus factors (except where the provisions of this section require provision of improvements or design features for which a bonus might otherwise be permitted) and rural preservation development, minimum yard, and setback requirements, and height regulations shall be as provided by the underlying district, except that the following provisions and limitations shall apply to any development or portion thereof which shall be visible from a designated EC street. 30.6.4.1 A certificate of appropriateness is required for the following: Except as otherwise provided in section 30.6.6, no building permit shall be issued for any purpose unless and until a certificate of appropriateness has been issued in accord with section 30.6.7 or section 30.6.8 for improvements subject to such building permit. Except as otherwise provided in section 30.6.6 and section 32.3.8, for any development subject to approval under section 32.0, site development plan, no final site development plan shall be approved by the commission or be signed pursuant to section 32.4.3.6 unless and until a certificate of appropriateness has been issued in accord with section 30.6.7 or section 30.6.8 for all buildings and improvements shown thereon. The certificate of appropriateness shall be binding upon the proposed development as to conditions of issuance. The certificate shall certify that the proposed development as may be modified by the conditions of issuance is consistent with the design guidelines adopted by the board of supervisors for the specific EC street. Signature by the zoning administrator upon the £mal site development plan or building permit, as the case may be, shall be deemed to constitute such certification. In making such determination as to consistency with design guidelines, the architectural review board may specify any architectural feature as to.appearance, such as, but not limited to, motif and style, color, texture and materials together with configuration, orientation and other limitations as to mass, shape, height and location of buildings and structures, location and configuration of parking areas and landscaping and buffering requirements to the extent such practices are authorized under the adopted design guidelines without regard to regulations of the underlying zoning district or regulations of section 32.0 of this ordinance. (Amended 5-18-94) 30.6.4.2 Regulations of section 32.7.9, landscaping and screening requirements, shall apply within any EC overlay district except that: ao In addition to the provisions of section 30.6.4.1, the architectural review board may require specific landscaping measures in issu .ance ora certificate of appropriateness, as the same may be related to insuring that the proposed development is consistent with the design guidelines adopted by the board of supervisors for the specific EC street. 18-30-21 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE Co Existing trees, wooded areas and natural features shall be preserved except as necessary for location of improvements as described in section 32.5.6.n, provided that the architectural review board may authorize additional activity upon finding that such activity will equally or better serve the purposes of this ordinance. Such improvements shall be located so as to maximize the use of existing features in screening such improvements l~om EC streets to the extent such practices are authorized under the adopted design guidelines. The certificate of appropriateness shall indicate the existing features to be preserved pursuant to the preceding paragraph; the limits of grading or other earth disturbance (including trenching or tunneling); the location and type of protective fencing; and grade changes requiring tree wells or tree walls. No grading or other earth disturbing activity (including trenching or tunneling), except as necessary for the construction of tree wells or tree walls, shall occur within the drip line of any trees or wooded areas nor intrude upon any other existing features designated in the certificate of appropriateness for preservation. Areas designated on approved plans for preservation of existing features shall be clearly and visibly delineated on the site prior to commencement of any grading or other earth-disturbing activity (including trenching or tunneling) and no such disturbing activity or grading or movement of heavy equipment shall occur within such area. The visible delineation of all such existing features shall be maintained until the completion of development of the site. In addition, an applicant for development subject to the provisions of section 30.6; shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the designated agent of the architectural review board to further ensure that the specified existing features will be protected during development. Except as otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case, such checklist shall conform to specifications contained in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp III-284 through III-297. (Amended 11-14-90) 30.6.5 SIGN REGULATIONS Reference section 4.15. (Amended 7-8-92) 30.6.5.1 GENERAL'REGULATIONS (Repealed 7-8-92) 30.6.5.2 REGULATION OF NUMBER, HEIGHT, AREA, TYPES OF SIGNS (Repealed 7-8- 92) 30.6.5.3 (Repealed 7-8-92) 30.6.6 NONCONFORMITIES; EXEMPTIONS 30.6.6.1 Any use, activity, lot or structure subject to the provisions of the EC overlay district which does not conform m the provisions of the EC overlay district shall be subject to section 6.0, nonconformities, of this ordinance. 30.6.6.2 No provisions of this section shall be deemed to preclude the zoning administrator from authorizing repair and maintenance activities as set forth in section 6.2 upon determination that the same would not be contrary to the intent of the EC district. 18-30-22 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 30.6.6.3 EXEMPTIONS (Added 5-18-94) The provisions of section 30.6.4.1 notwithstanding, no certificate of appropriateness shall be required for the following activities: a. The following exemptions shall apply to all buildings and structures: 1. Interior alterations to a building or structure having no effect on exterior appearance of the building or structure. 2. Construction of ramps and other modifications to serve the handicapped in accord with section 4.9. 3. Repair and maintenance activities and improvements to nonconforming uses as may be authorized by the zoning administrator pursuant to section 6.2. 4. Main and accessory residential, forestal and agricultural buildings where no site development plan is required for the work subject to the building permit. 5. General maintenance where no substantial change in design or material is proposed. Additions or modifications to a building where no substantial change in design or material is proposed as determined by the zoning administrator. 18-30-23 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE together with such other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the application. Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the board of supervisors may appeal such decision to the circuit court of the county for review by filing a petition at law, setting forth the alleged illegality of the action of the board of supervisors, provided such petition is filed within thirty (30) days after the final decision is rendered by the board of supervisors. The filing of said petition shall stay the decision of the board of supervisors pending the outcome of the appeal to the court. For the purposes of this section, the term "person aggrieved" shall be limited to the applicant, the architectural review board or any member thereof, the commission or any member thereof, the agent, the zoning administrator, the county executive, the board of supervisors or any member thereof. 18-30-25 9 Legislative Information System Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT C § 15.2-2306 Preservation of historical sites and architectural areas A. 1. Any locality may adopt an ordinance setting forth the historic landmarks within the locality as established by the Virginia Board of Historic Resources, and any other buildings or structures within the locality having an important historic, architectural, archaeological or cultural interest, any historic areas within the locality as defined by § 15.2-2201, and areas of unique architectural value located within designated conservation, rehabilitation or redevelopment districts, amending the existing zoning ordinance and delineating one or more historic districts, adjacent to such landmarks, buildings and structures, or encompassing such areas, or encompassing parcels of land contiguous to arterial streets or highways (as designated pursuant to Title 33.1, including § 33.1-41.1 of that title) found by the governing body to be significant routes of tourist access to the locality or to designated historic landmarks, buildings, structures or districts therein or in a contiguous locality. An amendment of the zoning ordinance and the establishment of a district or districts shall be in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 (§ 15.2-2280 et seq.) of this chapter. The governing body may provide for a review board to administer the ordinance and may provide compensation to the board. The ordinance may include a provision that no building or structure, including signs, shall be erected, reconstructed, altered or restored within any such district unless approved by the review board or, on appeal, by the governing body of the locality as being architecturally compatible with the historic landmarks, buildings or structures therein. 2. Subject to the provisions of subdivision 3 of this subsection the governing body may provide in the ordinance that no historic landmark, building or structure within any district shall be razed, demolished or moved until the razing, demolition or moving thereof is approved by the review board, or, on appeal, by the goveming body after consultation with the review board. 3. The governing body ~shall provide by ordinance for appeals to the circuit court for such locality from any final decision of the governing body pursuant to subdivisions I and 2 of this subsection and shall specify therein the parties entitled to appeal the decisions, which parties shall have the right to appeal to the circuit court.for review by filing a petition at law, setting forth.the alleged illegality of the action of the governing body, provided the petition is filed within thirty days after the final decision is rendered by the governing body. The filing of the petition shall stay the decision of the governing body pending the outcome of the appeal to the court, except that the filing of the petition shall not stay the decision of the governing body if the decision denies the right to raze or demolish a historic landmark, building or structure. The court may reverse or modify the decision of the governing body, in whole or in part, if it finds upon review that the decision of the goveming body is contrary to law or that its decision is arbitrary and constitutes an abuse of discretion, or it may affirm the decision of the governing body. In addition to the right of appeal hereinabove set forth, the owner of a historic landmark, building or structure, the razing or demolition of which is subject to the provisions of subdivision 2 of this subsection, shall, as a matter of right, be entitled to raze or demolish such landmark, building or structure provided that: (i) he has applied to the governing body for such right, (ii) the owner has for the period of time set forth in the same schedule hereinafter contained and at a price reasonably related to its fair market value, made a bona fide offer to sell the landmark, building or structure, and the land pertaining thereto, to the locality or to any person, firm, corporation, government or agency thereof, or political subdivision or agency thereof, which gives reasonable assurance that it is willing to preserve and restore the landmark, building or structure and the land pertaining thereto, and (iii) no 2/14/00 http://leg 1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?OOO+cod+ 15.2-2306 Legislative Information System Page 2 of 2 bona fide contract, binding upon all parties thereto, shall have been executed for the sale of any such landmark, building or structure, and the land pertaining thereto, prior to the expiration of the applicable time period set forth in the time schedule hereinafter contained. Any appeal which may be taken to the court fi:om the decision of the governing body, whether instituted by the owner or by any other proper party, notwithstanding the provisions heretofore stated relating to a stay of the decision appealed fi:om shall not affect the right of the owner to make the bona fide offer to sell referred to above. No offer to sell shall be made more than one year after a final decision by the governing body, but thereafter the owner may renew his request to the governing body to approve the razing or demolition of the historic landmark, building or structure. The time schedule for offers to sell shall be as follows: three months when the offering price is less than $25,000; four months when the offering price is $25,000 or more but less than $40,000; five months when the offering price is $40,000 or more but less than $55,000; six months when the offering price is $55,000 or more but less than $75,000; seven months when the offering price is $75,000 or more but less than $90,000; and twelve months when the offering price is $90,000 or more. 4. The governing body is authorized to acquire in any legal manner any historic area, landmark, building or structure, land pertaining thereto, or any estate or interest therein which, in the opinion of the governing body should be acquired, preserved and maintained for the use, observation, education, pleasure and welfare of the people; provide for their renovation, preservation, maintenance, management and control as places of historic interest by a department of the locality or by a board, commission or agency specially established by ordinance for the purpose; charge or authorize the charging of compensation for the use thereof or admission thereto; lease, subject to such regulations as may be established by ordinance, any such area, property, lands or estate or interest thereinso acquired upon the condition that the historic character of the area, landmark, building, structure or land shall be preserved and maintained; or to enter into contracts with any person, .firm or corporation for the management, preservation, maintenance or operation of any such area, landmark, building, structure, land pertaining thereto or interest therein so acquired as a place of historic interest; however, the locality shall not use the right of condemnation under this subsection unless the historic value of such area, landmark, building, structure, land pertaining thereto, or estate or interest therein is about to be destroyed. B. