Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1996-09-04
l. Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. 5. Consent Agenda, on next sheet~. 6. Approval of Minutes: July 3 I. 1996. 7. ' ' Transportation Matters. 8. 10:00 a.m. - Public Hearing on proposed issuance by the Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority, pursuant ro the Virginia Housing Authorities Law, of its Mulri-Fmnily Housing Revenue Bonds I997 Series A in the principal amount of approximately $8,500,000. The purpose of the Bonds is to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of a 160-unit apartmeru development to be located in Albemarle County, Virginia, on Rio Hill Drive. 9. I0:15 a.m.-Appeal: SUB-95-004. Ivy Vista Prel Plat. Tocreate51otsavg'g4.34acsplus41ots avg'g 21.65 acs for total of 9 lots on 110.26 acs, to be served b~y public road. Located on S sd of Rt 637 W of Rt 682 l'M73.P2. Samuel Miller Dist. (Property is not located in a designated growth area. I 0 10:30 a.m. - Appeal: SDP-96-052. Lewis Mountain Apartments Prel Site Plan. To construct 60 one- bedroom units SC 6 two-bedroom units on 4.96 acs, znd R-15. Located at the end of Colonnade Dr on S sd of Rt 250 W ]?M60,P40C(8). Jack Jouett Dist. (Site recommended for High Density Residenrial 10.01-34 du/ac). 11 Report: Albemarle County Housing Committee Work Plan/Relationship to Other Housing Organizations. 12. Discussion: 1997 Proposed Legislarive Program. 13. I 1:30 p.m. - Presentation: Citizen Recommendations for Gro~vth Management. 14. Executive Session: Personnel Matters. Interviews for Boards Sc Cormnissions) 15. "Home Page" Demonstrarion by Lee Catlin. (During lunch) 16. Certify Execurive Session. 17. 1:30 p.m. - Presentation: Mountain Protection Committee's Mountain Protection Plan. 18. Presentation: ~ddirionai Regulation of Outdoor Ligliting. 19. Appointments. 20. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. 21. Adjourn. FOR APPROVAL: 5.I 5.2 5.3 5.~ Appropriation: Education Programs - S 15.496.56 [Form #96007). Appropriation: Grant- S90.000. Form #96018~. Appropriation: Education Grant- $I50.000. (Form #96019). Appropriation: Middle School After School Program - $36,030, (Ftrm #96020). 5.5 Resolution to amend Purchasing Manual to increase the threshold for which competitive sealed bids and competitive negotiation procedures are required. 5.6 Sister City Affiliation, Membership in Sister Cities International 5.7 Resolution for Airport Access Funds - Route 6't9 improvements. 5.8 Eadysville Forest Water Company (EFWC) - request for a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the State Corporation Commission. FOR INFORMATION: 5.9 1996-98 Work Plan for the County Development Departments. 5.10 Notice from the Department of Transportation of a Citizen Information/Participation Meeting to be held on September 11 1996. between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., to provide citizens an opportunity to informally re,new and d/scuss the preliminary plans for widening Fontaine Avenue to four lanes from the West Corporate Limits of the City of Charlottesville to Jefferson Park Avenue and on J~ff¢rson Park Avenue the replacement of the existing substandard bridge over the Norfolk Southern Rfiilwa. y uTith construction of the necessary approaches. 5.11 1995-96 Child Assault Prevention (CAP~ Project Annual Report for Albemarle County Public Schools. 5.12 Copy of letter dated August 22~ I996, from Shady Clark. Jr., Tide I Specialist, and George H. Irby, Director. Office of Compensatory Programs, Department of Education, to Kevin C. Casmer, School Superintendent. providing notice that Albemarle Cotmty Schools application for support under Tide I of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. has been approved. 5.13 Copy of ~ninutes of the Albemarle County Service Authority for July 1 I, 1996 (copy on file in the Clerk's office ,. 5.14 Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for July 22, 1996 (copy on file in the Clerk's office . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902~4.596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (8041 296-5500 MEMORANDUM Charles S. Martin Walter F. Pe£~:ins Sally H. Thomas TO: FROM: DATE: SUB.EECT: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk-~o~)~'' September 12, 1996 Board Actions of September 4. 1996 ~e following is a list of actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on September 4. 1996: Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m., by the Chairman. Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 4 Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public Ms. Patricia Alliger, a resident near Alton on Rt. 250W, spoke concernfl~g the junk that has been accttrnulating on the old Ridge Way Service Station site. She thought the owners had been issued a permit She handed out pictures of the site and asked the Board to check into correcting the problem. Mrs. Gertrude Peymn, a resident of Greenwood, urged the Board to consider reinstating the Scenic Highway designation. Aganda Item No. 5,1. Appropriation: Education Programs - $15,496.56, ,Form #960075. APPROVED. Original form sent to Melvin Breedan. Agenda Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Grant - $90,000, (Form 96018 I. APPROVED. Original £orm sent to Melvin Breeden. Agenda Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: Education Grant- $150,000. (Form #960191. APPROVED. Original form sent to Melvin Breeden. Agenda Item No. 5.4. Appropriation: Middle School After School Program - $36,030, (Form #96020). APPROVED. Original form sent to Melvin Breeden. Mrs. Humpkris asked that the revenues be separated showing both tax dollar supported funds and self-sustaining funds during the budget cycle. Printed on recycled paper Robert W, Tucker, Jr. September 12, 1996 (Page 2) Agenda item No. 5.5. Appropriation: Resolution to mnand Purchasing Manual to increase the threshold for which competitive sealed bids and competitive negotiation procedures are required. ADOPTED the attached resolution to amend the Purchasing Manual. Agenda ltem No. 5.6. Sister City Affihation - Membership in Sister Cities Intemaimnal. DECLINED PARTIC1]?ATION. The Clerk has drafted a letter to Dr. Campa. Agenda Item No. 5.7. Resolution for Airport Access Funds - Route 649 Improvements. ADOPTED the attached resointion requesting $450,000 in Airport Access Funds in FY 1996-97 for improvements to A~port Road. Agenda Item No. 5.8. Earlysville Forest Water Company (EFWC) - request for a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the State Corporation Commission. Expressed no objection to EFWC's request for a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the SCC, within the current water service area of EFWC, i.e., Earlysville Forest Subdivision only. Agenda Item 7. Transportation Matters. lneluded in a separate letter. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on proposed issuance by the Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority, pursuant to the Virginia Housing Author/ties Law, of its Multi-Fmnily Housing Revenue Bonds 1997 Series A in the pr'mcipal ammmt of approximately $8,500,O00. The purpose of the Bonds is to f'mance the acquisition, construction and equipping of a 160-unit apartment development to be located in Albemarle County, Virginia, on Rio Hill Drive. CONTINUED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 11, 1996, TO GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Agenda Item No, 9. Appeal: SUB-95-004. Ivy Vista Prel Plat. To create 5 lots avg'g 4.34 acs plus 4 lots avg'g 21.65 acs for total of 9 lots on 110.26 acs, to be served by public road. Located on S sd of Rt 637 W of Ri 682. TM73,P2. Samuel Miller Dist. APPROVED SUB-95-004 subject to the following conditions: Final plat approval will be subject to Albemarle County Engineering approval of all final plat requirements and the following conditions: leach item is preceded by the at~plicable reference to the Zoning Ordinance, unless otherwise sj~ecified ] [18.36, Table A] Certification on the £mal plat that the private road to Lots 5 and 6 will provide reasonable access by motor vehicle as required by § 18-36 of the Albemarle County Code. [~l&55(m), Albemarle County Engineering Policy] Albemarle County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations. Details, computations, and all applicable state and federal perm/ts will be reqinred for the proposed stream crossing to Lots 5 and 6. [Runoff Control Ordinance 19.1-~fJ Albemarle County Engineering receipt of a runoff control permit. d. [18-55(m), l&52(k), Erosion and Sediment Control OrdinanceJ Albemarle County engineeffmg Robert W. Tucker, Jr. September 12, 1996 (Page 3) approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, including the grading necessary for construction of the access road serving the building sites for Lots 5 and 6. e. [Albemarle County Engineering Policy] VDOT approval of final public road plans and drainage computations, including improvements within the existing right-of-way. f. [18-55(m), Albemarle County Engineering Policy] Albemarle County Engineering approval of final pubhc road plans, g. [18-19, Albemarle County Engineering Policy] Roads binit and/or bonded in accordance with the approved final public road plans. [~VRPA Ordinance] Water Resource Manager's approval of the WRPA buffer limits. The manager has requested the notation "100' WRPA Setback" be changed to "100' WRPA Buffer and Building and Septic Setback." Note that the use of the private access easement/s restricted to Lots 5 and 6 and that an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan be required at the time of building perntit approval for construction of the driveways for Lots 5 and 6; Health Department approval; and County Attorney approval ofma'mtenance agreement for private access easement. Agenda Item No. 10. Appeal: SDP-96-052. Lewis Mountain Apartments Prel Site Plan. To construct 60 one-bedroom units & 6 two-bedroom units on 4.96 acs, znd R-15. Located at the end of Colonnade Dr on S sd of Rt 250 W. TMt0,P40C(8). Jack Jouett Dist. (Site recommended for Hi~t Density Residential (10.01-34 du/ac). APPROVED the site plan for SDP-96-052 subject to conditions, and granted the two waiver requsts, as set out below: 1. Waiver for Critical Slanes: Planning Department approval of a fence to be installed on top of the retaining wall along the rear oft. he building. Fence shall be ora design to prevent access from the western, or top, side of the wall to the eastern side of the wall which will sit at a lower elevation. 2. Waiver for Access Aisle Grades: Albemarle County Service Authority approval of the access road and new access easement from the Colonnade Drive cul-de-sac to the water tank. 3. Conditions of the Approval of SDP-96-052: The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions are obtained. The final plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. September 12, 1996 (Page 4) a. The plans shall be sealed, signed, and dated by an architect, professional engineer, land surveyor with a 3(b) license, or landscape architect licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia. b. Albemarle County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and computations. c. VDOT approval of plans and drainage computations. d. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. e. Albemarle County Engineering approval of detention plans and computations. f. Albemarle County Engineering approval of retaining wall plans and computations. g. Albemarle County Engineering receipt of proof of recordation of a County Standard Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Maintenance Agreement for all stormwater management facilities. h. Zoning Deparanent approval ofrecreatiun facilities as specified in Section 4.16.2.1. i. Applicant shall submit to the Zoning Deparanent documentation of building heights sufficient to ascertain that zoning district height limitations are met. Submit documentation to the Zoning Department that building separations meet zoning district requirements as specified in Section 18.6 and Section 4.11.3. k. Albemarle County Engineering receipt of letters of intent to negotiate from owners of any off-site easements necessary for the development of the property. I. Planning Depar~ant approval of landscape plan. m. Planning Department approval of fence to be installed on top of retaining wall on western side of buildings. n. Albemarle County Sewer Authority approval ofrelocafiun of access road to water tanks and new access easement from the Colonnade Drive cul-de-sac to the water tank. o. Albemarle County Sewer Authority approval of £aral construction drawings for water and sewer. p. Albemarle County Sewer Authority approval of detailed demand information relating to the domestic water requirements and expected residual pressures under flow conditions. q. Approval of a landscaping trod building color plan by the Architectural Review Board to address visibility from Route 250. Agenda Item No. 11. Report: Albemm'le County Housing Committee Work Plan/Relationship to Other Housing Organizations. RECEIVED REPORT. Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: 1997 Proposed Legislative Program. It was the consensus of the Board to support "Dark Skies" and "duvenile Court" legislation for inclusion in the County's Legislative Program, Staff to bring hack final paper for the Board's approval on October 2, 1996. Agenda Item No. 13. Presentation: Citizen Recommendations for Growth Management. It was the consensus of the Board that stafftake the report and try to incorporate it into the Planning staff's work program. Staff is to provide direetiun to the Board on how to deal with the issues that were raised, and then forward the report to the Commission for their review. Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Personnel Matters. (interviews for Boards & Commissions) At 1:25 p.m., Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to go into Executive Session under Section 2. 1-344(a) subsection (1) to consider personnel matters for appointments to boards and commissions. Agenda Item No. 15. "Home Page" Demonstration by Lee Catlin. Moved to October 2, 1996. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. September 12, I996 (Page 5) Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Executive Session. At 2:47 p.m., the Board mcunvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowermaa, seconded by Mrs: Thomas, to certify the Executive Session. 0Vlr. Marshall amd Mr. Perkins were absent.) Agenda Item No. 17. Presentation: Mountain Protection Committee's Mountain Protection Plan. Motion offered by Mr. Bowarman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to fo~wvard the final report of the Mountain Protection Committee to the Planning Commission for their review amd analysis. Directed the Plaxming Commission to hold a public hearing and forward their recommendations to the Board with whatever amendments or additions they want to make to the report, along with an ordinance to/mplement the plan for incorporation in the Comprehensive Plan. Agenda Item No. 18. Presentation: Additional Regulation of Outdoor Lighfmg. ADOPTED the attached RESOLUTION OF INTENT. Agenda Item No. 19. Appointments. APPOINTED: Mr. Derek Jones, Children and Youth Commission-term to expire June 30, 2000 Mr. James Murray, Jr., Charlottesville/Albemarle Community Foundation-term to expire July 1, 1999 · Ms. Gene Smith, Jefferson Area Board on Aging-term to expire March 31, 1997 · Mr. Peter Hallock, Housing Committee-term to expire December 31, 1996. Agenda Item No. 20. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda fi~om the BOARD. There were none. Agenda Item No. 21. Adjommed at 6:10 p.m. EWC/aw Attankments (7) cc: Richard E. Huff, II Roxarme White Jo Higgins Brace WoodzeI1 Richard Wood Amelia McCulley Jan Sprkflde Larry Davis Wayne C/limbarg Kevin Castner File COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of 8oard of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville~ Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 August 10, 1996 Charles S. Martin Walter F, Perkins Mrs. Angela G. Tud~er Resident Engineer 701 VDoT Way Charlottesville. VA 22911 Dear Mrs. Tucker: At its meeting on September 4. 1996. the Board of Supervisors made the following conm~ents regarding transportation matters: Agenda Item No. 5.7. Resolution for Airport Access Funds - Route 649 improvements Adopted the attached resolution. Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters. Mrs. Tucker gave a repor~ on Route 610. which is a gravel road improvement project, approxi- mately two miles long, located off Route 20 North, VDoT has accelerated the schedule by about three months. Work began about two weeks ago. In response to a citizen's call about the number of large trucks on Route 20, Mrs. Tucker said she has been told that the waste and borrow pit is on site and the contractors essentially park their trudcs at the project overnight. They probably have about two trucks traveling Route 20 with an occasiorml load of gravel, Mrs. Tucker said she does not know the frequency of the trudcs that were witnessed, Perhaps the trucks have something to do with the railroad work. There is a railroad btidge dosed on Route 640 at Gilbert Station and those contractors may be entering off Route 20 or Route 29. but she would assume that Route 20 is the more direct path. Mrs. Humphris said she will pass that along to the gentleman who called. The person [ives at Stony Point and said he iust noticed a sudden change in the number of very large tractor trailers and gravel trucks, in particular, that were using the road. Mrs, Tucker said Route 240 in Crozet has been paved and appears to be draining properly. At Printed on recpcled paper Mrs. Angela G. Tucker September 10, 1996 Page 2 the request of County Police, VDoT also marked right and left turn lanes on Route 240 at Route 810 and Route 240 south, as well. There was concern about vehicles passing through the parking lot in front of Crozet Pizza. The discUSsion concerning the Route 29 Bypass project is enclosed separately as an attachment. Mr. Tucker asked for an update on Route 682 and the lack of erosion control measures. Mrs, Tucker said VDoT is reviewing that work today under the present weather conditions. They have also installed additional erosion filtration devices, some ched< pans and more silt fence. Everything has been inspected and cleaned since the last storm. Mrs. Thomas said she drove the length of the road after a rain storm a couple of weeks ago, and the creek was already showing significant amounts of silt with islands forming, k was dear there were things that were not working. The bottom line is that the measures have to protect the watershed runoff. She wants is it be effective, not iust meet standards. Although she does not know what is needed, she knows that it needs more than what she saw. Mrs. Tudcer said VDoT wi/l continue to keep a close eye on that. They did install an additional sik basin which should have assisted with those concerns. Mr. Perkins asked ff there will be any additional painting done on Route 240 in Crozet. in particular turn lanes in front of the parking lot at NationsBank. Mrs. Tucker said she was told that the pavement markings for turn arrows and turn lanes was to happen yesterd~v, but she is not sure whether the work got done because of this weather. Additional pavement markings should be happening at any time. Mr. Perkins said he received some complaints from Mr. Davis about parking at Millington Bridge. Someone is parking in his entrance to that field along the bridge and river. He asked if Mrs Tucl~er could check on that. Mr. Perkins said he has received some requests about posting "children playing" signs on the road at Yancey's Mill where it tums off Route 250 and goes ro the connnunity. It is posted at 25 mph, but people are coming off Route 250 and sfill traveling 55 mph. He asked Mrs. Tucker to see if posting signs there would be helpful. It may also be an enforcement issue. Mrs. Tucker said YDoT does not have a "children playing' sign. The closest they could come is a "playground" sign which they post near an official facility or school ground. "Children playing" signs are usually installed on private property and not by VDoT. The theory is that the sign promotes the use of roads for playing purposes, and VDoT does not sign for children playing in any roadway, She can look at the ~playground" sign with regards ro the church along that route. Mr. Martin said when VDoT posted the "No Right Turn on Red" sign at Rio Road and Route 29_ it seemed like a good idea and it did stop some problems, but now traffic significantly backs up on Route Mrs. Angela G. Tucker September 10. 1996 Page 3 29 and on Rio Road anyway. A couple of weeks ago he got called out to the police station twice in the middle of the night, once at about 1:00 a.m. and again at 3:30 a.m. and he had to sit there and wait for five minutes for the light to turn when there was not a car coming m any direction. It appears to him that the ligbt is not even computerized because there were no other cars on the road. and the light did not turn green which meant he could not rum. He asked if k is possible to make a distinction and have "Right Turn on Red" during certain periods of time. Mrs. Tucker said until VDoT gets the full use of lanes between Rio Road and the intersection iust north of that at Albemarle Square, they need to restrict right turns on red because of the volumes of traffic that passes through that short distance of intersections. VDoT cannot open that up until they have sufficiently lighted the section north of that ~md put traffic back in its appropriate lanes. This is going ro be a temporary restriction, Ultimately, it is hoped that the distance between those signals, while not ideal, will be suffi(~ent with the number of lanes to allow right turns on red and the volumes of traffic that are malting turns throughout that intersection. The busiest section of the Route 29 corridor is in Albemarle County between Hydraulic and Rio Roads: the 1994 count showed 52,000 vehicles. The next highest section on this corridor is near Gainesville with 48,000 vehicles. Mr. Martin asked for an update on Route 29 heading south into town and coming ro Wal-Mart. He is suggesting that as soon as possible. VDoT install some kind of right mrn lane. He realizes it cannot be done now, but he does not tl~nk it is something that should be held offfor too long. Mrs. Tucker said VDoT understands the need for that right turn lane. but an added complicafmn at that particular light is the grades and the number of trucks that need to stop and get started again, Mr. Martin said there are still no lines at Proffitt Road and Route 29. There are a lot of elderly people in particular who realize that it is against the law to turn in the most convenient direction, but unless lines are there, they refuse to turn and that blocks traffic every time, It is his understandhag that unless lines are there, you are not supposed to cross each other in this manner In other words, if you are on Proffitt Road and Airport Road, the most com,enienr way to meet each other is ro rum in front of each other, but it is his understanding that is illegal to do unless the lines are there to direct you to do so. It should be one car that comes up and goes behind the other. That is an inefficient way to get people through that intersection. Mrs. Tucker said they are called "puppy tracks" as opposed to a centetline Mrs. Thomas said on September 17, 1996, from 6:00 p.m. unt8 9:00 p.m.. there will be a meeting at Murray Elementary School al)our the intersections in Ivy, along Route 250, including the commercial area, Mr. Marshall asked about the acceleration lane for the off-ramp coming from I~64 onto Route 20 South. There was another accident in that location last week. Mrs. Tucker said she is not aware of the current project status of the off-ramp, but the acceleration lane should be constructed at any time. She knows that they are due to advertise that work where they extend the rum lane, and they are not likely to change any traffic patterns at this time, Advertisement is scheduled for October, 1996. Mrs. Angela G. Tucker September I0, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Marshall again asked about the four-laning of Route 20 South from Route 53 to the entrance to the new high school. Mrs. Tucker said VDoT currentiv has no plans for four laning Route 20 m the new cormecror road. Mr. Marshall said he has been asIdng for this for slx months now and wants to kno~v what needs to be done. Mrs. Tucker said the request should be presented at the primary preallocation hearing in Culpeper next yea' in accordance with what priority the Board wants to give it, along ~vith other primary improvements, Mr. Tucker said the Board would have to make the request at the next primary hearing, Mr, Marshall said he does not think the County should put a lot of buses on Route 20 given the current situation. Mrs. TudKer said in the intefLm there will be sufficient turn lanes built as part of the connector road. M~: Marshall said there is a bad curve where the road is going to be. Mrs. Tucker said VDoT ~vill require grading and trimming in either direction to ensure that it has adequate sigi~t distance at that intersection, and that would be part of the connector road proiecc Mr. Marshall asked if it is a possibility the County will not have that road improvement when the ne~v school opens. Mr. Tucker responded that is a good possibility. The only way to get the road is to make the request directly at the primary road hearing and try m have it fast tracked by the Conmmnwealth Transportation Board, but it has to compete against a lot of other projects. Mr. Marshall asked if he could get a consensus from the Board to ask for that; it is a serious problem. Mr. Tucker said the request was made ar the last hearing and it is on the list of primary road needs for improvement, but it was not a high priority when compared to other primary road requests, He again said the CTB would have to fast track the project. Mr. Marshall asked to put this on the list of things to discuss with Mr. Myers and Mr. Roudabush on October 2nd. Mr. Bowerman asked if Police Chief Miller had tallced to Mrs. Tucker about some pavement mark- ings at Route 29 and Greenbrier Drive. Mrs. Tucker rephed "no", Mr. Bmverman said he violated a law at that location. The sign says ~Right Turn Only" in the right hand lane for a turn onto Greenbrier. Instead he went through the intersection and turned into the Texaco Station which is illegal. To his knowledge that is the only place on Route 29 where the right mm only does not terminate at some point. He thinks a number of people do what he did. He got a warning from a police officer. If VDoT painted some white markings on the other side of the intersection which made it clear you are at the intersection and you are not to proceed across it. he thinks it would be helpful. Marldngs would let you know where the right turn is. Mrs. Hmnphris asked for an offidal report from the Route 29 Bypass Design Advisor5, Committee as to their recommendation for a name so the Board can take action. Mr. Scott Peyton said at a Board meeting in June, Mrs. Tucker referred to a Route 250 West Transportation Study and he has not been able to find out anything about the pamculars of that study. He asked the purpose of the study. The other issue is that recently he noticed on Route 250 West. iust west of the Blue Ridge Building Supply, some prorninent and distinctive road construction talcing place north of Route 250. He asked what is talcing place. Mrs. Angela G, Tucker September 10. 1996 Page 5 Mr. Tucker said construction of CoT Farms, a subdivision. ~s taldng place off Route 250 West, Mr. Peyron asked if it will be connecting to Route 240 Mr. Tucker responded, "no". not initially. The initial access wig be front Route 250, just west of Blue Ridge Building Supply, Mrs. Tucker said the Route 250 Corridor project is split into an east and west pro}ect. The Route 250 East corridor study will be done in house by their Richmond office, The Route 250 West corridor proiect will be put out to bid for study by a consultant. Both involve long and short-term improvements to Route 250 as far as turn lanes and widerdng which could mean a center third lane in various locations. The reason the corridor approach was taken is that various specific issues crop up along the corridor that lends themselves to an entire corridor study, i.e., Bellair, Ivy, Route 250 in Crozet. Route 250 in Shadwell, and Route 250 near Route 616 in the eastern part of the County. Each of these locations warrant a closer look at improvements, whether turn lanes or additional lanes, signals, any type of improvement wkich would facilitate the flow of trMfic for the primary corridor. Mr. Peyton asked if the County could request an open line of cormmun/cation bet~veen VDoT and the County so the Board is regularly updated and infornaed of VDoT's intentions. A lot of times improvemmats translate into widening which could have maior impacts on residents and property owners. Often times citizens do not hear about these things until they are done deals, He would like to be kept a~vare of these on the front end. He could perhaps look to the County Board to request and monitor and dialogue with VDoT so that the citizens are informed throughout the process. Mr. Tucker said VDoT normally does try to have some sort of citizen group involved in the oversight of the plans that are being developed. He suggested to Mrs. Tucker that Mr. Peyron serve on that committee ~md then a report come back to this Board. Sincerely, ~EWC Attachments (2) cc: Robert W. Tucker. Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg R/chard E, Huff, 11 Mrs~ Tucker said Mr. Marshall had requested information, at the last Board meeting~ about the status of the Route 29 Bypass pro3ecE with regard co the latest actmon taken by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Her information is informal although there may be some w~itten correspondence going on. Informally theM PO has approved the Bypass projec5 for planned development and right-of-way. '~DoT is currently aE the planned development phase (which is not impacted by any action taken by the MPO) so the project will continue as planned and V/DoT will take the design to a public hearing scheduled now for some time in February, 1997. After the public hearing, VDoT will prooeed to the right-of-way stage. As it now stands, that is supported by the MPO's action Regarding the removal of construction funds from the Primary Six-Year Plan, those funds are not shown in the Plan until January, 1999. That gmves VDoT two years to discuss and work something out with the County. Essentially the design and right-of-way part of the process has non been impacted and will move forward. Mr. Marshall asked how much money the County is expected to get from the Federal government that might have to be made up. He thinks everyone believes the Bypass will be built, and he wants to make sure the County does not lose those Federal funds. Mrs, Tucker said she ms non certain of the amount. Mr. Marshall said Virginia's taxpayers would have to make up that funding, if it is lost Mrs. Tucker said another funding option is with total state funding. Mr. Marshall said it is his understanding that the County has two years to work out some sort of agreement with VDoT so it can qualify for the Federal funds. He asked if that is correcu. Mrs. Tucker said V DoT looks at it as two-year window mn which co work with the County co address the items the stated were of concern to them in order uo put that construction funding back in the Transportation Improvement Program. Mr. Marshall said if at the end of the two years, there is no agreement, where would the funds come from. Mrs. Tucker said that has not been decided. Mr. Marshall said he thinks it behooves the Board to work out those differences in the next two years so as to get those funds. Mrs Tucker said the design team ms currently working on the design of the right-of-way and other issues to be addressed at the presllocation hearin9 next spring, if not outside of that forum. Mr. Marshall wanted uo be assured that the project will not be put on the back burner so those funds are not lost. Mrs. Tucker said she has no specific status on the construction portion of the project at this time. Mrs. Thomas said the words that were u~ed by the MPO in proposing that the rmght-of-way, planning and engineering funds be included in the long-range plan and not in the construction money, says that there are certain things that need to be addressed by the Highway Department before the MPO approves this project. The next two years is the time to work this out. All of these ~what ifs" would assume that nobody would talk to each other for the next two years, which is unlikely. The MPO is aware that there needs to be some agreements arrived at, but since the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) has %u~ilaterly broken some agreements, it seems not no be prudent for the MPO to approve construction money given the state of certain agreements between the State and the localities. This seems uo be an opportunity to say there is some unfinished business. She said the MPO hopes it sufficiently worrmes everyone so they will get together and recognize, for example, that the Meadow Creek Parkway is an lmporuanu component of the whole transportation system, which at this point has nog been recognized. Mr. Marshall asked what this Board can do to insure that this issue ms addressed and the County does not lose those funds. Mr. Martin said he thinks this Board needs to make sure that before the MPO votes a~ain next year, that this Board discuss how it feels about the issue. It ms important for the Board no get a report on what progress has been made, where the County stands and how this Board's representatives on the MPO are going no vote. Mr. Marshall said he agrees with Mr. Martin, but he wants 5o make sure that doing this next year would no5 cause the Federal funds to be lost. Mrs. Tucker said she does nou believe that losing the funds ms an mssue au this point. Funding for the Bypass was no5 set up mo be scheduled in the Six-Year Primary Budget for the nexn fiscal year. Funding for the design and right-of- way is still in the Plan~ that schedule ms not being mmpacted. The critical date ms January, 1999, and if these issues are non worked o55 by that time, then the funding can be impacted. Mrs. Humphrms said she and Mrs. Thomas, as the County's MPO representatives, have been working hard on this issue and will continue 5o do so; representing Albemarle County's best interests. Mr. Martin said he assumes that all the Board members should have znput into what those ~best interests" are. He asked Mrs. Humphris if she sees this as something where the County representatives can make a decision independent of what the res5 of the Board might desire. That vote caught the other Board rc~mbers by surprise and next year when it is time to yore again, he personally would like 50 be more aware of the possible ouucomes of the meeting and the votes. Mrs. Mumphris said she thinks it would be a good idea for the MPO to provide this Board and City Council with a copy of the resolution that was passed by the MPO Policy Board. The total resolution gives an enormous amount of the background which led up to the vote. The resolution shows thee the MPO reached the conclusion that it aeeded to smop and take a look a5 what was happening in regard to the agreemenus that had been in plac~ for five years before they were suddenly changed by a unilateral act of the CTB without any word to the local Board and Council in February, 1995. It ms imporEanu that all members of this Board and City Council have a full understanding of what ms happening. She and Mrs. Thomas will see that the information is forwarded. Mrs. Thomas said the whole resolution is based on the agreements that this Board voted on and the past few years so there is absolutely nothing new. Mr. Martin said this is a multi-million dollar decision the MPO made. His concern is that before the subject is discussed and voted on again, this Board should be made aware of, not just any resolution, but also the mind set and rationale that is going into the meeting. He appreciates the fact that Mrs. Humphris and Mrs. Thomas work hard on these committees. He does not have the time to do it and he appreciates that they have the time and they do an excellent job~ He is simply saying it is a decision that the rest of this Board should be informed of and feel comfortable with prior to it happening. Mrs. Thomas said she thinks when the Board members see the complete resolution, they will understand it better. Mr. Marshall said it is obvious he needs to understand m~re about the situanlon. He does not wan5 Virginia taxpayers to pay for this pro,oct when Federal funds can be used. ~e appreciates the MPO mrying mo put pressure on VDoT to ge£ them to come around tc the 3ocal way of thinking, but at the same tmme- he does not wane to gan~te with that much money, Mrs. Humphris said the MPO is keepmng a careful eye on how those dollars are spent. Mr Marshall said from an individual's point of view, it looks like a power struggle between uwo entities. Mrs. Humphris said based on many years of work on the MPO, she feels the MPO does know what mt is doing representing this locality in planning for the future nransportation network. She thinks the representatives do a good job and are well-informed. Power is not what they are about. They are representing the citizens of this community and making an effort Lo be sure chat what happens ms in the best interest of everybody. Mr. Marsl~all said it becomes a power issue if the MPO does approve this projecc and VDoT cannot get the federal funds. Then, the MPO is depriving VDoT of those funds. Mrs. Humphris said there are a lot more zngredients to this situation than what Mr. Marshall is talking about. Mr. Marshall said he understands that, but he needs [o simplify some of this mn his mind, and it appears to him that the MPO is depriving ~DoT of construction funds by its vote. Mrs. Thomas said ~DoT does not need the construction money until 1999, so the MPO is not depriving VDoT of anything. They would not be getting that money for another two years anyway. Mr. Marshall said the locality has to come to some soru of agreemen~ within two years. Mrs. Humphris said that is true. It is the MPO's intent and hope to reach an agreement within two years. Mr. Marshall said he has been ~old it is possible VDoT will pun this pro~ect on s back burner. Mrs. Humphris asked why V DoT would do that since they are the ones that want to build the road. She is certain ~DoT will not pul this project on the back burner. Mr. Marshall said VI)oT can build the road with or without the County's agreement, but the final a~alysis is that if they build it entirely with Etate funds, those Federal funds are lost forever. Mr~ Bowerman said he thinks the Board should hold a work session at its October 2nd meeting to discuss ~he MPO's resolution including what led up to the decision by the MPO. He thinks it is mmportant that this Board have the same information the MPO had. He was at the MPO meeting and he heard the resolution. He knows there are a lot of elements to the plan and there is concern that some of the necessary elements are no~ going to be included in the total plan for this community. In his opinion nothing ms being delayed. There ms the opportunity to work out the things Mr. Marshall is ~alking about over the next two years before construction funds are even necessary~ He does not think it ms a power smruggle; he thinks it is a q~/estion of the comm~ity getting all of the pieces together. Mr. Marshall said he would like co invite Mr. Roudabush and Mr. Myers from the CTB Lo participate an the work session. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM COPY TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC ~ September 10, 1996 Board Actions of September 4, 1996 At its meeting on September 4, 1996, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Item 5.1 Appropriation: Education Programs - $15,zt96.56, (Form #9600D. Approved. Attached is the signed form. Item 5.2 Appropriation: Grant - $90,000, (Form #96018). Approved. Attached is the signed form. Item 5.3. Appropriation: Education Grant - $150,000, tForm #96019). Approved. Attached is the signed form. Item 5.4. Appropriation: Middle School After School Program - $36.030. (Form #96020). Approved with the understanding that all funds will return to the County in fees or be covered by the current Teen Center appropriation. Attached is the signed form. Mrs. Humphris said the request shows the progrmn as self-sustaining and she wants to make sure that when this comes up again in the budget cycle, it be correctly titled as self-sustaining and not supported by tax dollars. Item 5.5. Resolution to amend Purchasing Manu~l to increase the threshold for which competitive sealed bids and competitive negotiation procedures are required. Adopted the attached resolution. Item 5.6. Sister City Affiliation - Membership in Sister Cities International. Declined to participate. Memo To: Melvin A~ Breeden September 10. 1996 Page 2. Item 5.7. Resolution for Airport Access Funds - Route 649 improvements. Adopted the attached resolution. Item 5.8, Earlysville Forest Water Company (EFWC) - request for a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the State Corporation Commissmn. The Board e>cpressed no objection to the EFWC's request for a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the SCC, within the current water service area of EFWC, i.e., Earlysville Forest Subdivision only. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on proposed issuance by the Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority, pursuant ro the Virginia Housing Authorities Law. of its Multi-Family Housing Revenue Bonds 1997 Series A in the prindpal mount of approximately $8.500.000. The purpose of the Bonds is to finance the acquisition~ construction and equipping of a 160-unit apartment development to be located in Albemarle County, Virginia, on Rio Hill Drive DEFERRED until September 11, 1996. [eWC Attachments (6) cc: Richard E. Huff, II Roxanne W. White Robert Walters Kevin Castner Jackson Zimmerman Pat Mullaney Ed Koonce APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 96/97 NUMBER 96020 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND TEEN PROGRAMS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ESTABLISH BUDGET FOR AFTER SCHOOL TEEN PROGRAM. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1171071021130000 1171071021210000 1171071021310000 1171071021550600 1171071021600200 11710710216004~0 1171071021601300 1171071021601700 PART TIME WAGES FICA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TRAVEL FOOD SUPPLIES MEDICAL & LAB SUPPLIES EDUCATIONAL & RECREATIONAL SUPPLIES COPY SUPPLIES $4,100.00 310.00 18,000.00 150.00 7,320.00 150.00 5,400.00 600.00 TOTAL $36,030.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2171018000189900 MISC. REVENUES $36,030.00 TOTAL $36,030.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PARKS & RECREATION SIGNATURE DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 96/97 NUMBER 96007 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND EDUCATION PROGR3LMS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR PROJECT UNITE AND DRIVER EDUCATION ASSISTANT PROGRAM. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1350961102132100 1350961102138100 1350961102210000 1350961102420100 1350961102550100 1350961102580500 1350961102601300 1350961102601600 1350961102601700 1350961102600200 SALARIES-TEACHER STIPENDS-STUDENT FICA TRANSPORTATION MILEAGE STAFF DEVELOPMENT ED/REC SUPPLIES DATA PROCESSING SUPPLIES COPY SUPPLIES CEREMONY $8, 2, 400.00 100.00 810.00 900.00 500.09 300.00 300.00 200.00 290.00 200.00 1330061235132100 1330061235210000 1330061235601700 SALARIES 1,296.56 FICA 100.00 COPY SUPPLIES 100.00 TOTAL $15,496.56 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2350924000240243 PROJECT UNITE $14,000.00 2330016000161210 DRIVER EDUC. ASST. PROGRAM 1,496.56 TOTAL $15,496.56 REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS S I GNATURE DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 96/97 NUMBER 96018 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED YES NO X FUND GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR.FY 96/97 ADULT A1X~D CONTINUING EDUCATION GRANT. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1321060293111400 1321060293115000 1321060293210000 1321060293220000 1321060293312700 1321060293520000 1321060293550100 1321060293550400 1321060293580000 1321060293601300 1321060293601700 1321060293800100 WAGES-OTHER MANAGEMENT WAGES - CLERICAL FICA VRS PROF. SER. -CONSULTANTS COMMUNI CATIONS TRAVEL -MILEAGE TRAVEL-EDUCATION MISC. DUES MATERIALS COPY SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT- NEW $15,027.00 5,000.00 1,551.00 1,715.00 43,520.00 3,200.00 4,272°00 6,720.00 1,100.00 800.00 2,175.00 2,000.00 2,920.00 TOTAL $90,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ 23210240002401'01 VAACE STAFF DEVELOPMENT $90,000.00 TOTAL $90,000.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EDUCATION S I GNATURE DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 96/97 A/UMBER 96019 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED YES NO X FUND GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR FY 96./97 PROJECT RETURN II GP~A/qT. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1312263349112100 1312263349210000 1312263349221000 1312263349231000 1312263349260000 1312263349301210 1312263349312500 1312263349312700 1312263349520301 1312263349520302 1312263349550100 1312263349601300 1312263349800700 1312263349800710 SALAR I ES - TEACHER FICA VRS HEALTH INSURANCE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CONTRACTED SERVICES PROF. SVC. -INSTRUCTIONAL PROF. SVC. - CONSULTANT TELEPHONE ~ LOCAL TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE TRAVEL- MILEAGE INST/REC. SUPPLIES ADP EQUIPMENT DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE $28, 2, 3 2 10 11 4 1 5 4 15 22 41 000.00 907.00 181.00 000.00 48.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 250.00 614.00 TOTAL $150,000.00 REVENTJE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2312224000240500 PROJECT RETURN II $150,000.00 TOTAL $150,000.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Purchasing Manual requires competitive sealed bids or competitive negotiation for the procurement of goods and services estimated to exceed $15,000; and WHEREAS, Section 11-41 of the Code of Virginia, relating to the Virginia Public Procurement Act, was amended effective July 1. 1996, to authorize a public body to establish written purchase procedures not requiring competitive sealed bids or competitive negotiation for single or term contracts if the aggregate or the sum of all phases is not expected to exceed $30,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby amends the County of Albemarle Purchasing Manual to provide that competitive sealed bids or competitive negotiation for single or term contracts shah not be required if the aggregate or the sum of all phases is not expected to exceed $30.000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Section 4 of the County of Albemarle Purchasing Manual is hereby amended by substituting "$30,000" ~vherever % 15,000" is stated therein. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of SupmMsors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of 6 to O on . September 4, 1996 Clerk, Board of County Supefbisors RESOLUTION WItEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport is designated by the Virginia Department of Aviation as a commercial service airport in the Virginia Transportation System Plan; and WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport currently accommodates over three hundred thonsand (300,000) airline passengers annually, generates eighty-five thousand (85,000) airport operations per year. retains approximately sixty-five (65) based akcraft at its facilities and is the Commonwealth's sixth largest commercial service airport; and WItEREAS. the Commonwealth Transportation Board has modified the Virginia Airport Access Fund Program to increase allocations for eligible projects to four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($450,000) and increase the scope of eligibte items for funding through this program; and WItEREAS, Route 649 in Albemarle County serves the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, Route 649 is designated as an Entrance Corridor by the County of Albemarle. and Route 649 qualifies as an eligible project for receipt of Airport Access Funds: and WltEREAS. the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has indicated that Route 649 is eligible to receive two (2) allocations from this source of funds: and W}IEREAS. the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved an allocation of four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($450.000) in Airport Access Funds for Roue 649 in Fiscal Year 1996: and WI-IEREAS, the County of Albemarle has programmed Six-Year Secondary Road Funds in improve Route 649. NOW TItEREFORE BE 1T RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors does hereby request the CTB to provide in Fiscal Year 1997 an allocation of four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($450.000) in Airport Access Funds to design and construct unprovements to Route 649 in Albemarle County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Albemarle County pledges its efforts and resources from its Six-Year Secondary Road Fund to obtain necessary fights-of-way/easements and utility adjustments requisite for construction of said improvements to Route 649. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on September 4. 1996. .~Bogrd of Cou~nty~ RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia. has determined in order to serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practices, it does hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to regulate outdoor lighting for all uses in all zoning districts: FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Conunission to hold public hearing on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance. and does request that the Planning Commission send its recommendation to this Board at the earliest possible date. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true. correct copy of a resolution of intent adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on September 4, 1996. Clerk, Board of County Supe?sors AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education Programs SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of appropriation ~96007 in the amount of $15,496.56 funding Project UNITE and the Driver Education Assistance Program. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tricker, Castner, Breeden COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA DATE: September4,1996 ACTON CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: /~ 5 INFORMATION: INFORMATION: / BACKGROUND: At its meeting on July 8, 1996. the School Board approved the following appropriations. DISCUSSION: Appropriation of $14.000.00 for the Project UNITE Pfast Grant. Project UNITE (Unified Intercommunity Transition and Empowerment for Youths) with Disabilities (USDOE H158A20015 via Virginia Department of Education) has awarded Albemarle County Schools a grant in the amount of $14,000.00 to promote successful post-school employment through year-round community based work expedenca. Project PFAST purports to develop a seamless year-round system of trans'~don activities, with particular emphasis on those students with disabilities who have experienced failure or have not been able to participate in trans'rtion programs. The goals and objectives are designed to provide new awareness for providing transition assistance as well as enhancing systems already in place. Project PFAST's goals and objectives have been designed to increase availability, access, and quality of transition services by providing needed job supports during summer months for students with significant disability needs, developing an employer database in collaboration with MACAA and both school divisions through a grant awarded by the Virginia Department of Education, and by the development of informational brochures, training materials (to include videos), and workshops to promote quality transition planning involving students, parents, school personnel and community stakeholders. Appropriation of $1,496.56 for the Driver Education Assistant Program Grant from the State Department of Education. Dudng the process of training 350 students at Albemarle High School and 200 at Western Albemarle High School per year, Driver Education instructors have observed numerous situations where students have liRle or no driving experience prior to the range. With time limitations, and decreasing amount of abandoned rural road space for first time driving expenencas, some parents are fearful of teaching their students in an urban highway environment. These funds will be used to develop a guide pamphlet for parents, which will include teaching methods and tips for providing progressive learning experiences during the first year of driving. This grant will also provide for an in-car first day (one hour) driving lesson for students and parents at the school range on Saturdays. The target population is 15 year old students and their parents/guardians in Albemarle County. Potentially 76 families w!ll be served. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the above appropriations in the amount of $15.496.56 as detailed on Appropriation #96007. 96.161 COUNTY OF &LBEMARLC ALBEMARLE COLrN'I~ PUBLIC SCHOI~.~p,D OF SbPERV~SORS Memorandum D~TE: TO: F~OM: RE: July 10, 1996 Rob~.Tucker, Jr., County Bxecutive Ke~tner, Division Superintendent Request for kpproprlatlon At its meeting on July 8, 1996, the School Board approved the following appropriations: o Appropriation of $14,000.00 for the Project UNITE pFAST Grant. Project UNITE - Unified Intercommunity Transition and Empowerment for youths) with Disabilities ~USDOE E158A20015 via Virginia Dept- of Education) b~e awarded Albemarle Couulty Schools a grant in the a~oun~ of S14,QO0.00 to promote successful post-school employed through year-round community based work experiences. Proj act PFAST purports to develop a seamless year-round system of transition activities, with particular emphasis on nhose students Qith disabilities who have experienced failure or have not been able to participate in transition programs. "The goals and objectives are designed to provide new awareness for providing transition assistance as well as enhancing systems already in place. Project PFAST'S goals and objectives have been designed to zncrease availability, access, and quality of transition services by providing needed job support during summer months for students with significant disability needs, developing an employer database in collaboration with MACAA and both school divisions through a grant awarded hy the Va. Department Education, and by the development of informational brochures, training materials (to include videos), and workshops to promote quality transition planning involving students, parents, school personnel and community stakeholders. o Appropriation of S1,496.56 for the Driver Education Assistance Program Grant from the State Department of Education. During the process of training 350 studenus au Albemarle High School and at Western Albemarle High school per year, Driver Education instructors have observed numerous situations where s~udents have little or no driving experience pr~or to th~ range. With time limitations, and a decreasing amounu of abandoned rural road sp~ce for first time driving experiences, some parents are ~earful of teachin~ %heir students in a urban highway environment. These Request for Appropriation July 10, 1996 Page 2 funds will be used to develop a guide pamphlet for parents, which will include teaching methods and tips for providing progressive learning experiences durin~ the first year of'driving. This grant will also provide for an in-car first day (one hour) drivin~ lesson for students and parents at the school range ob Saturdays. The target population is 15 year old students and their parents/ ~uardians in Albemarle County. Potentially 76 families will be served. The funds will be received and disbursed as follows: Pro~ect UNITE: 2-3509-24000-240243 $i4,000.00 Expenditure: 1-3509-61t02-132100 1-3509-61102-138100 1-3509-61102-210000 1-3509-61102-420100 1-~509-61102-550100 1-3509-61102-580500 1-3509-61102-601300 1-3509~61102-601600 1-3509-61102-601700 1-3509-61101-600200 Salaries-Teacher $8,000.00. Stipends-Student $2,100.00 FICA $810.00 Transportation ~900.00 Mileage $500.00 Staff Developmenu $300.00 Ed/nec Supplies $300.00 Data Processing Supplies $200.00 Copy Supplies $290.00 Ceremony $200.00 Driver Education Assistant Proqram Granu: Revenue: 2-3300-16000-161210 $1,496.56 Expenditure: 1~3300-61235-132100 1~3300-61235-210000 1-3300-61235-601700 Salaries $1,296.56 FICA $100.00 Copy Supplies $100.00 It is requested that the Board of Supervisors amend the appropriation ordinance to receive and disburse these funds as displayed above. xc: Melvin Breeden Ella Carey COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Grant SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST; Request approval of Appropriation ~,~96018 in the amount of $90,000.00 funding the FY 96/97 Adult and Continuing Education Grant. AGENDA DATE: September 4, 1996 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER:/ INFORMATION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: I ATTACHMENTS: STAFF CONTACT(S): REVIEWED BY: Messrs. Tucker, Castner, Breeden BACKGROUND: At its meeting on July 22, 1996, the School Board approved the following appropriation. DISCUSSION: Albemarle County Public Schools has been awarded a grant in the amount of $90,000.00 to fund the Virginia Association of Adult and Continuing Education [VAACE) Assessment of the Virginia Adult Education Staff Development System. These funds will be used to develop a system of qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis to assess the extent to which practitioners feel their needs for ongoing professional development are being addressed. Recommendations for on-going self evaluation of specific staffdevelopment components and the integration of the system as a whole will be made. The Regional Adult Education Specialist will be the coordinator for this project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Appropriation ~96018 in the amount of $90,000.00 96.160 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: RE: July 29. 1996 Robert W./T~r, Jr., County Executive Kevin C~]:)ivision Superintendent Request for Appropriation At its meeting on July 22, 1996, the School Board approved the following appropriation: Albemarle County Public Schools has been awarded a grant in the mount of $90,000.00 to fund the Virginia Association for Adult and Continuing Education (VAACE) Assessment of the Virginia Adult Education StaffDevalopment System. These funds wilt be used to develop a system of qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis to assess the extent to which pmctitiuners feel their needs for ongoing professional development are being addressed. Recommendations for on-going self evaluafiun of specific staff development components and the integration of the system a whole will be made. The Regional Adult Education Specialist will be the coordinator for this project. The funds will be received and disbursed as follows: 2-3210-24000-240101 VAACE Staff Dev $90,000.00 Expenditure 1-3210-60293-111400 1-3210-60293-115000 1-3210-60293-210000 1-3210-60293o220000 1-3210-60293-312700 1-3210-60293-520000 1-3210-60293-550100 1-3210-60293-550400 1-3210-60293-580000 1-3210-60293-580100 1-3210-60293-601300 1-3210-60293-601700 1-3210-60293-800100 Other Management $15,027.00 Clerical $5,000.00 FICA $1,551.00 VRS $1,715.00 Prof. Ser. Consultants $43,520.00 Communications $3,200.00 Travel - mileage $4,272.00 Travel - education $6,720.00 Misc. $1,100.00 Dues $800.00 Materials $2,175.00 Copy Supplies $2,000.00 Equipment - New $2,920,00 $90,000.00 It is requested that the Board of Supervisors amend the appropriation ordinance to receive and disburse these funds as displayed above. /smra xc: Melvin Breeden Ella Carey COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE o s° ~'~~'~s AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education Grant SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of appropriation #96019 inthe amount of $150,000.00 for the Project RETURN II Grant STAFF CONTACTIS): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Castner, Breeden BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: September4,1996 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER:~ INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY. At its meeting on August 12, 1996, the School Board approved the appropriation of s'm 50,000.00 for the Alternative Education Grant: Project RETURN II. DISCUSSION: Project RETURN II is a collaborative alternative education project among the school divisior of Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville. and Nelson County. The grant proposal has received an award of $150,000.00 from the Virginia Department of Education to be implemented during the 1996-97 school year. This project is a prototype and named after Fluvanna County Public Schools alternative education program, Project RETURN. Through the use of technology ~ computers, modems, and software combined with home instruction, an alternative education program wilt be ~mplemented to address the educational, emotional, and social needs of students K-12 who have either;, violated School Board Policy; been expeilad or suspended for an entire semester; had two or more long-term suspensions in one year; been released from a youth learning facility; or had the School Board recommend placement. Each school division participating in the grant will have three student placements. In-kind contributions required from each division consist of counseling services for students and families to assure the successful transition back into the regular education program and continued success in said program. Financial management and administrative management services will be provided by Albemarle County Public Schools as the fiscal agent of the grant The funds will be received and disbursed as displayed on the attached appropriation form. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of appropriation #96019 in the amount of $150,000.00 as detailed on the attached form. 96.162 ALBEMARLE CQUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Memorandum DATE: AugUst 15, 1996 TO: Robert W./~r, Jr., County Executive FROM: Kevin C~Division Superintendent RE: Requestfo~Appropriation At its meeting on August 12, 1996, the School Board approved the following appropriation: o Appropriation of $150,000.00 for the Alternative Education Grant: Project RETI3R/~ II. Project RETURN II is a collaborative alternative education project among the school division of Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, and Nelson Cou~nty. Tb~ grant proposal has received an award of $150.000.00 from the Virginia Department of Education to be implemented during the 1996-97 school year. This project is a prototype and named after Fluvanna County Public Schools alternative education program, Project RE~JP~N. Through the use of technology - computers, modems, and software confoined with home instruction, an alternative education program will be implemented to address the educational, emotional~ and social needs of students K-12 who have either: violated School Board Policy; been expelled or suspended for an entire semester~ had two or more long-term suspensions in one year; been released from a youth learning facility; or had the School Board recommend placement. Each school division participating in the grant will have three student placements. In-kind contributions required from each division consist of counseling services for students and families to assure the successful transition back into the regUlar education program and continued success in said program. Financial management and administrative management services will be provided by Albemarle County Public Schools as the fiscal agent of the grant. The funds will be received and disbursed as displayed on the attachment. It is requested that the Board of Supervisors amend the appropriation ordinance to receive and disburse these funds as displayed on the attachment. Autachment XC: Melvin Breeden Ella Carey AU~US~ 15, 1996 Page 2 2-3122-24000-2~0500 Expenditure: 1-3122-63349-112100 -210000 -221000 -231000 -260000 -301210 -312500 -312700 -520301 -520302 -550100 -601300 -800700 -800710 Si50,000.00 Salaries-Teacher $28,000.00 FICA $2,907.00 VRS $3,181.00 Health Ins $2,000.00 Unemployment $48.00 Contracted Services 310,000.00 Prof. Svc.-Inst. $11,000.00 Prof. Svc.~Consu!tant 34,000.00 Telephone-Local $1,000.00 Telephone-Lon9 Dist. $5,000.00 Travel-Routine Inst~Rec. Supplies $15,000.00 ADP Equipment $22~250.00 Data Processing Software $41,~14.00 $150,000.00 COUNTY OF ALBEMAR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation: Middle School After School Program. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #96020 in the amount of $36,030 to fund a self sustaining Middle School After School Program to be supervised by the Parks and Recrea'don Department in cooperation with the Department of Community Education. STAFF CONTACTIS): Messm. Tucker, Huff, Mullaney AGENDA DATE: September 4,1996 ACTION: X NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: / BACKGROUND: From December 7, 1993 to June 30, 1996, the City and County rented space on Westfield Road and operated a Teen Center. During the 1996-97 operating budget discussions, the County Parks and Recreation Department recommended the closing of the Wesffield Road site in favor of prov'~ling satellite programming with a primary emphasis on developing an after school program at middle school Iocatioes. This recommendation was supported by the CACY Commission and the original Teen Center Advisory Committee. Concurrently, in December of 1995, Dr. Kevin Castner directed that a Middle School Task rome be established to ensure quality and equ~ in the Albemarle County Middle School Program, The Middle School Task Force was made up of pdncipels, parents, and teachers representing all 5 County Middle Schools and selected central office personnel. In the Middle School Task Force Preliminary Report, published in June of 1996, a major recommendation is the implementation of two extended day pilot programs at Jouett and Walton Middle Schools as a cooperative effort between the School Division and the Department of Parks and Recreation. A major recommendation for the 1997-98 school year is the expansion of the extended day program to all middle schools. DISCUSSION: During recent years, middle school principals, students, parents and teachers have cited the need for after school programs and activities for middle school students. The rural nature of Albemarle County affords little to no recreational activity facilities other than schools for this age group. Formal sports programs in middle schools are no longer offered in Albemarle County. Parents who have utilized the Elementary After School Enrichment Program currently have no alternatives for this type of service atthe middle school level. Parents have noted their concern to school officials regarding the lack of supervision that their middle school children receive dudng alter school hours while waiting at home before an adult arrives from work. This so-called "latch key" issue is a real concern for parents. During the school term, the principal at Walton Middle School conducted a parent survey to determine the need and desire to have an alter school program at Walton. More than 40 parents responded in the affirmative and 99% of those who responded indicated that they would be willing to pay for such a program. Since the recently closed Teen Center served primarily Jack Jouett Middle School students and in conttast to Walton, Jouett is located in a more urban setting, it was chosen as the second pilot location. Given the decision already made by the Parks and Recreation Department and leaming the direction that the Middle School Task Force was heading, staff members from Parks and Recreation and Community Education began meeting in May to work outthe details of the Middle School Pilot Program. Due to a high level of interest in this particular age group, sports and active recreation will be a big component of the program, along with enrichment club activities such as drama, writing, band, science, etc. The program will be under the supervision of Amy Smith, the Parks and Recreation Department's Teen Center Director. AGENDATITLE: Appropriat~n: Middle SchoolAffer SchoolProgmm September4.1996 Page2 The estimated budget for the Middle School After School Program is $36,030. Major costs include: Site Supervisors. Instructors, Club Leaders $ 22,410 Food Supplies $ 7,320 Athletic, Recreation, Education Supplies $ 5.400 Copying, Medical Supplies, Travel, Misc. $ 900 $36,030 The program is designed to be a self sustaining program with all costs covered by program fees. The County currently has appropriated $52,995 for Teen Programming. The Teen Center Director's salary and fringe cost of approximately $32,495 will be charged to the current appropriation along with any expenses for the Middle School Program that are not covered by fees. For example, scholarships for the Middle School Program would be charged against the currenl appropriation. It is estimated that approximately $15,500 will be available from the current appropriation to run other teen satellite activities aside from the Middle School Program. Staff believes that this plan represents a much more cost effective use of County dollars than was being achieved at the single site Teen Center. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Appropriation ~)6020 in the amount of $36.030 for the Middle School After School Program, with the understanding that all funds will return to the County in fees or be covered by the current Teen Center appropriation. 96.159 COUNTY OF ALBEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Resolu§on to Amend Purchasing Manual SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Resolution to Amend Purchasing Manual to Increase the Threshold for Which Competitive Sealed Bid and Competitive Negotiation Procedures Required STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Davis, Koonce AGENDA DATE: September 4, 1996 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: .ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Res~ng Manual REVIEWED BY: .-~/ / BACKGROUND: State law and the County's Pumhasing Manual establish the procedures for the procurement of goods and services by the County. tf the cost of a procurement is expected to exceed $15,000, the County must procure the goods or services by either the competitive sealed bid or the competitive negotiation procedure. If the cost of the procurement is not expected to exceed $15,000, the County may procure the goods or services using less formal, yet competitive, procedures. Prior to July 1,1996, the $15,000 threshold established in the Purchasing Manual was consistent with State law (except for the procurement of computer equipment, for which the threshold under State law is $30,000). Effective July 1, 1996, the Virginia Public Procurement Act authorizes public bodies to increase the threshold for the competitive sealed bid and competitive negotiation procedures to $30,000. DISCUSSION: Adoption of the resolution will amend the Pumhasing Manual to increase the threshold for which the competitive sealed bid and the competilive negotiation procedures are required from $15.000 to $30,000, thereby enabling procurements not expected to exceed $30,000 to be made using less formal procedures. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution to amend the Purchasing Manual (attached). PURCHRES 96.121 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Purchasing Manual requires competitive sealed bids or competitive negotiation for the procurement of goods and services estimated to exceed $15,000; and WHEREAS, Section i 1-41 of the Code of Virginia, relating to the Virginia Public Procurement Act, was amended effective July i, 1996, to anthotize a public body to establish written purchase procedures not requiring competitive sealed bids or competitive negotiation for single or term contracts if the aggregate or the sum of all phases is not expected to exceed $30,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby amends the County of Albemarle PurchaSing Manual to provide that competitive sealed bids or competitive negotiation for single or term contracts shall not be required if the aggregate or the sum of all phases is not expected tO exceed $30,000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Section 4 of the County of Albemarle Purchasing Manual is hereby amended by substituting "$30,000" wherever "$15,000" is stated therein. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, byavoteof 6 to 0 on September4,1996 Clerk, Board of CoUnty Sup~sors COPY COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 40I Mclntire Road CharlottesvilJe_ Virgipia 229C~-596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 September 10, 1996 Charles $. Martir Waiter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas Dr. Justiniano F. Campa PO Box 201 Ivy, VA 22945 Dear Dr. Campa: At its meeting on September 4. 1996. the Board of Supervisors discussed membership in Sister Cities International. Although the Board is supportive of an exchange program and the educational value derived from the program, it is also concerned about the time and effort that goes along with involvement in such a program. Should you be successful in getting the program started the Board is willing to work with you to encourage its educational aspect. Sincerely, /ewc cc: Richard E. Huff, II Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Sister City Affiliation SUBJE CT/PROPOSAUREOUEST: To Luvesttgate Membership In Sister Cities hitematiounl STAFF CONTACT(S): Mesm's. Tucker & I-hiff AGENDA DATE: September 4, 1996 ACTION: YFEM NUMBF~: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND The Chamber of Commew_e, County and City of Charlotte~wilte have previously been jointly affdiated with sister cities in Italy. This exchange program conunenced dtn~ng the 1976 U.S. Bicentennial Calebration with Prato & Poggio a Caiano, Italy. The goals were to foster a t~lationship bet~ecn the localities through cultural, econor~eal and educational exchanges. The formal linkage began to dissolve in 1991 due to resource zssues, travel/safety concerns and the availability of other private sector exchange opportunities. The finances and organization for the program were ulthnately thonght to be better sponsored through the Chamber of Commerce, volunteer groups, or the individual education di-dsions, r other than tbe gener al goverrunem More recent requests for Sister City interests have been dirented to other potential spensers in the community, as mentioned above. Recently, Dr. Jnstiano F. Campa of the University of Virginia Health Sciences Center forwarded information to City Coancil and the Board concerahug possible rnanthers~p in Sister City International (SCI). His goal is to ha~e our two localities £otmally affihate with the county and city of Mendoza, Argentina. Mendccza is thought to be sim~l ar to our area in many ways, includ4ug size, University accessibility and resource availability, thus makingit a slrong Sister Citymatch. Dr. Campa would lflce to recommend our official membership in SCI so our linkage with Mendeza could be proprietary. He also proposes that/f the County and City are willing to sponsor the application and provide the annual membershil: fee, he and his volunteer organizational committee would handle the management and administration of the progran~ DISCUSSION: The Btyard requested that staff investigate the benefits ofjoining Sister City International (SCI) and exmnine other Virginia sister city localities Research ind/entes SCI will act as the catalyst to locate, formalize and coordinate sister dity contacts, while the fiuaneial, odium' istrafive and management responsibflities remain with the locallfies For the $600 yearly membership (ftn' ereas 100~000-300,000 in population), SCI provides teclmical and informational assistance on building, funding and managing a Sister City program and provides eligibility to student exchange grant programs and access to J-I visas for t~inmg opportunities (attachraent A details some of the other benefits). As attashmant B demonstrates, there are currently 25 Virginia localities known to have sister cities, and the arrangements vary. from placo to place. Some jurisdictions coordinate all activities withLu tl~e government and fund trips with public money, while others use outside volunteer commiltees to manage and finance the sister city programs. Several local/ties bypass SCI and manage their sister city programs on their own. Regardless of the organizational method, there is a significant time and resource comroJtment to ~nanage these programs well. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas talked *vith Dr. Campa who indicates he is willing to be the focal point for coordinating activities related to the Sister City affil/ation. Staff recommends that, should the Board desire to proceed with the formal relationship through SSI, it should also be wilting tu assume the management of the program should Dr, Campa or others no longer be employed in this area. 96.156 Membership in Sister Cities International means: increased tourism, new prospects For trade and commerce, youth develop- ment programs, student and professiona~ exchanges, enriched and diversified cultural, experiences and understanding, extended international assistance, increased awareness and interest in foreign lan- guages, and enhancement of learning expenences in schools through direct inter-school contacts. Send your direct membership dues today! By paying your dues you will be entitled to: · Access to Sister City affiliations database and SCI guidance and support systems. · Technical assistance on building, funding and managing a local Sister City program. International training: cross-cultural expertise, protocol advice, and many other leadership training programs. · Access to municipal professionals and political leaders throughout the world. · Up~to-date information on leading NGOs, foundations, and government initiatives. · Complimentary issues of Sister City News, SCI Directory, and Conference and Awards Programs; articles solicited from members. · Reduced advertising in all publications and on Worldwide Web site. · Reduced registration .and exhibit fees for regianal, national, and international conferences. · Voice and vote for SCI leadership and association policies. · Eligibility for innovative grant programs, from youth exchange ta municipal training. · Eligibility for the annual awards program, · Discounted group and incentive travel programs. £ligibility for the Young Artist Program and the Eisenhower International Scholarships. · Access to J- 1 Visas for practical training, language services, and various insurance policies. · Invaluable networking opportunities through state, regional, bilateral, and internalional SCI conferences. Not only can Sister City links improve cultural understanding be~veen people in different nations, they can also lead to increased municipal cooperation and sustainable economic development. The benefits or direct membership continue to grow! Cities and states like yours are taking advantage of the opportunities SCI offers-- become part of the world's premiere community network. If you have any questions, please contact Najia Aziz-Arsalayee at the SCI national headquarters by e-mail at. najia@sis- ter-cities.org, or by phone at 703-836-3535. Sister Cities International, 120 S. Payne St., Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone 703/836-3535 * Fax 703/836-4815 E-mail: info@sister-cities.org · WW~/: http://v~vw, sister-citiesoorg VIRGINIA SISTER CITy PARTICIPANTs:. = match 1~ endin ALEXANDRIA ARL]iXIGTON COLrNTY CHESAPEAKE* EMPORIA* FA1RFAX CITY* DUNDEE, SCOTLAND, UI< IIELSINB ORO, SWEDEN AACHEN, GERMANy COYOACAN, MEXICo FREDERICKSBURG HAMPTON I-]ENRIco COUNTy* FREIUs, FRANCE SOUTHAMPTON, ENGLAND, UK HERNDON HOPEWELL LEXINGTON LURAY LYNcHBURG* RUNNYMEDE, ENGLAND, LrK ASHFORD, ENGLAND, [/K EICHSTATT, GERMANy LURAy, FRANCE NEWPORT NEWs NORFOLK PETERSBURG. NEYAGAWA, JAPAN KAUNINGRAD, RUSSIA KITAKusHu; JAPAN NORFOLK COUNTy. ENGLAND. UK TOULON, FRANCE VOLm~MS~vEN, C~ POQUOSON PORTSMOUTH PULASKI RESTON RICHMOND ROANOKE SUFFOLK VIRGINIA BEACH YORK COUNTy BAR SUR LOUP. FRANCE DUNEDIN, NEW ZEALAND ELDORET, KENYA PORTSMOUTH. ENGLAND. UK ASHEURTON. NEW ZEALAND NYERI, KENYA OLSZTYN, POLAND RICHMOND UPoN ~ URAWA. JAPAN THAMEs, ENGLAND. UK ZJ-IENGZHou, CHINA KIS Lr/vffJ, KENYA SUFFOLK, ENGLAND MYAZAKI, JAPAN MOSS. NORWAy ZWEIBRUCKEN. GERMANy ATTA CHiMENT B COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Request for Airport Access Funds * Rt. 649 (Airport Rd.) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request for Second Allocation of $450,000 STAFF CONTACT(S): AGENDA DATE: September 4, 1996 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Cilimberg , REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: A total of $450,000 is available in one fiscal year from the Virginia Airport Access Fund, The first $300,000 is unmatched and the remaining $150,000 requires a dollar-for-dollar local match. The Virginia Department of Transportation has advised that Airport Road is eligible for two (2) allocations from this fund. Airport Road was granted its first allocation of $450,000 last fiscal year (FY1995-96). The attached resolution requests a second allocation of $450.000. DISCUSSION: Airport Road improvements are currently scheduled in the County's Six Year Secondary Plan to be completed in mid-2001. Airport Access Funds will be used in combination with secondary construction funds to either expedite the project or cover costs in excess of the current $2,470,000 estimate. The $150,000 local match in FY1996-97 can be covered for the most part by excess CIP funds in the Revenue Sharing line item. While $500,000 was budgeted, the County has been approved for $358,919, leaving $141,0B1 uncommitted funds available. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the attached resolution requesting $450,000 in Airport Access Funds in FY1996-97 for improvements to Airport Road. cc: Bryan Elliott Angela Tucker RT649.SUM 96.163 RESOLUTION V~IIgREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport is designated by the Virginia Departmem of Aviation as a commemial service airport in the Virginia Transportation System Plan: and WItEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport currently accommodates over three hundred thousand (300,000) airline passengers annually, generates eighty-five thousand (85,000) airport operations per year. retains approximately sixty-five (65) based aircraft at its facilities and is the Commonwealth's sixth largest commercial service airport; and WHEREAS. the Commonwealth Transportation Board has modified the Virginia Airport Access Fund Program to increase allocations for eligible projects to four hundred fifty thousand dollars ~$450,000) and increase the scope of eligible items for funding through this program; and VVHgREAS, Route 649 in Albemarle County serves the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, Route 649 is designated as an Entrance Corridor by the County of Albemarle, and Route 649 qualifies as an eligible project for receipt of Airport Access Funds: and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has indicated that Route 649 is ehgible to receive two (2) allocations from this source of funds; and WltlgREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved an allocation of four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($450,000) in Airport Access Funds for Roue 649 in Fiscal Year 1996; and WItEREAS. the County of Albemarle has programmed Six-Year Secondary Road Funds in improve Route 649. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors does hereby request the CTB to provide in Fiscal Year 1997 an allocation of four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($450,000) in Airport Access Funds to design and construct nnprovements m Route 649 in Albemarle County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Albemarle County pledges its efforts and resources from its Six-Year Secondary Road Fund to obtain necessaq/rights-of-way/easements and utility adjustments requisite for construction of said improvements to Route 649. I. Blla W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true. correct copy of a resointiun unanimously adopted by the Board of Connty Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia. at a regular meeting held on September 4, 1996. Cottony Supervisors COPY COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Super~asors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804~ 296-5843 FAX (804~ 296-5800 September 10, 1996 Charles S. Martin ~Valter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas Mr. Bryan Elliott Director of Aviation Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport 201 Bowen Loop Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Mr. Elliott: At its meeting on September 4, 1996, the Board of Supervisors adopted the attached resolution requesting $450,000 in Airport Access Funds in FY 1996-97 to design and construct improvements to Airport Road (Route 649). /ewc Attachment cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Sincerely, a~W. Carey ,'J~CMC,~C le Printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION VCI-IIgREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport is designated by the Virginia Department of Aviation as a commercial service airport in the Virginia Transportation System Plan; and WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport currently accommodates over three hundred thousand (300,000) aid'me passengers annually, generates eighty-five thousand (85,000) airport operations per year. retains approximately sixty-ftve (65) based aircraft at its facilities and is the Commonwealth's sixth largest commercial service airport: and WItEREAS. the Commonwealth Transportation Board has modified the Virginia Airport Access Fund Program to increase allocations for eligible projects to four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($450,000) and increase the scope of eligible items for funding through this program; and WItEREAS. Route 649 in Albemarle County serves the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, Route 649 is designated as an Entrance Corridor by the County of Albemarle, and Route 649 qualifies as an eligible project for receipt of Airport Access Funds; and WItEREAS. the Virginia Departmem of Transportation (VDOT) has indicated that Route 649 is eligible to receive two (2) allocations from this source of ftmds; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved an allocation of four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($450.000) in Airport Access Funds for Roue 649 in Fiscal Year 1996; and WHEREAS. the County of Albemarle has programmed Six-Year Secondary Road Funds in improve Route 649. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors does hereby request the CTB to provide th Fiscal Year 1997 an allocation of four hundred fifty thousand dollars ~ $450.000) in Airport Access Funds to design and construct improvements to Route 649 in Albemarle County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Albemarle County pledges its efforts and resources from its Six-Year Secondary Road Fund to obtain necessary rights-of-way/easements and utility adjustments requisite for construction of said improvements to Route 649. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a lrue, correct copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by the Board of County SUPervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on September 4, 1996. ,~Board of COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Earlysville Forest Water Company (EFWC) SUB-IECT/PROPO SAL/RE OUE ST: Consequences of state regulation of EFWC AGENDA DATE: September 4, 1996 ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS_: X ~// STAFF CONTACT(S)~: · ~/~/[.f / Messrs. Tucker & Davis , REVIEWED BY. ,/'-~ ~" - / . BACKGROUND: / The nearly 200 ho~es in ~¢ ~arly~fll¢ Forest co~n~ty r~ceive water f~o~ a ~eH ~ste~ ~ ~y ~ ~arlysviH~ Fore~ ~ Company (EFWC), a private, ~e~Iat~ u~i~. ~e resid~ ~e concerned ~t ~ no ov~t ~m ~e S~te Co~orafion C~sM~ (SCC) m re,ate s~ice ~d rates, ~e EFWC may charge excessive f~s as comp~ed to ~e Mbm~le Co~ty Wat~ & Sew~ Authofi~ (ACSA). The neighborhood formed a committee to invesngate the situation, and requested staff to verify their reanks and evaluate the situation. It was determined that~ water companies serving 50 or more customers are reqtth'ed to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessk3, from the SCC. Tlw certificate has a dual effect -- it authorizes the water company to be the exclusive water service provider in the franchise area, and it confers jurisdiction on the SCC to regulate the water company as a public utility. DISCUSSION: In 1985, the EFWC htifiated an appl/cation for a certificate of public convenience and necessity. Because the ACSA was established by the County to provide public water service, the EFWC was requfled by State law to obtain the Board of Supervisors' approval before the SCC could consider the EFWC's application. The Board considered the EFWC's application, and declined to take action. The Board's approval "would grant an exclusive monopoly within Earlysville Forest' s asargned temtory and preclude future service to the area by the Albemarle County Service Authority." Without a certificate of public corrvanience and necessity, the EFWC has continued to operate as a private water company and neither its rates nor its service has been regulated by the SCC Possible Consequences if EFWC Obtains a SCC Certificate The SCC's regulation of the EFWC is no assurance tliat the rates will parallel the water rates of the ACSA. The rote structure will only have to be reasonable and just. 2, Unless the EFWC fails m comply with SCC roles and regulations, the certificate may not be revoked and the ACSA will not he allowed to provide service in the area without the consent of the SCC The Earlysville area is no longer within a growth area and the ACSA's jBrisdictional area does not extend beyong the airport. Therefore, expansion of water service by the A CSA to the Earlysville Forest community is unlikely at present and in the near future. RE COMMENDATION: Based upon the recant actions tc remove Earlysville as a designated growth area in our Comprehensive Plan and the lack of plans by the ACSA to extend public water to Earlysville, staffwould reconunend that the Board support EFWC's previous request and the Earlysv/lle Forest community's current request for a certificate of public convedience and necessity from the SCC, with/n the current water service area of EFWS, i.e., Earlysville Forest Subdivision only. 96.158 facsimile TRANSMITTAL to: fax #: re: date: pages: DAVID PETTIT 977-5109 EARLYSVILLE FOREST WATER COMPANY March 13, 1997 9, including this cover sheet. Attached is the paperwork and the action the Board took on the Earlysville Forest Water Company. There was absolutely no discussion by the Board on this item. From the desk of... ELLA WASHINGON-CAREY, CMC CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS 401 MCINTIRE ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 Fax: (804) 296-5800 COPY' D. vM P. Bo~rma~ Forrest R. Marshall ,Ir COUNTY OF Al REMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 40I Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (8041 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 September 10. 1996 Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Saily H. Thomas Ms. Klm Greenwood State Corporation Commission Division of Energy Regulation PO Box 1197 Richmond, VA 23218 Dear Ms. Greenwood: At its meeting on September 4. 1996, the Board of County Supervisors received a request from the Earlysville Forest Water Company (EFWC) and the Earlysville Forest community to support its application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the State Corpora- tion Commission. The Board expressed no objection to this request. If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ella W. Carey. Clerk. CMC / /ewc cc: Brad{ey P. Groff Greg Kamptner Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert W. Tudcer, Jr., County Executive Larry Davis, County Attorney ] Greg Kamptner, Askistm~t County Attorney August 2, 1996 Earlysville Forest Water Company We have reviewed Bradley P. Groff's letter written on behalf of the committee of the Earlysville Forest Homeowner's Association dated June 27. 1996. The letter expressed the concern of the Earlysville Forest community about a proposed rate increase by its water service provider, the Earlysville Forest Water Company ("EFWC"), Backgound Mr. Groff reported that Earlysville Forest is a community of approximately 195 houses constructed by Craig Builders during the I980's. As part of this project, a commm~ity well system was constructed to service these homes ~/nd is owned and operated by the EFWC (Sam Craig, owner). Mr. Groff's letter also reported that the historical water rate structure and the proposed rate increase that has raised the concern of the residents of Earlysville Forest community: Historically, Mr. Craig charged a fiat rate per month for water which started out at approximately $15.00 per month and is currently $35.00 per month. Mr. Craig has informed us that he plans to install meters on all houses and charge the base rate of $10.00 per month plus $7.00 per 1000 gallons of usage. He estimates that the average charge for water under the new rates Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive August 2, 1996 Page 2 will be $42.00 per month, The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) currently charges a base rate of $4.20 per month plus $2.12 per 1000 gallons of usage. The Earlysville Forest community is concerned about the proposed rate increase, and Mr. Groff and his committee have asked the County to do what it can to facilitate the SCC's regulation of the EFWC. Regulation of Water Companies by the State Co~oration Commission Water companies serving fifty or more customers are required tO obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the SCC. The certificate has a dual effect -- it authorizes the water company to be the exclusive water service provider in the franchise area, and it confers jurisdiction on the SCC to regulate the water company as a public utility. The SCC's jurisdiction would include, among other things, regulation of the water company's rates, rules and regulations and oversight of the level of service provided. In 1985, the EFWC initiated an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity. Because the Albemarle County Service Authority ("ACSA") was established by the County to provide public water service, the EFWC was required by State law to obtain the Board of Supervisors' approval of the application before the SCC could consider the EFWC's application. The Board of Supervisors considered the EFWC's application at its April 10 and May 8, 1985, meetings. The staff report cited in the Board's minutes from April i0, 1985, stated that the Board's approval "would grant an exclusive monopoly within Earlysville Forest's assigned territory and preclude future service to the area by the Albemarle County Service Authority." The staff report also stated that the Board's approval would preclude in the future the ACSA from purchasing or condemning the EFWC property. The staff report also noted, however, that expansion of the public water system to Earlysville Forest was not financially feasible at that time. In 1985. the Earlysville area was designated as a growth area in the Comprehensive Plan; thus, future expansion by the ACSA to Earlysville Forest was possible, even if it was not financially feasible. On May 8, 1985, the Board of Supervisors declined to take action, thereby precluding the SCC from considering the EFWC's application. Without a COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of ,County Executlva 40I Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 ('804) 296~584i FAX (804) 97240fi0 FAX: (804)296-5800 FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER SltEET TO: FROM: TRANSMITTAL COVER PLUS PAGE(S) GREG BALDWIN REALTY OYql~J~R 'BROKER REALTOR September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page l) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 4, 1996, au 9:00 a.m., Room 241. County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginma. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Ckarles S. Martmn, Mr. Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. Humphris, Walter F. Perkins and ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meetmng was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Mrs. Numphris. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegmance. Agenda Item ~o. 3. Moment of Silence~ Agenda Item No 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Agenda Item No 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve Items 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.7 and 5.8 on the Consent Agenda and to accep5 Items 5.9 through 5.14 as information Roll was called and the mormon carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Kumphris. NAYS: None. Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Item No. 5.1. Appropriation: Education Programs - $15,496.56, Form #96007 . Adopted the following Resolution of Approprmatmon: Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Grant - S90,000, %Form $96018). Adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: Education Grant - $150,000, (Form #96019). Adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: Item No. 5.4. Appropriation: Middle School After School Program - $36,030, (Form ~96020) . Adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: Item No. 5.5. Resolution to amend Purchasing Manual to increase the ~hre~noid for which competitive sealed bids and competitive negotiation procedures are required. Adopted the following resolution. Item No. 5.6. Sister City Affiliation - Membership mn Sister Cities International. Declined participation. Item No. 5.7. Resolution for Airpor5 Access Funds - Route 649 improve- menss. Adopted the following resolution: Item No. 5.7. Resolution for Airport Access Funds - Route 649 improve- ments. Adopted the resolutiDn: Item No. 5.8. Earlysvitle Forest Water Company (EFWC) recfuest for a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the State Corporation Commissmon. Supported EFWC's request and the Earlysville Forest community's current request for a certificate of public convenmence and necessity from the SCC, within the current water service area of EFWS, m.e., Earlslrville Forest September 4, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) Subdivision only. Expressed no objection to EFWC's request for a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the SCC, within the currenn water service area of EFWC, 1.e., Earlysville Forest Subdivismon only. Item No. 5.9. 1996-98 Work Plan for the County Development Departments. Received for information. Item No. 5.10. Notice from the Department of Transportation of a Citizen Information/Participation Meetmng 5o be held on September tl, 1996, between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., to provide citizens an opportunity to informally revmew and discuss the preliminary plans for widening Fontalne Avenue 5o four lanes from the West Corporate Limits of the City of Charlottes- ville to Jefferson Park Avenue and on Jefferson Park Avenue the replacement of the existing substandard bridge over the Norfolk Southern Railway with construction of the necessary approaches Received for information. Item No. 5.11. 1995-96 Child Assault Prevention CA~) Projec£ 31nnual Report for Albemarle County Public Schools. Received for information. Item No. 5.12. Copy of letter dated August 22, 1996, from Shady Clark, Jr., Title I Specialist, and George H. Irby, Director, Office of Compensatory Programs, Department of Education, ko Kevin C. Castner, School Superintendent, providing non,ce that Albemarle County Schools application for support under Title I of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, has been approved. Received for information. Item NO. 5.13. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle County Service Author- ity for July 1t, t996. Received for information. Item No. 5.14. Copy of minutes of the Rivaruaa Water and Sewer Authority for July 22, 1996 Received for information. Chairman Approved by Board Date Initials COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: 1996-98 Work Plan for the County Development Deparnments SUBJECT/PROPOSALfREOUEST: Work activity scheduled and completed for FY96-98 AGENDA DATE: Sept~anber 4, 1996 AC~O~ ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF CONT A CTf$~: Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Cilimberg, l-tiggins, MeCulley / BACKGROUND: This is the third edition of the Work Plan for the Albemarle County Development Departments. It is distributed ro the relevant boards/commissions, development community, and hiterasted public. This informational hsting is intended as a means of assessing and prioritizing tho many items which occupy the County's Development Departments time and resoarces. This comprehensive report is broken into four easily identifiable categories: 1) the alphabetized work item 2) the lead department & any supporting departments 3) tho expected onmometproduct and 4) the anticipated two-year time schedule. This product is intended as a communication tool to the many "customers" that the County's Development Departments serve. To keel: all inrereC~xt parties informed and tip to date, the work plan is revised and made available yearly. The time frames noted are est/mates based on the latest obtainable/nformafion and are subJeCt to change without pr/or notice as workloads and priorities shitl. DISCUSSION: County start'modified theformat of this year's editionto makeit evenmore user~/eudly. ForFY 1996, the work plan has been extended to show time tables for two fiscal years in order to better i//ustrate the schedules invotved w/th development department projects. The fimctional items from the former Zmfing and Inspections Departments have been merged/nto the new Bthldmg Code & Zoakng Services Department Also, other County deparm~ents that impact development actixdty are included in the "depar~ent category colunm". RECOMMENDATION: No action is needed since the work plan is provided for your information and review. Comments and suggestions are welcome 96.167 DAVID R. GERR COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA r ': ........ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST SROAD STREET RICHMOND. 23219 J,T. MILLS August 13, 1996 Fontaine Avenue (Business Route 29) Project: 7029-104-V03, PE-iO1 Federal Proj.: STP-037-2(128) Project: 7029-104-V03, RW-201, C-501 Federal Proj.: STP-5104 ( ) From: West Corporate Limits of City of Charlottesville To: Jefferson Park Avenue Jefferson Park Avenue Project: UO00-104-V09, PE-101 Federal Proj.: STP-5104(124) Project: Federal Project: Project: Federal Desc.: U000-104-V09, PE-102 Proj.: BR-5104(i23) UOOO-104-V09, RW-201 U000-104-V09, C-501, B-607 Proj.: STP/BR-5104( ) Approaohes and Bridge over Norfolk Southern RR Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville Clerk of the Court Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Attached is a public notice and map advising of a proposed highway improvement project. Should you desire additional information or have any questions or comments concerning this highway matter, please refer to the captioned project number and description when you contact this office. Sincerely, for Location & Design Division WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING rFONTAINE AVENUE (BUSINESS ROUTE 29t 3EFFERSON PARK AVENUE City of Charlottesville & Albemarle County ~Citizen Iuformafion/~r6cipatlon M~eiin~ Septemberll, l~ * Ar~dmebetween4:~a~7:00pm To be held in the aua~tofium or the Albemarle County Office Building located at 401 McIntire Road in the City of Charlottesville. Purpose: To provide ~ eitizem an cl~n, lxmity to informally r~view and discuss ll~pro 'inninmy plans forfl~ widening ofFontaino Avcou~ to four lanes fi'om tho West Corporate Limits of the City of Charlottesv~e to lefforson Park Avenue aad un Sefl~rson Park Avelme tl~ replacement of the existing substandard bridge over the Norfolk Southern Railway with Comments: Written comments and other exhibits relative to the proposed project may be submitted at the meeting or sent to the Department at any time within 10 days after the meeting. Special Assistamce: If you require additional information or special assistanco to attend and participate ia this meeting please contact: lle Residency: 540-293-0011 Virginia Department of Transportation Device for tho Hearing/mpaired CITY): 1-800-307-4630 l~jecr 7029-104-V03,PE-101 * Feder~ l~;0ct STP-037-2 028) ~ 7029-104.,V03,RW~201 ,C-:501 * Fed~l Ptojec/: STP-5104 ( P~j~t U0(J0-104-V09,PE-101 * Feda'al Project STP-5104 (124) Project: U000-104-V09,PE-102 * F~.al Pr0~ 1~-5104 (/23) Pmjo:t: Ii)00-104-V09:RW-.20LC-50 LB.607 * F~leml Projo~ STP/15R-5104 SARA -- serving the Piedmont community MEMORANDUM i~4 ~ ............ ~i! TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors FROM: Jeanine Cassar ~?~r~-~6~ Child Assault Prevention (CAP) Project Coordinator DATE: August 22, 1996 RE: 1995-96 Child Assault Prevention (CAP) Project Annual Report for Albemarle County Public Schools You will find enclosed the Child Assault Prevention (CAP) Prolect Annual Report for the 1995-96 school year as it was implemented in your district. We have submitted this document for your records~ Please review this report and use it as a reference. The report summarizes funding informatipn for the Project as well as the number of children and adults who participated in CAP during the past school year. It also details parents and teachers response to CAP and includes a statistical breakdown of the kinds of problems students brought up during our post-workshop review sessions. We hope you will find this information useful. You may have had the pleasure of workin~ with Bambi Chapin as our CAP Coordinator for the past several years, we are sorry to see her leave, but I look forward to coordinating the Proiect f~r the 96/97 school year. Please feel free to contact me at 295-7273 if you have tny questions. During the upcoming school year, we are rotation through the elementary schools tl rotation is summarized on the enclosed y~ mission to keep children safe, strong and ~ interested in reviewing the progress of our work. and attention. looking forward to completing our lat hosted CAP in 91/92. This dlow sheet. As we continue in our ree, we thought that you would be Thank you for your time Community Education * Hotline · Peer Support/Counseling · Resource Library P.O. Box 8?05 · Charlotffcesville, Virginia 22908 · (804) 29~7273 (office) · (804) 977-?i->73 (hotline) Sexual Assault Resource Agency's Child Assault Prevention Project Annual Report 95/96 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION: The Child Assault Prevention (CAP)-Project TABLE 1: Summary of Elementary CAP Funding Summary of Children's Workshops TeaChers' Evaluations of Children's Workshops TABLE 3: Sunmu~y.of:Talk T:nne DetMted Description of Talk Time Sessions TABLE 4: 4A: 4B: Sunurmry of Adult Workshops Teachers' Evaluations of Staff Inservices Parents' Evaluations of Parent Workshops Se al Assault Resource Agency SARA serving ~he Piedmont ¢ornrnunity INTRODUCTION: The Child Assault Prevention (CAP) Project The CAP curriculumffor elementary age children uses a community-based approach to prevention. Since it's development in 1978 in Columbus, Ohio, CAP has been implemented by over 250 communities internationally. SARA, the Sexual Assault Resource Agency, has been offering CAP to students, teachers, and parents in the Charlottesville/Albemarle community since the spring of 1990. Over I1,000 local elementary school students have participated in dassroom workshops. Funding for these programs is heavily dependent upon community support. Using role plays and guided group discussion, children learn strategies for self-assertion, locating peer support, and telling a trusted adult. Following the workshop, children have an opportunity to speak individually with CAP's trained pre::ention specialists during "Talk Time". Workshops for parents and for teachers are held prior to the children's workshops. These presentations offer the adults in our cormnunity an orientation to the CAP approach to prevention, as well as information about sexual assault, intervention skills, and community resources. CAP works to ensure the rights of all children to be safe, strong, and free. Community Education · Hotline · Peer Support/Counseling · Resource Library . Elementary TABLE 1: Summary of Elementary CAP Funding Sour~ FY 9.5196 FY 96/97 .REQUESTED ACTUAL . REQUESTED PROJEC:i~ED Funding [Children FundLng'lChildren Fu~ling [Children Funding IChildren - ] to Serve ~ Served I to Serve I to Serve Charlottesville $24,000 800 $0 · O ' $24;000 800 $0 0 City Schools Albemarle $36,000 1200 $36,000 t200 $36,000 1200 $36,000 1200 ...c_~o...ri.wealth $S~00 $5~00 SO $0 Federal $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 Government Family.An~I $0 $0 $750 ' % : .' $750' · Children Trust Fundraisirg $12,000 $15;970 $12,000 Elementary CAP SY 95/96 TABLE 2: summary of Children's Workshops School Grades { #of [ Workshops Wksp. Sessions[ Opt Days { Numb. I Child. Numb. [ Child. I Outs I Brownsville K- 3 8 8 181 16 384 0' Cale 1 - 5 19 18 376 28 572 3 Greet 1-4 14 17 345 27 535 0 Hollymead 1, 2, 4 t? 15 298 25 511 1 Elem~nt~CAP SY 95/96 TABLE 2A: Teachers' Evaluations of Children's Workshops Number of Children's Workshops: 58 Number of Evaluations Relume& 48 the class could easilyunderstamL 2, Facilitators responded Well to the children's concexns. $. This info=nation was appropriate for the age group. 4. Thls .hfformation is helphtl for the students. I think the students undersold their personal rights. 42 3 4.63 45 4.94 47 4.98 35.5 2 4.77 This seCaon,was_ TOO s~c~r (1) Ivs-r ~ua~rr. (44) ~S~cq.o,,u ~.: p~!,l~e.s .............................. 1. Intor~rmtioR about deaNng wlth b-llles wes presented in a way the class could easily understand. 2. The~hildren learned fromthe:rolepiay~ -' 3. Facilitators responded well to the children's concerns. 4. This information was appropriale for the age group. 5. This-information is helpful forthe students. 6. I think the students understand how to deal with bullies. TOOLONG (0) NO~ (3) DISAGREE 1 2 3 4 5 2 44 2 4.96 2 44 2 4.96 1 46 1 4.98 47 1 5.00 1 46 1 4,98 1 10 35 2 4.74 7. This section wa~_ TOOSHORT (1) JUST RIGHT (45) TOO LONG (I) NO RESPONSE (1) S1R¢)NGI Y S~RONGLY DISAGREE AGREE . ~VERAGE I 2 3 4 5 1 2 45 4.92 3 44 1 4.94 3 45 4.94 l 2 44 1 4.92 1 ] 46 4.94 1 10 35 2 4.74 1. Information about strangers was presented in a way the class . could easily understand. 2. The children leax~ed ~rom the rolepiays. 3. Faeilltators respouded well to the childreu'$ concerns. 4. This information was appropriate for the age =group. 5. Thisinfo~mationls helpful for ihe students; 6, I think the students underStandhow to be safe around strangers. 7. Thissectionwas_ TOO.SHORT (0) JusrRIGHT {46} TOOLONC (1) NO~0~SE (1) page 1 of 5 . . SIRONGLY STRONGLY NO ~ :i DISAGREE AGREE RESP. ~,VERAGE 1 2 3 4 5 1. Information abont good and bad toucltlng was presented in a 6.5 39.5 2 4.86 way the class could easily understand. 2. The children learned from the roleplays. 5 41 2 4.89 3. Facilitators responded well to the children's concerns. 3 43 2 4.94 4. This informatlonwas appropriate for the age group. 4 42 2 4.91 5. Thls informafion is helpful for the students. 3 43 2 4.93 6. Ithlnkihestudentscanidentlfygoodandbadinuching. 1.5 9.5 35 2 4.73 5. I-thinkthestudentsknowhowtorespondtubadtouching. 1.5 15.5 28 3 4.59 8o This sectlon was.. TOOSHORT (1) ]USTRIGHT (42) TOOLONG (0) NORESPON~E (5) 1. CAP is offered as part of the Family Life C'urriculum. Do you feel this workshop helps "students develop an understanding of the positive and negative approaches from strangers, relatives, friends and others (APo. Co. FLE Curriculum)?" v~s (47) uo (0) utas~,~ (0) tao~smus~ (1) Would you like to'have CAP back next year to fulfill this portion of the FLE cm~riculum? x~s (47) ~o (0) crNSVl~ (I) NoPd~mmE (0) Commenis: · "This is an important issue that is.s~o helpful to have a professional's help witlc" (lst grade) · "Very much!!!" (lst grade) · "I hope there'wllt be enough funding to have it at every level in K-5" (lst grade) · "I would like to have a letter to send to parents so they are aware of program (day before it starts):' (lst grade) · "It was a wonderful program -- very posltive and helpfuI. I was here 4 years, ago when it was first presented and am glad it's finally back!" (2nd grade) · "the students enjoyed role playing and were reviewing the concepts taught after the workshop was over On their own." (2nd grade) · ''Very well done - students seemed comfortable and interested. (3rd grade) · "I am so glad that this program exists in our schools! The children need to know!" (3rd grade) · "The program was great. The facilitators were very friendly and easy for the kids to relate to." (4th grade) Scheduling ~ workshops is often difficult- what suggestions do you have for bet~r integrating CAP into your schedule? · "It was okay for me." (Kindergar~n/lst grade) · "No longer than it already is." (Kindergarten/lst grade) o "AC-tually if we think about how important this information is and how it may be very helpful to a hurting child maybe it isn't that difficult." (lst grade) · "Special activities are always hard to schedule, but the benefits of this far out-weigh any difficulties. I really appreciated all the options for scheduling and the reminder note." (lst grade) · '~rhe scheduling was easy for ns. We signed up for a time slot that was good for us" (lstgrade) "The facilitators were very flexible and organized in working with my schedule." (Ist grade) · "None - it worked well for me" (lst grade) · "Didn't mind the scheduling. Very appreciative that rescheduling was so easy when we missed because of snow." (lst grade) · "I would like to be able to suggest times rather than being assigned lirne~" (lst grade) · "It was scheduled well for our class. It's so worthwhile I'm willing to adapt to the,sCheduling needs of*the schoul' arid CAP. Thanks!" '(Ist grade) page2of5 · "I thought the presenters'were very Organi~ and efficient in scheduling and coming ,tq my. ~ classroom. '(lstgrade) f - · fit was no problem this time." (2ndgrade) · ''N/A" (2nd grade) · "We ran out of time and had to rush towards the end of the presentation~ (2nd grade) · "The CAP team was very flexible and worked with a tough 'Valentine's Day' schedule. I think thisis a problem you just have to deal with - schedulingis always going to be difficult" (2nd grade) · fl thought the scheduling was~fine!" (2nd.grade) · ."No specific ideas. I'll do anything tO ,help - organize it for 2nd grade next year?' (2nd grade) · ".qecmed-£me this year": (2nd grade) · "It's Of:' (3rd grade) · fii works fine for me." (3rdgrade) · '%Vorkshops work /ine for me either after school or on a teacher work day.'° (3rdgrade) - · 'qVleet with the te~cher to plan a good day/tlme." (3rdgrade) ' · ''It would be.best if this could be done earlier in the school year (preferablyt~efore Thanksgiving)." (4th grade) · 'q think it's ~lway,s difficult to schedule around all of our things that are happen/nd You were flexible and easy to work with? (4th grade) · ~I think you're doing the best you can? (4th grade) · "Scheduling was not a problem" (Sth grade) · fi didfi't ~bel schedbling was difficult - even with the snow days - rescheduling was handled efficiently and effectively." (Spedal Ed.) If you felt uncomfurtable with any portinns of the presentation please list them below. · "LTnde Harry was uncornfortabIe, but necessary." (Kindergal'hm/lst-grade) · '~,T/A": (lst;grade) · "N/A.-llst grade) · ''Nope" {lstgrade) - * '`The Uncle ~rry skit is.just naturally uncomforiable. I cannot think of a wayto make it more comfortable. ALsO-,vhy not show:the aunt'being the abuser, strangers and dangerd ate~0t always men~" (lst.grade) · 'iNI/A". (2ndgrade) · ''No" (3rd grade) · "Section 5: 'Linde Har~ was somewhat uncomfortable, becauseI hate to see that wrongful touches are going on,_ but it is so hnport~nt for ihem to see-what to do :' (3rd <grade) · ''N/A" (4th grade) · "No" (4th grade) · "-- none" (4thgrade) · "Afl were terrifid" (4th grade) · "Teacher and students were comfortable with all portions!" (Sth grade) · "None at all - I felt all the CAP information was handled in an age-appropriate and sensitive manner." (Special,Ed.) 5. Ifyou have any follow-up plans that we can share with other teachers, please list them below. · "A poster with the rights listed would be good for teachers to easily display. I will help remind to foHowup occasionally." (lst grade) · fi-IOling to ~get feed back from tallc time:' (lstgrade) · '~rhe skills streaming skits are good,:preparation and follow up. The Let's Talk About 13ooks, by l,,oy Beny, are also good:" (Ist grade) · 'i ~ divide my class in to groups andlet them create skits of their o~vn reinforcing the concepts of being strong, safe and free." (2nd grade) · '~ students come to me individually with problems related to those in the CAP workshops we can hold a class meeting to review ideas on how to deal with the problem." (2nd grade) · '~GeneraICormnentsandreminders." (3rdgrade) "Social skills, videos, class meetings, more role plays, books" (3rd grade) page~of5 · "N/A" (4th grade) · "Class discussion~' (4th grade) · '~No~ (4th grade} · "N/A" (4thgrade) · 'Tm planning to have the students resp°nd in thelr i°urnals about yOur visiff' (~thgrade) · "The follow-up I plan to do will beincorporated in our regularly taught Social Stdlls Curriculum, 1.e. references to. the CAP Workshops as often as poss~Ie when applicable to lessons being taught." (Special Ed.) · ~Thanks for your help!" (Kindergarten) · "Nice ~ob. (Kindergarten/lst grade) · '%'ery worthwhile prograr~ lt~might have been nice to have-had the same 3 resenters time. (I realize:the~e a~e scheduli~ .difficulties ' ' p each "Th ' ' -g' ' )' My students need consisten : '~ (l~t'~ · e facilitators are wonderful w~th this age' ou. The are ~ ~,doe) emotiouat tenets, gr p y very respectful of the vano,~, grade) They relate very well to-the children's intellectual understanding:" (lst · "Thanks for coming!" (lsigmde) · q'hankyou for ~oming!" (lst grade) - "I worry that the Children get mixed messages about 'strangers'. We often require thom to talk to stranga~s (store ~lerks, presenters who come into the school, ~tc.) but then we say, ~Don't t~Ik to strangers.' This-needs to,be addressed more dearly." (lst grade) i '~I ...... o~ it all Ma,ac .,~s_._m_ m.,e presen,~tion, t~can t qmte figure it out but the children didn't s~e~'to · o~- · ~y~ ~t was llle ce Itue ick · - ....... .-- . : pa ~qu ~ace) ~vhichls good when nresen~ · .. · _ o-, -----~,'o, ,,,~,.~.*~t~ -- it ~eeme(l t0 -ti D too ui - ° go~them,essagem:general.,' (lit.~mde).. y y q eldy. I do think they "Yundida-great' bS- Thank 0U~,, ~o-- ~ ~. _ ~ _ Jo . y ~lstgrade, · -1 stronglysupporttheCAPprograrn. ~he-statistics .... ~:-~ --- - , .. deal with these :situations 24aa~ .--/2_ _: .... ~,.~.~mmlS- ~ucatorsam~t ve prepared to -yr,.or ~[weat,t~ougnt out program [Also,] controlof ~hildren is excellent? (lst grade) "[Facilitator] neec~to slow down (section 2-), section,fe~l~ rushed, but amount of lime was right. (lst grade) · "Excellent presentations¥' (lstgrade) · "The presenters really.held the ~dren's att~,~tionf" (lst grade) · "Well orgagi~ed,~fast paced but enoughtime spent Dn each topic. Wonderful studentinvolvement, Excellent explanati°ns' Appr°priate'questi°ning and resp°nscs to answers.' (2nd grade) · "This is~_o_,valuable. I wish you were visiting 3rd grade tooas a reminder for my class from last year. Thanks for handling tough topics.so welE" (2nd grade) · "Goocl program for all ages!,, (2ndgrade) "The total session was a bit lengthy. The students.were getting restless after about 45 minutes. Thank you for doing thid It ~s defirdtely needed." (2nd grade) · "Wonderful presentatio~ Thanks." (2nd grade) · "Great job! Thanks!" (2nd grade) "I think they did a great job. They kept the children's interest. They also maint~ffned order." (2nd grade) ° "Great job! Very educational and worthwhile? (2nd grade) · "Verypleased with the cOntent,and ,presentation? (3rd grade) · "Great job!" t3rd grade) oss~ly exempting teachers from the'C. AP wort~hop ff they went the last year - They already y ga p gr m. Kids arevery mvolved,inthe-~ ....... ~ , · ,'Excellent. . preseatat~on/~ Thanks for being, so .prepared~';. (3rd grade)~'~Y~ tora graae~ · 'Terrific }ob. The kids really were interested and'iniormed~" (4th grade) · "/think it's a good program!" (4th grade) page4 of 5 kids were gett~g a little restless towards the end. (It's a littie long for them Fo sit iX (4th grade) · "Keep up the great job - we need you?' (4th grade) · "Well done!" ~5th grade) · "Excellent program/ [Facilitator] did a great job!" (Sth grade) · "Super job - thanks for eeming to my class!! Thankyo~!" (Sthgrade) · "Terrific progTam-- great material; great instructors!!' (Special Ed.) page 5 of 5 Element~ CAP SY 95/96 TABLE3: Summary of Talk Time Sa~ool. [Child.[ ~:~U~:ime [ l~laem IVis~o-I ~-[ ~: . [ ~sp. ~ Child. [ ~s. [ Child. ] S~s. [ Child. ] Child;[Child;. BrownsviHe 181 t01 111 61 69 3 63 42 Cale 376 180 203 117 139 21 118 (~8 Greet 345 135 139 87 91 6 87 40 HoHymead 298 1t6 123 79 86 8 81 39 · See Table 3A for detailed listing. Elementary CAP SY 95/96 TABLE3A: Detailed Description of Talk Time Sessions Children who talked to a facilitator:. 532 Childreu who problem solved: 344 Disclosures of Abuse or. Neglect: 38 chiklren dlsdosed b-I inddehis of abuse or neglect sexual assault -primary -secondary physical -primary ,secondary 7 emotional -primary 4 abdnction -primary 3 -secondary 0 -secondary 22 neglect -primary 3 11 ~secondary 0 Problems within Family: 210 of family communication 36 corporal punishment 17 divorce/separation issues 16 fear of family member 14 inadequate supervision 14 verbal abuse by caretaker 10 ar -uing between parers 9 bullying making friends plclt~l on/verbal abuse issues with staff fear of 6thex.person unwanted touching concerns about pet[animals general fears use of weapons nightmares, etc. concern for someoneill domestic violence 7 getting in ".trouble" 6 alcohol abuse issues 6 .death in the family 6 relocating 5 new family member 3 arguing between other relatives 1 famiIy member in jail 1 Problems with Peers:. 205 70 stealing 5 48 lying/cbeating 2 46 pcer sexual harassment 1 33 Problems at School: I2 ? getting in ?trouble" 5 Other Problems: 91 19 fighting/crime in-n~ghb6rhood 4 17 growlng up issues 3 10 racial harassment 2 9 age-inappropriate sexual ~behavior I 8 concern for other's safety 1 5 death of other person I 5 personal medical concerns 1 4 verbal harassment by other I Within Family: 370 Professionals: 29 parent/pn,'mary caretaker 243 law enforcement 19 sibling (minor) 58 CPS 9 grandparent 31 court mediator 1 other relatives (adult) 25 other relatives (minor) 9 sibling (adult) 4 Other People: 175 peers 120 People atSchooh 466 neighbors 21 teachers 197 fi'iend's parent 19 guicl~, counselor 186 babysitter 7 administrator 62 friend of the fam~y 6 staff 19 people at church 1 other school 1 outside instructor 1 librar~ar~ I gnidancecounselo_r 132 teachers 109 administrator 18 CPS 8 school staff 4 EIementary CAP SY 95/96 TABLE 4: Summary of Adult Workshops Inservices { Staff~ Workshops ~ Parents 'Brownsville 1 11 1 0 Cale ' 1 ' 40 1 G~,e~ 1 24 I 6 HoIlYmead I 12 1 12 Elementary CAPSY 9.5/96 TABLE4A: Teachers' Evaluations of Staff Inservices Nmber of Participants: 87 Number of Evaluations Returned: 12 The information in this section was presented TOO Lii-i~E DERAIL (0) JUST ENOUGH DERAIL (12) TOOMUC~ DERArL (0) No ~smmwsn (0) What comments or concerns do you l-rove about the information presented in this section of the workshop? · "None." (Brownsville) · "Excellent." (Cale) · "O/ten children are reluctant to in/tiate a.private conversation with their teachers. Maybe suggest covert ways.for students,to let teacher know they need to talk," (Greet) · "Youdldardcejob!~ (Greer) · "Wouldlike tosce a letterof explanation go to parents before presenting to the students'' (Greer) What comments or suggestions do you have {or the presenter of titls section of the workshop? · 'iX/one-- ii was ~,~ry good." (BroWnSville) · "Excellent." (Cale) · "Youdidanlce:job? (Greet) · "Pace was slow- I thoughtinfo, could have been.presented much more rapidly." (Greer) - STRONGLY STRONGLY: NO DISAGREE AGREE RESP. ~VERAGE .12345 [ Receiving this hfformatlon was worth while. 10 2 The information was well presented. 1 9 2 4.9 I understand what CAP does.in the classroom. I0 2 5.0 I feeI cemfor~ble with the CAP Children's Workshop. 4 6 2 4.6 The information in this section was presented in_ TOOLIIlLEDE"fAIL (0) JUST ENOUGH DERAIL (10) TOOMUCH VER^m (0) What coaunents-or concerns doyou have about the ~ irt ~is section of the workshop? · "I wished that they had stressed it's ok to hurt someone who's trying to grab you'and takeyou, but ~otothersY' (Brownsville) · ''Wished theyhad Stressed it's ok to defend yourself." (Brownsville) · "Great job" (Greer) What conunents or suggestions do you have for the presenter of this section of the workshop? · "Great,ob" (Greet) page 1 of 2 I 2 3 4 5 14. Receiving this information prepares teachers to respond 2 8 2 4.8 more effectively to a chiId in crisis. /.5. Tke information was well pr%sented. 1 9 2 4.9 I6. I feel comfortable with wImt happens during Tail< Time. 2 8 2 4.8 17.' IfI suspect ~my:kL, nd of ddld abuse, I am confident of my 1 I 8 2 4.7 schooYs reporting procedures. I8. The kgormationin this sed~.ort was presented {n`.- TOO h'TFLE DSt'AlL (0) JUST ENOUGH DERAIL (10) TOO MUCH DErAtL (0) NO RESPONSE',(2) 19. What comments or conceros do you have about the ~ h~ fids section of the workshop? · "Repotting is.not a. problem- it's social services that needs to be improved." (Greer) 20. What comments or suggestions do you have for the p]!e~al~of tids section of the wozksI~op? - · · ~$ect~on 4: (,enera! l:ecdback : ......................... S'I'R()NGLY 3 4 5 "~"' ' I 3 7 1 4.6 DISAGREE 1 2 2/. Thetmndouts are Useful 22. %'here was~i, ,t~ dent oppor tunlty fur discussiom Z~. The presen~_rsa~aressed audi.en~ concerns well 24. I belleve cldRlren$/ioidd receive informatlon on assault prevention as partOf thelr classroom experience. 3 8 I 4.7 I 10 1 4.9 1 10 1 4.9 25. This workshop was_ TOOSHORT (0) JUST LONG ENOUGH (10) TO0 LONG NO mS~VNS~ (1) 26. What parts of this presentation were the most useful? · 'q~]ays w/th the k/ds" (Brownsville) · "Idea of theh- rights." (Brownsville) · "Modeling a dass presentation." (Cale) · "I'm glad someone besides myself is presenting this info. I don't feel comfortable with this topic because I've had-abuse eases I reported that caused the child to dislike me." (Greet) · "Presenters' explanations of what would~appen in classroorr~" (Greet) · "I think it's helpful foc the kicis to have the knowledge of how to be safe." (Greet) 27. What parts of this.presentation were the least useful? What cam we do to improve them? · "Like'to have you eml0has'~.e OK to defend yourself, but try to tatk fir~L" (Brownsville) · ~---' (Greet) Additional Comments: · ''I Would'like tosee ifyou can touch on touching oneself in public in ones bathing suit area. I need some advice on ways to deter this 'habie and how to deal with discussing it with parents." (Greer) page2of2 Elementary CAP SY 95/96 TABLE 4B: Parents' Evaluations of Parent ~eVorkshops Number of Parficlpan/s: X9 Number of Evaluations Retttmed: 7 I 2 3 4 5 - [ ~ L Recelvlng'thls'informatlon.was ~,orth wtdle. I 6 4.9~ 2. Thelnformation was welIg esextted. 1 6 4.9 3. I feel comfortable with CL~P's preventiort approach. 1 6 4,9 4. The information in this section was presented in~ roottrr~t)~r~r~ (0) g~r.~ovaHOarAm (7) TOO MUCH D~r~a~ (0) NO r,~S~VNS~ (0) What comments or concerns do you have about the information presented in ~ section of the Workshop? · "Very ~vell presented to.the parents." (Greet) · "I just wonder if the presentation or information is the same in different areas (Lez NY, VA, et~)" (Hollymead) · "I think that the information that will be presented to the children is very valuable:' (Hollymead) 6. What comments or suggestions do you have tor the presenter of thls section of,the wonV. shop? · ~Sl~e did'a veryg0Od:j0b making the presentation" CHolIymead) · "Very wellpresented" Ct-iollymead) DL~AGPd~ ACPd~ ~P. ]AVERA~ I 2 ~ 4 5 J ~. Recei~,~ ~o~a~on ~ wo~ w~e, 2 5 4.7 ~ ~e ~on w~ we~ p~t~ 1 6 4.9 9. I ~ ~at ~ do~ ~ ~e ~ 1 6 ~9 10. I feel co~o~ble ~ ~e~ CMl~en's W~hop. 1 6 4.9 The in/otmaiion in th/s seCt/on was presenbed ~ TOOIAt'tLEDETAIL (0) IUSTI~IOUGHDErAIL (7) NO Rm~aS~ (0) What comments or concerns do you have about.theinformation prescr!~d in this section of the workshop? · "Giving children options is greaL~ (Greer) · ''Verygood informat/on and role-pla 'ymg:' (Greet) · "It's very good to have it." (Hollymead) t3. What comments or suggestions do you have tar the presenter of this section of the workshop? · "Well done" (Hollymead) page 1 of 2 19. The information in this section was presented in_ TOO L1TILE DETAIL (0) JUb-F ENOUGH DETAIL (7) TOO MUCH DETAIL (0) NO FaS~ONS~ (0) What comments or concerns do you have about the ~ in fliis section of the workshop? · ~'Again/very well~tone" (Hollymead) 21. What comments or suggestions do you have for the presenter of this section of the workshop? · "Any. legal.issue." (Hollymead) ;Seciidfi';i:" tlenera f l:e'~ifl~,~l~ ..... : ....... 22. The handouts~are useful 113. There was suffiderr t oppoRunity for discussion~ 24. The'presenters addressed audience concerns well. 25. I believe children should receive information on assault prevention as part of their classroom experience. $'I'Rt~NGt.y $1'RO.qGLY' NO' "] " DISAGREE AGREE RESP. {AVERAGE 1 2 3 4 5 ! 1 2 4 ~4!~l 7 5:0 2 5 4~7 2 5 .4-7 :26. This workshop was.. TOOSHORT (0) JUST LONG ENOUGH (5.5) IOO LONG [1.5) NO mmPONSE (0) 27. What parts-of thispresentation were the most useful? · "Role-playing and e~planation of situations." (Greer) · "Everything, for a first experience." (Hollymead) · "Knowing what plays were presented in class." (Hollymead) · "The plays." (Hollymead) 28. What parts of this presenfat/on were the least useful? What can we do to improve them? · "None" (Hollymead) · ''None-- all good" (Hollymead) 29. Additional Co~nments: · '~fhank you for providing parents with.this opportunity." (Hollymead) · '% litflelong but I don't know how everything could be covered in a shorter period' (Hgllymead) · "Congratulations. Keep doing it!" (Hollyrnead0 page2 of 2 Mr. Kevin C. Casmer Superintendent Albemarle County Public Schools ........... 40TMcinQre Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Castner: Your application for support under Tide I of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, as amended by Public Law 103-382 for school year 1996-97, has been approved for the amount of This project is expected to be operative from July 1, 1996 to September 30, 1997, per information contained /n your application and has been assigned gTATR PROJECT NO. 002-97-1. Please follow the instructions listed below when request/ng reflnbttrsement under Public Law 103-382, Tide I, (Educationally Deprived Children - LEA CFDA 84-010A): · Submit rehnbursements monthly. · Send orig/na/and one copy of reimbursement to our office. · Attach supporting documentation e.g. travel expenses, invoices, etc. ro original reimbursement. · Make one copy for your files. If you should have questions, please feel free m contact us ar (804) 225-2901 or (804} 225-2869. Sincerely, Title I Specialist George FI Irb ' Office of ~ams SCJr. GHI:hrat Enclosure cop~ )~rancine W. Fiughes, Title I Coordinator v/Chairman, Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX /8041 296-5800 MEMORANDUM Charles S. Martin Walter F. perkirls Sally H. Thomas TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, DATE: Augus~ 30, 1996 CMC SUBJECT: Reading List for September 4, 1996 July 31, 1996 - Mr. Marshall / EWC Printed on recycled paper COPY COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 M¢lndre Road Charlottesville, Virg}nia 22902~4596 (804~, 296-5843 FAX {804) 296-5800 September10.1996 Mr. William S. Roudabush PO Box 1222 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Mr. H. Carter Myers. III 440 Rookwood Drive Charlottesville, VA 22903 Dear Mr. Roudabush and Mr. Myers: At its meeting on September 4, 1996, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors discussed the Route 29 Bypass and the implications of the recent actions taken by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) on that project, and other related transportation issues. The Board plans to hold a work session at its October 2. 1996, meeting to discuss the resolution adopted by the MPO this past summer. They have asked that you, as members of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, be invited to hear that discussion and participate as you may deem necessary. This will be discussed during "Transportation Matters" at the beginning of this meeting, at approximately 9:30 a.m. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or Mr. Robert Tucker, County Executive. Sincerely, ~E/lla~W.~a rey'~Cle rl~. ~ ~1C ,'ewe cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Angela Tucker V. Wayne Cilimberg Printed on recycled paper Fo rm. 3 7/25/86 THE DAILY PROGRESS 685 VTEST RIO ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22906 CERTIFICATION OF PUBLICATION I hereby certify that the attached notice was published in "The Daily Pro- gress'', a newspa~per in Charlottesville, Virgima, and appeared in the issue(s) dated ~-~ ,$i~.~ 4- / ~ , 19 ~ . Day of Publishing Fee $ Given Under My I-Iand This Credit M a n,qfd~r The Daily ProKress TO: FROM: DATI~: KUTAK ROCK lVlRlVIORA/qDLrlvl LARRY DAVIS - CO~ ATTORNEY FOR VIRGINIA i AUGUST 3(~, 1996 1VL~-~-~IDB I~OIt%FT APARTI~RNTS PROJBCT As we discussed tld,, of County Supervisors of ~ H~nburg R~clopm~ u~t up~ent pmj~ on t mo la~ ~ have ~e ~olu you ~o ~t it ~uld be m~ S~r i1, 1996 (or on Please feel fr~ to c call Iv[r, Hunter Bourne of i 9252. cc: Mr. Huntor Bourne, [] 20UNTY, momlng~ attached is a draft resolution for presentation t~ tt~ Board dbem~le Cmmty rel~thtg to tl~ [ssuanco of x~v~ue Ix ids by the it and Housing Authority to fln~ne, tl~ construction of a L60 to 170 io Road in Charlottesvil~, Yk&4~a, Although I Ieali~,2 it may bo ion considered at tho S~t~mb~r 4th me. ting, I wanted o get it to iewed by Board Members and considea~d at ti~ noxt: ~ting on thc 4th if tho Board is comfortable doing it at that time ~11 me at (202) 828-2444 if 7ou have ~y qu~ttons, or el freo to ;om PrOl~ty Company, the l~volol~r of th. l~ojex-t, at ~919) 441- P.N.B. SSNT ~y:Xer~x Telecop~er ~020 8-39-88 ; ~:44PM : KRC WASH DC~ DC 20036:-~4374 828-2400 , Hunter ¢. Bourne III Larr]~ Dav£~ ~oro l~coi:,er'l-.y co. (919) 441-~606 {804) 972-4068 , ,. If you ~ ~y p~bl~ ~ ~ :~ ~c ~. pl~ ~ ~) ~8-~ ~ soon ~ ~si~e. ~ you. Open,Or: _ rENT NUI~B]~R 1523 /~-...Q.9~ PAGESt I FIDENTIAL FACSIM~,~ COMMUNICATION s~, or ~tble ~r de~veHng ~e docum~ t~ ~ ~s~, you hav~ ~v~ ~y pm~blt~ ~m ~g or ~sclos~ it. ~e tn~a~on con~ ~ ~2 my ~ ,ubj~t ~ legally ~fo~lc pHv~cg~. Ufl~s you~ ~ ~. or y p~s~, you may viola~ ~e pdvUe~ ~ subj~ yo~ ~ ltabiH~ if you da 350 { sENT B¥.X~rox Teleco~ier ?028 8-30-96 : ':45P~,~ : KRG ~ASH DC- 804 9'72 4088;,- MOTION: SECOND: KE$OLUTI HARPJSON OF NOT TO FORF. ST A~ LOCATED WT-mREAS, a paru corporation (thc "Dcvelope ~.6~a4~s~6~ in the Co be rented to persons of ion will be rented to persons w-~m~S, pursu~ Code of Virgirda of 1950, issue tax exempt obLigatio, projects such ~s the Projec WI4T~P,.I~_AS, althou County, it, redevelopment; under secUon 36-23 of the of Supetwtsors of thc Cou finding that (a) them is a ~ there is a ~hortage of safe persons of low ~come at ~ through the exerci~ of sue WHEKt~kS, a pub] not ~uch conditions cz. is! i~ a shortage of ~LCe or sarata WHEREAS, the I-~ indicat~l that it n~y be wi' and ~S, thc B newspaper of general circ~ h~aD. ng, all in uccorchnc~ 1986, a~ a.mcnded, and applic~le laws of the Con Septemb~ hegul~ Res. 3N APPROVING THE I~ BY ~URG P,.BD BVELOPlVIBNT AND HOUSING AUTHORI ~r _, 1996 a' Me,ting RE FY ~ship £ormed or to be.~ormed by Fo;c Property Compan) '") located at Weod ~ Drive, Suit~ 8, Nags Hend, NC :onsmtct and provid¢'r~ntal apa_rtmcnts (the "Project") mty of Albemarle (the "County") of which a certain p~rc to moderate income~(Mtl'~t~2- ~%,nr.m~r~e~,w~qm-~tenled ss of the area m~ian gross income, or 40% of the resid hose income is 605 or less of the g. rea median gross im Newd~ Z7959, has mtage will units omc); ~d nt to tM Virg_in~. ~ H,o,u~ng Authorlfie~ Law, Chapter 1~ Tide 36, ~ arnend~ (the Act '), redevelopment and housing authgrities may is to provide the financZng for low and moderate ineon~e housing ;h there is no redevelopment md housing a.uth?nty ere [nd housing authority cteatod in another jurisdiction is &ct to provide the financing for the Project provided tho' aty (the "Board") first adopt, afu:r a public hearing, eed for such an authority to exercise its powers in the and maita~ dwell~ accommodations in the County ~ ;ntals they can afford, and (c) these conditions can best b authofity's power within the County; and itefl in the authorized the Bogd resolu6on County, Co) variable to : remedied ~ heating wa~ held on September 4, 1996 to determine .~v. hether or the County, and thc Boax~l h~ found that the Project ~ ~eviate ~ housing for c~tizens in the County for persons of low iflcom~; and crisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority (the "I,msuer") has llng to issue obligations in amounts sufficient to finance thc Project; :grfl has cau~ a notice of public hearing to be published in a dafion in the County, and has on September 4, 1996 held a public with the provisions of § 147(2)(2) of the La~ernal Revenue Code of § 15.1-1378.1, Co~. e. of Virginia, 1950, a~ amended, and other ~monwealth of Virginia; and SENT BY':Xere× Telecepier ?020 ; 8-20-96 ; 1:46P~ ; KRG WASH DG~ 804 972 4068;= 4 September _, 1996 Regular Meeting Res. Pag~ 2 WHER.t~S, thc De to Section 15.1-1375.2 of NOW, THEREFO~ Supervisor~: 1. Thc ! powers in thc Cc accommodations in afford; ~at th~¢ c~ fmanehng powers w of S~LfC and sar~t,~7 assist in financing ~ 3. The project ~d ~er Developer, to ~c c Code, to permit th~ 4, This or th~ cmditworthia The bonds aha~ l~ taxing power of ~c flopor hal provided to ~e Boast a Fiscal Impact Statem~ ~c l. ndus~ial Development ~d Revenue Bond Act. ~E, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle Boazd mrd finds that there is a need for the Issuer to exercise il unty; that the~ is a .shomg~ of .~c or sanim'~ the County available to citizens of Iow income ut r~n~ ,nditions can-best be r~medied through the exe~eis~ of f .thin the County; and that the Project will help alleviate housing for citizens in the County for persons of low in ssuer is hereby invited to exercise its powers within the ~¢ abevc-referenced project propo_,~_ by the Developer. ~oard approYes the aequisifion, construction and equiPt ~pproves issu~ of the Bonds by fl~e Issuer for the b~ .tent of and as required by Section 147(0(2) of the Intern Issuer to assist in the financing of thc Project. Rasolution shall not be deemed to be an endorsement of '.ss of the Issuer, of the Developer, or of any other perso: Mdc that the County shall not be obligat~l to Imy ~aig any costs incident thcleto, and ncdth~ the faith and crc Commonwealth, thc ~oun~, or th~ Esuer, ~all bc p~cd~ pursuant ~f County financing dwelling ~they can ~C lSStler' S :ounty to ing of the refit of d Revenue s~d bo.nds or entity. bonds, or dit nor the SENT §y;xerox, Teteco~ier ?0~0 Septcrnbc~ _, 1996 Ayea: Nays: Ab~:nt: Ab~nt fi'om Mee. tin~: For Infonn~on: Dh'~cto~ of l:tnance CRP. TIFrmn COPY _. Clerk ~o tM Board KRG WASH DG~ MEMORANDUM TO: (1) City of Harfisoabarg, V'~nia Steven E. Stewart, City Manager Municipal Bnikrmg 345 South Ma~ Stxeet Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801 (2) County of Shenandoah, Virgifiia Janet O. Kilby, Assistant County AdminisWator Vincent E Poling, Assistant County Administrator P. O. Box 452 Woodstock, Virginia 22664 (3) County of Page, Virginia Ron Wilso~ Clerk, Board of Supervisors 108 South Com't Street Lumy, Virginia 22835 (4) County of Greene, Virginia J. L. Morris~ Clerk, Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 358 Stanardsvflle, Virginia 22973 (5) County of Albemarle, Vhginia Ella Washiagtma-Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors 401 Mcht/~ Road Charlotxesv'flle, Virginia 229024596 (6) County of Augusta, Virginia Patrick J. Coffield, Clerk, Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 590 Verona, ~rginia 24482-0590 (7) Town of Broadway. Virginia Charles L. Lohr. Town Manager P. O. Box 156 Broadway, Virginia 22815 (8) Town of Dayton,. Virginia Rick L. Chandler, Town Superintendent P. O. Box 215 Dayton, Virginia 22821 (9) Town of Etktom Vkgiraa Ted Costin, Town Manager 173 West Spotswoofl Avenue Elkton, Virginia 22827 (10) (I1) 02) (13) 04) Town of Grottoes, Virginia Cazter Miltor. Town Superintendent P. O. Box t46 Grottoes, Waginia 24441 Town of Mt. Crawford, Virginm Jon French, Clerk of Counc'd P. O. Box 187 Mt. Crawfotd, Virginia 22841 Town of Th~rv'dte, Virginia Wesley S. tlenkeL Town Manager P. O. Box t02 Timberville, Vh'ginia 22853 County of P~ndteton, West Virgnfia S. Thomas l~tchelL President, Pendleton County Commission P. O. Box 187 Franklin, West Virginia 26807 County of Hardy, West Virginia Roger Champ, President, Hardy County Commission 204 Washington Street, Room I 11 Moorefield. West Virginia 26836 FROM: Lorrie A.'Bradley 410 Neff Avemte Harrisonbm'g, Virginia 22801-3434 Enclosed please ffiad materials relating to the Town of Bridgewater's Submission ro the Commission on Local Government. CERTIFICATE OF MAII,ING I, J. Jay Litten, Assistant Town Attorney for the Town of Bridgewater. Virginia, certify that on this ! k~ ~'- day of August, 1996, I mailed copies of (a) the proposed Bridgewater-Rockingham County annexation agreement. (b) the resolutions referring the annexation agreemen; to the Virginia Commission on Local Government, and (c) an annotated listing of all documents, exhibits, and other materials subm/tted to the Commission in support of the proposed agreement to the following local governments: (D City of Harrisonburg, Virginia Steven E. Stewar~, City Manager Mtmicipal Building 345 South Main Street Harrisouburg, Virginia 22801 (2) County of Shenandoah. Virgihia Janet O. Kilby, Assistant County Administrator Vincent E. Poling, Assistant County Administrator P. O. Box 452 Woodstock, Vir~ia 22664 (3) County of Page, Virginia Ron Wilson, Clerk, Board of Supervisors 108 South Court Street Luray, Virginia 22835 (4) County of Greene, Virginia J. L. Morris, Clerk, Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 358 Stanardsville, Virginia 22973 (5) County of Albemarle, Virginia Ella Washington-Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors 401 Mci_at/re Road Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 (6) County of Augusta, Virginia Patrick J. Coffietd, Clerk, Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 590 Verona, Virginia 244824)590 Town of Broadway, Virginia Charles L. Lohr, Town Manager P. O. Box 156 Broadway, Virginia 22815 Town of Dayton, Virgin/a Rick L. Chandler. Town Superintendent P. O.-Box 215 Dayton, Virg'mia 22821 (9) Town of Elkton, Virginia Ted Costin. Town Manager 173 West Spotswood Avenue Elkton, Virginia 22827 (10) Town of Grottoes, Virginia Carter Miller, Town Superintendent P. O. Box 146 Grottoes, Virginia 24441 (11) Town of Mt. Crawford, Virginia Jon French, Clerk of Council P. O. Box 187 Mt. Crawford. Virginia 22841 (12) Town of Timberville, Virginia Wesley S. Henkel, Town Manager P. O. Box 102 Timbervilte, Virginia 22853 (13) County of Pendleton, West Virginia S. Thomas Mitchell, President, Pendleton County Commission P. O. Box 187 Frarfldin, West Virginia 26807 (141 County of Hardy, West Virginia Roger Champ, President, Hardy County Commission 204 Washington Street, Room 111 Moorefiel& West Virginia 26836 / THE COUNTY OF ROCKINGItAM AND THE TOWN OF BRIDGEWATER ANNEXATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 9th day of August, 1995, by and between Rockiagham Coumy, Virginia, a politic,a/subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virgiuia, (Coumy) and the Town of Bridgewater, Virginia, a mun/cipal corporation of the Commonwealth of V~rgin/a (Town). A. The County adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Rockingbnm County which promotes growth in and around the incorporated towns of the County and encourages the development of an Annexation Agreement between the Town and County for the anuexat/un into the Town of those areas shown on Exhibit A and designated by this agreement as the Bridgewater Growtll Area (BGA). B. The Town and County wish to enter into an Agreement de/ming annexation rights pursuant ~o § 15.1-1058.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended. C. The Town and County have agreed to allow the Town to annex as much of the BGA by ordinance as the Town deems necessary, subject to th/s Agreement. D. The Town has relinquished its right to seek independent city status as set forth in a previous annexation Agreement benveen the Town and the County dated ~un~e 11, 1985, and reaffirmed in this Agreement. E. The Town and Coun~ have negotiated this ~ew Agreement regarding annexation which wi/1 be in the best interests of all the citizens of the County, including the c/fizens of the Town and the BGA. Pursuant to § 15.1-1058.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as mended, the Town and County, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, agree m perform the folio.wing acts and to be bound by the following sra~ments andprinciples in settlement of all anaexation issues. 1. Relinquishment o_f City Status. The Town hereby reaffirms that it has permanently relinquished its right to seek city status effective the llth day of June, 1985. 