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, general or special, in the City of Portsmouth no approval of any governmental agency or review board shall be required for the construction of a ramp to serve the handicapped at any structure designated pursuant to the provisions of this section. Go to (previous section) or (next section) or (new search) or (Home) http://leg 1 .state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+ 15.2-2306 2/14/00 8 \ / / / / \ ALBEMARLE 2O I 4~' 4 COUNTY WHITE HALL ~ RIVANNA DISTRICTS *,',L~ '"' ~E" '~°° SECTION ATTACHMENT E COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 M¢lntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 -4012 March 13, 2000 Affected Property Owners Listed on Preceding Pages ZTA-00-004 and ZMA-00-003 Entrance Corridor Roads - An ordinance to amend section 30.6, Entrance Corridor Overlay District, of Chapter 18 oft. he Albemarle County Code (Zoning) by adding to section 30.6.2, Applicability, Virginia Route 631 from U.S Route 29 North to Virginia Route 743, Virginia Route 743 from U.S. Route 29 North to Virginia Route 676, and Virginia Route 649 from U.S. Route 29 North to Virginia Route 606, and to amend the official zoning map to designate to the full depth of each parcel in existence on October 3, 1990 contiguous to the rights-of-way of such routes, or. to.a depth of five hundred (500) feet from such rights-of-way, whichever is greater, as being subject to the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is to notify, you that the following road segments will be considered by the Albemarle Coun~ Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for designation as EC Entrance Corridor Overlay roadways: --- Route 631 (Rio Road) from U.S.-Rte. 29North to Route 743 (Hydraulic Road): --- Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) from U.S. Rte: 29North to Route 676 (Woodlands Road); and --- Route 649 (Airport Road) from U.S. Rte. 29North to Route 606 (Dickerson Road). These road segments will be considered tbr designation in accordance with the following public hearing schedule: Albemarle CounW Planning Commission - March 28, 2000 Albemarle CounD' Board of Supervisors -- April 12, 2000 Page 2 March 13, 2000 The Albemarle County Planning Commission will meet at 6:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The Albemarle Co. unty Board of Supervisors meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. You are an owner of property which may be affected by this designation, since designation of these roads will automatically subject adjacent properties to the zoning regulations of the EC Entrance Corridor district. These regulations are administered by the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board. Enclosed pleasefind a general description of the Entrance Corridors and Architectural Review Board process in Albemarle County. Note in the enclosure that single-family residential development is exempt from ARB review where two or fewer houses are located on the same lot. The text of the ordinance may be viewed on the world wide Web address: http//avenue, albemarle, org/attorney/ Scroll down "Albemarle County Codes" to Chapter 18. Zoning. The entrance corridor regulations are in Section 30- Overlay Districts. Copies of the text are also available in this office. Should you have any questions regarding the effect of this zoning designation on your property, please contact either Margaret Pickan (804-296-5523. ext. 3276) or Ron Keeler (804-296-5823, ext. 3250) oft he Department of Planning and Commumtv Development. Sincerely, VWC/rsk enc: Albemarle County Entrance Corridors and the Architectural Review Board ALBEMARI E COUNTY ENTRANCE CORRIDORS and the ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD This information is provided as a general overview of the Entrance Corridors and Architectural Review Board process in Albemarle County. PURPOSE Entrance Corridors are roads that provide access to significant historic structures and historic areas. To insure that development within these corridors reflects the traditional architecture of the area, the Board of Supervisors appointed the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and charged them with the responsibility of reviewing the design of proposed developments within the Entrance Corridors. The goal of this review is to ensure that new development in these corridors is compatible with the historic character of the County, and that development within the corridors is orderly and attractive. WHICH PROJECTS MUST BE REVIEWED? Proposed development projects must be reviewed by the ARB if they are located upon parcels within a designated Entrance Corridor (EC) and if: a) The project requires County approval of a site plan or approval of an amendment to a site plan before development can begin (generally only commercial, industrial, or multi-family development projects are required to have a site plan), or b) The project requires a building permit (for commercial, industrial, or multi-family de;/elopments)', including a permit for the installation of a sign, before development can begin, or c) The project requires a special permit from the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors because it involves outdoor storage or display within an Entrance Corridor, or d) The project requires a special permit, rezo~ing, or comprehensive plan amendment and a request has been made for advice from the ARB. PLEASE NOTE: SINGLE FAMILY RES/DENT/AL DEVELOPMENT IS EXEMPT FROM ARB REVIEW WHERE TWO OR FEWER HOUSES ARE LOCATED ON THE SAME LOT. WHAT IS INCLUDED IN AN ENTRANCE CORRIDOR? An Entrance Corridor (EC) includes the following, whichever is greater: a) All parcels of land (to the full depth of the parcel), in existence on 10/30/90, which are contiguous to the rights-of-way of a County road or highway designated in Section 30.6.2b of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as an "entrance corridor street"; or b) All parcels of land that are located within fly6 hundred (500) feet of the right-of-way of a County road or highway designated in Section 30.6.2b of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as an "entrance corridor street." WHICH COUNTY ROADS ARE DESIGNATED ENTRANCE CORRIDORS? Entrance Corridors existing as of 3/10/2000 include the following: US Route 250 East US Route 29 South VA Route 20 North VA Route 6 (Irish Rd.) VA Route 151 VA Route 654 (Barracks Rd.) US Route 250 West US Route 29 North US Route 29/250 Bypass US Route 29 Bus. (Fontaine Ave) VA Route 20 South Interstate Route 64 VA F~oute 742 (Avon Street Ext.) VA Route 22 (Louisa Rd.) VA Route 231 (Gordonsville Rd.) VA Route 53 (TJ Prkwy) VA Route 240 (Crozet Ave.FFhree Notch'd Rd.) VA Route 631 South from Charlottesville City limits to Route 708 (Lynchburg Rd.) WHAT ARE THE STEPS OF THE REVIEW PROCESS? The Architectural Review Board process is typically a 2-step process consisting of a Preliminary Review and a Final Review for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Application forms, checklists, and submittal materials are required for both steps of the process. Fees apply to some application types and are listed on the application form. 1. Submit an ARB application form. All applications (preliminary, final, revision, etc.) are accepted according to the published Submission and Review Schedule. 