2. Annexation Of All or Portion of Land, Thc Town shall have the right m annex all or any portion of the BGA by ordinance(s) enacted any time after the effective date of tiffs agreemencprovided, however, that any area annexed shall be contiguous with the then corporate Town lira/ts. Any annexation ordinance adopted shall meet ail requirements of law and. whether required by law or not, the Town shall first hold a public hearing on such ordinance and advertise the hearing for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town and County. The Town shall give written notice of the hearing to the County. Any annexation ordinance(s) adopted shall provide for an effective date of December 31 of the year of final adoption. Cerdfied cop'ms of any and ail annexation ordinances shall be filed where required by law, including with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Rockingham County, Virginia, the Secretory oft. lie Commonwealth of Virginia, and all other appropriate local, state and federal agencies that require notice of annexation, but the failure to file with any such local, state or federal agency shall not affect the validity of any such ordinance. 3. The Annexation Ordinance, Any annexation ordinance adopted by the Town shall include, but not be limited to: a. A metes and bounds description of the property to be annexeck b. A map showing all parcels to be annexed. ¢. An accurate census of the area to be annexed. 4_ Extension o_f Services. The Town shall extend water and sewer services m area as and when they arise. The County pledges tha~ as to any lands within thc BGA that k will consult with the Town before approving subdivisions and rezoning. The County's obligation to consult shall be complied with if the Town is given twenty (20) days to comment on any f'ma/ subdivision plat. As to zoning, the County shall give thirvt 00) days written notice of each public heariag dam to the Town and the Town shall give its written commen~s to the County at least seven days prior to such public hearing. The right co make such changes prior to annexation is reserved by the County but the Town shall be consulted ia each instance. No public hearing concerning the unmmexed portion of the BGA, either de jure or de facto, shall be held by either body without at least twenty days notice to the other. 9. Water and Sewer Lines Owned by the County. County Customers. The parties agree that the Town will purchase from the County the water tine or portion thereof, along Roums 1310 and 257 upon the annexation of the land on both sales of the water tine and said roads. The purchase price shall be calculated as follows: Original cost of the line Life expecnmcy of the line less .4- 6% simple interest from the date it was installed X the years it has been in service Life expectancy of the tine The Town and the County agree that the original total cost of the entire water line along Routes 1310 and 257 from its beginning at the old corporate 1/mits of the Town to the easternmost line of the real estate presently designated as tax map number 137-A~5A (which is a part of the soutlteastern boundary of the BGA) was $110,087.35; that the line was installed on ~ugust 14, 1984; and that the life expectancy of the line is 50 years. The purchase price shall be paid at least 10 days prior to the effective date of an annexation of land lying on both sides of sa/d roads. As used in this section, the term "water Line" means all pipe and the easements and appurtenances associated with it. tf only a portion of the water line is purchased, as provided above, the obligations of th/s sectiou shall be pm-rated accordingly. Further, if on the effective date of any annexation made under this agreement the County owns any other water and sewer faci~ties in the area annexed, the Town shall purchase (and the County will sell) those facilities in accordance with the principles set forth in this section. Any real e~tate annexed by the Town under this Agreement which is connected to County water or sewer lines shall become a water and sewer customer of the Town within ninety days from the time the Town extends water or sewer service to the property. 10. Planning. A comprehensive plan for the use and development of the entire BGA shall be developed no later than two years from this date by the Tow;L Before adopting the plan the Town shall refer it to the Planning Commission of Rockingham County who shall study and comment on it to the Board of Supervisors of the County. The County, through the Board of Supervisors, shall then make whatever comments it desires to the Town. The County and Town agree to promptly notify each other of any requested or planned changes in land use, zoning, speeiat use or development regulations which would affect the BOA. Th~ County and the Town . further agree to solicit, welcome, and carefully consider the views of each other in this regard. 11. Waiver of Portion of Previous Aereement. The provisions of paragraph nine (9) of the existing Annexation Agreement dated June 11. 1985 between Bridgewater and Rockingham County are hereby waived. 12. No Annexation Outside Agreed Area. Town agrees that until the entire BGA is annexed it will not voluntarily seek to annex any other areas. Citizen petitions for annexation shall be processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Code of Virginia in effect at the time of the petitions. t3. Sections are Severable. In the event any section of this Agreement is found to be illegal or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such finding shall apply only to that section and all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect, except that if the Town's renunciation of city status is held illegal or unenforceable County shall have the right to withdraw its consent to annexation and Town shall have the right to rescind its agreement under paragraph 14. ~'O$t~ and Attorney's Fees. Each garr7 to this Agreement s~ ~y ~ts own auom~'s f~; ~ o~ ~ of anion ~11 ~ p.id ~ To~ 15. Right to Modi~ or Amen~ ~ To~ ~ ~ res~e ~e ~ght m mo~y ~ A~em~ ~ jolt ~t ~d ~ ~g w~nev~ ~e ~ of ~e Tom.~d Corny ~d of ~ ~ ~ ~h ~ ~ m~n ~ ~ESS Ee fo~o~g ~ ~d s~. COUNTY OF ROCKINGHAM TOWN OF BRIDGEWATER A TTI~S T: A RESOLUTION INDICATING ASSENT TO THE TERMS OF AN AGREEMENT DEFINING ANNEXATION RIGHTS c/A~tC/~Tt~t~ this ConnciI has deemed it wise to study the possible annexation of land sun~ounding the town, and 'Wf-tereas, the Council wishes to afford itself with the option of annexing land in a cost- effective and cooperative manner,'and r~]~eT'et~$~ the town's annexation committee has negotiated, an agreement with Rockingham County concerning the possibility of such annexations, and r/~/'gt~ stare taw requires that such agreements be reviewed by the Commission on Local Government, and c/~ftg/'e~ the town intends to adopt the agreement subsequent to the Commission's review, g/ ow, t refore, ~ it resolved by the Council of the Town of Bridgewater, Virginia that it assents to the terms of the annexation agreement dated August 9, 1995 and wishes to submit the agreement to the Virginia Commission on Local Government for review. The Town's contact for the Commission shall be J. Jay Litten, Litten & Sipe, 410 Neff Avenue, Harrisonburg, Virginia, 22801, (540) 434-5353. Resolved this 13th day of August, 1996. Mayor I certify that this is a rme copy of an ordinance adopted on the t3th day of August, 1996, by the Council of the Town of Bridgewater, Virginia, upon the following vo~e. Ave Nay / .A Abstain Not Present Mr. Dinkel Mr. Canada Mr. Graham Mr. Wampler Mrs, Harris Mr. Burgess Clerk ,/ COLG Rule Tab Citation 1 2 3.10 3 3. I0 4 3.10, 3.12 5 6 4.3(a) 7 4.3(a) 8 4.3(b)(1) 9 4.3 .Fo)(2)&(3) 10 4.3(b)(3) 1 t 4.3(b)(4) t2 4.3(b)(5) 13 4.3(c) 14 4.3(c), 4.3(h) 15 4.3¢) 16 4.3(d) 17 4.3(e) [8 43(f) }9 4.3(g), 4.3(h) 20 4.3(0 21 4.3(j) TABLE OF CONTENTS Description Introduction and Overview Bridgewater Referr/ng Resolution Rockingham Referring Resolution Notice to Other Localities Proposed Agreement Metes and Bounds of Bridgewater Growth Area (BGA) Plat of BGA Map of BGA, relative to nearby towns Map showing all structures and certain utilities in the vicinity of the town Map of schools, hospitals, and public safety fac'flities Map showing geographic and geological development constraints Map showing existing land use within the BGA Land usage rabte for Bridgewater. with explanatory note Land usage table for the BGA Land usage ruble for Rocking, ham County Population statistics for the town. county, and BGA Public School Enrollment Statistics Tables and graphs concern'mg Assessed Property Values for the town and county Statement concerning the town's need for land and tax resollr~es Statement concerning the need for urban services ia the BGA Statement concerning the terms and conditions of annexation August 2~, 1996 lohn Sheppard County of Albemarle Planning Department 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Dear lohn: This letter is to voice our concern pertaining to the drivewayg ~'or Lots 5 and 6 of"Ivy Vista" subdivision. We take issue to having a grade requirement placec[ on us for approval of our subdivision. This was the basis for our denial by the Albemarle County Planning Commission. August 12, 1996 Director of Plarming and Community Development 401 McLntire Road, Room 245 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 RE: Ivy Vista Preliminary Plat Tax Map 73, Parcel 21 (Pt. of) Dear Wayne: I am requesting an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission at its August 6, 1996, to the Board of Supervisors of Subd. 96-004 "Ivy Vista Preliminary Plat" for the next available meeting date. Sincerely, ~Willia~.~aldwin August 13, 1996 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Dev¢lopment 401 M¢Intire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 BOLLING, ERSEL L JR OR ELLEN K CRUM, CHRISTOPHER P OR TUCKER R GIBSON, PHYLLIS O GIBSON GRAYSON H & CARROLL M HALD, MARTIN W & POUNDING BRANCH HALL, JAMES M & KENDRA H LAWSON, FRANCES L MARTIN, W. HALD MCCASKILL, W BRAND & ELIZABETH T RAY, ROGER W SEMILLA, SAMUEL J OR CYNTHIA L WOODSON, ANDREW, JAMES ANDREW ETAL RE: SUB-96-004 - Ivy Vista Preliminary Plat Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is to notify you that the decision of the Planning Commission regarding the development proposal referenced above has been appealed to the Board of Supervisors by an aggrieved party. This preliminary plat will be heard by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on September 4, 1996, at 10:15 a.m., in Room 241 of the County Office Building on Mclntire Road in Charlottesville. The applicant or applicant's representative is requested to be present at the Board of Supervisors meeting. Interested members of the public are encouraged to contact the Department of Plauning & Community Development any time during working hours (8 a.m. - 5 p.m., Monday-Friday), and make an appointment to discuss the development proposal. Sincerely, Planner JBS/jcf C~py~): Ell~t,:Ga~y SUB-96-004 - Ivy Vista Preliminary Plat August 9, 1996 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Departmeat of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclotire Road, Room 218 Charloaesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804} 972 - 4035 Roger W. Ray 1717-2B Allied St Charlottesville, VA 22903 Ivy Vista Preliminary Plat Tax Map 73, Parcel 21 (pt of) Dear Mr. Ray: The development proposal referenced above was denied by the Plaffning Commission at its meeting of August 6, 1996, for the following reasons: Motion for approval failed to pass by a vote of 2-4. The request was denied because the applicant declined to accept a condition proposed by the Planning Commission at the meeting that the private driveways serving lots 5 and 6 shall not exceed a slope oft6% and: without the condition the Planning Commission felt that reasonable access was not being provided. This decision may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors by filing a written request with the Director of Planning and Community Development within ten calendar days of the decision. (Subdivision Ordinance Section 18-4, Zoning Ordinance Section 32.3.10) Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, John B. Shepherd Planner JBS/jcf STAFF PERSON: JOHN SHEPHERD PLANNING COMMISSION: AUGUST 6, 1996 SUB-96-004 IVY VISTA PRELIMINARY PLAT PROPOSAL: To create 5 lots averaging 4.34 acres plus 4 lots averaging 21.65 acres for a total of 9 lots on a 110.26 acre parcel, to be served by a public road. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: The property, described as Tax Map 73, Parcel 21 is located on the South side of Route 637 just West of Route 682 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. It is zoned Rural Areas. Pounding Branch, a perennial stream crosses the property. There are critical slopes on the property. The property is located at the foot of Martins Mountain. This range is recommended for protection above the 900 foot contour in the Open Space Plan. Very limited portions of the parcel along the rear property line exist above that elevation. REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: This comes before the Planning Commission at the request ora member of the Commission. The proposed private access easement requires Planning Commission approval. RECOMMENDATION AND SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of Preliminary Plat with conditions. This proposal has been reviewed by the Site Review Committee. All technical requirements are met either on the plat or are addressed as recommended conditions for approval. In discussions with the applicant, staff recommended consideration of the Rural Preservation Development option for this property. The applicant chose not to pursue that alternative. This conventional lot lay out is in accord with staffrecommendations after an earlier conventional lot configuration was found not to meet the requirements for lot shape provided in 18-29 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The review of this proposal focuses on the critical slopes, the access easement, the individual driveways serving Lots 5 and 6 and building sites. Critical Slopes Ivy Vista Drive, the Private Access Easement and the individual driveways serving Lots 5 and 6 are located in areas of critical slopes. Section 4.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, referring to Critical Slopes (4.2), Building Sites Required (4.2.1) and Area Regulations (4.2.2) provides: These provisions shall not apply to accessways, public utility lines and appurtenances, storm water management facilities and the like necessary to provide reasonable usage of the property where no reasonable alternative location or alignment exists. The county engineer shall require such protective and restorative measures as he deems necessary to insure that such development will be consistent with the intent of 4.2. Thus, the Ordinance permits the location ofaccessways as shown on the plan, provided no reasonable alternative location or alignment exists. There is a deeded right of way on or near the eastern boundary of this parcel that serves three additional parcels. The applicant determined and stalTagrees that Lots 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 are better served by Ivy Vista Drive, located on a small ridge, than by the existing right of way. To serve ouly Lots 5 and 6, the existing right of way would have to be upgraded to at least the private road standard for three to five lots. This would require a larger road than the proposed private access easement serving Lots 5 and 6. The upgraded existing right of way would cross Pounding Branch at a fork resulting in a significant increase in environmental impact. Staff opinion is that the existing right of way does not provide a reasonable alternative to the accessways shown on the plan and therefore, that the proposal is in accord with the provisions of 4.2.2.1. Staffnotes that Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will include the grading necessary for the construction of the access road and the private drives serving Lots 5 and 6. Ttfis will provide the means for the County Engineer to require that appropriate protective and restorative measures shall be in place during the construction process. Private Access Easement Based on the analysis provided by the Engineering Department, staff supports the proposed private road as opposed to a public road. Prig.ate Driveways on Lot~ 5 and 6 Staff notes that the Ordinance does not require that driveways serving individual lots be shown on preliminary or final subdivision plats. The applicant has agreed to show possible driveway locations in order to assist in the review of the proposal. The actual driveways serving these lots may differ from those shown. However, the construction of the driveways to serve the proposed building sites will be subject to the requirements of Erosion and Sediment Control permits. Building Sites There is an opportunity to verify that the homes are actually built on legal building sites when application is made for the building permit. Staffacknowledges that the development of this site will occasion considerable environmental impact. The construction ora private road serving only two lots, as opposed to a public road in the area of pounding branch will lessen that impact. The conditions of approval provide all the means available under current ordinances to regulate the development of this property. RECOMMENDED CONDITI. ONS OF APPROVAL: Staffrecommends approval of the preliminary plat. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature, nor shall it be signed until the following conditions are met: Final plat approval will be subject to Albemarle County Engineering approval of all final plat requirements and the following conditions: [F~ach item is preceded by the applicable reference to the Zoning Ordinance, unless otherwise specified.] []8.36., Table AJ Certification on the final plat that the private road and driveways to Lots 5 and 6 will provide reasonable access by motor vehicle as required by § 18-36 of the Albemarle County Code. b. [18-55(mj, Albemarle County Engineering PolicyJ Albemarle County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations. Details, computations, and all applicable state and federal permits will be required for the proposed stream crossing to Lots 5 and 6. c. [Runoff Control Ordinance 19.1-6.f.] Albemarle County Engineering receipt of a runoff control permit. d. [18-55(m), 18-52(7c), Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance] Albemarle County engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, including the grading necessary for construction of the access road and private drives serving the building sites for Lots 5 and 6. e. [Albemarle County Engineering PolicyJ VDOT approval of final public road plans and drainage computations, including improvements within the existing right-of-way. f. [18-55(m), Albemarle County Engineering Policy] Albemarle County Engineering approval of final public road plans. g. {18-19, Albemarle County Engineering Policy] Roads built and/or bonded in accordance with the approved final public road plans. h. [WRPA Ordinance] WaterResourceManager'sapprovaloftheWRPAbufferlimlts. The manager has requested the notation "100' WRPA Setback" be changed to "100' WRPA Buffer and Building and Septic Setback." Note that the use of the private access easement is restricted to Lots 5 and 6; Health Department approval; County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for private access easement. ATTACHMENTS: A. Engineering comments; B. Tax Map 73; C. Subdivision plat. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM ATTACHHENT A TO: FROM: DATE: RE: John Shepherd, Planner Andr~ S. Williams, Senior Enginaer ~V~ 24 July 1996 Ivy Vista - Preliminary Plat (SUB-96-004) The Preliminary Plat received on 24 July 1996 has been reviewed. All preliminary comments have been addressed. Therefore, Albemarle County Engineering recommends approval of the preliminary plat. Final plat approval will be subject ta Albemarle County Engineering approval of alt final plat requirements and tho following conditions: [Each item is preceded by the applicabl~ reference to the Zoning Ordinance, nnless otherwise specoqed.] [18. 36., Table 4] Certification on the final plat that the private road and driyeways to Lots 5 and 6 will provide reasonable access by motor vehicle as required by § 18-36 of the Albemarle County Code. [18-55(m9, Albemarle County Engineering Policy] Albemarle County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations. Details. eomputations, and all applicable state and federal permits will be required for the proposed stream crossing to Lots 5 and 6. C. [RnnoffControl Ordinance 19.1-6f] Albemarle County Engineering receipt nfo mnoffeontrol permit. [18-55(m). 1&52(1~}. Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance] Albemarle County engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, including the grading necessary for construction of the access road and private drives serving the building sites for Lots 5 and 6. [Albemarle County Engineering Policy] VDOT approval of Final public road plans and drainage computations, including improvements within the existing right-of-way. [18-55{m), Albemarle County Engineering Policy] Albemarle County Engineering approval of final public road plans. £1&19, Albemarle County Engineering Policy] Roads built and/or bonded in a~cordance with [lie approved final public road plans. [WRPA Ordinanc~J Water Resource Manager's approval of the WRPA buffer limits. The manager has requested the notation "100' WRPA Setback" be changed to "100' WRPA Buffer and Building and Septic Setback." MEMORANDUM Ivy Vista - Preliminary Plat (SUB-96-004) 24 July 1996 Page Two The applicant's justification for a private access easement to Lots 5 and 6 has been reviewed and findings are as such: [18-36. b.l.a.] The applicant has shown and Engineering has confirmed that construction of a public road as opposed to a private road would increase the total volume of grading by more than 30%. With it's restrictive grades, increased roadway width and required cul-de-sac, a public road would greatly increase the amount of disturbed area and have a detrimental effect on the existing watercourse (Pounding Branch). [18-36b. l.b.J No alternative public road alignment is available to the applieant. Although anexisting road and right-of-way lay along the western boundary of the site, the applicant has chosen not to utilize it. The road would provide access to Lot 5 and wifl~ possible continuation or an easement across Lot 5, access to Lot 6. This alternative would defeat the cohesive nature of the subdiwsion. 3. [18-36. b. 1.c.] The private access easement will provide access to no more than two lots. Based upon this information, the Albemarle County Engineering Department recommends the Planning Commission approval of the private road request. If you have any questions concerning this subject, please contact Jack Kelsey or me at 296-5861. ASW/~tj ~LE COUNTY ALBEMARL 45 86 .ER AND DISTRICTS SUB-96-04 ' /. ~*" . ~ ~ '~,- SECTION 7~. , -- ,,= -~- s.. SAMUEL MILLER Al ........................... '~ .... DIS TR 6 CASTLE BOAZ MOUNTAIN SUB-96 -04 IVY VISTA TOM HIGH MOUNTAIN TOP i ~ljl / I~ J.N~IHHDVJ..LVl · 08-27-96 02:40PM FROM FMHA CHARLOTTESVILLE ?O2 DRAFT 5 8-6-08 d. Provide specifications for the type of ~urfaalag In the entran=e and the pal~in~ ~,~ea oh the plan. IItdlo~te the expected trafll~. If traffic exoee~ls 360 vehicle trips per weak, the parking area must be surfaced with 8 inches of aggregate base end Type D blotted seal au~fase esot at a minimum. a, Provide conceptual drainage on the plan. Show the roadside ditch along Rt. '/43 and provide a =ulvert under the entrenae, indicate the deeflnetlon of drainage off the building and perking ames, and the direction of flow on the plan. Show any ditches, pipes, or channels on the plan. If' surfacing Is required es a result of item "d" above, drainage Improvements end supporting computations for handflng the increased runoff may be required, f. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an erosion ~ontroi plan will be required ff the land dletUrhed ac'fiV~ exceeds t0,000 square feet, g. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of an entrance permit to include these Items contained in the letter from VDOT dated June 5, 1996, and included aa Attachment E. h, Health Department approval, i. Building Official approval of handicap parking. J. zoning Administrator approval o! amount of provided parking. k. Minimum setback for parking ~hall be 10 feet from the edge of the right of way for Rt. 743. I. Planning Department approval of Iandaaape plan In ao~orcl with the pmviaions of Section 32.?.9 of the Zoning Ordinanse. The motion passed unanimously dUB 85-004 Ivy vista Preliminary Plat - Proposal to Greats 5 lots averaging 4.34 acres plus4 lots averaging 21.85 aorae for a total of g lots on a i 10.25 acre pereel, to be served by a publiC mad. Property, described as Tax Map -/3, Pamel 2t Ia located on the South side of Route 837 Just West of Route 682 In the Samuel Miller Magiatsrial District. Thio propen'y is zoned Rural Areas and is not located in a designated development area (Rural Ama 3), Mr. Shepherd presented the staff reporL Staff recommended approval subject to ~ndltloha, Staff answered Mr. Loewaneteln'a quesliona about elevation and the slope of the road. The applicant was represented by Mr. Greg Baldwin. He said the applicant haa addressed all tseues raised by the Site Review pro~ees. Answera to Commlseion questions included the folicwlng: -The Stream on the property, Pounding Branch, flowa away from the landfill. It is located on the opposite aide of Rt. 637 and does not oros~ the landfill prOpe~o/. -The applicant will deveiCp the lots, which will be made avaJiabia for pumhase to the general publi~. .08-2?-96 02:40PM FROM EMHA CHARLOTTESVILLE PO3 DRAFT 8 -Tho applicant is not aware of any problems with groundwater supply In tho -The applicant feels this proposed use of the property Is preferable to e Rural Preservation Development. An RPD was considered but was not pursued bec~usa of ooonomi~ considerations, Puroheeers of this type of property ere leaking fnr rural atmosphere end views. Mt. Roger Ray, surveyor for the applicant, addressed the Commissioner, He answered the Commission's previous questions about grade and slopes. The grade on the road leading to the gui-de--sst will be less than 10%. The maximum grade allowed on the public road Is 10%, Tho public road will terminate at the cul-de-sac and two Iota (5 and 6) will be served by a private road and individual private drivewayS. Teneat~e dhYeway Iocatlooa for 16t~ $ a0d 6 Will hot exceed 16%. Ha conhrmed that the residents of lots 5 end 8 wilt bo responsible for maintaining the private drives and bddge which will serve these two Io~. (16% grade is the maximum allowed b~ VDOT in its mountainous tarroln taandards.) The applicant will build the private road that will lead to the private driveways on lots 5 end 6. Public comment was invited. Ms. Sarah Holt, a nearby property owner, addreued the Commission. 5he expressed opposition to the proposal. She Stressed that Rt. 8:37 is a very narrow, unpaved road which alto servse the landfill. She pointed out this proper'e/ ia isss than I mile fram the lentil-all. She urged tho applicant ta ~nq~Jer a rural preservation development. She questioned tho existence of"least building alte~ on some of the properly given the faa< that it la very ~tsap. Me. Frances Lawson, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. She said the existing reed is a right-of-way which Is described In her deed. (Mr, Baldwin said he was aware of the road issue and he has dedicated 25 feet, across the front of the propmly, for Improvement of the road.) She obJeatsd to additiorml tnalflo on Rt. S37. Thbtb bei0g ne fu~er eommant, the ~attar W~e placed before the oommi~ioh. was determined this item was before the Commission because of the priwate mad and bee. susa it had been celled up by a C,~mmlssloner. Mr, Ootsen asked If the Mountaintop Pmtacticn Ordinance. which Is presently being studied, would have had any impact on this proposal. Mr. 'lice, who is serving on tho committee which is developing this ordinance, explained that the proposed Mountain OVerly District will follow the sams guidelines as the Open Space District, thus it would only apply to that area above the 900 foot contour Interval. Almost ail this site would fall outside the overlay district. Mr. 'i'ios pointed out that one of the recommendations of the Mountaintop Protection committee ia that driveway grades be limited to no greater than 16%, He said it was .08-27-96 02:&OP~ F~OU F~HA C~ARLOTTESVILLE DRAFT his undemtanding (from Mr. Ray's comments) that the driveways have been limited to no greater than 16%. However, because the driveway locations are tentative, he wondered ifa condition should be added stating 'Driveway grades shall not exceed t6%.' Mr. Tire expressed disappointment that a rural preaervatlan development was not proposed. He thought it would be possible to design a rural clustered development whloh would still give homeowners the feeling of larger lots. However, he said he could support the proposal If a condition restricting the driveway grades, as staled previously, ware added. Ms. Huskla said she fell this pmpe~/wes peEacl for an RPD development. She said this proposal is the result of the developer's desire to "make more money." She said she would hate to see mountains'Mae denuded. Mr, Finley said he would rather see mountainsides denuded than farmland. He pointed out this development Is below the 900 foot elevation polnL He also pointed out that whether or not a developer e-hoosea to develop his land In an RPD is an "owner option," and Is not for the Commission to decide. MOTION: Mr, Finley moved that the Ivy Vista Prellmll~ar/ Plat be approved, subject to those conditions listed in the staff report dated August 8. 1996. Dlsoussion: Mr. koawecstain asked if the motion inoluded the limitation on driveway grade aa suggested by Mr. T~e. Bereuse the restriction on the slope of the driveway grade Is "beyond the scope of the review," Mr. Kamptner asked If the applicant was agreeable to such a condition, whish would apply to the driveways on the two "kawer Iota' ($ and 6). Mr. Kamptner explained that usually the criteria for private driveways is a certification from the surveyor that the driveways provide reasonable access, Mr, Ray disagreed with Mr, Kamptner's statement. He said: '1 believe my certification for the aoreselbility of the driveway will only be from the cul-de-sac for that pad whioh is relied the 'private road.' The surveyor does not certify for the access to the private driveway.' Mr. Ray added, however, that he believes the private driveways can be conetru~ed at no mere than 16% grade, based on the a=curaoy of the USGS maps. Mr. Baldwin was reluctant to agree to a condition restr'tcting the driveway grades to a maximum of 16%. He said: '1 hate to set a preoedsnt where the developers ere dioteting where homeowners place their driveways. By agreeing to a 16% maximum, I am answering questions for the new owner." He felt the County Engineering restriotione are adequate to address this Issue. 08-2?-96 02:407M FROM PO5 D AFT 8-8-g8 a Mr. Doteon asked for the County Attorney's adviGe ss to whether or not to add such oondltlon, given the fact that the applicant has indioaild he Is not agreeable. Mr. Kamptner sta~ed: "My edvioo i~ that we not impo~e that condition." Mr. Finley said his motion was as originally silted, for approval subject to these conditions recommended by ~taff, with no additions, Mr. Delian seconded the motion, Mr. Tlce asked for an explanation of the Oounty Attorney's opinion. Mr. Kamptner explained: "1 think it is beyond the scope of our review to require other than existing requirernente for dflveways." Mr. TJ~e called attention to condition l(d) whloh requires County Engineering Depa~Iment appmvsl of, among other things, 'construction of the macons road end private drives sewing the buildings sites for Lots 5 and 6." He questioned why the t6% grade could net be considered ss e pelt of that condition. A member of the County Engineering ~aff addressed this question. He explained the E & $ plan will be oonsldedng whether the road can be construoted without major degradation to the remainder of the parcel, The E & S plan will also ensure that any di~urbed land ia slabllized at the oompletlon of the pmjeot. "That is as far aa they can go. If the grades are steeper than 16% and the area oannot be stabilized, then a violation will be issued until the area is stabilized.' Mr. Tico reoalled that ~tudies by county staff (during the development of the Mountaintop Protection study) had determined that dflveways with e grade steeper than 16% can have real problems. Ms. Huckle exprea=ed surprise at the applioant's statement regarding the driveways. She pointed out that many developments have restrioitve covenants. The motion for approval of the Ivy Vista Preliminary Plat failed to pass by a vote of 2:4, with Gommissionms Dobson and Finley voting I~or the motion and Gommissioners Huakle, Tic, e, Loewensteln and Washington voting against, The prelimlnary plat wes, therefore, denied. Dlsoussion continued. Mr. 'Fica expressed a tank of understanding as to why condition l(d) could not be amended to restrict the driveway grades, given the foot that it would be tied to the Ereslon and Sediment Control Ordinance. Mr. Baldwin offered to agree to a limitation of a 20% grade on the driveways for Init 5 & O. He again ~id he had a problem with dictating to a potential proper~y owner what they Can do with their property. . 08-27-96 02:49PM FROM FMH3 CHARLOTTESVILLE ?06 DRAFT 8.696 9 Mr. Kamptner ~aid the applicant has the dght to appeal the Commission's action and the Commission has the ability to reconsider a prior a~tion, upon a motion and ~e~ond by a Commias';oner. No alternative motions were offered. Mr. Baldwin pointed out that if ha had extended the public road to serve all the lots (including 5 & 6), then ha could have developed the propelly by-right, without Commission review. He asked if his request was being denied only because he was not agreeing to limit the grade on two private driveways to no greater than 16%. (Mr. Cilimbarg explained to Mr, Baldwin that even without the private road waiver raquest~ the item could have come before the Commission if ac requested by a Commissioner, in which case il could be subJect to the same action.) Mr. Kamptner.asked for =lar'~catlen of the grounds for denial of the request. He asked if the denial ,vas based on the Commission's finding that the proposal could not meet the criteria for a private read aa set forth in Section 18.36 of the On:linanco, Those criteria am: (1) Approval of a private road will alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of significant dagrsdatlon to the environment of the site or adjacent property which would be o~,aslonad by the construction of public roads in the ~ame alignments; (2) No aitemalive public read alignment is available to the subdivider as of the date of the adoption of the ordinance; and (3) No more lots are proposed on such private read than could be realized on a public road duo to right-of-way dedication. Mr. Clllmborg explained to the Commission that if the private road is the reason for denial, it does not resin speak to the issue of the driveways. Thus, if the applicant were to present another proposal which would extend the public road, ellminatir~g the plivate road section, the driveway issue would not have ehanged. Mr, Dotson felt the mason for denial was more related to environmental impact, than to a private road. Mr. Loewenatein called attention to condition 1(al whinh states that "Certification on the final plat that the pr'rvata road and driveways to Lots $ and 6 will provide reasonable aocose by motor vehicle as required by Section 18-36 of the Albemarle County Code." Ha felt the Commission's discussion had revealed that "above 16% grade presents difficulties" as identified by the County's own Engineering Department. Mr. Ciilmberg summarized: "It's possible then that the decision is based on a concern that reasonable access could not occur from the private road along the driveways to the building sites (on lots $ & 6). That is your reason for denial." Mr. Loewenstaln said Mr. Cilimberg's statement was accurate In terms of hie understanding. Mr. Detach and Ms. Huckte agreed. WORK SEUlON - CATS Plan (Charloltesvllia Ama Transportation Study) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Deparan~nt of Plarming & Community Dev~lopmeot 401 Mclnfire Road~ Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 August 14, 1996 ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY CAMPBELL, JULIA COURTENAY CHARLOTTESVILLE INVESTMENT PROPERTIES DAVID ANHOLD/THE COX COMPANY HAWTHORNE, FREI) VINING, MARGARET M, TRUSTEE RE: SDP-96-052 - Lewis Mountain Apartments Preliminary Site Plan Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is to notify you that the decision of the Planning Commission regarding the development proposal referenced above has been appealed to the Board of Supervisors by an aggrieved party. This site plan will be heard by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on September 4, 1996., at 10:45 am, in Room 241 of the County Office Building on McIntire Road in Charlottesville. The applicant or applicant's representative is requested to be present at the Board of Supervisors meeting. Interested members of the public are encouraged to contact the Department of Planning and Community Development any time during working hours (Sam-5pm, Mon-Fri), and make an appointment to discuss the development proposal. Sincerely, Claudia L. Paine' Senior Planner CLS/blb ~py: SDP-96-052 Lewis Mountain Limited Partnership Colonnade Associates Limited Partnership Amelia McCulley WOODARD PROPERTIES 304 Fourteenth Street N.W. Charlottesville. VA 22903 1804) 971-8860 August 9, 1996 Wayne Ciliraberg, Director County of Albemarle Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Re: SDP-96-052 Lewis Mountain Apartments Preliminary Site Plan Tax Map 60, Parcel 40C(8) Dear Mr. Cilimberg: Pursuant to Albemarle Councy Zoning Ordinance Section 32.2.10t we are appealing the Planning Commission's decision on August 6, 1996 concerning the above referenced site plan to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. Please let me know the schedule of the meeting and if you need any further information submitted. /F~ed Hawthorne /o.' ¢8- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Deparunent of Zoning, Room 223 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972-4035 TDD (804) 972-4012 MEMORANDUI4 TO: Claudia Paine, Senior Planner FROM: Amelia G. McCulley, Director of Building Code & Zoning Services RE: SDP-96-52 Lewis Mountain Apartments - Variance Discussion DATE: August 6, 1996 You have asked me uo comment on a variance of the parking regulations for this site plan. This is in follow up to our meeting with the applicants. While I have no~ had the benefit of the full review of an application for variance, it is difficult to ascertain conditions unique to the property which have created an undue hardship so as to justify the positive findings necessary for approval of a variance. Prior %o consideration of the three criteria for approval of a variance, it is necessary to find that the property was acquired in good faith and is exceptionally narrow, shallow or of an unusual condition. The most challenging of the three criteria, which does not at first glance appear to be met, is a finding of undue hardship In the application of the zoning regulations. Development of a smaller scale with the requirement of fewer parking spaces would not seem no necessitate a variance. I have not researched this, but am no~ aware of many previous requests of this ~ype. In fact, in most cases in multi-family development, there are complaints to our Department about insufficient parking. This comes in requests for additional parking areas, by parking on the side of a road or the like, or in neighbor complaints about their parking spaces being used by others. If there are any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. THE COX COMPANY Civil Engineers · urban Designers Augnst 1, 1996 Claudia L. Paine Dept. of pJnnnillg & Community Development The County of Albemarle 401 MeIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-5823 Re: SDP-96-052 Lewis Mountain Apartments Project Dear Claudia: Thank you for arranging the meeting with Ms. Amelia MeCulley this past Monday to discuss parking and design issues for our project. It was interesting to hear Ms. McCulley's assessment regarding the long-shot possibilities of obtaining a zoning variance for reducing the number of parking spaces and the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) process. But, after considering all the options for shifting the building, Mr:Woodard does not feel the BZA is likely to look favorably on a reduction in the amount of parking nor does he feel it is in the best interest of the project from a marketing and practical standpoint. Simply put, if the future residents of the building cannot be provided with ample, convenient parking then the project will be at a distinct economic disadvantage in the existing rental market place. The project is not possible if it can not compete economically. The project design team has also met to discuss the Planning Commissions comments and their specific concerns about disturbing the minimum area of steep slopes. After going back to the drawing board and considering all of the design, options, we feel the existing design really is the best solution for siting this facility, on admittedly, a challenging site. The building has been placed as far down the hill as possible to avoid the steep slopes, the building bends with the hillside contours to minimize cut and fill requirements, half of the parking spaces provided are in a parking deck under the building, and a major retaining wall at the back of the plaza minimizes the amount of earth disturbance that will be required in that area. We will provide ample landscaping to buffer views to the front of the site and will also preserve a majority of the existing wooded area to the back of the property. Mr. Woodard has also talked with Ms. Campbell and agreed m change the name of the project m reduce any confusion between our project and Ms. Campbells residence. 8O4' 295' 7131 220 East High Street Charottesville /~rgnl~ 22901 Claudia L. Paine August, 1996 Page Two Also enclosed for your review and distribution to the Planning Commission, are site and cross- sectional graphic exhibits that, hopefully, will serve to illustrate the design improvements we have made in comparison to the University Heights Phase 11 preliminary site plan the Commission unanimously approved in 1990. The building in that plan had a much larger footprim. It disturbed 51% of the site's steep slopes (ia comparison to the present 26%) and impacted the wooded area as far back as Ms. Campbells property. Obviously, the present design solution has a much smaller impact than what could have been built in the past. The cross-sectional drawing shows three different "cuts" through the old design layout and even though our project is different, these curs are still fairly representative of how it will relate to the surroundings. 1 think Section 'C' is especially helpful ia show'mg how our building will tuck in behind the existing University Heights Aparmaents and have negligible impact of views from Roare 250 and the surrounding area. Please call if you have any questions or if we can provide additional information before the August 6th meeting. With kind regards, David Anhold, ASLA DTA/ajh CC: Mr. Keith Woodard, Woodard Properties Mr. Fred Hawthorne, Woodard Properties 1 lOl~iSla ]vl~31SlOVF~ il3nor ~ovr S/N]H/NVdV NIV_LNnOH SIM3] ' ' I \ WOODARD PROPERTIES 304 Fourteenth Street N.W. Charlottesville, VA 22903 {804 971-8860 July 30, 1996 Ms. Julia Cotmenay Campbell PO Box 3637, University Station Charlottesville, VA 22903 Dear Ms. Campbell, I enjoyed speaking with you this morning and look forward to meeting you and being your neighbor on Lewis Mountain. It is my goal to build an attractive, nicely landscaped building which will blend into the hillside and the surrounding woods. As you requested in your letter of July 6, 1996. I will change the name of the building and not call it 'Lewis Mountain Apartments', I do not want to cause any confusion about Lewis Mountain or your address and will let you know once a new name has been selected. Also] I am not entirely clear about the matters pertaining to the road and easements and so forth, however I would be happy to meet with you and will cooperate in resolving matters that exist in that regard. I hope this finds you well, and again I look forward to meeting you soon. kw/lis Copy: Claudia L. Paine, Senior Planner COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Developmem 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Planning Commission Claudia L. Paine. Senior Planner/Ql f July 30, 1996 Deferred Action: SDP 96-052 Lewis Mountain Apartments Preliminary Site Plan At the meeting on July 23, 1996. the above-referenced matter was deferred to the meetlng scheduled for August 6, 1996. in order to allow time for the applicant to consider moving its building so that a waiver for critical slopes would not be necessary, and to allow staff time to investigate whether a waiver for parking requirements requires approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA"/. Staff and the applicant have met with the Zoning Administrator to explore the issue of reduction in parking requirements for this site. A reduction in the parking requirements would require BZA approval. The Zoning Administrator indicated the difficulty the applicant would face in obtaining a variance. I w/ll circulate a copy of the Zoning Administrator's comments at the meeting next week. Also, the Engineering Dept. has confirmed the 26% figure for disturbance of critical slopes on the site. This figure includes areas of disturbance due to grading, which are shown page three of the site plan tAttachment Al. This was not included in your packet for last week's meeting. After considering other options for development on this site, and after meeting with the Zoning Administrator, the applicant has elected to move ahead with the site plan currently before the Commission. tsee Attachment B) /clp CC: David Anhold Wayne Cilimberg Amelia McCulley l:~g~s\claudia~siteplan~lewis\O 730pc.mem WOODARD PROPERTIES 304 Fourteenfl~ Street Charlot_tesv~lle. VA 22903 (804) 971-8860 J ATTACHMENT B J July 30, 1996 Claudia L. Paine Senior Planner County of Albemarle Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 ~cIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Re: Preliminary Site Plan - Lewis Mountain Apartments Dear Ms. Paine, After our meeting with you, A~melia McCulley, and David Anhold of the Cox Company, on Monday, July 29, 1996, it appears that trying to sub,mit a request for reduction in the parking requirement for our site to the Board for Zoning Appeals would not be feasible. We, together with the Cox Company, have looked at many other configurations for this site and feet that the Cox Company has produced the best solution. Given the reco~une~dation not 5o request to reduce the amount of parking, as well as the impracticality of doing so, we do not want to defer action on the site plan and request the Com/nission to proceed with their decision on August 6, 1996. The Cox Company will also be submitting additional to you in the next day or so. Please let us know any further questions. information if you have KOW/fh FA-X: hard copy to follow by mail cc: David ~nhold, The Cox Company Fax Note 7671 - Ic°-°~ t.~..fl, July 25,1996 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 ¢804'~ 296-5823 David Anhold c/o The Cox Company 220 East High St Charlottesville, VA 22901 SDP-96~052 Lewis Mountain Apartments Preliminary Site Plan Tax Map 60, Parcel 40C(8) Dear Mr. Anhold: The Albemarle County Planning Commission. at its meeting on July 23, 1996, deferred the above-noted preliminary site plan to its meeting on August 6, 1996. This prelinfinary site plan was deferred to allow time for the applicant to consider moving one building so it will not require a waiver for critical slopes and to allow stafftime to investigate whether a waiver for parking requirements requires Board of Zoning Appeals approval. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Claudia L. Paine Senior Planner CLP/jcf CC: Lewis Mountain Apartments Colonnade Associates Limited Partnership STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: CLAUDIA L. PAINE JULY 23, 1996 SDP 96-052 LEWIS MOUNTAIN APARTMENTS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN Applicant's Proposal: The Applicant proposes to construct 60 one-bedroom units and 6 two-bedroom units on 4.96 acres zoned R-15, Residential. (See Attachment A) Petition: The applicant seeks approval of the preliminary site plan which details a proposal to construct 60 one-bedroom units and 6 two-bedroom units on 4.96 acres zoned R-15, Residential Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 40C(8), is located at the end of Colonnade Drive, on the south side of Rt. 250 West in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Urban Density Residential (6.