2. Submit a checklist and the appropriate submittal materials with the application form. A checklist and 8 copies of the appropriate submittal materials must accompany the application form. The checklist outlines the required materials. 3. Schedule meetinq date. Complete submittals will be placed on the agenda of the meeting date that corresponds to the submittal deadline in the published Submission and Review Schedule. You will receive a letter in the mail that confirms your meeting date and time. 4. Review period. Staff will review the application and prepare a report prior to' the meeting date. Star~- will contact you during the review period to cladfy information and will forward you a copy of the staff report when it is complete. 5. Attend the meetinq. The ARB will not review an application unless someone is present to represent the project. Meetings are generally held on the first and third Monday of each month, beginning at 1:30 p.m., in Room 241 of the County Office Building. Applicants may present their projects to the ARB following a brief presentation by staff, and Board members may ask applicants to clarify various aspects of their proposals. 6. Board Action. For preliminary reviews, the ARB will comment on the proposal and will make recommendations for final submittals. For final reviews, the ARB may choose to approve the application, deny the application, or approve the application with conditions. The ARB could require additional reviews, or could direct staff to work out final details with the applicant. 7. Action letter. Staff will prepare a letter to the applicant that summarizes the ARB's action and that outlines the required action by the applicant. 8. Additional submittals. Most pro.iects require both a preliminary review meeting with the ARB and a final review meeting with the ARB. The procedures listed here are followed for all reviews required by the' ARB. All submittals are made according to the published Submission and Review Schedule. FOR MORE INFORMATION The "Albemarle County Design Guidelines" are available from the Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development. The guidelines are intended to provide assistance to applicants in designing projects that will meet the design requirements of the ARB. Applicants are encouraged to review the guidelines prior to designing their projects. Applicants are reminded that the goal of a preliminary review with the ARB is to provide the applicant with comments and suggestions before a design is complete. For more information or assistance with the Architectural Review Board process, call Margaret Pickart at 804- 296-5823. Draft: 03/13/00 ORDINANCE NO. 00-18( ) ATTACHMENT F AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,~ that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is amended as follows: By Amending: Sec. 30.6.2 Application. Chapter 18. Zoning Arfide III. District Regulations 30.6.2 APPLICATION The entrance corridor overlay district (hereafter referred to as EC) is created to conserve elements of the county's scenic beauty and to preserve and protect corridors: -Along arterial streets or highways (as designated pursuant to Title 33.1 of the Code, including section 33.1-41.1 of that title) found by the board of supervisors to be significant routes of tourist access to the county; or -To historic landmarks as established by the Virginia Landmarks. Commission together with any other buildings or structures within the county having an important historic, architectural or cultural interest and any historic areas within the county as defined by section 15.2-2201 of the Code of Virginia; or -To designated historic landmarks, buildings, structures or districts in any contiguous locality. EC overlay districts may be applied over any basic zoning district and/or other overlay district. EC overlay districts are hereby established: (Added 11-14-90; Amended 9-9-92) To the full depth of all parcels of land in existence on the adoption date of section 30.6 of this ordinance which are contiguous to the rights-of-way of the following EC streets in Albemarle County; or b. To a depth of five hundred (500) feet from the rights-of- way, whichever shall be greater, along the following EC streets in Albemarle County: 1. U.S. Route 250 East. Draft: 03/13/00 2. U.S. Rome 29 North. 3. U.S. Rome 29 South: 4. Virginia Rome 20 South. 5. Virginia Route 631: South fi:om Charlottesville City limits to Route 708: and from U.S. Route 29 North to Route 743. (Amended 11-14,90) 6. U.S. Route 250 West. 7. Virginia Route 6. 8. Virginia Rome 151.- 9. Interstate Route 64. 10. Virginia Route 20 North. 11. Virginia Route 22. 12. Virginia Rome 53. 13. virginia Route 231. 14. Virginia Route 240. 15. U.S..Route 29 Business. 16. U.S. Rome 29/250 Bypass. 17. Virginia Route 654. (Added 11-14-90) 18. Virginia Route 742. (Added 11-14-90) 19. Virginia Route 649 fi:om U.S. Route 29 North to Virginia Rome 606. 20. Virginia Route 743 from U.S. Route 29 North to Virginia Route 676. Draft: 03/13/00 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 __ to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Mr. Bowerman Mr. Dottier Ms..Humphris Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins Ms. Thomas Aye Nay Clerk, Board of County Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AGEN DA TITLE: FY 2000/01 Budget Resolution SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request Board Adoption of FY 2000/01 Operating Budget STAFF CONTACT(S): AGENDA DATE: April 12, 2000 ACTION: X Tucker, White, Gulati CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: On April 5, 1999, a public hearing was held on the Board Supervisors' proposed operating budget for FY 2000/01. The proposed budget, which totaled $161,591,520, represented a $3.1 million increase over the County Executive's recommended budget. The $3.1 million increase reflected the impact of a proposed $0.04 real property rate increase, which totaled $2,580,368, as well as other miscellaneous adjustments. Since that time, $247,937 in additional revenues have been added to the proposed budget, for a total budget of $161,839,457. Changes to the proposed budget are summarized below. The attached resolution to adopt this proposed budget must be approved at the April 12, 2000 meeting. DISCUSSION: The attached resolution (Attachment B) formally approves the proposed expenditures for FY 2000/01, which total $161,839,457. This budget represents an increase of $247,937 over the $161.6 million budget discussed at the April 5th public hearing. Attachment A summarizes these changes, as well as changes to the County Executive's recommended budget made during work sessions. Changes to the Board's Proposed Budget ($287,937): Changes to the proposed operating budget considered at the public hearing total $247,937 and include the following: General Fund. The budget proposed for adoption adds $77,804 in State Compensation Board revenues, to match FY 00/01 budget estimates from that agency. This increase is offset by $2,723 in miscellaneous expenditure adjustments, for a resulting net ~ncrease in Board reserves of $75,081. The adopted budget also reflects the re-allocation of budgeted compression reserve funds to the individual departments, with no net increase in expenditures. Ending Board reserves total $278,978. School Fund. The budget proposed for adoption also adds $170,133 to the school operations budget presented at the April 5th public hearing. These additional funds include a $63,240 increase in local revenues to match General Government's budgeted transfer for Human Resources operations, and $106,893 in additional federal education revenues. Summary of Additional Chanaes to the Recommended Budget Made During Board Work Sessions ($3,094,162): As you may recall, changes to the County Executive's recommended budget made during budget work sessions totaled $3,094,162. This increase consists of a proposed $0.04 real property tax rate increase of $2.6 million, a $399,584 increase in state education funds, and $114,210 in miscellaneous General Fund revenues. One half of the proposed rate increase would be allocated to School Division and General Government operational budgets, and the remaining $0.02, or $1,290,000, would be placed in reserve for future capital facility needs. AGENDA TITLE: FY 2000/01 Budget Resolution April 12, 2000 Page 2 The corresponding expenditure changes to the County Executive's recommended budget are summarized below: General Fund. Expenditure changes to the recommended General Fund totaled $2.7 million and included the following: a $774,221 increase in the School Fund transfer (60% of the $0.02 rate increase for operations,) the addition of a $1,290,000 debt service/capital projects reserve, and $658,458 in funded additions. These funded additions are summarized on Attachment A. School Fund expenditure changes reflect the $774,221 in additional tax revenues for school operations, plus $399,584 in additional funding from the State. These additional funds, when combined with the School Board's budgeted reserve of $50,000, projected expenditure savings of approximately $461,537 due to reduced health premiums, and a $633,000 one- time reduction in VRS retirement costs for FY 00/01, provide a total of $2.3 million with which to fully-fund the School Board's budget request. Alternative Budget Scenarios - Reduced Tax Rate The resolution to adopt the budget as proposed is included in Attachment B. Should the Board wish to reduce the proposed tax rate and adopt an alternative budget, the resulting expenditure reductions that would need to be made are summarized on Attachment C. The required reductions to the General Government budget could be made from the list of funded initiatives presented on Attachment A and C. RECOMMENDATION: If the Board has no further additions or deletions to the proposed budget, staff requests approval of the resolution in Attachment B. Should the Board of Supervisors elect to reduce the proposed tax rate and adopt a revised budget, the resulting expenditure reductions that would need to be made are summarized on Attachment C. 00.069 Attachment A Board of Supervisors' FY 2000/01 Adopted Operating Budget Summary of Total County Budqet Chanqes Total General Fund Total School Fund Total Self-Sustaining Funds FY 2000101 Total County Budget $ Increase over Previous General Fund Transfer to Schools (Recurring) Board of Supervisors Contingency Reserves Recommended Proposed Adopted 117,497,788 120,192,366 120,270,170 32,792,523 33,192,107 33,362,240 8,207,047 8,207,047 8,207,047 58,497,358 16t ,591,520 161,839,457 3,094,162 247,937 55,899,334 56,673,555 56,673,555 92,874 203,897 278,978 Summary of Budqet Chanqes: General Fund Changes to Recommended Budget Made During Board Work Sessions: Beginning Board Reserves (County Executive's Recommended Budget) Plus Miscellaneous Expenditure Adjustments Less Miscellaneous Revenue Adjustments Plus $0.04 Real Property Tax Rate Increase Less increase in School Transfer (60% of $0.02 Rate Increase) 148,835 (50,616) 92,874 98,219 2,58O;368 {774,221) Net Available Reserves (Board of Supervisors' Proposed Budget) 1,997,240 Board of Supervisor's Funded Additions Net Cost Net Cost Additions to General Government Operating Budget Election Official Pay Increase - Registrar Local Stipend Increase for 5 staff members - Commonwealth's Attorney Additional Operating Expenses - Sheriff (Net of $5,825 in Offsetting Revenue) 0.5 FTE Evidence Property Clerk Expansion (Jan. Hire) - Police Department 1.0 FTE Civilian Patrol Support Assistant - Police Department 2.0 FTE Traffic Officers - Police Department (Net of $127 670 in Offsetting Revenue) Additional funds for Training and Continuing Education - Fire/Rescue Reimbursement Resale of Training Materials - Fire/Rescue (Net of $2,900 in Revenue Offset) 1.0 FTE Volunteer Coordinatorn (Net of $3,750 in Revenue Offset) - Fire/Rescue 1.0 FTE Engineering Inspector III for CIP (Net of $14,970 in Revenue Offset) - JAN HIRE 0.5 FTE Expansion of Half-time Custodian to Full-time - Public Works GAIT Nursing Clinic - JABA Northside Library Sunday Hours Additional Staff Hours at Scottsville and Crozet Library Branches Local Funding for 1.0 FTE TJPDC Criminal Justice Planner CTS Extended Bus Service to Wal-Mart on Route 29 North Fu Funding for CSA Capital/Debt Reserve ($0.02 of $0.04 Rate Increase) 5,200 8,490 21,844 8,546 30,142 15,684 12,500 3,100 51,100 25,419 14,349 5,190 28,5O0 11,500 13,848 47,930 200,000 503,342 1,290,000 Total Funded Additions 1,793,342 Adopted Budget Executive Summary Attachment bak.xls Page 1 of 2 Printed 4/6/00 3:49 PM Attachment A Subsequent Changes Made to Board of Supervisors' Proposed Budget: Beginning Reserves (Board of Supervisors' Proposed Budget) Less Miscellaneous Expenditure Adjustments Plus Additional State Revenues 203,897 (2,723) 77,804 75,081 Available General Fund Balance Revenues as of 3/13/00 Less One-Time Costs Used to Offset Cost of Funded Additions) Less CALAS Facility - ClP Less Region Ten Facilities - ClP Rema nin~ Availab e Gen Fund Balance 435,509J (81,490)I (27,500)I (50,000) 276,519 Summary of Budget Changes: School Fund Changes to Recommended Budget Made During Board Work Sessions: School Board Beginning Reserves (County Executive's Recommended Budget) Plus Additional General Fund Transfer (60% of $0.02 Rate Increase) Plus Miscellaneous One-Time Expenditure Adjustments (VRS Rate Reduction) Plus Miscellaneous Recurring Expenditure Adjustments (Health Cost Reduction) I Net Available Reserves (Board of Supervisors' Proposed Bud~let) 50,000 774,221 633,000 461,537 1,918,758 Unfunded School Board Initiatives (Net of $399,584 Additional State Revenues): 1,918,758 Subsequent Changes Made to Board of Supervisors' Proposed Budget: School Board Beginning Reserves (Board of Supervisors' Proposed Budget) Plus Increase in Federal Revenues Plus Local Revenue Increase (Adjustment to Human Resources Transfer) Less Offsetting Human Resources Operating Expenditure Adjustment * Some or all of these reserves may be restricted to specific categorical expenditures. 