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 6. (See Attachments B & C) Character of the Area: This site is at the end of Colonnade Drive. on the south side of Rt. 250 West. Thesite is surrounded by single-fam'dy and multi-family residences. The Albemarle County Service Authority's Water Tank site also abuts this property to the south. Properties surrounding this site are zoned R-1 and R-15, Residential. Planning History_: August 2, 1989 - SDP 89-018 Alderman Road 'Water Improvements Preliminary Site Plan was approved by thc Board of Supervisors. This was a proposal to construct a 5250 square foot water tank on 1.49 acres of Tax Map 60. Parcels 40C6(pt) and 40C8(pt) and Tax Map 76, Parcel 2(pt). May 9~ 1990 - SDP 90-041 University Heights Preliminary Site Plan was unanimously approved. This was a proposal to construct a 30.450 square foot apartment building for 52 residential condominium units on 4.96 acres resulting in a density of 10.50 dwelling units per acre. A waiver for critical slopes was also granted. This preliminary site plan has since expired. Puroose for Plannin~ Commission Review: This application has been requested to be reviewed by the Planning Commission by an abutting property owner. A letter from this abutting property owner is included as Attachment E. Staff also has identified the need for several modifications which require action by the Planning Commission. Staff Comment: 1. SDP 96-005: The Site Review Committee has reviewed this preliminary site plan (Attachment D), and could grant preliminary approval, with conditions, ff waivers for critical slopes and access aisle grades are granted. However, a request by the owner of the property immediately to the west of this site (TMP 60/30A) that the Planning Commission review this site plan was received on July 8, 1996. (See Attachment E) The request regards maintenance of a private driveway which runs along the southern border of the Applicant's parcel, density of development, height of the buildings, the name of the development, pedestrian/bicycle use of the private driveway and trespassing. The abutting property owner (Ms. Campbell) requests that a maintenance agreement for the private driveway be put in place, and that fences be installed on the Applicant's property on the side abutting the private driveway and on the Applicant's property on the side next to Ms. Campbell's property. In 1990, the Planning Commission also discussed these concerns and chose not to recommend any additional conditions to address them. Staff opinion is that the fences are not necessary to address any site plan related issues. Staff notes that there is no vehicular access from the Applicant's property onto the private driveway. Should the Planning Commission grant the waivers for critical slopes and access aisle grades, staff recommends approval of the preliminary site plan, with conditions. 2. Waiver for Critical Slopes: Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth-disturbing activity on slopes of 25% or greater and Section 4.2.5.2 allows Planning Commission modification of this restriction upon finding that strict application of the restriction would not forward the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to grade and construct on 25% slopes or greater. Critical slopes constitute about 54% of the total parcel area. Grading for the proposed apartment building, parking area and access road will affect approximately 26% of the existing critical slopes. The applicant's request and justification is attached (Attachment F). Section 4.2 lists the concerns associated with development on critical slopes (Attachment G). The Engineering Department has made findings regarding the technical aspects of these concerns and supports this request. (see Attachment H) Staffhas reviewed this request in order to address loss of aesthetic resources. a) Comprehensive Plan: Currently, this area is recommended for Urban Density residential (6.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 6. Also, page 14 of the Land Use Plan, which has been adopted by theBoard of SuperviSors, states: "...infill development is defined as the establishment of new land uses, either residential or non-residential, on undeveloped or under-developed sites within the designated Growth Areas. Infdl development is considered one of the key initiatives for implementing the growth management policy and is encouraged..." (emphasis added) (see Attachment J) Page 15 of the Land Use Plan stateg: "-Provide for greater flexibility: in gross development densities within the Land Use Plan residential categories,~with a focus on increasing gross densities;" (see Attachment J) Based on these comments from the recently adopted Land Use Plan, this request is consistent with the updated Comprehensive Plan. b) Visibili _ty from Rt. 250 West: The top of the proposed buildings will be at an elevation of approximately 735 feet, which is about 10 feet above the bage of the existing water tank, which is presently not visible from Rt. 250 because of surrounding foliage. The top of the water tank is at an elevation of approximately 752 feet, which also is not visible from Rt. 250. Staff opinion is that the building may be partially visible from Rt. 250. but will have a minimal impact as it will be partially screened by existing development in the area. cl Lewis Mountain - University Heights Neighborhood Study: This site lies within the boundaries of the Lewis Mountain-University Heights Neighborhood Study, adopted February, 1990. Page 34 of the study states: "In the south, slopes become severe on Lewis Mountain. The mountain is thc most prominent feature of the s~udy area; its wooded slopes are visible from a great distance in most directions. Preservation of this physical landmark in its natural state is of prime concern." (See Attachment K) Page 49 contains the following recommendation: "#11. Protection of the Natural Environment: Minimize disturbance of significant wooded areas (primarily on Lewis Mountain and along the U.S. 250 Bypass) and critical slopes (25%1 or greater} in future properxy development. JUSTIFICATION: Preseffvation of natural features is important to the ecological and scenic quality of the area. IMPLEMENTATION: Wooded areas and steep slopes would be identified and protected through careful site plan review." (See Attachment K) The design of this development allows for underground parking which consolidates the development and minimizes the amount of disturbance of critical slopes. Also, a large proportion of the wooded areas on the site will be preserved. Staff opinion is that the site plan adequately addresses the above recommendation. d) Open Space and Critical Resources Plan: The Open Space Plan identifies this site as "Important Wooded Areas" and as containing slopes greater than 25%. Page 24 of the Open Space Plan states: "Ob_iective: Encourage the preservation of existingwooded areas as development occurs in Growth Areas... Short Term Strategy: 1. Preserve or establish trees or vegetative buffers in the following specific areas as development occurs: · The wooded slopes of...Lewis Mountain...in Neighborhood Six which are highly visible in the Urban Area. These areas include the Mountains as well as the wooded, critical slopes outside the Mountain designations." (See Attachment L) Page 3 of the Open Space Plan states: "In the Growth areas, open space preservation must be balanced against the goal of accommodating growth. Development of Growth Areas requires that large areas of the natural environment be disturbed. As a result, the natural areas which remain become more important for environmental and aesthetic reasons..." (See Attachment L) The design of this development minimizes disturbance of critical slopes and allows for preservation ora large portion of the wooded areas. Staff opinion is that the site plan adequately addresses the recommendations of the Open Space Plan. Staff opinion is that strict application of the regulations concerning critical slopes would not forward the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (See Sect. 4,2.5.2'}. Based on the support 4 of the Engineering Department and the above discussion regarding aesthetic impact; staff recommends approval of the critical si_opes waiver request with the following condition: Planning Department approval of a fence to be installed on top of the retaining wall along the rear of the building. Fence shall be of a design to prevent access from the western, or top, side of the wall to the eastern side of the wall which will sit at a lower elevation. 2. Waiver for Access Aisle Grades: Section 4.12.6.3.b of the Zoning Ordinance states that the maximum grade of access aisles not abutting parking spaces shall not exceed ten (10) percent; provided that the maximum grade of such access aisles may be increased by the Commission in accordance with Section 32.3.11 and upon finding that no reasonable design alternative would reduce or alleviate the need for such increase in grade. The applicant's request and justification is attached (Attachment F). The Engineering Department supports this request. (see Attachment I) Based on the support of the Engineering Department, staff recommends approval of the modification for a maximum 12% grade, on travelways not adjacent to parkingspaces, with the following condition: 1. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of the access road and new access easement from the Colonnade Drive cul-de-sac to the water tank. SUMMARY: A preliminary site plan for this site was approved in May, 1990. A waiver for critical slopes also was granted at that time. Currently, the plan under review is a slightly more compact development than the previously approved plan. The proposal as it affects critical slopes and their aesthetics is consistent with the land use designation in the updated Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the recommendations of the Lewis Mountain- University Heights Neighborhood Study. and the Open Space Plan. This plan also meets the objectives of the County's infill policy, and should have a limited visual impact on the surrounding area. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Staff recommends approval of the waivers for critical slopes and access aisle grades. Should the Planning Commission grant the waivers for critical slopes and access aisle grades, staff recommends approval of the preliminary site plan. subject to the following conditions: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF SDP 96~0052: The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions are obtained. The final plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. The plans shall be sealed, signed, and dated by au architect, professional engineer, land surveyor with a 3(b) license, or landscape architect licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia. b. Albemarle County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and computations. c. VDOT approval of plans and drainage computations. d~ Albemarle County Engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. e. Albemarle County Engineering approval of detention plans and computations. f. Albemarle County Engineering approval of retaining wall plans and computations. g. Albemarle County Engineering receipt of proof of recordation of a County Standard Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Maintenance Agreement for all stormwater management facilities. h. Zoning Dept. approval of recreation faeilities as specified in Sect. 4.16.2.1. i. Applicant shall submit to the Zoning Dept. documentation of building heights sufficient to ascertain that zoning district height limitations are met. j. Submit documentation to the Zoning Dept. that building separations meet zoning district requirements as specified in Sect. 18.6 and 4.11.3. k. Albemarle County Engineering receipt of letters of intent to negotiate from owners of any off-site easements necessary for the development of the property. I. Planning Dept. approval of landscape plan. m. Planning Dept. approval of fence to be installed on top of retaining wall on western side of buildings. n. Albemarle County Sewer Authority approval of relocation of access road to water tanks and new access easement from the Colonnade Drive cul-de-sac to the water tank. o. Albemarle County Sewer Authority approval of Final construction drawings for water and sewer. p. Albemarle County Sewer Authority approval of detailed demand information relating to the domestic water requirements and expected residual pressures under flow conditions. ATTACHMENTS: 6 A - Applicant's Description B - Location Map C- Tax Map D - Copy of Preliminary Site Plan E - Letter from Adjacent Owner F - Applicant's Request and Justification for Waivers G - Sect. 4.2 Critical Slopes I-I - Engineering Department Memorandum - Critical Slope Waiver I - Engineering Department Memorandum - Access Aisle Grade Waiver J - Text of Land Use Plan K- Text of Lewis Mountain-University Heights Neighborhood Study L - Text of Open Space and Critical Resources Plan I:\GENERAL\SHARE\CLAUDIA\SITEPLANXLEWIS\SDP96052.RPT I ATTACHMlaNT Al SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANffff I~ (and Site Plan Waivers).,_ .'~ 'la.qnlng OmceUseOnl}~: FJleNumb?r,,.~6'-' ~ DateSubmirted ~,~y Z~, I~lq~ Coun~ of Albemarle Departmmt of Planning and Community Development 401 Mcln~¢ Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 804 296-5823 L I PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ~ Fee Pald/Rec'db¥, [] Residential Fe;'ot: $945 pl~s $10/dwelling I~nic (14 copies required} ~ J~'t~5-~ /J' ~x~tT~ L~' [] Non-Residential Fee of $12.60 plus $1011000 sq.ft development (14 copies required) FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - ADMINISTRATIVE [] Residential or [] Non-Residential Fee of $325 (14 copies required) FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - COMMISSION REVIEW [] Prior to prelimimry plan aRorovai Fee of $900 (14 cop~es required) [] After preliminary plan approval Fee of $630 (14 copies required} SITE PLAN WAIVER (Ordinance § ) Fee of $215 (5 copies of sketch/plat required) TITLE OF PROJECT: kcmis Iq0ur~J~6n 0poz~m~r~cs Tax H~(s)-~rcal(s) ¢¢- ~ Lo~o. End ~ Co/onn~e Drive, ~ ~ ~Se W~ L~ 5C Existing Zoning 1~-15 MaglsterialDistrict J'o.t~k~oo~Jd; Acreage of parcel(s) q.~Sg~ IF RESIDENTIAI~ Number and ~pe~ of units (~(~ Resulting d'ensity 1 3.3 unJ~:~/~Cr~ /~-x IF NON-RESIDENTIA~ Che~ One: ~ Commercial ~ IndustH~ ~ Qu~i-~blic Complete ~e followin~ ~uare f~mge of building(s) Acreage of site intended use: OWNER/APPLICANT SHALL READ AND SIGN Th. is site plan a~ submitted contains all of the information required by I}32.5.6 (Prelimhmry Plan) or by §32.6.6 (Final Plan) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. I understand that plans which lack information requinS, d by said sections shall be deemed incomplete and shall be rejected by the agent within ten(l 0) days of submittal with a m fund of the fee paid LESS $160. If the plan s manbmitted, the new submittal is subject to all new applicable fees. FOK ~IIqAL PLANS ONLY: To~e be~t of :ny Imowtedge, I have complied with 1}32.4,3.1 and obtained tentative approvals f~ all appljr~:floxconditions4"f'81~ t~e gfpprolz~riate agencies. ( IATTACHI~IENT B ! SDP-96-52 LEWIS MTN. APARTMENTS C SDP-96 -52 LEWIS MTN. APARTMENTS VINIO~IA '),lNflO0 37~VI,N3EF1V 101~1St(] -lVI~31SIOVI,N l13f'lOP H:3VP SIN3~I~VdV NIVIN~O~ SIM3-1 .I., t ..j .. '-_.i I ATTACHHENT E I From Mrs. Julia Courts:~y Campbell,o~ner of "Lewis f[ount?.in",44.Te,~cres, All ma'.l to Albemarle Cou~t-r "fax:~ap 06000-00-00-030A0 P0B o:~:3' ~7, UniversityStation Charlottesvills,Va.2~903 EE~SDP-96-052 "Lewis .~tn.~p*.~':?reli~.~i~ary Si~e Plan (Te1(804)#295-5053) July 6,1996 To~C~audia L.Pa~ne,Sr.Planner Albmr~rle County Dept.o£~l~nni~ and Developmenm 401 ~mIntire Road C.harlottesville,Virginia 22002-4596 [~epzes .~mv~.~ mo: .~.~arlottesvllle Investment ?~operties, .,. ¥ining,P%argazetM.Tr~stee (anS_ ~o Dr.D.D,[tle~e Vining) ~t~/~ ~.~ I~9~ University Height._ z~pts. (U Hfs) St.Anne' SBelfield School (St.~ne' s) "'z .... Dr&I~s.!filliam i-i.~cen/~'~man Road,Charlottesville. ~ .... Dear Planning Deer.and ileigh~orst I am appealin[~ zo the -elanning co.'umission not to grant ..~eliminary pro.msal for S6 apartmm~ units to be c:mstru~ed(uphill £rom)University Heights A pts.) am the end of Colonnade Drive, until~and unless, all matters pertaining to the usage ,and continui k~ maintenance costs of upkeep~reoairs ,to the privatedmiveway,Lewis Mouniain Drive ,across the ~ining ~roperty,uohill to mine, alongside the Backfen~e ofSt.Anne' sS.G~hool:and to Kearny ~ane[the [~i~ate rea d which runs along'side ~t.Anne&sScho_~___/~ieence,in city,and,in county, joini~g ?~idmont Lane, toAlderman Road)perpendicular-to Lewis ~.lountain Drive at St.Anne's ~oI~. corner) '~;~ch of these private drives ~s~ 20'wide, U.Hts.g~ts has an entrance-exit to Lewis Mtn.Drive,at the S.W.corner of st.Anne' s, eastbound only(not uphill) which U.Hts. chose to block, for secnrity reasons they told me(years ago) to all but pedestrian J:bicycles use~ un, ess and until these matt~ers are settled on landrecords permanently,to avoid hearsay or :isunderstandings~ and zo avoid any overloading of the Lewis Mountain Driveway, especially,I will a_peal any new construction, whether or not the~op~sed~m~.=~,~ a,~artmente are a separ~te entit~from Univ.Hts.~x. I believe ~ll the adjacent owners and users of both re?irate dr~m~sys could meet amiably to settle the road matte_~rs.If not,we'll be stuck with expensive litigation needlFss!y,but this has to be settled now. Sixtysix apt.units on a mracz lees than 5 Acres seems to me,zoo tense,and until we see plats &'~l~ns sho,~i~2~S placement,and heights,I c~nno~ agree to it, But if the county allows it anyway,i insist that ~ne roadway matters to settled on record,first.~or simultaneously). I ask first that the propose:! nmme,Lewis Mountain Apartments,got the isoject be ch..~r~ed -ac anything else th~: ow:~ors cnoose.(~i~e Knight ~roperty it sits on,was called "W~st Cairns.") My pr perry is "Lewis Moun.'.ain",and we've already had confusion £rom ]elivery trucks and emergency ~ehicles,over the years,..~here those went hunting &long "Le~is i,lountai~ Road"in the city(which,at alderman Road near th~ presenm Catholic Church,was my predecessor's Lewis l~oun%a-in Drive ehtrahce Please change that new!yroject's ~name_,to prevenm further ~duplication oonfuzion! Lewis ~ioun ~ai~ Dz'ive is 20' wide over tbs Vining property,Demarcated by previou litigation [Vir4~ng ye.Campbell,later(For Eearny Lane stretch)Cs mpbeII vs~Vining)and is settle d in its [m~esent coarse perma~nently. Zhat pa~z behind ~t.Anne' back fence cannot be widened,tmlsss ~t.Anne's would sell,to the ~q2s&otber Acts, a 2trip there either as r~.adbed,or as a pedestrian path ~r sJde~alk. ~'ight now,Lewis f.itn.~rive h;~s an ex~memely 5~ngerous ct~r~e,uphill to the West of 0.(its.exit at St,Ann&sS~'~.corn~Q West zf the Vini~s exit,~here a solid board ~ce o° t~e Vzn~n~s ,on 'theO~uthe~n e~e of t~ ~sroad,oreven~s vzew downhzll~of traffzc or o~ the .,~y pectestra~ns ee~c~ ~o ~tiies thron~ t~e (c~tern ]ower,'~.sir].- leve],o~,r Pge 2,to Albems~le Co~tyPlann~ ng Dept.,etc.al from Julia C ourtenay Campbell July d, 1996 This blind curve,~est of the Vin!n~s' entrance to Lewis Mountain Driveway, descsnds quickly to that point,omthe curve, after which it is more level,and is extremely bad i~ winter or whenever ice/snow cover the ~ravel roadway. And thus end'gets greatly any pedest-r~&ns beyond it. Evenif the new propesed apts.are separa~rom,and have no rts.o~er the UH~s. pedestriin entranne,we all know that pedestriXns will take a shortcut across the 01qts.pe~t,in future,unles~/~ fenced off,b ~a hard-to-climb fence. asc el I ask NOW that the U.Hts. Apts.,and or ~he new proposed apts.'s owners dedicate now a strip of ~eir land(whoever owns it)tOward the Vining t~opemty, to the edge(Northern edoe)oz Lewis Mtn.Drive,15'or 20'wtde,vo be used o~_~.to widen the road at that danger point,and down to their present exit by~t.anne's back~ fence,and that the new N.edge of the widene~ roadway,be fencers ~{ts. present exit (which will no~ be wider that it p~esently is) to avoid the present pedestr&~n danger point from simply moving uphill~ If they will agree to this,I wou~.d bewilling to pa~ for the bulldozer etc. work,2o widen the roadway at this stretch,is include the new (easement?)part. Simply to make the road:~ay safer for all,in line-of-sight or ~assing vehicles. No one has the use of this part of the ~hriveway,axce~t The Vinings,to their u~hill border with me,and myself as owner of "Lewis Mountain".&my ten~nts,etc. I also ask that NOW the v.~lous owners,users of this driveway,andof Kearny Eane(alongtt anne' sSide fence,in eity,andin county,over t~here it ~xtends into MidmontLane, collectively agree,on records,~s to whatpart of the coszs of the driveway&lane's ~aintanance,will be p~id,as it occurs or is authorized,by each,to be fair to all. ~ch is 20'w~de,graveled. The Vinirgs,U.H~ts Apts,the UVa owned~-forme~Chamberlain-~property(on MmdmontLane] myself,and ~t Anne's ~ch~ol are the only owners known ~o me,of usage rights to Kearny Lane. But Dr;(Mrs.William L.Dur~n,of ~yman Sam,,and Mt.Gordon Harris(fronting Kent Road) cit'~ home ~wners,have had unhindered usage of KearnyLane(~o their own driveways) for many years,and have OCCasionally Paid for a load of ~ravel,etc. in my repairs of it. So they HAVE use of it. I woul~lso ask that the nrooosed new apts.comple× be requ~ed mo fence their borders,unhmll to mine, ~o prevent trespassers. My fences have sometimes been cut in the pas-a,and a few years ago one of U.H~s's tenant$,e large man,who worked a~ Klug~ Hospital ,kept ~respassing on my road to or from work,and stopped more than once by a yard~.n working for me,was bel~igere~nt andconfrontatio~l.A threat ~e do NOT want. No uninvited peo~e s-re allowed on ~y roadways,or premmses~bu~ we get way ~oo :~any trespassing joggers,~og'alkers,etc.on the road~ blind curves,who ignore the no trespasszng signs. I -~ope ~o see the plats of the newly propssd apts.and ,~:ezter /et,some markers on the g~ound for its planne~ borders,to see what thes~ ars. Meanwhile I insist that the roads usage,and costs,be legally agreed upon hy ~ Julis(~our t~nay Camob~ ~'~ ATTACHMENT F THE COX COMPANY Planners · Lanascaae Arch~.ects Ciw~ Engineers - urban Designers 2 1996 May 27, 1996 Mr. Wayne CilimDerg, Director Planning and Community Development The County of Albemarle 40~ Mclntire Rood Chorlolfi'esville Virginia 22902 Re: Lewis Mountain Apartments Preliminary Site Plan - Waiver Request ~ear Wayne: With Tne submission of the subject preliminary site plan, the applicant seeks the Commission's re- ief from two sections of the County's Zoning Ordinance. The sections for Which code relief is re- auesTea aaaress ( 1} the waiver of the building restriction on critical sloE)es, and (2)1the waiver of The maximum gradient an access aisles not abutting parKinG soaces, Critical Slopes Section 4.2.3.2. The oreliminary site p~on oepicts the location of portions of the oroject on certain areas of the proper~y wire existing slooes eaual to or greater than 25%, as shown on the accompany,ng graphic exnlDi1 This waiver request revisits a similar request for a similar project on this very same site which was submittea April 30. 1990 as University He ghts Phase 22 ~owever, with this orojecT, the imoac~ on critical slopes is tess that which was onginally accepTea Dy the County. Based or our anal/sis of the topography, shape, location and size of the SUDJeCTTraCT, it ]5 our oD~n~on that construction within the area of the 25% s~oDes will not be detrimental to the ouDl[c nea~Tn, safety or welfare. Given the recommended layout as well as the reaucea building cov- erage, I believe that the construction can oe undertaken in sucn a way as to (a) improve me oraen¥ site configuration of this Tract (b) satisfy sauna engineenng principles, padiculady those for ennancea sope staPilization, and (c) offer a reasonable development option Da~ancea against The goa~ preserwng the VaST majorit~ of the site's critical slooes We believe thatthe sub- ject Duna~ng construction on the Critical Slopes will not have an ~moact on adjacent propedies, and. further, that the proposed on-s~te stormwoter management system will reauce runoff quan- tities and ve~ocmes De OW those which are calculated for the pre-development storm ] beneve That The waiver of critical slopes in this particular instance would be valid. The site alan nas been aevelopea TO promote the following objecT~ves, as outlined on the following page: 8~- 295' 713~ Mr. Wayne, Cilimberg Re: Lewis Mountain Apartments May 27, 1996 Page 2 1. Enhance opportunities for slope stabilization measures for the total site; 2. Upgrade of temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control prac- tices implemented with the Authority's water tank project: 3. Improve the handling of storm drainage for the total site; 4, Create opportunities for BMP and drainage controls on the steep slopes on the uphill side of the prooosed building; 5. Develop storm retention facilities to delay runoff imDacts on the existing downhill, man-made drainage improvements through University Heights; and 6. Upgrade the landscaping for the site and its buffer areas. Access Aisles Section 4.12.6.3.b. The internal circulation system nas been designed to resoect natural topograpnyfo the extent possible and fo minimize the gradients of access aisles, landings, and parking bays. However. There are several segments along the access aisles (portions without adjacent parking) where the maximum gradient of 10°/~ is exceeded for a short distance [in the longest segment: no~ more than 150 feel ) in our evaluation of the accessway alignment options'for interna~ c~rcula- r~on. it became readily obvious that a physical comBromise ~n grading would need TO Be ~nTro- aucea somewhere into The system due TO (a) the relative Topography for the intersectional landing of the access aisle at the Bublic street entrance, and (b) ~ne necessity'to connect The nTemal access s/stem To the access easement to the Authority s water tank. ~n reaching a finat determination on the grading p~an, I felt that The Count',' standards for parking bays. public street intersections, and ana~ngs for internal intersections should not be comoromised bUT Tna~ The re~aT~vely snort stretches of aisles c,o,~lL~ function safely with grades s~gnTly above 10%. (We will recommend ar enhancement B~vement design for the aisles ) In this instance we would seek a waiver To allOW grades up TO~ 2% on the sub. ecT aisle segments inasmuch as there was no E~asonable design alternative whit n wou~a reduce Or alleviate the need for the BroBosea ~n- crease ~n grade I lOOK forward to your InouT aha d~rection as we pursue these oQrticutar waivers Please aa no1 hesitate To contact me if additional information ~s needed n suoBort of this request With kind regaras, am Yours very Truly, :rank D. Cox, Jr. PE[AICP / \ / xc: Keith Wooda~wis Mountain Aoartments LP.. Applicant 4.2 CRITICAL SLOPES These provisions are created to implement the comprehensive plan by protecting and conserving steep hillsides together with public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas and in recognition of increased potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and septic disposal problems associated with the development of those areas described in the comprehensive plan as critical slopes. It is hereby recognized'that such development of critical slopes may result in: rapid-and/or large-scale movement of soil and rock; excessive stormwater run-off; siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water; loss of aesthetic resource; and in the event of septic system failure, a greater travel distance of septic effluent, all of which constitute potential dangers to the public health, safety and/or welfare. These provisions are intended to direct building and septic system locations to terrain more suitable to development and to discourage development on critical slopes, and to supplement other regulations regarding protection of public wa=er supplies and encroachment of development into flood plains. (Amended 11-15-89) Where modification of regulations is sought pursuant to section 4.2.5, such request shall address each concern specified in section 4.2. (Added 11-15-89) I ATTACHPIENT' H'I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Claudia Paine, Senior Planner Andre' S. Williams, Civil Engineer II ~BJ3,~ 03 July 1996 Lewis Mountain Aparunems - Critical Slope Waiver (8DP-96-05'2) The request for modification of Section 4.2, to develop on critical slopes received 13 June 1996, has been reviewed. Below, each of the concerns specified in Section 4.2 is addressed: Rapid and/or large-scale movement of soil and rock The critical slopes are located along the western half of the site. The existing site is mostly wooded with the slopes constituting about 54% of the total area. Grading for the proposed apartment building, parking area and access road will effect approximately 26% of the existing critical slopes. Although proposed grades show considerable earthwork to obtain a level area, the developer has attempted to minimize impact to the critical slopes, by laying the building foot print parallel to the contours and constructing a retaining wall along the rear of the building. Engineering will require the installation of erosion control measures to prevent excessive soil loss. Excessive stormwater run-off The existing areas of critical slope to be developed should not generate run-off volumes beyond what is reasonably expected from comparable sites. The runoffwill increase due to the added impervious areas, but the proposed development and subsequent ran-off will be handled by on-site storm drainage systems. Siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water Although there are no water courses or bodies of water located on-site, siltation will be controlled through an erosion and sediment control plan for the development. As a condition to this erosion control plan, the site will be permanently stabilized prior to completion. Loss of aesthetic resource The existing conditions consist of a upwardly sloping hillside, located at the cul-de-sac of Colonnade Drive, covered by dense woods. An access road leading to a large water storage tank is located along the southern edge of the site. The critical slopes are not readily visible due to the woods. Greater travel distance of sentic effluent The site is proposed to be served by public sewer. Therefore there will be no septic facilities. Based on the review presented above, Albemarle County Engineering supports the request to develop on critical slopes as shown on the preliminary site plan received 13 June 1996. If you have any questions concerning this subject, please contact Jack Kelsey or me at 296-5861. ASW/ctj COUlqTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Claudia Paine, Senior Planner Andre' S. Williams, Civil Engineer Il ~/~,.~C 08 July 1996 Lewis Mountain Apartments - Access Aisle Grade Waiver (SDP-96~052) The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicant's request for modification of Section 4.12.6.3.b and their written justification dated 28 May 1996. This waiver request is to allow access aisles not abutting parking spaces to exceed the maximum allowable grade up to 12%. The section of the Zoning Ordinance cited above specifies a maximum grade of 10%. The site plan submitted with this waiver request, shows a 24' proposed access road leading from the cul-de-sac of Colormade Drive that splits to serve the two parking areas. The grades along this section of road range from 6% to 14%, with flatter portions at road intersections. Grades within the parking areas range 4% to 5%. From the southern parking area, the access road to the parking deck ranges 11% to 15%. Beyond the deck entrance, the access road decreases to a width of 12' and steepens to a grade of 20% to access the Albemarle County Service Authority tACSA) water storage tank. Although these slopes exceed the 12% maximum requested, the designer has reviewed their concept and they are certain access may be provided within the requested limit. The proposed 12% grade would be suitable due to the fact that the 1996 VDOT Subdivision Street Requirements Imoumainous terrain standards'~ and our Subdivision Ordinance. Section 18.36 permit the construction of roads with a 16% maximum grade. The vehicle speeds typically anuc~pated and designed for in access roads, travelways, and parking areas are much slower than those considered for public/private roads. For these reasons, the Engineering Department supports the requested modification for a maximum 12% grade, on travelways not adjacent to parking spaces, and recommends Planning Commissxon approval with the following condition: 1. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of the access road and new access easement from the Colonnade Drive cul-de-sac to the water tank. Claudia Paine, Senior Planner MEMO: Lewis Mountain ApartmentS- Access Aisle Grade Waiver (SDP-96-052) 08 July 1996 Page Two If you have any questions concerning this subject, please contact myself or Jack Kelsey at 296- 5861. ASW/ybv I ! I i i l II 11 OBJECTIVE: Develop and ad?t an in.~ll policy for the County. Facilitate infill development, including redevelopment of e~zistin~ structures or new development of vacant and under- utilized areas, within existing Growth Areas. ,F, or the purposes of this Plan, infill development is defined as the establishment of new land ~ uses, either residential or non-residential, on undeveloped or under-developed sites within the designated Growth Areas. Infill development is considered one of the key initiatives for L~._.~implementing the growth management policy and is encouraged for the following reasons: To use Growth Area lands in the most efficient manner possible; · To discourage sprawl development; and, To maximize the use/support of community servmes and facilities (roads, utilities, transn, other services). In the Growth Areas undeveloped areas consist of both small tracts of land (5 acres or less) and large tracts (over 100 acres). The reasons why these areas haven't developed to date vary, but the primary reasons which can be cited are: The property owners desire to retain existing use and/or are unwilling to sell for development at this time; Physical characteristics such as topography (slopes, soils, streams), size/shape of property, or incompatible existing adjacent uses, Condition of existing roads, utilities or possibly other community services are not able to accommodate anticipated scales of development; Proposed public projects on, or near, vacant areas (which affect planning and development potential of an area). Also/the cost to develop infill lots is often relatively high compared to other sites. This is due to the fact that these areas are often surrounded by developed or zoned properties which tend to escalate the speculative value of the property. The potential for public/neighborhood opposition to new development proposals adjacent to existing developed areas can also limit developer ~nterest, particularly for smaller sites Consideration of more intensive uses or densities on some properties may be necessary to offset development costs including measures necessary to minimize nnpacts of development A commitment of the County ~o st~pport infill developmem proposals consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is essentia! in facilitating infill development A comprehensive strategy for implementing infill development will address impediments limiting the opportunity or attractiveness of the site for development. It will also encourage market forces to operate in a manner that makes these areas attractive for development. 3_4 I Strategies for lnfill development: Strategy: Plan/provide for necessary infrastructure improvements that are currently impediments to development of vacant sites. Recommendations: I I I Schedule public improvements needed to support/encourage development within undeveloped portions of the Growth Areas; i Develop plans for proposed public projects in a timely fashion to permit new developments to adequately plan for and accommodate, as necessary, the proposed project: Strategy: Provide for greater flexibility in type of use and density of development Recommendations: residential categories, with a focus on increasing gross densities: ~ · Consider rezoning vacant properties designated for residential use to reflect the recommended densities: Support innovative development and design concepts, particularly those that maximize gross density of development. Strategy: Consider greater fle~cibility in development regulations which may limit development opportunities (without compromising issues of general health or safety); Recommendations: Evaluate zoning and subdivision regulations that wouM identify methods of increasing development densities Oncluding, but not limited to: critical slope regulations: open space requirements: reduction of area requirements for planned developments: density bonus provisions; commercial parking requirements, subdivision street and lot access requirements; possible impediments to "alternative" development designs?: Utilize the Open Space Platt Growth Area Composite Maps as a guide for watver requests from the critical slopes regulations. 34 IX. ENVIRONMENTAL AND PRESERVATION ASPECTS Physical Environment The study area serves as a bridge between the city and open country to the west; thus the landscape is transitional--more rural in the west and urban in the east. The City sector is itself a mature urban zone, although fairly heavily wooded. The County sector is characterized by open land sloping up gentlyr from both sides of Route 250 to woodland at the northern and southern ~ ~'~'~nds.~In the south, slopes become severe on Lewis Mountain. The mountain is ! , ~ the m"Ost prominent physical feature of the study area, its wooded slopes are J ~' I visible from a' great distance in most directions. Preserva.~ion of this | -- [ physical landmark in its natural state is of prime concern.]The northern) ~reaches of the County sector contain substantial woodland and o~pen space on--j property which has potential for medium and high density development. Sensitive site planning could preserve much of the natural landscape (see Map Drainage in the study area has been a problem primarily in locations where man-made improvements channel or impede natural run-off, causing flooding during heavy rains. These problem areas are discussed in the Public Facilities section and are shown on Map K. B. VisuQ1 [nvi. ronment The visual dharacter of the Route 250/Ivy Road corridor is an important concern. Route 250, in the County portion of the stuOy area, is designated a Virgini~ Scenic Byway as well' as-an Albemarle County Scenic Highway. The corridor is a principal western entrance to the City. Although it was not addressed in the City's recently completed Urban Design Plan, it deserves attention in the same context. The corridor is viewed by the University as its primary access route for visitors from outside the area. University-bound traffic on U.S, Route 29 and Interstate 64 is directed by highway signs via the By-pass to Route 250/Ivy Road. The University has established its visitor center on Route 250 near the By-pass, just outside the study area. The Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad tracks along the north side of Route 250 figure prominently in the landscape and limit the options for imaginative treatment of the corridor. C & 0 officials have indicated that the railroad may abandon this section of track and right-of-way. C. Historic Environment A number of historic or architecturally significant buildings dot the study area and immediate environs (see Map L}. lwo properties bordering the study area, "Morea" at 209 Sprigg Lane in the City and "Faulkner House" north of Old Ivy Road just west of the City limit, are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Both are owned by the University. ....... I III / IIIL ~ I ...... . .................................. 10. 49 Utility Improvements: Build the Lewis Mountain water storage tank and interconnect the South Rivann~ and Observatory water transmission lines. JUSTIFICATION A water storage facility at a suitable elevation is needed in this area to assure adequate water pressure, particularly in view of proposed and potential furthe? development in the County sector of the study area. IMPLEMENTATION Tank construction and water line interconnection are being planned and will be managed by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Protection of the Natural- Environment: Minimize disturbance of significant wooded areas {primarily on Lewis Mountain and along the U. S. 250 Bypass) and critical slopes (25% or greater) in future property development. JUSTIFICATION Preservation of natural features is important to the ecological and scenic quality of the area. IMPLEMENTATION Wooded areas and steep slopes should be identified and protected through careful site pl'an rewew. 12. Visual Amenity: Road corridor. Establish urban design goals and standards for the Ivy JUSTIFICATION U. S. Route 250/Ivy Road serves as a principal entrance corridor for the City, University, and County urban area. It deserves special design attention in Keeping with its gateway function. IMPLEMENTATION The City, County and University should jointly develop design goals and standards applicable to future development and/or improvements along U. S. Route 250/Ivy Road between the By-pass and Emmet Street Goals and standards should be consistent with the Urban Design Plan for Charlottesville and the County's scenic road overlay requirements for U. S. 250. Areas for particular focus include: (1) Improvements to the road itself. {2} New commercial development on properties bordering U. S. 250/Ivy Road, and improvement of the physical environment of the existing University Shopping Center. and Forests. Particular consideration should be ~wen to a PDR program. 3. When enabling legislation allows, evaluate a dco- sity transfer or TDR program /o protect Farmlands and Forests. GROWTH AREAS: IMPORTANT WOODED AREAS AND BUFFER AREAS ,~ V OBJECTIVE: Encourage the presen/ation of exist- [._ lng wooded areas as development occurs in Growth L,_ Areas. Maintain or establish wooded 13ufl=er areas between dissimilar land uses as developmeot oc- curs. SHORT TERM STRATEGY: 1. Preserve or establish trees or vegetative buffers m ~ the following specific areas as development occurs: · The wooded ridge along Berkmar Drive Ex- tended which is highly visible from Route 29 North and provides a buffer between adjacent residemial and commercial land uses; · qfhe Whitewood Road Park which is tile last sig- nificam wooded area m an intensively devel- oped residential neighboflmod; · The wooded areas along Route 663 and Route 743 which define the euu-ances m Earlysville Village; ~"~* Tl~e wooded of Stilthunse Mountain, Lc- slopes wts Mountain, Mom~t Jefferson. and the Ragged :/ Mountains in Neighborhood Six which are highly visible m [he Urban Area_ These areas I include the Mountains as well as the wooded critical slopes outside the Mountain designa- · The area between the southern bouadary of Hol- lymead Community tRoute 643, and the north- em boundary of ine Urban Ares (South Fork Pdvunna River), which provides a buffer area necessary to maintain tile distinct ideatity of each Growth Area; · Existing wooded areas along heavily travelled en~runce corridors such as the Route 29/250 By- pass and lmerstate 64 which protect the visual quality and character of the area as seen from fl~e roadways, and provide a buffer between tile roadways and adjacent residential areas; · Along Route 29 South as tt passes througti tile Village of North Garden; Acid to Comprehensive Plan Action Agenda · The wooded areas 'eisible from Monticello, pecially in Neighborhoods Ttu, ee and Four, which protect Monticello's setting and view- shed; Incorpomt~ into the plans for the pmpo.~t Me. adow Creek Parkway and the Rome 53 Park- way buffer areas along the roadways; · Maintain or esmbliab buffer areas between gional, community or industrial service areas and residential or Rural Area; and between multi-fatnily and single-fatnily residential areas; · Where Growth Area boundaries are defined by natural features such as sn'eam valleys or moun- tains, maintain such boundaries as buffer areas. CIVIC AND CULTURAL FEATURES ' OBJECTIVE: Recognize the value of Albemarle's historic and arChaeOlogical resourCes and pursue additional protection measures. SHORT TERM STRATEGIES: I. Establish a historic preservation committee to de- vtse a preservation plan for the County. The committee should initime a study to prioritize historic properties for historic preservation. *2. Adopt historic districts to protect individual structures or groups of atructures and their settings. 3. Conthare to pursue a National Register Historic Distxict desiguunon for the Southwest Mountain area Initiate studies similar to the Southwest Mountain Study in other areas of ine County which include numerous register propemes and potentially eligible propenies, possibly along historic corridors such as the Road to Sec- retary's Mill (Rt. 20 South - Rt. 717) and the St,qunton and James River Turnpike (Rt. 692 - Rt. 712 - Rt. 20 Southi 4. Have the Architectural Review Board develop and eunct final EC Overlay guidelines; 5. Through the historic preservation cmmnitlce, de- fio~: the Monticello viewsbed considering the viewshed analysts prepared for the Thomas lefferson Memorial Foundation. After the viewshed has been established. protect Monticello's setting and viewshed through: · Strict enforcement of existing regulations; · Careful review of by-right development plans with suggestions for voluntary protectton meas- ures; and, 24 OBJECTIVE: Preserve and manage the Coun~ty's natural resoumes in order to protect the environ- ment and to conserve msoumes for future use. OBJECTIVE: Preserve the County's scenic m- sources as being essential to the County's rural character, economic vitality, and quality of life. OBJECTIVE: Conserve the County's historical and cultural resources, including historic sites, struc- tures and landscape features; amhaeological sites; and other unique man-made features. This Plan delineates those areas which are consid- ered important natural, scenic, and historic resources. In addition to addressing the above noted objectives, open space contributes to the environmental quality by providing pervious and wooded areas which reduce surface runoff, flooding, and sedimentation, permit groundwater recharge, improve air quality, reduce noise and dust, and moderate temperatures. Open space also provides aquatic and wildlife habitat. In de- veloping areas, open space protects and improves their character by providing buffers between dissimilar u~es. adding to the aesthetic quality, and providing recrea- tional opportunities. These are important benefits and amenities which make designated Growth Area~ mom attractive places to live. and serve to encourage devel- opment there. GOAL: Promote the continuation of a viable ag- ricultural and forestal industry and resource base. OBJECTIVE: Protect the County's agricultural and forestal lands through land use regulations and pro- motion et voluntary techniques. This Plan delineates those areas which are consid- ered important agricultural and fomstal lands based on soil quality and current land use. In addition to economic benefits, agriculture and forestry have trath- tionaily contributed to the quality of life in Albemarle County. They provide the rural character and scenic quality which distinguish this County by conserving the uataral and historic landscape and open space. Loss of the agricultaral and forestal resource base 6ould permanently alter the County's natural environ- merit. Both agricultural and forested areas provide wildlife habitat. Undisturbed forested areas protect critical slopes, and also reduce surface runoff, which helps recharge groundwater. Forestai watersheds are generally a good source of high quality water due to low sediment yields. GOAL: Protect the County's surface water end groundwater supplies for the benefit of Albe- marle County, the City of Charlottesville, the Town of Scottsville, and downstream interests. OBJECTIVE: Review and support, where appropn- ate, Chesapeake Bay protection initiatives, OBJECTIVE: Protect surface water for specific current and potential uses. OBJECTIVE: Protect the availability and quality of surface drinking water supplies. OBJECTIVE: Protect the availability and quality of groundwater resources. This Plan delineates surface water resources, in- cluding drinking water impoundments, as one category of natural resources. It is important to include im- poundments to show their relation to other resources. For example, if a stream valley or forested area is lo- cated within a watershed of a cfi'raking water supply, its protection provides better opportUmty to meet warer supply objectives. OPEN SPACE IN THE RURAL AREA AND GROWTH AREAS The Comprehensive Plan's growth management goal makes it necessary to use different approaches to open space planning in the Rural and Growth Areas. The growth management goal aims to direct growth into those areas designated for development while con- serving the balance of the County for agricultaral and forestal uses and other resource protection purposes. The growth management goal places renewed em- phasis on the Growth Areas and further emphasizes support for their development. In the Growth Areas, open space preservation must be balanced against the ~oal of accommodating ~rowth Development of Growth Areas reqmres that large areas of the natural environment be disturbed. As a result, the natural ar- ea~ which remain become more important for environ- mental and aesthetic reasons and recreational purposes. Therefore, preservation of open space, or matotenance of its natural condition, is emphasized tn the Rural Area. agricultural and forestal uses have been identified as the most critical County re- sources and the primary land use. Agricultural and forestal uses play a long-standing role in the economy, environment, and heritage of the County. Loss of farmlands and forests to development ts irreversible and irreplaceable Conservation of open space is em- phasized in the Rural~ Area, to protect important agrl- COUNTY OF ALE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 96/97 Housing Committee Work Plan and the Role of the Housing Committee with other local and regional housing non-proms and agencies. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Report from the Housing Committee on their FY 96/97 work plan and discussion of their relationship to other housing programs, STAFF CONTACT[S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, Ms. McDonald BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: September 4, 1996 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: X INFORMATION: At the August 9 meeting, the Board requested a staff report on the relationship of file Albemarle Housing Committee to other local and regional housing non-profits and agencies. Attached for your review is a copy of the Housing Action Plan. the Commiilee's FY 96/97 work plan, and a flow chart of local housing organizations used as a guide by the Housing Committee. DISCUSSION: The Housing Committee was created by the Board of Supervisors and began to meet in April 1994. A set of organizational documents and a mission statement were developed and adopted shortly after the first meeting. The Committee originally consisted of 11 members, appointed by the Board of Supervisors, with designated representation from: Real Estate. Construction/Development, Financial Community, Legal Community, Consumer, Charlottesville Housing Foundation, Albemarle Housing improvement Program, Prepe~[y Management, and the Univers'fly of Virginia. Regular attendance at the meetings by non-members include the Ex~e Director of AHIP, representatives of the County's Planning Department, the City's Planning Department, the City's Redevelopment and Housing Authority, the Piedmont Environmental Council; and there ks occasional attendance by representatives of MACAA. the NAACP, and other interested organizations. FY 95/96 WORK PLAN: The Committee met monthly and created 3 working subcommittees, (1) Rental Housing and Counseling, (2) Affordable Housing Production and Financing, and (3) Land Use and Regulatory Issues. The Committee presented its first Housing Action Plan to the Board in March, 1995 (see attachment). The primary accomplishment of the Committee this first year was the development of a proposed Housing Element for the Comprehensive Plan. The Board forwarded this report to the Planning Department for consideration in the review and update of the Comprehensive Plan. During the Fall 1995 review of the proposed Land Use Element. various members testified before the Planning Commissioners at all of the Public Hearings. During this past year the Committee was prepanng for testimony on the Housing Element before the Planning Commission. FY 96/97 WORK PLAN: Once i~ was dstermined that the strategy for inclusion of the Housing Element within the Comprehensive Plan had been amended, the Committee reviewed outstanding issues with its 1995 Action Plan. It identifie~ additional areas to be studied and again created working subcommittees. This year's 4 work groups are (1) Land Banks and Housing Trust Funds, (2) PropertyMaintenance Code. (3) Public Incentives for Private Production, and (4) Economic Education and L~fe Skills. This last subcommittee has become an ongoing, standing subcommittee. The other 3 subcommittees propose to complete their work and report to the Board in the Spring 1997. (See Attachment) RELATIONSHIP: Asthe coordination between the work of the new Office of Housing and the work of the Housing Committee began, it became clear that there previously had been only embryonic coordination and communication between the 2 and the vadous other housing providers, public or nonprofR. Several specific situations highlighted the need to begin examining in a more formal fashion the relationships and appropriate interactions among all the providers. For example, at the request of the County, the former Housing Coordinstor worked with the AHIP Board and staff th developing theirflrst 5-year Strategic Plan. AHIP feces/es AGENDA TITLE: FY 96/97 Housing Committee Work Plan and the Role 0fthe Housing Committee With Other Local and Regional Housing Non- Profits and Agencies September 4, 1996 Page 2 substantial operating funds from the County for the purpose of leveraging state, federal and other housing program funds to help solve the varying affordable housing needs of the County. This strategic plan was a major, new step for AHIP, The 5 year plan was reflective of the needs identitied in the County's Housing Plan. One objective was the need for more lower cost Rental Housing. One identifiable resoume in the S'¢ategic Plan included Community Housing Development Organization (CH, DO) funds specified for/U-liP in the Regional HOME Consortium managed by the Planning District Commission. Over the past year there have been [wo situations where there was a proposed change in the use and allocation of these funds which altered the ability of the AHIP Board to !mplement their Strategic Plain without modifications. Although the situations were resolved, it highlighted the need for improved communication and participation among the housing players and funding sources available to Athemade. As a result, the Committee requested more information and the attached "Relafionship Chart" was developed and is used by Committee members on a regular basis as a guide. As funding sources and organizations change, this chart allows for an easier understanding of the effects. The Committee also uses this chart to help continue to define their evolving role and to identify opportunities for action or implementation of their recommendations. At the May 1995 meeting, the Committee completed discussions and passed an aclion resolufion concerning the numerous local housing non-profits sewing the County and the City. At that time, the organizafions operated independently of each other creating an environment of competition for limited resources and recognition, dupiicafion of programs provided, difficult service coordinafion and customer service on shared-projects; duplication of administrative costs, especially staff, and inefficient use of cit~.ens' time who may serve on several Boards. As the County and the City provide regular program funds to these various organizations, the Committee called upon the County Executive and the City Manager to convene representatives of these various organiza/~ons to explore the feasibility of developing a single, new organization into which these local non-profits might be organized. Several mesiJngs were held and a vision of the new organization developed. Due to several other reorganizations schemes surfacing simultaneously (the Governor's Regional Consortia Initiative, merger talks between the Charlottesville Housing Foundation and the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation), the meetings were temporarily suspended, but should resume this Fall. RECOMMENDATION: This report is presented to the Board for their information and does not require any recommendation at this time. The Chair of the Housing Comm~tee. Karen Lilleleht, and the Housing Chief, Ginnie McDonald, will be at the Board meeting to present the information and to receive questions and comments. 96.165 ALBEMARLE COUNTY HOUSING ACTION PLAN Presented by the Albemarle County Housing Committee March 1, 1995 MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN: On behalf of the Albemarle County Housing Committee. I am pleased to present our first annual Housing Action Plan. The Committee will prepare this report each year to inform you' of our activities and accomplishments as well as to present specific proposals and recommendations. The Committee formally began operation in April 1994. We meet on a monthly basis and have created sub-committees which meet at least m6nthly as well. With the assistance of the Housing Coordinator. we have spent the past year developing our mission and other necessary operational procedures. We have also devoted time during many meetings to speakers who provided information on a variety of housing topics, Our primary accomplishment this year has been the development of a proposed Housing Element for the Comprehensive Plan. Later in this report we will present our recommendations for your consideration and acceptance. 1994 has been a year of planning and laying the foundation for an aggressive housing program for Albemarle County. Lynne Carruth. the outgoing Housing Coordinator. has been of inestimable value to the Committee m this work and we commend her highly for her contributions to affordable housing in Albemarle County. With the Board of Supervisor's support we hope to begin ~mplementing housing policies and programs designed to achieve the County's goal of decent, affordable housing for all residents, We urge the Board of Supervisors to resist "Not In My Backyard" pressures when affordable housing developments are brought before you. Neighborhoods often resist change and fear what they think they know about people with incomes lower than their own. Decisions made on the basis of such pressures undermine the planning process and limit commumty diversity. We would like to express our appreciation for the support that you have shown us and look forward to continuing our work together over the next year. Karen V. Lilleleht Chairman. Albemarle County Housing Committee A. ORGANIZATION AND MEMBERSHIP To fac, ilitate general operations of the Housing Committee, a set of organiz,3tional documents was prepared and adopted shortly after the Housing Committee convened its first meeting in April 1994. The mission statement is presented below for your information: It shall be the mission of the Albemarle County Housing Committee to actively investigate, develop, recommend and support housing policies, and programs, public or private, that _will implement the County's goal of safe, sanitary and affordable housing for residents of all income groups. Special emphasis shall be placed on the needs of those County residents least able to obtain adequate and affordable housing without assistance. The Committee consists of eleven members, appointed by the Board of Supervisors for specific terms. The Ho. using Committee meets monthly but has also created sub- committees which may also meet during the month. Much of the work that is presented in this Plan is the result of sub-committee action. ltctusi n g_Com roi.tree_Mere be rs W.A. Pace, Vice-Chairman Jenny Greenwood Leigh B. Middleditch. Jr. Howard Allen Richard A. Kovatch Ronald Hancock Forrest D. Kerns Beverly Dee Terrell Karen V. Lilleleht, Chairman Steve Runkle JaniceL. Frye Rental Housing aruLCoun qMirlg Hank Allen W.A. Pace Karen V. Lilleleht Suhcommilteea_ Affordable Housing Production and Financing Jenny Greenwood Ronald Hancock Beverly Dee Terrell Land Use and Regulatory Issues Steve Runkle Richard A. Kovatch Leigh B. Middleditch' Forrest D. Kerns Karen V. Lilleleht B. HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Housing Committee has devoted the majority of its time to developing a set of objectives and strategies which are presented here as a proposed Housing Element for incorporation in the Comprehensive Plan. It ~s our intent that these recommendations form the basis of the the _ County's housing policy. The Housing Committee would like to acknowledge the work of the Albemarle County Housing Advisory Committee which provided much of the framework and background information for this report. GOAL: PROMOTE A VARIETY OF SAFE, SANITARY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING TYPES FOR COUNTY RESIDENTS OF ALL INCOME GROUPS SUMMARY OF OBJECTIVES: Identify and rehabilitate the County's substandard housing stock Provide or encourage development of a variety of affordable housing types Stress compliance with state and federal fair housing laws Increase financial resources for affordable housing Establish housing education program Support regional housing initiatives Ensure that development regulations and the development process support affordable housing development OBJECTIVE ' Identify and rehabilitate the County's substandard housing stock DISCUSSION: These strategies reflect Albemarle County's long-standing commitment to eliminating substandard housing. New initiatives include instituting data collection on the number of substandard units and analyzing the potential for reducing the number of subs~ndard t, nits by adopting and enforcing the Property Maintenance Code. STRATEGIES: In conjunction with the real estate assessment process, conduct housing quality survey and compile the results. In conjunction with the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, rehabilitate 5 % of the County's substandard housing stock annually. Provide home maintenance and repair counseling for owners or tenants of rehabilitated units. Maintain Neighbors Program as a cost effective approach to providing emergency home repairs to very low-income residents. Examine the feasibility of adopting the Property Maintenance Code in whole or in part. OBJECTIVE: Provide or encourage development of a variety of affordable housing types. DISCUSSION: Recognizing that the need for affordable housing will not be met solely through rehabilitation and repair of existing dwellings, these strategies focus on ways in which the County can promote development of new housing resources. Land banks, incentives for the private sector and public-private partnerships are all mechanisms that the County can utilize to increase the supply of affordable units. These new housing resources must also be responsive to the needs of specific populations which may not be met through traditional housing opportunities. The strategies call for assessment of the need for housing options such as Transitional Housing and .Congregate Housing. Transitional housing provides a continuum of housing assistance which permits a family to begin in a subsidized rental unit and transition rotc permanent, market-rate housing within a two-year time period. Congregate housing, consisting of individual housing units with congregate eating and recreational facilities, enables persons with disabilities or members of the elderly co rnmunity to live independently, STRATEGIES: Ensure that incentives are available to encourage prtvate sector development of affordable housing. Encourage creation of a land bank by non-profit housing organizations to ensure a supply of affordable building lots Facilitate private/public/non-profit partnerships to develop affordable homeownersh!p and rental housing opportunities. Develop an average of 160 units of assisted rental housing units annually over a ten - year period throughout the County. Assess the need for additional housing types to include Single Room Occupancy units. Transitional Housing, emergency shelters, congregate housing and housing for special needs populations. Maintain existing Section 8 Rental Assistance Program and seek additional asststance as available from the state and federal governments. OBJECTIVE: Stress compliance with slate and federal fair housing laws DISCUSSION: Equal access to available housing opportunities is an important componen[ of an adequate supply of affordable housing. If housing is denied because of pre3udices agmnst certain types of people, the housing market has been limited for those individuals. Stat4 and federal fair housing laws prohibit discrimination in the sale, rental or financing of dwellings based on race. color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, national origin or elderliness. The strategies below recognize the importance of compliance with fair housing laws in Albemarle County. STRATEGIES: Provide fair housing information and education'to housing consumers and housing providers. Adopt annual resolution in support of fair housing. OBJECTIVE: Increase financial resources for affordable housing DISCUSSION: This set of strategies is based on the premise that development of housing :ffordable to many' Albemarle County families will generally require some subsidy. The subsidy can take a variety of forms, ranging from grants to housing developers to establishment of a dedicated source of revenue such as a Housing Trust Fund. STRATEGIES: Establish Housing Trust Fund which will provide a consistent, dedicated source of revenue to address the housing needs of low and very-low income county residents. Establish revolving loan/grant fund for emergency repair program. Seek available private, state and federal funds to support housing programs. Examine the feasibility of establishing an Albemarle County Employer- Assisted Housing Program. Use public funds to pay for infrastructure improvements ~n affordable housing projects. OBJECTIVE: Establish housing education program DISCUSSION: Careful financial decision-making and management are critical to achiewng · and maintaining adequate housing for many Albemarle County families. It has been recognized that housing education and training can provide families with the necessary information to make responsible decisions and help the family avoid situations which may result in the loss of housing. Such education and training must cover a full spectrum of housing situations and needs and should be offered to children as well as adults. STRATEGIES: Establish housing education program for tenants and homeowners which will address a variety of housing issues, including landlord-tenant relations, fair housing, financial management and budgeting, steps to homeownership and home maintenance and repair. [n conjunction with the Schools Administration. establish a life skills program for all students which wi[l address financial planning, budgeting and deciiion-making. Establish a housing information and referral program which will provide information on housing needs, programs and resources in the community. OBJECTIVE: Support Regional Housing Initiatives DISCUSSION: The Housing Committee recognizes the fact that affordable housing is a regional issue and that policies, programs ahd activities initiated in one locality may impact neighboring localities. Active support and participation in regional housing initiatives provides a forum for discussion and cooperauon on housing issues. An additional benefit to regional cooperation is that housing funding from state and federal sources often favors regional programs. STRATEGY: Participate in the Thomas Jefferson Regional Housing Committee OBJECTIVE: Ensure that development regulations and the development process support affordable housing development STRATEGY: Expand growth areas DISCUSSION: To ensure an adequate supply of land suitable for. development, expansion or the existing growth areas must be c6nsidered. In addition, when determining the appropriate density for exisung and future growth areas, a variety of factors should be considered including regulatory and design requirements, availability of infrastructure and geographic features. In some cases, current density designations have not been achieved because of limitations imposed by one or more of these factors. STRATEGY: Maximize density in growth areas through design and regulatory flexibility DISCUSSION: Each development s~te has unique physical characteristics which may present obstacles to developing at the desired density. Providing flexibility within the development guidelines and regulations would allow the development to be tailored to the site conditions. increasing the potentml for fully utilizing the available land. Th'is issue should be considered as part of the review of development standards which will occur in 1995. STRATEGY: Adopt incentives to encourage the private sector to develop affordable housing in growth areas, communities and villages DISCUSSION: The Housing Committee recogmzes that financial assistance will be necessary, if the private sector is to participate in developing affordable housing within growth areas, Such assistance could take several fo~'ms such as downpayment assistance and public funding of infrastructure improvements. STRATEGY: Consider additional villages and permit more flexibility in development requirements for villages DISCUSSION: There are a number of areas within the County where residential and commumty -oriented commercial development has historically clustered but which are not recognized in the Comprehensive Plan as areas designated for development. Such areas, which could be referred to as rural crossroads or rural villages, are currently where affordable housing is being built because land costs are relatively tow. Designating these areas as villages and providing flexibility in the requirements would facilitate affordable housing by permitting infill development on smaller lots/consistent with health and safety requirements) and by allowing for a full range of housing opportunities in a small community setting. STRATEGY: Permit the use of alternative systems for water and sewage systems DISCUSSION: A major impediment to affordable housing development is the lack of building lots that are moderately priced and suitable for well and septic systems. Permitting the use of alternative utility systems would increase the number of lots available for development. STRATEGY: Define affordable housing DISCUSSION: T. here is currently no standard definition of affordable housing in the County development ordinances and plans. State and federal programs often have conflicting standards and do not necessarily meet the needs of Albemarle County residents. 9 STRATEGY: Form a standing committee of staff, housing industry representatives and others interested in housing issues to evaluate new and existing regulations wh ~ch impact housing cost DISCUSSION: This committee would meet on a regularly scheduled basis for the specific purpose o:f reviewing ex,song regulations to determme if they are still pertinem or create unnecessary cost burdens on housing development. The committee would also evaluate and comment on proposed regulations. STRATEGY: Designate the Housing Coordinator as a point of contact and technical advisor for affordable housing projects DISCUSSION: The developmen[ process, complex, costly and ume-consum~ng is further complicated by reqmremems unique to the development of affordable housing. Individuals and organizations interested in affordable housing development may be directed to the Housing Office which can provide information on funding and programs, as well as provide technical assistance. lO C. HOUS lNG OFFICE STRUCTURE The Housing Comm~aee supports the concept of combining the Housing Coordinator position with the Section 8 program to create a Housing Office. This office should be independent of other County departments, reporting directly to the County Executive's Office. The Housing Committee believes that this reorganization will result in better coordination of County housing programs, provide the Housing Coordinaior with much needed support staff and facilitate an expansion of County housing programs. D. HOUSING EDUCATION PROGRAM As noted in the strategies outlined above, the Housing Committee is endorsing establishment of a housing education program. This idea was initially put forward in A Housing Strategy for Albemarle County developed in 1992. A Housing Committee subcommittee spent several months developing a program and staff requirements which are presented here for your information. We understand that you will entertain a budget request for a housing education'speciatist: the Housing Committee strongly supports funding for this position. ALBEMARLE COUNTY HOUSING EDUCATION PROGRAM PROGRAM OUTLINE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: ALBEMARLE COUNTY WILL PROVIDE A PERMANENT HOUSING EDUCATION PROGRAM TO ENABLE COUNTY RESIDENTS TO OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN DECENT. AFFORDABLE HOUSING. A VARIETY OF PROGRAMS WILL BE AVAILABLE CONSISTENT WITH TI-tIE INDIVIDUAL NEEDS OF RESIDENTS. PROGRAM ELEMENTS: How To Be A Good Tenant Training will offered in group settings to Section 8 tenants as well as other tenant groups as arranged with the property manager. The curriculum will provide information on landlord-tenant relations, fair housing, wise rental practices, basic budgeting and home maintenance Referrals will be made to other resources as needed. 2. Homeownership - Before and After Homeownership coun[eling will be offered in several formats including general information sessions on the homebuying process, and individual assistance from a counselor to develop personal plans for homeownership. A classroom curriculum will also be developed which will cover the entire homebuying process. 3. Home Maintenance and Repair Available to tenants and homeowners_ this two-part_ four-hour program will provide practical information on how to maintain a residence and perform simple repairs. A tool kit. cleaning supplies and manuals are provided Basic Budgeting and Financial Management Counseling This service will be offered on an individual basis as requested by families 5. Housing Information and Referral Information on housing needs, programs and resources in the commumty will provided to housing consumers, housing providers and the general public. A newsletter and various resource guides will be published 6. Life Skills Training for School Population Working with the Schools Administration. programs will be offered to school children of all levels on financial "facts of life", including planning, budgeting and decision-making TARGET POPULATION Programs will open to any Albemarle County resident. Programs will be specifically targeted to Section 8 participants and participants in other affordable housing programs STAFFING Staffing will be provided by the Housing Coordinator and one full-time housing counselor BUDGET The Housing Counselor's staff time will be absorbed in the existing budget. The Housing Counselor is a new position which will require funding of approximately $33,000 for the first year. PROGRAM PARTNERS £t is anticipated that the Housing Education Program will be coordinated with the services of the following orgamzauons: Non-profit housing providers, Blue Ridge Apartment Council Financial Institutions MAC b~A Association of REALTORS Consumer Credit Counseling Blue Ridge Builders Association Extension Service ~2 THE FY 1996-97 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE HOUSING COMMITTEE WORK PLAN INTRODUCTION: At the February 1996 meeting, The Committee began discussions on what its evolving roles and tasks should be. In summary, it was decided that there were uwo primary areas on which to focus. The first was STUDY ISSUES. The second was "WATCHDOG" ISSUES. In developing these 2 work areas, the Members reviewed the implementation sEa5us of their March, 1995 Housing Action Plan and their Mission Statement, adopted Spring, 1994. It shall be the mission of the Albemarle County Housing Con~nittee to actively investigate, develop, recommend and support housing policies, and programs, public or private, that will implement the County's goal of safe, sanitary and affordable housing for residents of all income groups. Special emphasis shall be placed on the needs of those County residents least able to obtain adequate and affordable housing without assistance. I. STUDY ISSUES: A variety of potential study issues were discussed, 5 of which were selected. It was decided no form subcommittees that would meen at least monthly no complete the study issues and the full Committee would meen every other month, so as not to abuse volunteer member time~ The fifth issue, Employer-assisted Housing, will begin upon completion of the first 4 issues. The subcommittees will begin meening in the Fall and present their final products no the Board Spring-Summer 1997. At the July meeting each subcommittee finished selecting their members, their chair, defining their goals and objectives, and setting their meeting times. The goals and objectives were developed from the discussions that centered around the Study Issues and Watchdog Issues distributed and discussed at the February and May meetings. Those issues were developed from a review of the status of the 7 objectives connained in the March 1995 reporn of the Committee to the Board of Supervisors. The working subcommittees will include persons who are not Albemarle Housing Committee members, but who may have an expertise and/or interesn in serving on one of these committees. As members identify other persons who could contribute, please recruit them, or contact Karen Lilleleht or Ginnie McDonald for follow-up. Also Committee members might currently be serving on one of the committees of the Office of Housing and time constrainus needed to be considered. For example, Jenny Greenwood serves on the Rental Assistance Marketing Committee, and the Family Self-Sufficiency Program Coordinating Committee, and their Transportation sub-committee. 1. LAND BANKS AND HOUSING TRUST FUNDS SUBCOMMITTEE: OBJECTIVE: Increase Financial Resources for Affordable Housing DISCUSSION: This objective is based on the premise that development of housing affordable to many Albemarle County families will generally require some subsidy. The subsidy can take a variety of forms, ranging from grants to housing developers to establishment of a dedicated source of revenue such as a Housing Trust Fund. CHAIR: Leigh Middleditch Primary Staff Contact: Ginnie McDonald MEMBERS: Frances Lee-Vandell, Karen Lilleleht, W.A.Pace, Tapscott, Tom yon Hemert, Roxanne white Jr., Theresa 2. PUBLIC INCENTIVES FOR PRIVATE PRODUCTION: OBJECTIVE: Ensure that Development Regulations and the Development Process Support Affordable Housing Development, Provide or Encourage Development of a Variety of Affordable Housing Types. and To ensure an adequate supply of land suitable for development, expansion of the existing growth areas should be considered, in addition to creative in-fill development of the current growth areas. DISCUSSION: Each development site has unique physical characteristics which may present obstacles to developing at the desired density. Providing flexibility within the development guidelines and regulations would allow the development to be tailored to the site conditions, increasing the potential for full utilization of available land. The Committee recognizes that financial assistance will be necessary if the private sector is to participate in developing affordable housing within the growth areas, including in-fill development. Such assistance could take a variety of forms such as downpayment and closing assistance, public funding of infrastructure improvements, PILOTS, waiver of certain fees. A major impediment is the lack of building lots that are moderately-priced and suitable for well and septic systems. Permitting the use of alternative utility systems would increase the number of available lots. CHAIR: Steve Runkle MEMBERS: David Benish, Beverly Terrell Primary staff contact: Ginnie McDonald Frances Lee-Vandell, Karen Lilleleht, 3. PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE SUBCOMMITTEE: OBJECTIVE: Examine the Feasibility of Adopting the Property Maintenance Code in Whole or in Part. DISCUSSION: This strategy/objective reflects Albemarle County's long-standing commitment to eliminate substandard housing. New initiatives include data collection on the number of substandard units and analyzing the potential for reducing the number of substandard units by adopting and enforcing the state Property Maintenance Code or a modification/enhancement that reflects local needs. CHAIR~ Karen Lilleleht Primary Staff Contact: Ginnie McDonald MEMBERS: Tapscott, Building Bonny Davies, Jenny Greenwood, Cliff Roxanne White, and a representative Inspection and Zoning Department. Hammill, Theresa from the County's 4. ECONOMIC EDUCATION AND LIFE SKILLS SUBCOMMITTEE: OBJECTIVE: Establish Housing Education Program DISCUSSION: Careful financial decision-making and managemen~ are critical to achieving and maintaining adequate housing for many Albemarle County families. It has been recognized that housing education and training can provide families with the necessary information to make responsible decisions and help the family avoid situations which may result in the loss of housing. Such education and training must cover a full spectrum of housing situations and needs and should be offered to children as well as adults. Coordination with the Albemarle school system is critical. This committee has been working during this past year and has become a permanent subcommittee. CHAIRMEN: Mr. W.A.Pace, Jr., Mr. Hank Allen Primary Staff Contact: Tom yon Hemert MEMBERS: Debbie Chlebnikow, Bobbi Hughes (School Board), Karen Lilleleht, Ginnie McDonald, and a representative of the Virginia Extension Office. II. "WATCI{DOG" ISSUES: During the pasu year there were several occasions on which The Committee believed it was necessary to provide testimony; for example, the Planning Commission's public hearings on the Land Use Elemenn of the Comprehensive Plan, the Governor's budget, the Governor's Affordable Regional Consortia Initiative, the legislative package of the Virginza Housing Coalition and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing on the Land Use Element. As ~ result, The Commitmee realized that this would become a regular and expected role for the Members and began ~o examine where they might participate. Subsequently, the working expressions "watchdog issues" with "rule- and policy-making entities" and the following schedule developed: The Virginia General Assembly The Board of County Supervisors The Planning Commission -growth areas and crossroads communities -housing element The School Board -the Virginia Council on Economic Education's housing curriculum The Rivana Water and Sewer Authority -need for alternative waner & waste systems The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission -the HOME consortium The Virginia Housing Development Authority The Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development The Virginia Housing Coalition Staff and members will monitor the work of the above and other organzzations and respond as needed. Relational Positions of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors' Housing Committee with Other Housing Entities BOCS Albemarle County Housing Committee County Executive Housing Coordinator Planning Planning Department Office of Housing -Rental Assistance -Comprehensive Housing Counseling ( County's -- -FSS (Family \ CHDO Self-Sufficiency) -~ TJPDC (2 Members) BG $ ~ ~, CRHA $ FSS Program Coordinating Committee TJHIC (2 Members) -Housing Coordinator ot a ons ~,.~ (6 Jurisdicti°ns) DEFINITIONAL GUIDE TO THE "RELATIONALSHIP POSITIONS OF THE ALBEMARLE HOUSING COMMITTEE with OTHER HOUSING PROVIDERS" BOCS = Board of County Supervisors AHIP = Albemarle Housing Improvement Program CHDO A Community Housing Development Organization, for example AHIP, which is eligible to receive a specified allocation of federal HOME funds CHF = Charlottesville Housing Foundation FSS = Family Self-sufficiency, the special Section 8 program HOME A federal housing program;, these funds have a specified allocation to CHDO's; Albemarle receives a portion of nonCPIDO funds thru membership in the HOME Consortium These nonCHDO funds are made available to AHIP CDBG = Community Development Block Grant; the City receives an annual entitlement TJPDC = The Panning District is the Manager of the HOME Consortium CRHA Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority, administers a Section 8 Rental Assistance Program and an FSS program; is beginning a HOMEBUYER's Club TJHIC = Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation; a regional housing non-profit; administers the state Regional Loan Program; recently received CHDO status and will receive and manage all future CHDO funds received thru the HOME Consortium effective with 96/97 funds. This change allows member localities/nonprofits without CHDOs to access CF. DO funds. Effective with 96/97 HOME funds AHIP will no longer directly receive a specified CHDO allocation, but may apply to TJHIC on a project-specific basis. (VCHCM = Very Confused Housing Committee Member ACHC = Alphabetically-challenged Housing Coordinator) / ~ ~ I the chair of t Members the B oar , My name i~ K~ren Lilleleht~ and I am Albemarle County Housing Coramlttee realize this is m be a staff report, so I will be brief. The 1996-97 Work Plan being presented to you today grows directly out of the Housing Report of 1992. In the years since, we have learned more about the provision of affordable housing, and much of ~hat is illustrated by the relationship chart you received in your packets. The committee's major job is ~o recommend policy, programs and tools, many of which will be as successful as the amount, distribution and managemen~ of ~he funds provided to implement them. This requires excellent communications between the committee and, on the one hand, a plethora of housing providers ~o find out what they need and, on the other hand, the county so we can help mobilize resources effectively. By doing this we can take some of the burden off the shoulders of the Board. BUt it also means that the committee needs to have some input into how housing dollars are allocated at budget time. I would also like uo point out in relation to both the work plan and the relationship chart that affordable housing needs in Albemarle Counuy are very diverse. As important and satisfying as they are, first-time homebuyer programs alone are by no means adequath~e~ needs. Every one of the four elements Of the plan must include a substantial commitment to rental housing for those who cannot yet, or maybe ever, afford to buy a home in Albemarle County. Finally, I want to urge you to adop5 the Housing Element into the county's Strategic Plan as soon as possible. As a committee and for the community, we need this commitment to give the work we do direction and purpose. Thomas Jefferson Planning Disfrict Commission ~00 Eas~ Main Sh'eef, 1st Fl. Mall Enhance P.O. Bo~ 1505 Ch~lo~, VA 22902-1505 C~ ~-~,~ ~ ~ 80ARD OF ~,' "~- ~bP~:~dZ~SORs TO: FROM: R~: DATE: Karen Lilleleht, Chair, Albemarle County Housing Committee Nancy K. O'Bden, Executive Director Letter dated August 12 from Bruce Kirtley August 15, 1996 Enclosed please fred the history of TJHC that we advertently left out with the aforementioned letter. Sorry for the inconvenience. Roxanne White Clerks Office, Board of Supervisors Ginnie McDonald Bruce Kirtley Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation (Trait) HISTORY September, 1982 dune 27, 1983 duly, 1983 September, ]983 October, 1984 February, 1985 August, 1986 October. 1986 August, 1988 Regional Commurdty Development Block Grant (CDBG) proposal to Depamnent of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) through Albemarle, Louisa, Fluvauna, and Nelsov~ The grant was turned down because the regional format was "not ready to go". Organizational meeting to form regional non-profit housing corporation. TJIqlC. 501 (0)(3) status sought. New regtonal CDBG Grant proposal to DHCD. Application not funded. Articles of Incorporation and By~Laws approved. $580,000 regional CDBG Grant awarded for Albemarle, Nelson and Fluvanna to DHCD Tax exempt status granted by Rca White hired as executive director. Application for $360,000 in CDBG Grant funds for Fluvarma and Nelson awarded. Completion of CDBG Block Grant. 66 homes rehabilitated. Repairs included: 49 septic systems installed, 31 wells, 51 bathrooms, and 43 structural reparrs. $30,000 SEED Money Grant for Louisa County approved; administrative oversight by TJHIC. November, 1988 February, I989 A£ri~ 1989 July, I989 October, 1989 February, 1990 April, I990 August, 1990 September, 1990 TJHIC aclmirfisters Section 8 Housing Program and SEED grant in Louisa County, Completion of CDBG Block Grant, 46 homes rehabilitated. Repairs included: 14 wells, 37 septic systems, 33 bathrooms, and 35 slroctural repairs. Board applies for Neighborhood Assistance TaX Credit, Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Grant, and supports a Reg/onal Homing Rehabilitation CDBG Grant. Completion of Windshield Survey in Louisa. Presented to Louisa Board of Supervisors in July. Second year of SEED Money Grant approved for Louisa. Approval of the PD~ I 0 Regional Rehabilitation Improvement Program. Greene County accepts invitation to join T3HIC. Membership changed to two persons per county, with one alternate. Agreement for Louisa County Housin8 Fomndafion to become independent of TJIqIC Louisa County Housing Foundation Brochure completed. Approval of an application for $30,000 SEED Money Grant to start a housing foundation in Fluvarma, Application was approved by the Vkginia Housing Partnership Fund Neighborhood Assistance Tax Credits, $20,000 approve& Approva, i for an application for $100,037 fi-om DHCD for the Indoor Plumbing Program to be used Finvauna. Chairman spoke to Virginia Legislative Committee and ietter to Governor in support of ocntinuing Virginia Housing Partnership funds. February, 1991 Maro~ 1991 April, 1991 June, 1991 Ju~,1991 Decembe~ 1991 Janualy, ]992 April, 1992 Check-off for $5,200 HousLng application for FluVanna County CommunityDeyelopmant Fo_undafion. Application approved. Completion of Windsl~eld Survey in Fluvanun county. Presentation to Fluvarma B~ard of anpervisors in March. Completion of in-boas* surveys of Stage Junction and West Bottom in Fluvauna County. Application for $500,000 in CDBG funds for Lonisa and Fluvarma (grant not funded). Board approval for reapplicatiun for Finvauna $20,000 Second Year SEED funds. Applicafior/ approved. 3rd year of Neighborhood Assistance Tax Credits approved for $2,500. Board supports Ftuvaana County Community Development Foundation $6,000 Emergency Home Repair application. (Grant not funded). Approval from DHCD for Indoor Plumbing Program for $98,800 in Louisa County and for $166,725 in Fluvanna County. Completion of first year Indoor Plumbing Program, 13 homes rehabilitated. Repa/~ included: Bathrooms, kitchens, wells and septic systems. Application for $18,000 CDBG Planning Grant for Stage Junction community for Fluvauna County Cunmaunity Development Foundation. Application approved. Completion of five Virginia Housing Partnersh/p Rehabilitation loans in Fluvanna County Completion ofReg/unal CDBG in Finvauna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson. 36 homes rehabilitated. Completion of in-house survey of Stage Junction in Fluvauna County Application for $750,000 in CDBG funds for Fluvanna County; not awarded. Certified as United Way Agency Approval of $5,000 Neighborhood Assistance Tax Credits May, 1992 April, 1993 July, 1995 Received all0~afiofl' Of $22,000 from United Way, pro¼ded the High goal is met Applied for $250 000 HOME funds from DHCD for Iudogr Plumbing and Rehabilitation Program in Nelson County, application approved. Approval of $3,000 Neighborhood Assistance Tax Credits. Applied for FmHA Self-Help Program. Approval of $2.5 Million VI4DA and DHCD Regional Loan Demonstration Fund Pre-Applicetiom Approval of $220,000 Farmer's Home Administration Pre-Application for Self-Help Housing ?rogram: HOUSE-Housing Ourselves With Sweat Equity. September, I993 November, I993 April I994 1994 - 1995 Fall, 1995 August, 1996 Final application for $2.5 Million Regional Loan Demonstration Fund to VHDA & DHCD for Albemarle, Charlottesville, Fluvenna, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Nelson and Orange. Regional Loan Fund Approved, one of five in state. United Way awards $2,000 Ko TJHIC for regional funds. Regional Loan Fund implemented in six localities (See attached summary). Assisted Nelson County Community Development Foundation with Indoor Plumbing Program. Named Regional Consortium by state for a one year program; program discontinued by stare. Awarded second round Regional Loan Fund, Named as a pilot program (one of six) to implement Lead Abatement Program for the state, Preparing to become a Community Development Housing Organkzafion (CHDO). THOMAS JEFFERSON HOUSING IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION REGIONAL LOAN PROGRAM HOUSING UNITS Number of properties purchased and dosed to date 27 (71%) Number sold to-families (in process, with'signed purchase contract) 9 (24%) Number still ava'flable ~ . 