106,893 63,240 (63,240) Adopted Budget Executive Summary Attachment bak.xls Page 2 of 2 Printed 4/6/00 3:49 PM Attachment B BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the operations budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2000 be approved as follows: General Government Administration Judicial Public Safety Public Works Human Development Parks, Recreation & Culture Community Development Other City/County Revenue Sharing Refunds Capital Improvements General Government Debt Service Debt Service/Capital Reserve Education - Operations Education - Self-Sustaining Funds Education - Debt Service Contingency Reserve $6,504,818 $2,654,086 $13,886,200 $2,719,261 $9,580,625 $4,272,399 $3,874,843 $411,004 $6,093,101 $34,300 $2,397,000 $750,000 $1,290,000 $90,035,795 $8,207,047 $8,850,000 $278,978 TOTAL $161,839,457 I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy for a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on April 12, 2000. Clerk, Board of Supervisors Attachment C Alternative Budget Scenarios This attachment summarizes the budget reductions that would need to be made if the Board were to approve a reduction to the proposed tax rate of $0.76/5100. The proposed tax rate represents a $0.04 rate increase over the current rate of $0.72, and has been allocated as follows: $0.02 for debt/capital reserve and $0.02 for operations. Reduction in $0.02 Rate Increase for Capital/Debt Reserve Eliminate Reserves - $0.02 Tax Rate Reduction Partial Reduction - $0.015 Tax Rate Reduction Partial Reduction - $0.01 Tax Rate Reduction Partial Reduction - $0.005 Tax Rate Reduction Budgeted Less Reserves Reduction 1,290.000 (1,290,000) 1,290,000 (967,500) 1,290,000 (645,000) 1,290,000 (322,500) Remaining Capital Reserves 322,500 645,000 967,500 Reduction in $0.02 Rate Increase for Operations Eliminate Additional Operating Funds - $0.02 Rate Reduction Reduced Operating Funds- $0.015 Rate Reduction Reduced Operating Funds - $0.01 Rate Reduction Reduced Operating Funds - $0.005 Rate Reduction Total Reduction Schools Gen Govt. in Operations @ 60% @ 40% (1,290,368) (774,221) (516,147) (967,776) (580,666) (387,110) (645,184) (387,110) (258,074) (322,592) (193,555) (129,037) School Division: A reduction to the School Division operations budget would simply reduce available School Fund revenues. The School Board then would prioritize expenditures to match the approved funding level. The various revenue reductions associated with changes in the tax rate are summarized above. (Continued on next page.) 4/6/005:17 PM Potential Budget Reductions.xlsSheetl Attachment C General Government A reduction to General Government operating revenues would require Board direction on where the offsetting .expenditure reductions would be made. However, the impact of a reduced tax rate could be offset by the use of available Board of Supervisors contingency reserves as shown below: Eliminate Additional Operating Funds -$0.02'Rate Reduction Reduced Operating Funds- $0.015 Rate Reduction Reduced Operating Funds - $0.01 Rate Reduction Reduced Operating Funds - $0.005 Rate Reduction Total Less Use Required of Board Reduction Reserves (516,147) 278,978 (387,110) 278,978 (258,074) 278,978 (129,037) 278,978 * A tax rate reduction of $0.01 or $0.005 could be funded by a reduction in Board Reserves only, without any additional expenditure reductions. Positive amounts indicate amount of remaining available Board reserves. Remaining Required Reduction * (237,169) (108,132) 20,904 149,941 Should the Board approve a reduction to General Government operations, these reductions could be made from the following list of initiatives funded during work sessions: Funded General Government Initiatives - Board Work Sessions Election Official Pay Increase - Registrar Local Stipend Increase for 5 staff members - Commonwealth's Attorney Additional Operating Expenses - Sheriff (Net of $5,825 in Offsetting Revenue) 0.5 FTE Evidence Property Clerk Expansion (Jan. Hire) - Police Department 1.0 FTE Civilian Patrol Support Assistant - Police Department 2.0 FTE Traffic Officers - Police Department (Net of $127,670 in Offsetting Revenue) Additional funds for Training and Continuing Education - Fire/Rescue Reimbursement Resale of Training Materials - Fire/Rescue (Net of $2,900 in Revenue Offset) 1.0 FTE Volunteer Coordinatorn (Net of $3,750 in Revenue Offset) - Fire/Rescue 1.0 FTE Engineering Inspector III for CIP (Net of $14,970 in Revenue Offset) - JAN HIRE 0.5 FTE Expansion of Half-time Custodian to Full-time - Public Works GAIT Nursing Clinic - ~ ABA Northside Library Sunday Hours Additional Staff Hours at Scottsville and Crozet Library Branches Local Funding for 1.0 FTE TJPDC Criminal Justice Planner CTS Extended Bus Service to Wal-Mart on Route 29 North Full Funding for CSA Total Total cost of $658,458 offset by $155,115 in additional revenues, for a net cost of $503,342. Net Cost * 5,200 8,490 21,844 8,546 30,142 15,684 12,500 3,100 51,100 25,419 14,349 5,190 28,500 11,500 13,848 47,930 200,000 503,342 4/6/005:17 PM Potential Budget Reductions.xlsSheetl COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGEN DA TITLE: 2000 Tax Levy Resolution SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request Board approval of the 2000 Tax Rates STAFF CONTACT(S): Messers. Tucker, White, Gulati AGENDA DATE: April 12, 2000 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On April 5, 2000, a public hearing was held on the Board Supervisors' proposed operating budget for FY 2000/01. separate public hearing also was held on the 2000 tax rates. The attached resolution to set the 2000 tax rates must be approved at the April 12, 2000 meeting. DISCUSSION: The attached resolution sets the tax levy for calendar year 2000. The proposed rates are set at $0.76/$100 assessed valuation for the real estate tax (a $0.04 increase over the current rate of $0.72/$100), and $4.28/$100 assessed value for the personal property tax rate. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the tax rate be set prior to April 15t~ in order that the printing and mailing of the tax bills can occur in a timely manner. 00.070 Attachment RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of SuperviSors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby set the County Levy for the taxable year 2000 for General County purposes at Seventy-Six Cents ($0.76) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of real estate; at Seventy-Six Cents ($0.76) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of manufactured homes; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of personal property; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of machinery and tools; and at Seventy-Six Cents ($0.76) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of public service assessments; and FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect the taxes on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMM R¥-- :::: ':' AGENDA TITLE: FY 2000/01 - 2004/05 Capital Improvements Program and FY 2000/01 Capital Budget SUBJECTIPROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request Approval of FY 2000/01 - 2004/05 Capital Improvements Program and Adoption of FY 2000/01 Capital Budget AGENDA DATE: April 12, 2000 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: IN FORMATION: IN FORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF CONTACT(S): REVIEWED BY: Messers. Tucker, White, Gulati BACKGROUND: On February 9th, the Board held a public hearing on the recommended FY 2000/01 - FY 2004/05 Capital Improvements