2 (5%) · Average existing house acquisition cost $59,931 (21) · Average new construction house cost $71,836 (14) · Acquisition with rehabitafion for handlcapped $70,000 (1) Average house purchase price Average appraised/value of properties FINANCING ,69,8o8 (36) $73,4z2 (34) · Average downpayment by family (Range $500-$21,771) $ 2,133 · Average private funding leveraged $7.184 (20) $ 3,991 · Average other government funding leveraged: (City houses only, funding no longer available) $9,969 (6) $1,661 · Average VHP/VItDA Mortgages $47,117 · Average HOME downpayment and dosing cost assistance $t7,404 Total Project Cost $72,356 · Average closing cost $ 2,334 · Average land equity outside of purchase 214 · Average house price $69,808 FAMILY PROFILES · Average family size '(range from 1 - 5 members) 3 · Average family income (range from $10.800-$23,184) $17,475 · Number of families w~th income in 30 - 39% of median range 9 · Number of families with income in 40 - 49% of median range 11 · Number of families with income in 50 - 59% of median range 16 · Geographic locations of homes sold to date: Albemarle County 12 City of Charlottesville 13 Fluvauna County 6 Greene County 1 Louisa County 3 Nelson County 1 TOTAL 36 (3%) (6%) (2%) (65%) (24%) (10o%) (25%) (30%) (45%) THOMAS JEFFERSON REGIONAL LOAN FUND CONTACTS Nancy O'Brien, Executive Director Kobby Hoffman, Senior Planner TJHIC PO Box 1505 Charlottesville, VA 22902 (804) 979-7310 Philip Morton, VP/CRA Officer Ron Whitener, Mortgage Loan Officer Jefferson National Bank PO Box 711 Charlottesville, VA 22902 (804) 972-1155/972-1310 CITIZENS FOR ALBEMARLE September 4, 1996 For the last quarter-century, Citizens for Albemarle has sought natural resource preservation and conservation through addressing the rural/urban land-use dynamic. Recently, we have been involved in the current Comprehensive Plan process and have made'proposals related to it. For example, a few months ago we brought to you a proposal for creation of a citizen advisory committee to study growth-area design issues. Later this year, we intend to propose methods for a much-needed survey of our critical biological resources. We expect to continue bringing proposals forward in the course of the comprehensive plan update process. A proposal brought before you today from members of the Albemarle Neighborhood Association (ANA) seeks to "reduce commerical residential development in therural areas, permanently protect selected area§-0'f~'prime farmland and wildlife habitat, encourage better-designed, attractive, and more compact villages and corem unites and encourge phased development of commerical, industrial, and residential growth." Citizens for Albemarle enthusiastically supports these goals. We are asking you today as a board to commit yourselves philosophically to permanent protection of the elements of our rural areas that deserve to be lasting features of our way of life in Albemarle County. Some examples of these elements are specifically stated in the ANA's proposal. We ask that you charge the planning commission and the planning staff to fully examine these possiblities during remaining phases of the Comprehensive Plan update. Furthermore, we ask you to acknowledge that new initiatives for rural-areas protection anc~ progressive planning for high-density urban areas will require dedication of new financial resources, and to take the necessary steps toward that funding. We are pleased today that members of a new neighborhood group have become active in the planning process: and we believe their participation .signals that we can no longer delay decisions on the ultimate land-use mix of Albemarle County. Our county is at a crossroads that demands courageous far-reaching decision-making. We can either meander a passive path to maximum build-out, or we can boldly realize the often-affirmed vision in which walkable, liveable neighborhoods exist within surroundings that permanently remain green and open. Woodbrook Community Association Charlotte Humphris, Chairwoman Albemarle Board of Supervisors 401 Mclnt'tre Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 September 4, 1996 Dear Madam Chairwoman: Before you is a proposal concerning the development of an apartment complex on Rio Hill Drive near the 29 North Intersection area (Rio District). At this time, the surrounding communities have not been properly briefed about the impact this complex will have on our schools, roadways and other infrastructures. We in Woodbrook cannot say that we will support or oppose this proposal, What we wish to do is to make sure that the Board understands our concerns about this project. We have a list of questions which we feel need to be answered before you act on this proposal. Please consider them: #1. How many apartments will be involved. The proposal state~ 160 but is that a finn number?; What is the estimated population increase of school age children? Which schools will be affected by the increase in enrollment? Given the current projected school capacities, will the county provide the proper resources (not just trailers) needed by the schools to compensate for this project and for other developments 0.e. Forest Lake South) which are slated for this area. How many more autos (again, using regional averages) will this project put onto Rio Road. The traffic issue was one of the major po'mrs concerning the Great Eastern project which was before this Board at the beginning of the summer. This project will only compound the traffic problems which exists today. We thank you for your rune and we hope that our concerns are considered. d, Pres d~nt tzl~arles~J. ~chffa, Jr., Vice~President PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL Pro~ec~mg The En~ir07~mc, n~ It ~verybodfs B~si~;ess Citizens' Recommendations for Growth Management Statement Delivered to the Board of Supervisor~ September 3, 1996 Over the past two years, the County has asked citizens what they expect from planning in Albemarle. The answer has come back loud and clear. In the public opinion poll conducted by the University's Center for Survey Research, citizens said they want planning that protects our water quality, our naturat beauty, our farmland and our history. And most of them want a slower rate of growth. Concerns about the rural areas and natural resources emerged again during the public meetings held throughout the County as part of the Comprehensive Plan review. Most participants (68%) said the County should protect its rural resources very aggressively through voluntary techniq ues. existing or new regulations and acquisition. Most participants (80%1 favored a mountain protection program. Most participants (53%) said that residential development in the rural areas was not restricted enough. Often these values get lost in the day-to-day review and approval of rezomng applications and subdivision plats. We have heard senior planning officials discount the value of these findings because they are abstract. We believe that is precisely their strength: these results tell us what the average citizen, without an ax to grind or a specific pro.iect to laud or oppose, believes. That's why we all thought it was time, in post-UREF Albemarle, to be pro-active and present planning measures which reflect these values we see surfacing time and time and again. These recommendations treat the rural and growth areas as two equally important parts of one healthy community. They will help insure that our residential neighborhoods are attractive and stable and surrounded by a significant amount of open space, farmland, forests and undeveloped mountains, We ask that you endorse ~n principle these recommendations and forward them to your Planning Commission for further analysis and consideration. 45 Homer .'~rreer Sox 4(~0. \Varren(on Virginia 22!~6/703-MT-2334/Fax %-9-9003 Rose Hdi L')rive S:atc i Char!otresvi!le \/irg~nm 22903/8C*-~977-2033/Fax 977-6306 Growth Management Plan for Albemarle County August 30, 1996 1. Limit speculative development. All rezortings, regardless of compliance with the Comprehensive ]?lan, and changes to the Comprehensive Plan allowing more intensive uses shall be considered only ff accompanied by a d0tailed staff analysis of: a. the undeveloped land already zone. d for the use proposed. Rather than just expressing this figure in acres, staff should estimate the amount of building square footage possible on land zoned for commercial b. nd industrial development. For residentially zoned land, staff should calculate the number of dwelling units which could be built. b. projected demand for the proposed use based upon current population projections and relevant employment data. Rezonings allowing expansions of existing bus'messes shall be exempt from this requirement. 2. Develop a program to purchase development rights. The purchase of development rights program shall target the permanent protection of selected areas of prime farmland, critical habitat to insure biodiversity, environmentally sensitive land and greenbelts and greenways in the growth areas. Funding would not necessar'fly come from a general tax increase, but from additional revenues from tourism-based taxes and tax increment financing tied to industrial and office development (ff authorized by state law.) One way to fund the purchase of development rights would be to present a bond issue to the voters, which may be linked to the construction of new schools or infrastructure. 3. Reduce commercial speculation in the rural areas by phasing annually the existing development rights per owner. Phasing these development rights will provide economic safeguards for rural families while preventing residential development of a commercial scale. 4. Increase the size of rural lots from 21 to at least 42 acres. According to the Board-appointed Agricultural and Forestal industries Support Committee, ~Forest sizes below 40 acres are difficult to manage economically. ~ The Comprehensive Plan identifies agriculture and forestry as the two primary uses of the Rural Areas, yet the 21-acre parcel size leads to tracts too small to manage efficiently and economically as forests. 5. Support the principles embodied in the recommendations of the County's Mountain Protection and Historic Preservation Committees in order to protect important natural and man, made resources. 6. Hire a nationally recognized consultant experienced in neighborhood design to work directly with neighborhoods and a steering committee to develop detailed, graphic plans for in-fill and new communities. With the assistance of the steering conunittee, the consultant will develop strategies for implementing the community plans which are consistent with State law. Based upon the consultant's recommendations, the County will establish guidelines to be used in determining the impact of residential and non-residential development on each of the communities and neighborhoods within those communities. These plans will: a. develop or retain a neighborhood character/identify for each of the communities; indicate areas appropriate for in-fill development, including type and density; c. indicate overall patterns of land uses; d. reflect the cultural and landscape heritage of the Central Virginia Piedmont; e. incorporate natural features; £ delineate outside boundaries for communities which shall be protected by establishing permanent greenbelts; g. indicate relationship of development to existing and projected infrastructure as needed to serve the community over the next 20 years, including utilities, roads, parks, greenways, schools, etc.; or identify the infrastructural limits to growth; b. illustrate preliminary community design concepts for key areas within each growth area (e.g. the intersection of Route 29 and Profflt Road). Form. 3 7/2'5/86 SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2. I -344(A) OF THE CODE OF' VIRGINIA UNDER SUBSECTION ( I ) TO CONSIDER PERSONNEL MA'"I-FERS REGARDING SALARIES OF SPECIFIC EMPLOYEES AND A RELATED PERSONNEL AGREENENT; AND UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MATTERS REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION AND OTHER ISSUES RELATING TO INSURANCE, SPECIFIC LEGAL MATTERS REGARDING THE DISTRICT HONE BOARD; AND SPECIFIC LEGAL MA"I-TERS RELATING TO REVERSION. SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO NTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2. I -344(A) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA UNDER SUBSECTION ( I ) TO CONS DER ' - : PERSONNEL MAi i ERS REGARDING APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS iNTERVIEWS SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 12:45 p.m Mr. Derek James Jones CACY Commission 12:55 p.m, Mr. Herbert C. Christoferson JABA 1:05 p.m Ms. Gene E. Smith JABA 1:15 p.m Mr. Eric J. Strucko 1:25 p.m. Mr. Gary W. Myers JABA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 September 13, 1996 Charles S, Martin Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas Mr. Derek James Jones 403 Bloomfield Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 Dear Mr. Jones:: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on September 4, 1996, you were appointed to the Children and Youth Commission said term to expire on June 30, 2000. On behalf of the Board. I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charlotte Y. Humpkris Chairman CYH/aw CC: Ms. Jeanie Cox, Clerk, City Council The Honorable James L. Camblos, III Mr. Rory Carpenter, Director Printed on recycled .gaper County of Albemarle Office of Board of Cougty Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE (please type or print) Board / Commission / Committee Charlottesville-Albemarle Children and Youth Cemmission Applicant'sName Derek James Jones Home Phone (804) 295-~660 I{omeAddress 403 Bloomfield Road Charlottesville 22903 Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Samue 1 Mil let Employer ~orton Institute for Policy $61utions Phone (804) 295-0295 BusinessAddress 201 East Main Street Charlottesville, VA Date of Empl0yment March ' 96 Occepatoa/Title.Executive Director Years Resident in Albemarle County 3 I/2 yrs. Pre¥ious Residence Hanover, Pennsylvania Spouse's Name ~/A Number of Children Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates).University of Virginia, B.A. Government, 1996 Memberships in Fraternal. Business. Church and/or Social Croups Charlettesv%lle-Albemarle Chamber of Commerce, First United Methodist Church, Friends of Region 10 - Blue Ridge House Public. Civic and Charitable Office and / or Other Activities or lntere~s Director, Madison House Big Siblin9 Program (3 yrs) Madison Mouse Director for Operations (1 ~iterac¥ Volunteers, begin tutoring 22 August Reason(st for Desire to Serve on this Board / Commission / Camm;-~- .Profound commitment to service of ccmmunity; abundant experience in youth advocacy, includin~ .frequent }ontact with mapy eonm,unity youth services. The informati Return to: m provided on this application will be released to the public upon request. Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 229024596 COPY David P. E~wemaan Charlotte ¥. Humphrls Forrest R, Marshall. Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Cha~rJottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296:5843 FAX [804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martir Walter F. Perkins Sail9 H. Thomas August 13, 1996 Mr. Derek James Jones 403 Bloomfield Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 Dear Mr. Jones: Thank you for your interest in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Ckildren and Youth Commission. This letter is to confirm your interview scheduled with the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, September 4th, at 12:45 p.m. at the Albemarle County Office Building in the Fourth Floor Conference Room. EWC/aw If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate ro contact me. Sincerely, ~ey,~lerk,~C / Printed on recycled j:~per David P. Bo,.~rman Chariot iesvilie Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack douett Forrest FI. Marshall. Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 {'804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 September 13, 1996 Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas Mr. James Murray, Jr. 0 Court Square Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr.~M-u~y:~ At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on September 4, 1996, you were reappointed to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Community Foundation said term to expire on July 1, 1999. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue serving the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charlotte Y. Humphris Chairman CYH/aw CC; J0tne Shields, Director The Honorable James L. Camblos, III Pffnled on recycled paper COPY David P. Boatman Charlot'm Y. Humphris Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virg/nia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 September 13, 1996 Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas Ms. Gene E. Smith 306 Westminster Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear M~-~l~th:: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on September 4, 1996, you were appointed to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging said term to expire on March 3 l, 1997. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charlotte Y. Humphris Chairman CYH/aw CC: Gordon Walker. Executive Director The Honorable James L. Camblos. III Printed on recycled paper County of Albemarle Office of Board of Cgun_ty Supervisors 401 Mclntire Rbad Charlottesville, VA 229024596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE (please type or print) Board/Commission/Committee JEFFERSON /LREA BOARD ON AGING (shoutd~ be F01t AGING) Applicant's Name Gone~ E. Smith fMiss~ or- Ms.) Home Phone 80~+-9711-~138 Home Address ~C0'6 ~¢es~mins~,er Road~ Char~ottesvi!le~ Virginia 2~2:901 Magisterial District in which your home residence is located J~ Joue~ Di ~tri ct~ Employer N0n~ Phone ....... Business Address ............................................................... Date of Employment ............ Occupation / Title ............................. Years Resident in Albemarle County ~ 7~ Previous Residence Henrieo~ County _. Vir~inia~ Spouse's Name NO]Ie' Numbc~ of Children ...................... Education (Degrees and G-raduation Dates) Randolo. h-Maeon Co!orad% B.A. 1!9~7 Mathematies:~ Univers-ity of Virginia Memberships in Fraternal. Business. Church and/or Social Groups Boar~ Head~ SDorts Club~ Charlottesville; Country Club of Virginia~ Richmond Public. Civic~dCharimbleOffi~d/orOtherAcfivitiesorhmm~sVoIunt~e~ Hospice of th~ Fiedmont/tIV F~3_nd!ngI member ~ud s~retary-treasurer p~o tem~ Senior Statesmen of Virginia and~ it~ Jefferson Branch; Regional vice-president~ Virginia State' Counci! of Senior~ Citizens:~ s:ecretary~ Charlottes~zille/Albemarle cha/cter League of '~omen Voters-;... member Virginia Coalition for~ the, A~ing~ Virginia Association on A~ing~ ,.., local and national ~ARP~ Senior Reas°n(slf°rDesiret°Serve°nthisB°ard/C°mmlnsi°n~c°mmitteecouncil on Minority Health Center~AAU%~ ~b'emarie County i~ rel~resented on th~ JA~A Board'~ by Fotu~' Men. H~f the elderly and mo~., than half the~ poo~ elderly ar~ WOMEN. As~ a 6~ year old woman~ I ~uali My connectionm in and knowledge of statewide orga~nizationm dt=~oted tO aging ~s~n,e~ ,can be. ,u,~ed., .to q.en.er~t.,,,tn~, e~qerl, y ~,n,. al bem~r±e uounty--menan~ women. ~ne mrormauon prowoeo on m~s appt,eat,on wm oe re,eased to the pUOllC upon request. Know~edg~ gained by helping p, eoD~e in their last months of life am a Hospice votuntee_w, can be~ u~eful in a,,ddT~s~ng _agi~g.~_i~s~es. .~.~/~r/y/._/_~/L~~ ~(-~ ~ig~~ Date Retura to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 C© Y COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Superwsors 401 Mclntire Road Ch~lottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 2§fi~5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas August 13, 1996 Ms. Gene E. Smith 306 Westminster Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ms. Smith: Thank you for your interest in the Jefferson Area Board on Aging. This letter is to confirm your interview scheduled with the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, September 4th, at 1:05 p.m. at the Albemarle County Office Building in the Fourth Floor Conference Room. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, EWC/aw / Printed on recycled paper COPY COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 McIntir¢ Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296~5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 September 13, 1996 Charles Mr. Peter G. Hallock P. O. Box 138 Keswick, VA 22947 At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on September 4, 1996, you were appointed to the Albemarle County Housing Committee said term to expire on December 31, 1996. On behaif of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Chairman CYH/aw cc: Mrs. Ginny McDonald The Honorable James L. Camblos, III Printed on recycled paper County of Albemarle Office of Board of County Supervisom 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. VA 22902-4596 (804) ~.96-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE (please type or print) Board/Commission/Committee A]bemarle County }lousing Committee Applicant's Name Peter G. Itallock Home Phone 2c~3-6704 Home Address P. 0. Box 138, Keswick. VA 22947 Magisterial District/n which your home residence is located Rivanna Employer . The Garden Spot, Inc. Phon~ 973-4402 Business Address 515 w. Rio Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22901 DateofEmpIoymem April 1, 1971 Occupation/Title Horttculturalist Years Resident in Albemarle County 40 Previous Residence College Park, MD Spouse's Name Andrea O'Neall !-Iallock Number of Children 3 Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates) B8, Itortieultnr% 1968 Memberships in Fraternal. Business. Church and/or Social Groups Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber of Commerce Public, Civic and ChaHNbl~ Office and / or Other Aetivkies or In~sts Child, Youth and Family Services Board, Piedmont Environmental Council Board, Fiscal Imoact Committee, Agriculture Subcommittee for the Sustainabilitv Council, Little Keswick School Eoundation for S*ecial Education Board, Democratic Steering Commitnee and Mountain Protection Committee. Reason(s) for Desire ~ Serve on this Board / Commission / Commi~ee IR the 40 years that I have l~ved here, I have seen affordable housing al/ but disappear in Albemarle County. I would like to be part of a group dedicated to revereim~ this trend. The information provided on this application x~ill be released to the public upon request. Signature Return to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville, VA 229024596 June 20, 1996 Date COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors David A. Tice, Chairman, Mountain Protection Committee Proposed Mountain Protection Plan, Final Report August 16, 1996 I am very pleased to submit for your review the report of the Mountain Protection Committee. Over the past 15 months of meetings, the committee has taken input from dozens of citizens, mountain landowners, county staff, natural resource experts and interest groups. We have tried diligently to consider and address every comment made in response to the draft plan. One of the most revealing sources of information we received came from the work of Ben Murgm~, geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. His research and conclusions regarding the debris flows of the 1995 floods offer compelling evidence of the need for special planning concerns in the mountains. As the board considers the recommendations of our committee, it might be very worthwhile to invite Mr. Morgan to briefly present his findings at a future Board meeting. As we look at counties in which development has overwhelmed not only the fiscal and physical resources but often the natural resources that originally attracted its residents, one can wonder: was there a point in time at which the community had its chance to encourage sustainable growth in a way that enhanced rather than degraded its quality of life? As the buildout analysis by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission reveals, we may be at such a point in time. We look forward to presenting this plan at the September 4 Board meeting, and receiving comments from the Board, Planning Commission and others in the community. cc: Albemarle County Planning Commission County of Albemarle Proposed Mountain Protection Plan FINAL REPORT Mountain Protection Committee August 1, 1996 Proposed Mountain Protection Plan Where has Nature spread so rich a mantle under the eye? Mountains, forests, rocks, rivers. With what majesty do we there ride above the storms.t How sublime to look down into the workhou, se of nature, to see her clouds, hail, snow, rain, thunder., all fabricated at our feet! And the glorious Sun, when rising as if out of a distant water, just gilding the tops of the mountains, and giving life to all nature. --Thomas.Jefferson on Albemarle's mountains FINAL REPORT Mountain Protection Committee August 1, 1996 MOUNTAIN PROTECTION COMMITTEE The Mountain Protection Committee consisting of 12 citizens appointed by the Board of Supervisors, met regularly from June, 1995 through July, 1996. The Committee reviewed existing County ordinances and regulations to assess the degree to which these public values are adequately protected m present. The County attorney as well as the Piedmont Environmental Council's staff attorney and Page Gilliam, a member of the Mountain Protection Committee and an attorney, reviewed the constitutional issue of taking without just compensation and Virginia legislative authority for local mountain protection. Other presentations were made by Natural Resource Conservation Service, Virginia Department of Forestry, County Department Of Planning and Community Development, Deparunent of Zoning, Building Inspections Department, the Water Resource Manager, and the County Design Planner. A member of the University of Virginia's Department of Astronomy gave a presentation and conducted a field trip on outdoor lighting and dark night sky as a natural resource. The Committee identified resources present in the mountainous areas of Albemarle County that it is in the public interest to protect: · public safety · soil · water quality and quantity · forest and agricultural resources · plant and animal habitat · scenic resources and their economic impact · dark sky · tourism The Committee reviewed ordinances pertaining to mountain protection from other localities in Virginia. The Clarke County Mountain Land Plan (1994) provides the closest parallel in Virginia, seeking to protect, "forest resources, surface water quality, ground water, wildlife habitats and ecosystems, scenic values, and well-sited development compatible with the above five resources." The Committee also considered the balance between public values and the private interests of the mountain landowners in developing recommendations. ALBEMARLE'S MOUNTAIN RESOURCES Albemarle's mountains are unique areas of the County which are distinguished by the natural resources and Physical conditions listed below. Such resources and conditions are found in other areas of the County, but only in the mountains do they occur in such combination, as extensively, and to such extremes. Critical Slopes: In Albemarie's mountains continuous critical slopes in excessof 50% can be found for distances of up to one mile, and in some cases, longer. Concerns regarding disturbance of steep land become pronounced in mountain areas due to generally shallow soils and length of grade on side slopes. Soil erosion, surface water runoff, and~'septic system contamination are amplified in these areas. Soil: Forest cover is the optimum land use for minimizing soil erosion and maximizing water quality. Soils on steep slopes are typically more erodible than in other areas. Inaccessibility and isolated location of development sites in mountain areas necessitate'lOnger driveways and access roads over more highly erodible soils than in other a~eas of the County. Such driveways and access roads disturb many times more'land area than a dwelling itself. The United States Department of Agriculture states in Handbook 53 7, "Both the length and steepness of the land slope substantially affect the rate of soil erosion by Waten" (p. 12) This Handbook reports that, other variables such as cover and soil typebemg equal3 soil loss on a slope of 20 degrees is 3 1/2 times greater than soil loss on an equivalent slope of 9 degrees. When the length Of slope is lengthened from the sample 72 feet to 600 feet, as in"a:'mountaln slope, the soil loss is 10 times as great. Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan: "Soils are a natUral resource which require proper use and preservation...Improper use of soils may result in accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation, ground or surface water pollution, landslides, flooding, drainage problems, failed septic systems, construction problems, and unproductive agricultural and forestal lands." (p.75) Water Quality and Quantity: Sedimentation of Albemarle's public ~nking water reservoirs in addition to increased demand will necessitate the building of the 26 million dollar Buck Mountain Reservoir before 2040. The South Rivanna Reservoir loses 13 million gallons of storage capacity annually as a r6sUlt of sedimentation'J The Ragged MoUntain Reservoir, by contrast, loses no r i ' ' ' ·" ' ' app ec able capacity. Albemarle County Comprehensrve Plan. Goal. Protect the County s surface water and ground water supplies for the benefit of Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, the Town of Scottsville, and downstream interests....Protection of water resources is of vital importance to Albemarle County and Virginia in general. Albemarle's location adjacent to the Blue Ridge Mountains provides both the advantage of clean headwaters, and a responsibility to protect them. The County's Rural Areas play a crucial role in water supply protection...The maintenance of pasture and especially forestal areas is generally beneficial to water quality." (p.57) 3 Sugar Reservoir With Log Debris, June, 1995 Photograph courtesy of G. Carleton Ray 4 Forest and Agricultural Resources: Now that The Eastern Deciduous Forest, largely cut during the 18th and I9th centuries, is returning, the mountains of the County are almost entirely in forest cover, with the remairdng acreage in orchards and pasture. The principal threat to the County's mountain forests and farms has now become fragmentation and conversion to residential land use. The County's Agricultural/Forestal Industries Support Committee states," Continued forest fragmentation is probably the biggest threat to the future viability of the forest industry in Albemarle County...As parcel size declines, operability for timber harvesting decreases. Forest sizes below 40 acres are difficult to manage economically. The proximity of houses and other structures escalates the problem." A viable forest industry is an essential economic incentive to maintenance of forestland. The Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County places agriculture and forestry above residential land use in importance in the County's Rural Areas. The Mountain areas are zoned almost exclusively Rural Areas. The Rabun-Myersville-Catoctin soil association on the Southwest-Carters Mountain chain is among the most productive hardwood forest soils in the Commonwealth. A Mountain Orchard Near Covesville Photograph courtesy ofG. Carleton Ray 5 Debris Flows: The U.S. Geological Survey's report, Landslide and Debris-Flow Hazards Caused by the June 27_1995 Storm in Madison County., Virgima, states the following: Fast moving flows of mud and rock, called debris flows, are among the most destructive types of landslides and are responsible for substantial damage and loss of life worldwide...Their consistency ranges from watery mud to stiff, rocky mud similar to wel concrete and dense enough to carry boulders, trees and cars .... Debris flows are triggered predominantly by adding moisture to soil on steep slopes faster than the moisture can drain away leading to a temporary condition of perched water in the soil.... They commonly start on steep hillsides as shallow soil slides that liquify, accelerate to speeds of 35 miles per hour or more, and flow down hillslopes and channels until slowing on more gentle ground. The North Fork of the Moorman's River experienced debris flows during the June, 1995 flood. Some of the Moorman's debris flows were thousands of feet long, and created massive swaths of destruction Debris flows are recurring episodes. Portions of Albemade's mountains also experienced flows from Hurricane Camille in 1969. Mt/orman's River Debris l'low, June, 1995 Photograph courtesy of G. Carleton Ray Plant and Animal Habitat: Although a number of native species such as the white-tailed deer nearly vanished by the early 1900's have recovered, losses of native biological diversity (number of plant and animal species and number of individuals in each species) are a significant concern. A number of eastern migratory songbirds are in decline, almost without doubt due to human activities. 6 Those declines are caused by several factors, most importantly, fragmentation of habitat-- the dividing of large areas into smaller pamels, and the resulting disruption of forest cover. Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan: "Wildlife is a renewable natural resource which requires both protection and harv6sting for proper management. The mountainous areas of the County contain the more dense populations of wildlife..." (p.75) Scenic Resources and their economic impact: Albemarle County is well known for its scenic character. Maintaining this character is important to current residents and to prospective residents and tourists. A number of highly visible structures constructed recently have occasioned public concern about the continued scenic quality of the mountain landscape. Public expression of concern suggests that the scenic quality of the mountains is important to County residents. Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan states, "Objective: Preserve the County's scenic resources as being essential to the Coup, ty's rural character, economic vitality, and quality of life. (p~83)... An "issue that is of importance to'visual impact is the horizon. In a county with as much varied topography as Albemarle, the natural 'horizon becomes very prominent. Any serious modification of the natural ridge lines in the County will modify the visual character of an entire area."(p.87). UVA Observatory, Fan Mountain Photograph courtesy ofG. Carleton Ray Dark Sky: Excessive outdoor lighting in the urban and developed areas of the County is increasing. The natural resource of dark night sky and its importance to the University's Observatories has. been insufficiently considered in planning processes in the County. Energy wasted nationally from poorly designed outdoor lighting amounts to more than a billion dollars a year (International Dark Sky Association, 1990) Poorly designed outdoor lighting creates glare, 7 which compromises safety especially for drivers, degrades the quality of the entrance corridors leading to the City and degrades the quality of the built environment. Tourism: ToUrism and associated economic benefits related to the mountains continue to grow in the county. Travel sales in 1994 accounted for 17% of total sales or $109,139,211 in the County. Each year approximately 1,985,000 people visit Shenandoah National Park. Direct economic benefit to counties adjoining the Park is approximately 85 million dollars per year. In 1990 there were 550,183 visitors to Monticello, which translates into over 159 million dollars in revenue to the County. Photograph courtesy of G. Carleton Ray 8 HISTORY OF MOUNTAIN PROTECTION IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING Mountain resoume protection efforts began in 1971 with the adoption of the County's first Comprehensive Plan. One of the Plan's six Goals was: Respect conservation values, including the preservation of stream valleys, mountain slopes, watersheds and other open space areas. The Land Use Plan delineated the mountains as conservation areas. The Natural Resource Objective was: Albemarle County is rich in natural resources which include beautiful stream valleys, scenic mountains, abundant woodlands, wildlife habitations, and mineral deposits. All of these resoumes are irreplaceable assets which deserve recognition, protection, and proper management. A strategy was: . Mountain slopes of 15% or greater should be built upon only under carefully exemised controls; slopes of 25% or greater should not be allowed to develop. The 1977 Comprehensive Plan contained the following Goal for the Conservation of Natural Resources: Conserve the County's environment and the balance of its natural ecology. This requires the conservation of water supply impoundment watersheds, the best agricultural land, mineral deposits, forests, steep slopes, hilltops/ridges, open space vistas, water quality in streams, and flood hazard areas. These areas should be protected from intensive commercial, industrial, and residential development. A map of Conservation Areas included hilltops, major ridge lines, slopes over 15%, streams/rivers and their valleys, and the Rivanna Reservoir watershed. In addition, conservation measures were also proposed for the County's woodlands. Hillside development standards were proposed on slopes exceeding 15%, which included road construction, grading and drainage standards. In 1980 a new zoning ordinance was adopted, which included the Rural Areas zoning district to restrict rural development rights, and the critical slopes provisions. Nearly every mountain is zoned Rural Areas, and is affected by the development rights resmctions, except two small peaks in the Urban Growth Area~ The critical slopes provisions require a building site, a contiguous area of land in slopes of less than 25%. The regulation is intended to implement the Comprehensive Plan by protecting and conserving steep hillsides together with public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas and in recognition of increased potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and septic disposal problems associated with the development of those areas described in the Comprehensive Plan as critical slopes It is hereby recognized that such development of critical slopes may result in: rapid and/or large scale movement of soil and rock; excessive stormwarer run-off; siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water; loss of aesthetic resource; and in the event of septic system failure, a greater travel distance of septic effluent, all of which constitute potential dangers to the public health, safety and/or welfare. The 1982 Comprehensive Plan included environmental standards to protect and conserve natural - resources. The Plan states: Clearing, grading, building, cropping or overgrazlng of critical slopes - can result in exterisive erosion and landslides or sloughing of soil and rock; excessive stormwater runoff; increased siltation and sedimentation of natural and man-made bodies of water; loss of -- aesthetic resource and in the event of septic system failure, a greater travel distance of septic -- effluent. The 1989 Comprehensive Plan states that, Natural, scenic, and historic resources are essential to Albemarle County's rural character, economic vitality and quality of life. The Plan notes the strong relationship between these environmental resources, water supply protection, and agricultural/forestry preservation, which are the major resons for protecting the Rural Area. The Plan also notes the interdependency of environmental resources, For example, the maintenance of forested areas protects surface water quality, wildlife habitat, critical slopes, groundwater recharge areas, and air quality. The 1989 Plan also discusses design standards for scenic resources. In a county with as much varied topography as Albemarle, the natural horizon becomes very prominent. Any serious modification of the natural ridge lines in the County will modify the visual character of an entire area The Plan recommended adoption of an Open Space and Critical Resources Plan, to identify and to develop protection measures for significant natural and scenic resources, including critical slopes, important wildlife habitat, wooded areas of environmental importance, and hilltops and ridges. The Open Space Plan, adopted July 15, 1992 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan , identifies Mountains as one of four major open space systems which are the most important open space lands to protect It lists resources associated with mountains: critical slopes, scenic views, wildlife habitat, extensive forests, unique soils for orchards, natural areas (including geologic features, and habit~ts for rare and endangered plants and animals), and headwaters. The Open Space Plan defines mountains by a designated elevation contour line, based generally on location of critical slopes and areas of visual impact. The Open Space Plan recommends the following strategy which was also added to the Comprehensive Plan action agenda: "Develop a mountain protection district to protect the scenic and aesthetic values associated wRh mountains, and to further protect their environmental characteristics." The Plan states: Visual concerns related to mountains center on disruption of the relatively pristine wooded character which provides a sense of continuity, natural beauty, and wilderness. Extensive critical slopes, combined with high elevations, result in a prominent display of changes to the mountain landscape. Activities which alter the continuity of the ridgeline or result in excessive tree removal should be discouraged. 10 Environmental concerns include the loss to development of a unique and beneficial natural environment, and disruption of the natural balance of soils, slope and vegetation. While detailed studies have not been undertaken at this time, it is anticipated that due to the location of generally unspoiled and extensive forests, together with a relatively small human and domestic animal population, mountains may be areas of comparative significance as "natural areas" and "wildlife habitats." Mountains also provide areas of unique soils suitable for orchards and vineyards between elevations of 800 - 1800 feet. Environmental benefits of undisturbed forests olden associated with mountains include increased groundwater recharge, surface water quality, and climate modulation. In addition, concerns regarding disturbance of steep land become pronounced in mountainous regions due to generally shallow soils and length of grade on side slopes. Issues related to soil erosion, surface water runoff, and septic system contamination are amplified in these areas. EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS The mountain land is largely within the Rural Areas Zoning Classification which permits 5 small lot divisions per parcel with residual acreage divisible into lots of 21 acres or larger. Building requires a 30,000 sq. foot site of less than 25% slope; there are no current regulations limiting the slopes upon which driveways may be built or the steepness of driveways. The Southwest Mountains are recognized as a National and State Rural Historic District. No land use regulations accompany that designation. The Open Space Plan identifies the mountains as one of four major open space systems and defines the mountains by designated elevation contour lines. The Plan recommends adoption of regulations to protect mountains. MOUNTAIN OVERLAY DISTI~ICT [] 1000 Ft. Ot~ [] 900 Ft. OR [] 800 l~t. 01~ ~ ?00 Ft. O~ RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations for a Mountain Overlay District and Lighting Ordinance require specific amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, County Code. Subdivision Ordinance and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. The legal basis for the proposed changes is Virginia Code Section '15.1 - 489, "Purpose of Zoning Ordinances" (see Appendix 2). 1. MOUNTAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE Section 30.7 MOUNTAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT I. Designate as Mountgfin Overlay District these lands identified on the Concept Man of!h~ 1992 Open Space Plan as "Mountains" and listed in the Table entitled "Mountains."(See Appendix 1) Purpose and Intent: The purpose of designating a Mountain Overiay District is to identify those areas of the County within which it is in the public interest to enact supplemental regulations or review in order to protect those resources characteristic of or dependent on the mounta'mous regions of the County: public safety, water quality, public drinking water reservoir capacity, soil conservation, forest resources, plant and animal habitat, scenic values associated with the mountains and their economic impact, and tourism - Application: The boundaries of this District are intended to encompass mountain areas of critical slopes and areas above such critical slopes that are highly visible and may be dependent for access on the areas of critical slope beneath. The District's boundaries are delineated by contour line in the map labeled Mountain Overlay District and attached hereto and also found in the Albemarle County Open Space Plan; the mountains to which the District is applicable and contour line above which the District applies are listed in the table entitled "Mountains." Definitions: For purposes of this section, "Ridge" and "Crest" shall be defined as in the N.C. Gen. Stat. Sect. 113A-206: North Carolina's "Ridge Law" (1983): "Ridge": the elongated crest or series of crests at the apex or uppermost point of intersection between two opposite slopes or sides of a mountain, and includes all land within 100 vertical feet below the elevation of any portion of such line or surface along the crest" as shown on attached map. "Crest": the uppermost line of a mountain or chain of mountains from which land falls away on at least two sides to a lower elevation or elevations." Permitted Uses: By Right: Uses permitted by right shall include all uses permitted by right in the underlying districts in accordance with the provisions hereinafter delineated. By Special Use Permit: Uses permitted by special use permit shall include all uses permitted by special use permit in the underlying districts in accordance with the provismns hereinafter delineated. Exceptions: 1) Agricultural buildings and associated farm and timber roads 2) Buildings of less than 500 square feet of interior space not including porches. 3) Structures other than buildings of a height less than 20 feet, such as gazebos, water towers. Notes: Communication towers are currently permitted by Special Use Permit. The Committee discourages towers in the Mountain Overlay District except in existing tower farms, and supports the requirement of a Special Permit. Regulations: a) Erosion and sediment control permit shall be required for all driveways and houses in the Overlay District. Because construction of driveways often disturbs large areas on steep slopes, the effects of erosion during constmctiog in these areas are particularly acute. Making all driveway construction meet the criteria of the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and comply with the provisions of that ordinance will substantially reduce on-me erosion and off-site deposition. Currently, a soil erosion agreement, and if necessary a soil erosion plan are required to be submitted for the construction of any single family dwelling. This proposed ordinance would require a plan instead of an agreement to be submitted, and would include the driveway with the house: however, field staking of driveway centerlines and culvert locations will be acceptable instead of driveway plans and profiles. Identical amendment to the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance is included for clarity in these recommendations. Benefit/Cost: Erosion control does add to consu-uction cost, but this cost, as in other areas where erosion control is required, ~s simply a part of the cost of building responsibly. The benefit to downstream water quality and soil protection for future generations far outweighs the cost of these temporary construction measures t~) .Ri_'dge protection: Buildings or structures shall be constructed in a manner that no site disturbance occurs upon the Ridge unless it can be demonstrated that such construction would 14 better protect the above-named mountain resources than its alternative, or unless there is no alternative to location on the Ridge. This provision is intended to prevem the development of concentrated runoff high on the mountains which may have negative impact on soil stability and water quality below. In addition, preservation of th4 natural horizon is a stated objective of the County's Comprehensive Plan (p.87) and ~s consistent with Va. Code Sect. 15.1,489 which includes "facilitat[ing] the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community" and "preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lar~ds of significance for the protection of the natural envirormrent" among the enabled purposes of zoning regulations. Benefit/Cost: Little economic impact will be felt because most of the areas defined as Ridge are not currently accessible for building activity. The small economic gain of the building on the Ridge is offset many times by the damage inflicted on the lands of those below. el Building sites: Building on parcels partially inside the Mountain Overlay District shall occur on the portion of the parcel outside the District unless it is demonstrated that a building site is not available outside the District. This provision is imended to direct development away from the most environmentally sensitive and visible portions of those parcels partially within the Mountain District without affecting the number of development rights on the parcel. Development ~n remote locations is most costly to the County in terms of providing services. Benefit/Cost: This provision would benefit soil conservation, water quality and scenic resources by directing development away from environmentally sensitive areas, and lessening the length and impact of private driveways traversing steep slopes. It would limit the danger of wildfire and landslide. Administration would require a minimal amount of added stafftime. d} Allocation of Development Rights: Subdivision of a parcel partially inside the Mountain Overlay District shall allocate all development rights for small lots to the portion of the parcel outside the Mountain Overlay District unless it can be demonstrated that legal building sites outside the District do .n_ot This provision is intended to direct development away from the most environmentally sensitive portions of those parcels partially within the Mountain District without affecting the number of development rights on the parcel. Benefit/Cost: This provision would benefit soil conservation, wate~ quality and scenic resources by directing development away from environmentally sensitive and visual portions of parcels, and lessening the length and impact of private driveways u-aversing steep slopes. It would limit the danger of wildfire and landslide. e) Subdivision: Where alternatives exist prior to subdivision, new parcels of land shall not be created which would: 1) create no alternative to location of a building site on a Ridge: 2) create parcels which preclude building sites from being located outside the District: and. 3) create parcels which preclude location of small lots outside the District. This provision ih intended to prevent what would otherwise be avoidable impacts to public safety and welfare by creating situations in which there would be no alternative but to build in contradiction with the intent of this ordinance. AMENDMENT TO SUBDMSION ORDINANCE All final plats within the Mountain Overlay District shall show one or more building sites of at least 30.000 square feet and be verified by a registered surveyor to meet all the criteria of allowable building sites. These building areas shall be described according to their location_ within the boundary, survey. Buildable areas shown on preliminary plats are not presently shown on the final plat. Therefore, the building inspector has no way of knowing if a house is being built in the area designated on the preliminary, plat because the building permit is. issued according to the final plat, which shows no topography and does not locate the area designated as buildable on the preliminary plat. Further, the buildable areas are often identified on preliminary plats from County. topography, which is 20-foot contour interval, interpolated to 5 foot contour interval ~- too general to be reliable for this use. Benefit/Cost: The minimal expense of showing the buildable areas on the final plat would be offset by the assurance that the law can be efficiently enforced. AMENDMENTS TO EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ORDINANCE a) Erosion and sediment control permit shall be required for all driveways and houses in the Overlay District. Because construction of driveways often disturbs large areas on steep slopes, the effects of erosion during construction in these areas are particularly actue. Making all driveway construction meet the criteria of the l~ro~ion and Sediment Control Ordinance and comply with the provisions of that ordinance will substantially reduce on-site erosion and off-site deposition. Currently, a soil erosion agreement, and if necessary a soil erosion plan are require~l to be submitted for the constmcfion of any single family dwelling. This proposed ordinance would require a plan instead of an agreement to be submitted, and would include the driveway with the house; however, field staking of dri:veway centerlines and culvert locations will be acceptable instead of driveway plans and profiles. Identical amendment to the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance is included for clarity in these recommendations. 16 Benefit/Cost: Erosion control does add to construction cost, but this cost, as in other areas where erosion control is required, is simply a part of the cost of building responsibly. The benefit to downstream water quality and soil protection for future generations far outweighs the cost of these temporary construction measures. b) Land Stabilify.: No slopes shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless ~'etaining wall,~, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County. Engineer are employed. This provision ~s intended to minimize soil erosion and prevent landslides. The ratio of 2:l is the steepest slope permitted for bank construction by the County, and by VDOT in the subdivision street standards. Slopes that are steeper are not stable and can result in erosion, sedimentation of streams and water supply, as well as damage to life and property through landslides. For reasons stated above, these problems are particularly acute in the mountain areas. In areas of predominantly rock this gradient may be increased to 1.5:1 where acceptable to the County Engineer. Benefit/Cost: This provision should assist in controlling the amoum of sediment flowing imo downstream waterways including reservoirs, and thereby improving or maintaining water quality throughout the County, and beyond, and minimizing the danger of mud slides in mountmn areas. In the steepest areas, retaining walls or revetments may be a more viable alternative to increased width of grading. Such walls add to the cost of construction. These areas are likely to be the least suitable for development due to inaccessibility, cost of services and other construction costs. c) Run-off Control.- Water from ditches, storm-drains and rooftops and impervious surfaces shall be released into natural streams or watercourses as defined as "adequate" per the "Virginia Erosion and Sediment Handbook.'* This provision is intended to control flooding and soil erosion and creation of gullies caused by swiftly moving, and therefore highly eroding water mn-off, as well as to minimize degradation in water quality and deposition of sediment downstream. Benefit/Cost: This provision would reduce the deposition of sediment onto downstream prope~ies and into the reservoirs. The latter diminishes their capacity and reduce the amount of treatment needed for drinking water especially during rainy weather. The cost of engineering mn-offcontrol so as to comply with this provision should be more than returned in protection from property damage caused by swiftly moving water. d) Driveways within the Mountain Overlay District shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 (horizontal slope: vertical slope) or flatter. The steepest allowable side slopes (except in rock cuts) on subdivision streets to be accepted into the State Secondary Road system is 2:1 (i.e., 2 feet of horizontal distance for each one foot of vertical rise or fall). Slopes steeper than this have proven-to be unstable over time. Unstable side slopes lead to erosion, deposition of sediment downstream, and in extreme cases, dangerous conditions. These problems are particularly acute in the mountain areas. Where 2:1 side slopes are 17 not feasible, retaining walls, revetments, or other slope stabilization methods acceptable to the County Engineer must be employed In areas of predominantly rock this gradient may be increased to 1.5:1 where acceptable to the County Engineer. Benefit/Cost: Building roads and driveways with side slopes of 2:1 or flatter may cost more initially. If long-term maintenance and down-slope damage are taken into account, it is cheaper to build with stable slopes from the start. e) Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of private roads and driveways shall be 40 feet. Any curve tighter than 40-foot radius on center-line is too tight for straight-bodied trucks, and fire trucks. Access to residences in mountain areas is of great concern to adjacent mountain property owners and the general public, because fires in wooded mountain areas can spread quickly, with catastrophic results. Mountain areas usually present no alternatives to a single driveway available to an emergency vehicle. Benefit/Cost: Providing access to straight-bodied emergency vehicles is an overwhelming benefit when compared to the small and short-term saving of constructing curves of fighter radii. f) Driveways shall disturb no more than 65 feet in cross-section. If a ten-foot wide driveway is built on an existing 3:1 (33%) side slope, with 2: I cut and fill slopes, it will disturb approximately 65 feet in cross-section. (See illustration below.) The disruption of large areas of land is particularly dangerous in mountain areas because the mountains form a large system of steep, usually forested land which may be affected far beyond the limits of individual construction sites. Benefit/Cost: Generally, locating roadways ~n areas not requiring a large amount of grading is both less ~xpensive, and less disruptive. In those cases where additional measures (e.g., retaining walls) must be taken to avoid large cross-sectional grading, the long-term stability and protection of forest land will outweigh the short-term cost. 1 O' Driveway 3:1 $ ope 2: I Mctm~tt~t~,tr* Cz[t and Fill Sections 18 g) Longitudinal gradient on driveways shall not exceed 16%. The Virginia Department of Transportation maximum longitudinal gradient allowed in mountainous terrain is 16%. County private mad standards for 3-5 lots is 16% maximum. Slopes steeper than this are a danger to all who must use the driveway, including fire, police, other emergency vehicle-s, and delivery vehicles. While the Committee believes that the County would be wise to institute such a regulation County-wide, them ~s an especially urgent need to restrict the steepness of driveways in mountainous areas. In the Mountain Overlay District steep gradients are likely to be much longer and the associated accidents mom problematic because of the steep side-slopes and remoteness of driveways. Benefit/Cost: Every effort should be made to locate driveways to minimize grading, length, and impact on existing trees; however, the risk to human life in gradients too steep for safety is too great to consider the relatively small savings of alignment going too directly up a steep slope. 2. COUNTY-WIDE LIGHTING ORDINANCE: AMENDMENT TO COUNTY CODE OR ZONING ORDINANCE Adopt a county~wide ordinance with the following provision: All exterior Hghting fixtures above 5000 lumens shall be fully shielded. £ a .10.0 watt bulb gives off 1500 lt~nens). Definition: Fully shielded fixture: means 0~ outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that all light omitted hZ the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is prqiected below the horizontal. STUDY AND FUTURE ADDITION TO LIGHTING ORDINANCE: Determine maximum allowable foot-candles for each category of use and implement regulations prescribing maximum foot-candles for each category. Note: Action on the above ordinance should not be delayed pending completion of this study, but rather amended when the study is complete. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION: Develop resolution for Board of Supervisors asking power companies to cease promoting unshieided and inefficient outdoor lighting in the County. The cumulative effect of light pollution from the urban and developed areas of the County has the effect of degrading the dark sky in the mountain areas of the CounW. This natural resource is particularly important for the research conducted at the Observatory on Fan Mountain. Individual unshielded lights in the mountain areas contribute to the degrading of the dark night sky and are also highly visible and therefore detrimental to the scenic quality of the mountains. For these reasons the Mountain Committee finds that a lighting ordinance which is county-wide in scope is necessary to protect the mountain resource of dark night sky. · Energy wasted nationally from poorly designed outdoor lighting amounts to more than a billion dollars a year. · Poorly designed outdoor lighting creates glare, which compromises safety especially for drivers, degrades the quality of the entrance corridors leading to the City and degrades the quality of the built environment. · Light pollution in the nigh. t sky adversely affects tourism by negatively impacting the nocturnal viewshed; for example, the wew to and from Monticello, Shenandoah National Park, Blue Ridge Parkway. · Poorly designed lighting permits light trespass upon neighbors, which is no less intrusive than excessive noise. · Excessive outdoor lighting adversely impacts UVA.'s Observatories, which constitute a unique resource on the east coast. · The dark sky is a scenic resource enjoyed by all Count~ residents for whose degradation there is no compelling economic justification. Rather, the economic benefit of efficient energy use would complement protection of the resource. · Eas~. solutions to the problem of poorly designed outdoor lighting are avadable commercially and are inexpensive. In the long run they save money. ADDITIONAL PLANNING TOOLS The moumainous areas of Albemarle County are not only prominent physical features possessing critical natural resources, but they are also important parts of many human and natural systems in the County and region. Like other County human, cultural and natural resources, they therefore require consideration as components of larger planning issues. Though the Mountain Protection Committee's taak is to develop recommendations for the protection of the mountains of the County, the Committee feels that it fails to complete its task if it does not suggest that planning for the protection of discrete areas or resoumes, such as the mountains, the urban areas, or the watershed 20 must be integrated with a more systematic approach which provides for the protection of resource systems, such as drinking water, economic viability of urban areas, or transportation networks. Some of the County's land use regulations developed with a compartment-alized approach to land planning may have unintended consequences for protection of its natural resoumes and other comprehensive plgnning goals of the' County. Rural residential pamels (5-20 ac.) too small to farm or timber or serve as habitat, increase sprawl, put unintended pressure on mountain and agricultural lands. Areas of the County possessing critical resoumes may require different types of land use reswictions ro protect the resource. Segregated land uses may unintentionally increase housing costs, and increase pressure on transportation systems and on agricultural lands in the path of proposed new roads. Discussion of natural resource protection, that is, may not be broad enough in scope to suggest effective or equitable solutions. The recommendations which follow anempt to point toward a systematic approach to resource protection for Albemarle County. Develop brochure detailing design reCommendations in Mountain Areas Based on the model of Rappahannock Coun.ty's brochure, "Ridgetop Development," Albemarle should make available to anyone constructing a residence in the Mountain Overlay District a brochure which encourages sensitive site planning. Prospective mountain residents should be educated regarding' both aesthetic and safety considerations. "Being considerate and preserving th~ gentle, natural beauty that has drawn us to this County," Rappahannock's brochure suggests, "should be paramount in all our minds." See attached brochure in Appendix 3, Coun_ty of Rappahannock: Ridgetop Development. The Mountain Protection Committee is willing to draft such a brochure based in part on information which it has compiled Inventory_ Albemarle County's Natural Heritage Current knowledge of the critical elements of Albemarle's natural resources, including its biological communities is spotty and speculative. An inventory of the County's critical natural resources including rare and unique natural resources is needed to provide property owners, planners and County staff with the information to make wise land stewardship decisions. Methods of conducting this assessment and evaluation should be pursued. The Open Space Plan recommends a N&tural Areas Invento~ of designated areas for significant natural communities, their sensitive plant and animal habitats, geologic landmarks, and other natural features. TJSPARE proposed such an inventory for the five localities of the Planning District. Cover Type Analysis and Habitat Evaluation Procedures assessment are also suggested in the Open Space Plan, which cites the lack of information available about wildlife and aquatic habitat in Albemarle. Support Land Use Assessment Tax The concept of land use assessment tax for forest land, agricultural, horticultural and open space lands should be continued and defended. 21 Rural land in Albemarle County costs taxpayers only $0.21 in county services for every $1.00 it generates in county real estate tax revenues. Since residential land costs taxpayers more in sevAces that it generates in tax revenues ($1.16 in costs for every $1.00 in revenues), the undeveloped rural land substantially subsidizes residential use in the county, (Source: Fiscal Impact of Major Land Uses in Albemarle County; PEC, Tamara Vance, 1984) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) The County should continue to request enabling legislation in the General Assembly to permit a TDR program. While the creation of a Mountain Overlay District and proposed revisions to the Subdivision, Erosion Control, and Zoning Ordinances will reduce many of the problems associated with development ~n mountain areas, the large number of development fights in the these areas continue to threaten the resources of the mountains. Transfer of Development Rights will provide a means for shifting development rights out of the mountains and other Rural Areas while providing rural landowners with a means of profiting fairly from the transfer. George F. Alien, in "Three Proposals Affecting Forestry And Development," Virginia's Forests. Summer, 1991, explains TDR's through the following example: '...a landowner in a rural zoned area with 400 acres may be allowed under current zoning to divide his 400 acre parcel into five 2 acre lots and as many 21 acre lots as can fit into the residue, being 18 lots for a total of 23. "If this rural landowner's property were in a designated TDR 'sending' area, then the landowner, in an ideal situation, could voluntarily sell to a developer some of his development rights. Let's say a developer buys 10 of the 23 such .TDR's from one rural landowner's 400 acre parcel for $2,000 each. The rural landowner would receive $20,000 and have only 13 development fights left on his property. The rural landowner's parcel would probably have a lessened-market value, but that is the landowner's choice as to what to do with his or her land. Meanwhile, the developer could use these 10 development rights to increase the density to pack more houses or apartments on land designated as a 'receiving' zone. "The foregoing example is the ideal, positive way that a TDR program would operate would be voluntary and to some extent allow the free market concept to operate in government-created system of land rights." Purchase of Development Rights The County should develop a program to purchase development rights for preservation of agricultural and forest lands, significant plant and animal communities and areas of significance to tourism and recreation. Such a program might be funded from real estate transfer tax, cellular phone tax, meals or lo~d. ging tax, grants, or private contributions. '22 Such a program would allow landowners to choose monetary compensation for protecting naturai resources of public value. Land in such a program would remain in private ownership and on the tax rolls while serving a public purpose. Virginia Beach has initiated such a program, aiming to acquire development fights from 20,000 acres of agricultural lands, funded by 1.5 cents of the property tax rate and a cellular phone tax. The scemc-mountam landscape has been stated as a factor in the Albemarle and Charlottesville tourism industry. According to state Division of Tourism data, visitors to Albemarle County spent $109 million in 1994. A one percent lodging excise tax would generate $150,000 a year to purchase development rights or conservation easements. Full Cost Accounting and "Revenue Sharing" Discussions of revenue sharing between the County and City should involve a comprehensive approach and include the flows of benefits and costs in both directions. The City and urban area benefit economically from ecosystem services, notably watershed protection and air quality, provided by rural land of the County. Major economic contributions accrue to the people of Albemarle and Charlottesville as a result of the natural functions of the forests. A disproportionate share of these values are provided by the mountain forests. For example, forest landowners m the county provide watershed protection for the City\County water supply reservoirs. Without the protection of forest cover, particularly on mountain slopes, City and County users of public water would be required to divert hundreds of thousands of dollars from other uses to maintain the same level of water quality. Full cost accounting of the public water resource would show that rural mountain landowners, who receive little or no benefit from the resource, are bearing (subsidizing) this cost for urban residents and users of the public water. Similarly, the mountain forests play a sig~tificant role in filtering air, sequestering carbon and other air pollutants and improving air quality. Due to climatic patterns, the mountain forests play a greater role in this function than lowland forests. This function benefits the local economy by reducing expenditures for health care and for anti-pollution measures that would likely be required in the absence of these forests. Albemarle's forests currently store an estimated 19.7 million tons and annually remove 300,000 additional tons of carbon, as well as numerous other pollutants. Achieving this same level of atmospheric cleansing through anti-pollution measures would cost citizens an estimated $8.4 million dollars that those residents have available for other services and investments due to the role that the mountain forests perform. Efforts that significantly affect the value of moumain forest land for the primary purpose of benefiting the urban area should include incentives, or other strategies, Such full cost accounting is now gaining in recognition in other cities and regions such as New York State. 23 Change in Large Lot Division Size Large Lot Size within the Mountain Overlay District: Change the large lot division size from a minimum of 21 acres to a minimum of 42 acres in the Mountain Overlay District. This provision is intended to reduce the fragmentation of habitat and of viable landscape resource base. Due to the extensive fragmentation of the lowland landscapes into smaller and smaller parcels, the large blocks of forest common to the mountains are growing in importance, especially for "forest interior" species of wildlife that require large areas of forest in which to breed and forage. Many of these species are neo-tropical migratory birds which breed in Albemarle's forests and migrate to tropical regions for the winter months. Recent surveys of these species reveal that many are declining in number. While a number of factors are at play, the fragmentation of forests into smaller blocks is seen as a potential problem for the long-term sustainability of these populations. With respect to forestry, the Agricultural/Forestal Industries Support Committee's report states, "Continued forest fragmentation is probably the biggest threat to the future viability of th~ forest industry in Albemarle County.... As pamel size declines, operability for timber harvesting decreases. Forest sizes below 40 acres are difficult to manage economically. The proximity of houses and other structures escalates the problem." The U.S Geological Survey's report, Landslide and Debris-Flow Hazards Caused by the June 27, 1995 Storm in Madison County, Virgima, states that as non-structural hazard mitigation, "Land-use regulations can be used to reduce hazards by limiting the type or mound of developmem in hazardous areas A community can zone hazard-prone areas for open space uses' like parks, grazing or certain types of agriculture." The report cites as an example a "resource management zoning district" created by San Mateo County, California, which limits the number of dwellings to one dwelling unit per 40 acres. Benefit/Cost: Th!s provisaon would have significant benefits to wildlife habitat and forest resource base and a minimal impact on the value of parcels lying entirely within the Mountain District whose topography includes sufficient land below 25% in grade to allow for maximum use of division rights. Subsequent Revew This committee recommends that it reconvene in two years to review the efficacy of the ordinances recommended in this Mountain Protection Plan. 24 APPENDICES Appendix 1 MOUNTAIN CONTOUR LIST The following named mountains and other unnamed mountains are delineated on the attached Mountain Overlay District map. (USGS quad sheet locations are noted if names are duplicated). They are defined by a designated elevation contour line, based generally on location of critical slopes and areas of visual impact. 7Q0 Foot Contour Sfillhouse Mountain Lewis Mountain Mt. Jefferson Southwest Mountains Trevillian Wolf pit Long Sugarloaf Lonesome Bmadhead Hightop (Keswick Quad) Walnut Dowel] Peters Goodlow Carters Mountain Monticello Patterson Round Top (Albere~e Quad) Buck Mountain l~mey Mountain (Earlys'~flleQuad) Dudley Mountain Britts Piney (Alberene Quad) Ragged Mountains Round Top (Charloaesville West Quad) Bear Den (Charlottesvflle West Qu~d) Newcomb Woodson Gibson ~Albe~ene Quad) Gillums Mountain Turner Mountain 900 Foot Contour Taylor's Mountain Martin's Mountain (Crozet Sprouse Mountain Israel Mountain Tom Mountain Gay Mountain Ammonett Mountain Cook Mountain Persimmon Mountain Fan Mountain Mount Oliver Appleberry Mountain Shiloh Mountain Brash Mountain Yellow Mountain Harris Mountain Green Mountain (Free Urdon Quad) Cherry Mountain 1000 Foot Contour Boaz Mountains Walnut Top Mountain Heard Mountain Mill Mountain Chalk Mountain Castle Rock Mountain Moses Mountain Massies Mou~_t~n Long Arm Mountain High Top (Covesville Quad) Burnt Mountain Sharp Top Ennis Mountain Round Top Mountain (Waynesbom East Quad) Turks Mountain Blue Ridge Mountains Scott Bear Den (Waynesboro East Quad) Calf Bucks Elbow IAttle Yellow Beaver Creek Middle Pasture Fence Pinestand Cedar Big Flat Little Flat Loft County Ume Mountain Lick Mountain Fox Mountain Gibson (Brown's Cove Quad) Martins (Brown's Cove Quad) High Top (Brown's Cove Quad) Currant Pigeon Top Mountain Appendix 2 ENABLING LEGISLATION: Sec 15.1-489 Va. Code: Purpose of zoning ordinances: Zoning ordinances shall be for the general purpose of promoting the health, safety or general welfare of the public and of further accomplishing the objecuves of S.15. t-427. To these ends, such ordinances shall be designed to give reasonable consideration to each of the following purposes, where applicable: (i) to provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access, and safety from fire, flood, crime and other dangers; (ii) to reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; (iii) to facilitate the creation ora convenient, attractive and harmonious community; (iv) to facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements; (v) to protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas; (vi) to protec~ against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities existing or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and congestion in travel and transportation, or loss of life, health, or property from fire, flood, panic or other dangers; (vii) to encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; (viii) to provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment; (ix) to protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed airports, including United States government and military air facilities; (x) to promote the creation and preservation of affordable housing suitable for meeting the current and future needs of the locality as well as a reasonable proportion of the current and future needs of the planning district within which the locality is situated. Such ordinance may also include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with applicable state water quality standards, to protect surface water and ground water as defined in S. 62.1-255. (Emphasis: references relevant to protection of Albemarle's mountains) A-2 Appendix 3 County of Rappahannock Ridgetop Development Brochure A-3 RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, has determined in order to serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practices, it does hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to regulate outdoor lighting for all uses in all zoning districts; FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold public hearing on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, and does request that the Planning Commission send its recommendation to this Board at the earliest possible date. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution of intent adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held On September 4, 1996. Clerk, Board of County'Sup~'sors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Outdoor Lighting SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Enabling Legislation; Possible County Regulations STAFF CONTACTfS): Messrs, Tucker, Davis, Cilimberg, Keeler, Msses. Joseph, Scala AGENDA DATE: September 4, 1996 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes~;:?~ REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND:,/ The Board has expressed interest in additional regulation of outdoor lighting. In response, the County Attorney has examined enabling authority and provided his opinion together with relevant Code sections (Attachment A). After receipt of the County Attorney's analysis, staff determined it would be appropriate to rupert to the Board following the Board's receipt of the Mountain Protection Plan DISCUSSION: Based on the County Attorney's analysis, staff has developed three options which the Board may wish to consider: OPTION 1. OBSERVATORIES: The Board could adopt lighting regulation, either in the zoning ordinance or the County Code, to regulate all lighting within a one-half (%) mile radius of observatories. Due to the limited area of regulation, effectiveness would be questionable (Attachment B contains mapping of the % mile radius i:rem the McCormick and Fan Mountain Observatories). OPTION 2. SITE PLANS: The Board could amend Section 32.0 Site Plan and Section 4.12 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements of the zoning ordinance to improve lighting regula§ons where a site plan is required for development (i.e.- commemiaL, industrial, multi-family~esidential etc.). Currently, these provisions control lighting spillover from parking areas onto residential areas and public streets. Lighting is to be directed away [rem residential areas and streets and shielded where necessary. Measures which the Architectural Review Board has employed within the EC district should be analyzed for applicability to any development requiring site plan approval (Attachment C). OPTION 3. COUNTY-WIDE REGULATION: Provisions of Section 4.0 General Regulations of the zoning ordinance can be written to apply to all uses in all zoning districts. The Mountain Protection Committee has developed detailed lighitng regulation which the Committee recommends be applied on a County-wide basis. From initial review, ti does not appear that these regulations would constrain normally anticipated lighting practices of the homeowner or farmer, but would protect against intensive lighting situations (Attachment D). RECOMMENDATION: Due to its practical limitations as to effectiveness, staff does not recommend that lighting regulation specific to observatories be pursued. However, pursuit of OPTIONS 2 and 3 would provide a degree of protection to the observatories as well as address the "dark sky~' issue in a reasonable manner. Staff recommends that lighting issues be addressed coterminously with the Mountain Protection Plan and that the Board adopt the following resolution of intent: n order to serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to regulate outdoor lighting [or all uses in all zoning districts. 96.184 ATTACHMENT A d ;'i 2 6 1996 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development Larry W. Davis, County Attomey,~4~/~2 June 26, t996 Outdoor Lighting Ordinance I have examined the enabling authority which the County may have to adopt ordinances regulating outdoor lighting. This review ~s in response to interest expressed by ;he Board of Supervisors regarding authority to place restrictions on the amount and manner of lighting being observed from existing uses and anticipated from future uses, The Virginia Code gives little specific authority in 'this area. Virginia Code § 15.1-29.8 provides that a County may regulate outdoor lighting within an area one-half mile around planetariums, astronomical observatories and meteorological laboratories. Virginia Code § 15.1-489 sets forth in the myriad purposes of a zoning ordinance that consideration should be given to "providing adequate light" and protecting against "obstruction of light," and, therefore, implies authority to regulate lighting. Of course, Virginia Code § 15.1-510 provides that a county "may adopt such measures as it may deem expedient to secure and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the inhabitants of such county, not inconsistent with the general laws of the Commonwealth.' A 1984 Attorney General Opinion opined that_ the City of Alexandria had the authority to impose minimum exterior lighting standards for new construction under its zoning authority, although it expressed doubt that there was authority to mandate lighting for recreation facilities or grounds generally. It also opined that no authority existed to impose new lighting requirements upon existing facilities. Even though this A-2 V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development June 26, 1996 Page 2 opinion was addressing minimum standards, the same analysis would apply to the authority for regulating maximum lighting requirements. The authority for counties is generally the same as that for cities. Last year the County of Arlington examined this same issue. It concluded that it did not have the authority to regulate exterior illumination levels of existing buildings and property. It had a bill introduced in the General Assembly and was granted specific enabling authority to permit counties operating under a county manager plan of government to adopt such regulations. (I am advised they have not yet drafted any regulations under this new authority.) Based upon the above, it is my opinion that the County has the authority to adopt reasonable zoning ordinance standards for lighting of new development in the County. However, these standards could not be applied retroactively to existing "nonconforming" development. It is doubtful that the County has general authority under its "police powers", beyond its zoning authority, to regulate outdoor lighting (unless it addresses very specific safety issues). Similar authority to that granted to Arlington County would be necessary for the County to adopt a county-wide lighting ordinance that applies to all development, if the desire is to regulate both existing and future development. I mn attaching the referenced code sections, Attorney General Opinion and legislation for your information. If you have any questions, please give me a call LWD:rcs cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. 96-695.001 Citation/Title VA ST Sec, 15.1-29.8, '8714 Va. Page Regulation of outdoor lighting near certain facilities Code Sec. 15.1-29.8 WEST'S VIRGINIA CODE TITLE 15.1. COUNTIES, CITIES AND TOWNS CHAPTER 1. GENERAL ARTICLE 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS; CERTAIN POWERS Current through laws passed at the 1995 Regular Session Sec. 15ol-29o8, Regulation of outdoor lighting near certain facilities In addition to any other authority granted to local governments by law, the governing body of every county, city and town may regulate by ordinance outdoor lighting within an area one-half mile around planetariums, astronomical observatories and meteorological laboratories. This section shall not be construed to affect any ordinance heretofore adopted by a local government. Copyright © West Publishing Co. 1996 No claim Eo original U.S. Govt. works. A-4 VA ST Sec. 15.1489, Purpose of zoning ordinances *9369 Va. Code Sec. 15.t-489 WEST'S VIRGINIA CODE TITLE 15. l. COUNTIES, CITIES AND TOWNS CHAPTER 11. PLANNING, SUBDIVISION OF LAND AND ZONING ARTICLE 8. ZONING Current through laws passed at the 1995 Regular Session Sec. 15.1-489. Purpose of zoning ordinances Zoning ordinances shall be for the general purpose of promoting the health, safety or general welfare of the public and of further accomplishing the objectives of Sec. 15.1-427. To these ends, such ordinances shall be designed to give reasonable consideration to eac?~ of the following purposes, where applicable: (i) to provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access: and safety from fire, flood, crime and other dangers; (ii) to reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets: (iii) m facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; (iv) to facilitate the provtsion of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flobd protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, atrports Page 1 and other public requirements; (v) to protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas; (vi) to protect against one or mom of the follow'rog: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities existing or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and congestion in travel and transpormnon, or loss of life, health, or property from fire, flood, panic or other dangers; (vii) ro encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; (viii] to provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment; (ix) m protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed airports, including United States government and military air facilities; and (x) m promote the creation and preservation of affordable housing suitable for meeting the current and future needs of the locality as well as a reasonable proportion of the current and future needs of the plaiming district within which the locality is situated. Such ordinance may also include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with applicable state water quality standards, to protect surface water and ground water as defined in Sec. 62.1-255. *9370 Amended by Acts t993, c. 758; Acts 1993, c. 884. Copyright© West Publishing Co. 1996 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works. A-5 VA ST Sec. 15.1-510. General powers of counties *9464 Va. Code Sec. 15.1-510 WEST'S VIRGINIA CODE TITLE 15.1. COUNTIES, CITIES AND TOWNS CHAPTER 12. COUNTIES GENERALLY ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS Current through laws passed at the 1995 Regular Session Sec. 15.1-510. General powers of counties Page 1 Any county may adopt such measures as it may deem expedient to secure and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the inhabitams of such county, no[ inconsistent with the general laws of this Commonwealth. Such power shall include, but shall not be limited to, the adoption of quarantine regulations affecting both persons and animals, the adoption of necessary regulations to prevent the spread of contagtous diseases among persons or animals and the adoption of regulations for the prevention of the pollution of water in the county whereby it is rendered dangerous to the health or lives of persons residing in the county. Copyright © West Publishing Co 1996 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works. ~B 211 Regulation of lighting in Arlington County. http:llwww, state.va.us/dlastses199611fullcl A-6 CI-IAPTER 567 An Act to provide for regulation of lighting in certain counties. [S 211] Approved April 4, 1996 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: 1.3g 1. The governing body of any county operating under a county manager plan of government may provide by ordinance for the regulation of exterior illumination levels of buildings and property. A-7 1984 85 Va. Op. Atty. Gen. 34 Page 1 1984-85 Va. Rep. Att5 Gen. 34 Office of the Attorney General Commonwealth of Virginia October 19, 1984 CITIES. REGULATIONS. EXTERIOR LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS IN MULTI- FAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEXES. REGULATION BY CITIES. The Honorable Wiley F. Mitchell. Jr. Member Senate of Virgima You have asked two questions: (1) whether the City of Alexandria has the authority, as parr of its zoning or site plan approval powers, to establish minimum exterior lighting standards for new multi~ hmily rental apartment complexes; and (2) whether the city has the authority, under ns zoning and land use. police or other powers, to establish and enforce mtnimum exterior lighting standards for existing multifamily rental apartment complexes. You indicate that your prtmary concern is that portion of such complexes made up of recreation areas. grounds and parking areas. I will answer your questions in the order in which they were asked. Although you specifically limit your first question to the city's zoning and land use powers, it is necessary that I first determine whether the requirements contained in the Uniform Statewide Building Code preempt the city from requiring lights tn recreation areas, grounds, and parking areas. I find no provisions in the BOCA Basic Building Code/1981 (FN1) which pertain to exterior lighting generally or to lighting of recreational areas or grounds. With respect to parking areas, subsection 622.6 of the BOCA Basic Building Code/t981, which is a portion of Sec. 622, pertaining generally to parking lots, provides that 'electric light wiring shall be provided to furnish adequate illumination of driveways and lanes as required by the administrative authorities for streei lighting but such illumination shall nol be less than 0.25 lumen per square foot (2.69 lumens/m /FN2~ of parking area." This section clearly appears to contemplate some minimum lighting in parking areas to such an extent as may be determined by the local officials. (FN2j Thus, it does not appear from the terms of [he Building Code that it precludes the exercise of local authority in this area. The conclusion that [he Building Code does not preempt local authorities from utilizing zoning power in this area is supported by an administrative interpretation from O. Gene Dishner, Director of the Department of Housing and Community Development, to the Honorable Bernard S. Cohen_ dated September 28 1983. Finally, the provisions of the State Code make it apparent that the Building Code is not intended to supersede zoning ordinances or land use controls, provided they do not affect the manner of construction of a building or the materials to be used therein. See Secs. 36-97(7) and 36-98 of the Code of Virginia Accordingly, I turn to the city's zoning authority and the pertinent provisions of Sec 15.1-489 which set forth the purposes of a zoning ordinance. Among the purposes of a zoning ordinance is the need to provide for "convenience of access, and safety from...other dangers...." In addition, a locality may "protect against one or more of the following...danger and congestion in travel and [ransportatinn, or loss of life. health, or property from fire, flood, panic or other dangers...." Se~ Sec. 15.1-489. As the Supreme Court of Virginia recently indicated in reviewing this section and provisions similar to ir, the General Assembly has vested the legislative branch of local governments with wide discretion in the enactment and amendment of zomng ordinances. See City of Manassas v. Rosson. 224 Va. 12. 294 S.E. 2d 799 (1982) The failure of the State Code zoning provisions to mention specifically a particular subject which a local government wishes to regulate is not necessarily fatal to the local government's regulatory action. For example, in Peck w Kennedy, Zoning Adm'r, 210 Va. 60. 168 S.E. 2d 117 (1969), the Supreme Court of Virginia upheld a zoning ordinance which had the effect of prohibiting advertising by means of:outdoor moving stgus or devices such as permant~, although there is no specific mention of such a regulation in the Code. The Couri noted that the focal governing body had the benefit of a study on the effect of moving signs and pennants on safe driving, and the Court further indicated that this was a proper consideration under the county's zoning authority. Accordingly, the Court upheld the ordinance. Copyright © West Pnblishing Co. 1996 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works. 1984-85 Va. Op. Atty. Gen. 34 With respect to requiring lighting in new parking lots, it appears that there is a basis upon which city council may conclude that such a requirement would serve the public safety and enhance access during the evening hours when pedestrians might be in danger if they are moving through, an unlighted parking lot. Nevertheless, while this would certainly appear to be a legitimate legislative goal. a lnea/ity's police power may not be utilized to regulate property interests unless the means employed are reasonably suited m the achievement of that goal See City of Manassas v. Rosson, 224 Va. at 19~20. If the toca/ity~s zoning acnon is challenged in court by a prima facie case of ur[reasonableness, the locaIity must be able to meel the challenge with sufficient evidence of reasonableness m render the question fairly debatable. Fairfax County v. Southland Corp., 224 Va. 514, 523, 297 S.E.2d 718 (1982). Thus, while I believe that the city has the power in its zoning ordinance to address Such a need as lighting in new parking lets, it is incumbent on the city to ensure that any mquiremems which it imposes are reasonably related, as a genera/ proposition, to the problem which it seeks to cure. *2970 The question of lighting in recreation areas and grounds adjoining apartment complexes generally ts a much more difficult one. While it seems reasonable that a locality has the authority ro address the need for the lighting of a sidewalk between the parking lot and an apartment building, or similar areas, I am of the opinion that it is doubtful that a locality would have the authority to tmpose upon an apartment owner requirements to light recreational facilities or other grounds generally. Such a requirement does not clearly fall within the authority vested in localities by the General Assembly, and any argument that such a power may be fairly implied from the existing Page 2 statutes seems uuneccessarily strained. Turning to your second question concerning the authority to impose lighting requirements upon existing facilities, I am doubtful that such authority exists. The General Assembly has clearly protected vested rights and has provided for the continuation of nonconforming uses. See Sec. 15. t-492. In light of this provision and because retroactive application of zoning ordinances is not favored generally, See Roach v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 175 Md. 1, 199 A. 812 (1938), I must conclude that the city does not have authority under its zoning ordinance to impose new minimum exterior lighting reqmremems on existing parking lots or other areas of existing apartment complexes which have ga/ned the status of nonconforming uses. Gera/dL. Bullies Attorney General FN1 The BOCA Basic Building Code/1981 was adopted as a component volume of the Uniform Statewide Building Code by the Board of Housing and Community Development, effective July 16, 1982. 2 Because there is no definition of "parking tot" in the Building Code, it is not clear whether this provision applies only to independent, commercial parking tots, or to those which are a part of an apartment complex as well. If it pertains only to independent parking lots, it obviously would not preempt local authority regarding apartment parking tots. If it pertains m apartment parking lots, then, as indicated above, it apparently contemplates some degree of lighting in such lots and gives the authority to local administrators to determine how much. Copyright © West Publishing Co. 1996 No claim to original U~S. Govt. works. ATTACHMENT B 75 McCORMICK OBSERVATORY CHARLOTTFSVILLE 7.7 OBSERVATORY .7 52 2O FAN MTN. OBSERVATORY B-4 ATTACHMENT C To: Ron Keeler Cc: A~elia McCulley From: ~arcia Joseph Subject: Lighting Date: 8/26/96 Time: 7:54AM The lighting standards required by the ARB follow standards as noted in the design guidelines. These standards call for the light : 1) To be contained on the site and not spill over onto adjacent properties or streets. 2) To be shielded, recessed or flush-mounted to eliminate glare. 3) TO achieve an incandescent effect. Essentially, the ARB does not restrict the intensity nor the kind of light. Most requests that have been approved, are for metal halide, white light. The most important aspect of the lighting is to ensure that the light is directed down onto the site. If you think I need to add anything to this please let me know. Thanks, Marcia a 99 Aug'act 1996 Board of Supervisors County of Albcm~le 401 Mclni, ir¢ Road Charlottesville VA 22901 Dca,r Bo~8 Member: I am wrMng ~o urge., your ~upp, or~ of the,county wide lighting ordinance recommended in the Final Re, port ~f the Mountam. Protec~a Commii;~c~, ~ write as an Albcm~le County proper~y owner and 28-~ear a,rea resident, aa well as ~n a~troaomo~, concerned abou~ t[ the st~ll mostl~ wonde~*u} quahty o~ hfe we enjoy here m A,Bca~;e into the future, clearly we ~d to wor,~y about a host of envkonaie~ltal issue. A ~rdlnaace would address ~ever~l related issues by ~aceuragiag good iigtging d~iga. quMity outdoor ~gh~;ing l~;a everyoae It reduc~ or el m natc~ glare improv~ time visibility, increas~ safe~y and a~rity, sav~ energy, r~Its in ~ ~ore at'tractive :~igh~- skies dark. ~aving grown up ~n Pkil~clph~ I didn't ~ee ~ r~lly clark sky un~il I wa~ ~Ic~ly rememb,r ~iI1 tho impac~ of seclng the Mi]~ W~y for ~.he ~iz~ ~ime., ! think we owe 1~ to fu~m'e generatlonz to do our ~tmost toward the presorva*~a of such sk~a ~nd opportu- nlti~. Financial Planning Worksession Board of Supervisors/School Board September 16 5:00 - 6:30 pm PROPOSED AGENDA Quip Video Overview of Long~Range Fiscal Planning Current financial position/policies Future revenue and expenditure projections Possible funding and growth scenarios Impact of state funding policies on Albemarle 11I. Identification of Issues for Future Discussion IV. Identification of Additional Information Required V. Scheduling of Futm'e Meetings 15 minutes Prior to the meeting, the Board will receive background information on the above agenda items.