Program (CIP), which totaled $84,155,394, and consisted of: $34,136,139 in general government projects, $636,520 in Tourism Fund capital projects, $822,977 in stormwater improvements, and $48,559,758 in school projects. The first year of the five-year CIP, or FY 2000/01 Capital Budget, totaled $3,706,510. Since that time, several changes have been made to the recommended FY 00/01 - FY04/05 CIP, resulting in a net increase of $1,832,800 over the five years, for a revised total CIP of $85,988,194 . The revised FY 2000/01 Capital Budget is $7,024,563. DISCUSSION: The proposed FY 2000/01 - 2004/05 Capital Improvements Program totals $85,988,194 and reflects the following changes to the five-year CIP considered at the public hearing in February: · Adds $1,000,000 per year in FY 01 and FY 02 for the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program, funded by a combination of General Fund balance revenues (of $650,000/yr) and Tourism Fund revenues ($350,000/yr.) · Adds funding for the following new projects: $55,000 for a new facility for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Legal Aid Society (CALAS). Funding for this project would come from General Fund Balance revenues in the following amounts: $27,500 in FY01 and $27,500 in FY02; $250,000 for three new Region Ten mental health facilities, funded with General Fund balance revenues in the amount of $50,000/yr in FY 01-05; and $33,000/year from the Tourism Fund (or $330,000 over ten years) toward the Paramount Theater restoration/renovation project. · Removes the $1.7 million General Fund transfer previously budgeted for E-911 related capital projects and facilities. These funds have been re-allocated within the FY 01 operating budget t'O fund the operational expenses of a new Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system at the new Emergency Communications Center building. · Adds $104,923 to complete the capital purchase of the CAD system in FY 01, using E-911 fund balance revenues. · Reduces the total cost of the Northern Elementary School project by $750,000 (based on revised cost information from the School Division) and defers only $9.5 million in construction costs to FY 02, due to delays in land aCquisition. (The previous CIP deferred the total funding request of $11.773 million to FY02.) Approximately $1.5 million is retained in FY 01 for site work and land acquisition. A $980,000 increase in school VPSA bonds is proposed for FY 01 to fully fund the proposed project. AGENDA TITLE: FY 2000/01 - 2004/05 Capital Improvements Program & 2000/01 Capital Improvements Budget April 12, 2000 Page 2 Defers $1.4 million in Burley Addition/Renovation construction costs to FY 02, due to delays in initiating this project. Pushes $597,000 in school maintenance and repair projects forward to FY 01 ($572,000 from FY 02 and $25,000 from FY 03) to complete chiller replacements at County schools as well as the installation of telephones in elementary school classrooms. A breakdown of the proposed FY 2000/01 - 2004~05 Capital Improvements Program and 2000/01 Capital Budget by functional area and revenue source is presented belOw. The FY 2000/01 - 2004/05 CIP totals $85,998,194, and consists of: $34,823,939 in General Government Capital Projects, $801,520 in Tourism Fund capital projects, $822,977 in stormwater projects and $49,539,758 in funded school proiects. The capital budget proposed for FY 2000/01 totals $7,024,563, and includes: $3,341,946 for general government projects, $58,000 in Tourism Fund capital projects, $422,977 in stormwater projects, and $3,201,640 in funded school projects. Expenditures by Function: Administration & Courts Public Safety Highways & Transportation Human Development Libraries Parks & Recreation Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Utility Improvements Tourism Fund Capital Projects Stormwater Projects School Division Projects Grand Total Projects FY 00-01 FY 00/01 -04~05 $785,000 $14,524,000 $464,923 $9,578,299 $527,000 $3,208,367 $77,500 $305,000 $82,500 $229,600 $325,023 $4,598,673 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $80,000 $380,000 $58,000 $801,520 $422,977 $822,977 $3,201,640 $49,539,758 $7,024,563 $85,988,194 Available Resources: CIP Fund Balance General Fund Transfer Revenues One-time General Fund Transfer (ACE) General Fund Balance/Carry-over E-911 Fund Balance Tourism Fund Revenues State Construction Funding Borrowed Funds - General Govt. * VPSA Bonds - Schools Miscellaneous Grand Total Resources FY 00-01 FY 00/01 - 04~05 $180,000 $603,128 $2,397,000 $14,540,000 $500,000 $500,000 $227,500 $1,105,000 $104,923 $104,923 $408,000 $1,501,520 $400,000 $2,000,o00 $0 $18,079,000 $2,601,640 $46,539,758 $205,500 $1,014,865 $7,024,563 $85,988,194 * Includes $16,279,000 in proposed General Obligation bonds, contingent upon voter approval in a bond referendum. AGEN DA TITLE: FY 2000/01 - 2004/05 Capital Improvements Program & 2000/01 Capital Improvements Budget April 12, 2000 Page 3 Attachment A provides a listing of the capital projects proposed for funding in FY 2000/01. Brief descriptions of the projects included in the FY 2000/01 Capital budget can be found on pages P-16 to P-22 of the proposed budget document. Supplemental information on the newly-included CAD project is included at the end of Attachment A. Attachment B provides a listing of proposed Capital Improvements Program projects for FY 00/01 through FY 04/05. An additional project to purchase an 800MHz Communication System that would be used by City, County and University public safety agencies currently is under review by a consultant. It is anticipated that this project will be incorporated into the ClP after the consultant concludes his review, potentially when the capital budget is formally appropriated in June. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the FY 2000/01 - 2004/05 Capital Improvements Program and adoption of the FY 2000/01 Capital Budget. 00.071 Attachment A GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS Administration & Courts County Computer Upgrade County Facilities Maintenance/Replacement Projects Court Square Maintenance/Replacement Projects Court Facilities Renovation/Expansion J&D Court Maintenance/Replacement Projects Subtotal Public Safety Projects Fire/Rescue Building & Equip. Fund CAD System Subtotal Highways & Transportation Airport Road Sidewalk Revenue Sharing / Road Program Subtotal Human Development CALAS Facility Region Ten Facilities Subtotal New Library Construction Library Computer Upgrade Library Maintenance/Replacement Projects Subtotal Parks. Recreation & Culture Crozet Park Athletic Field Development PVCC Facility Renovation Scottsville Community Center Improvements So. Albemarle Organization Park Development Walnut Creek Park Improvements Parks Maintenance/Replacement Projects Subtotal Acquisition of Conservation Easements ACE Program Subtotal Utility_ Improvement Pro.iects Keene Landfil Closure Subtotal Subtotal General Government Capital Projects TOURISM-RELATED CAPITAL PROJECTS Paramount Theater Rivanna Greenway Access & Path Subtotal Tourism-Related Capital Projects STORMWATER CAPITAL PROJECTS Stormwater Control Program Subtotal Stormwater Capital Projects SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL PROJECTS FY 00101 170,000 400,000 50,000 150,000 15.000 785,000 360,000 104.923 464,923 127,000 400.000 527,000 27,500 50.000 77,500 20,000 47,500 15.000 82,500 148,000 18,618 67,880 25,000 26,525 39.000 325,023 1.000.000 1,000,000 80.000 80,000 3,341,946 33,000 58,000 422,977 GRAND TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS: 7,024,563 Printed 4/6/00 cip exec summary 4 12 00.xls Attachment A - Supplementary Information On CAD System Project COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation of Capital Funds for CAD System and Authorization of County Executive to Sign Agreement SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #99063 in the amount of $1,930,255 and Request approval of Signature Authorization of CAD Agreement STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Davis, Breeden, 'Gulati, Hanson, Hatch AGENDA DATE: March 20, 2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: X A'I-rACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes The Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system is a multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional computer system for the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and University of Virginia's Emergency Communications Center (ECC). This system wiJI support: .... · City of Charlottesville Police and Fire Departments; · Albemarle County Police and Fire Departments; · Volunteer Emergency Medical Services; · University of Virginia Police Department. CAD is a system of computer hardware, local area networks, and computer software that will be used by ECC call takers and dispatchers to receive and dispatch emergency (911) and non-emergency calls'for service. The CAD system will help the ECC: · Improve responsiveness to the public's calls for emergency help; · Enhance emergency responders' on-call safety; · Manage the increasing 911 call volume; · Interface with other public safety computer systems; · Enable the use of other public safety computer-based technologies. DISCUSSION: A 911 call to the ECC is currently handled by the dispatcher through a manual process. CAD will replace the manual ' dispatch procedures with computer-based records that link directly to the computer-based regional police records system and fire departments' computer systems. In addition, CAD will provide dispatchers with a visual display of the location of the call, as well as the location of dispatched units. _~.~qter-jurisdictional team composed of technical and public safety representatives from the City, the County and the .; ersity began designing and identifying the specifications for a CAD system over two years ago. A Request for PrOposal (RFP) was issued approximately one year ago. The County serves as the fiscal agent for this project and the County's Purchasing Division supervised the procurement process. The County Attomey's office revieWed and finalized the contracts. AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation of Capital Funds for CAD System and Authorization of County Executive to Sign Agreement March 20, 2000 Page 2 Project cost The total cost of the CAD system is $1,894,255 and includes: · One-time purchase of the CAD hardware including the CAD servers and dispatch workstations; · One-time cost of the CAD computer software package provided by Printrak, International; · Installation, acceptance testing, and training. The cost of this project will be allocated among the three jurisdictions according to the funding formula for non-medical dispatching costs at the ECC. This formula is calculated annually based on the calls for service, population, and number of Part I crimes for each jurisdiction. The current allocation results in the following pro-rata shares and costs: · Albemarle County · City of Charlottesville · University of Virginia 43.29% $820,023 47.92% $907,727 8.79% $166,505 In addition to the County's share of the system cost, $36,000 also is needed to purchase a Records Management System for the County's Fire/Rescue Department that is linked to CAD. Since the County will act as fiscal agent for the project, the attached appropriation is for $1,930,255 which reflects the City, County a~d University shares of the CAD System cost ($1,894,255) as well as the additional funds needed to purchase the fire/rescue records management system ($36,000). The County's share of the CAD System pro?- ' ($820,023) will be funded through the Capital Improvements Program using E-911 fund balance revenues in ,. following amounts: $715,100 (FY 00), and $104,923 (FY 01). (The FY 01 allocation of $104,923 will be reflected in the FY 2000/01 - FY 2004/05 ClP.) Funding for the Fire/Rescue Management software will come from cu'rrent ClP fund balance revenues in the amount of $36,000. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the appropriation of $1,930,255 (#99063), and authorize the execution of the three-party inter-jurisdictional agreement as well as the Printrak, International agreement. 00.049 (~:..:. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 NUMBER 99063 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: CIP/ECC/E911 PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR JOINT CITY, COUNTY, UVA COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH SYSTEM AND FIRE/ RESCUE RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 4105 31061 800306 COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH (C.A.D. $1,894,255.00 1 9010 32010 950110 FIRE/RESCUE-RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYS 55,000.00 1 9010 12200 800700 INFO. SERVICES-A.D.P. EQUIPMENT -19,000.00 TOTAL $1,930.255.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 4105 16000 160503 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE $820,023.00 2 4105 16000 160502 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE 907,727.(~0 2 4105 16000 160512 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA 166,505.00 2 9010 51000 510100 CIP FUND BALANCE 36,000.00 TOTAL $1,930,255.00 TRANSFERS 1 9010 31000 800306ClP-C.A.D 715,100.00 2 9010 51000 512023 ClP-TRANSFER FROM E911 715,100.00 1 4101 93010 930010E911-TRANSFERTOClP 715,100.00 2 4101 51000 510100 E911 FUND BALANCE 715,100.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE SIGNATURE DATE MARCH 16, 2000 BOARD OF SUPERVISOR  oo~ ~ oo o o ~ ~ 0000~ ~00000000~ 000000~  ~ o o o o o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ o o ~ o oooooo ooo ooo,  ~o °~ ~ o o o ~00~0~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~oooooooo~ oo~ o°°~° E 0 0,1 "0 , >--0 · 00 °~°°°°°°°°°~°°o o o§§ooOOOoooo oo~oooo~o~o~o ~ ~o ~ o 0000000~0000~ 000000000000~._~ ~ 0000~0000~000 ''-- 0~0~000~000~ > 00000 0 O~ 00000 0 O0 00000 0 0 ~ o 00000 00000 0 0 ~ 0 000 ~) 00000 0 0 000~ ~=<~ 88~ < 0 m _J z U_ o (/) 0 rn Z >0 ~ ~ > 0 IJ. m ~ o 0 0 IJJ To: From: Subject: Date: Members, 8oard o~ Supervisors H~HO~A"OUH ~1o Woshin~on Corey, CMC, ~ " Reading ~st for ~p~l t 2, 2000 April 6, 2000 November 3, 1999 November 18 (A), 1999 January 5, 2000 February 2, 2000 February 9, 2000 February 16, 2000 /ewc Mr. MartJn Ms. Thomas pages 16 (Item # 14a) - end - Ms. Humphris pages 18 ('Item #9) - end - Ms. Thomas Mr. Dottier Mr. Martin April 12, 2000 CLOSED SESSION MOTION I move that the board go into closed session pursuant to seCtion 2.1-344(a) of the Code of Virginia Under subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of property for public purposes.