Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-01 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of September 1, 1999 September 3, 1999 AGENDA IT-EM/ACTION 4. Others Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. · Eve Watters, a resident of Hilltop Street in Crozet, spoke about the traffic conditions on Hilltop. She asked the Board to stop future development in the area and that the County work towards developing the infrastructure that is needed. Mary Dickens, a resident of 605 East Rio Road, asked that the Meadow Creek Treatment Plant Redevelopment plan be delayed until the Meadow Creek Parkway has been built and completed to relieve through traffic on Rio Road East. · John Martin spoke regarding the protection of the Moorman's River. Several months ago Rivanna was directed to bring to the Board some constructive and specific suggestions on how to correct the problemsat the Moorman's River. There has been no short or long term plan to address this situation. · Mr. Werner Gstattenbauer, a resident of 5762 Tabor Street, spoke about the impact the proposed housing development at the end of Hilltop Street will have on the neighborhood. He asked the County to proceed with the Route 2401250 connector road project. · Mr. Kelly Strickland, of Weather Hill Homes, the developer of the proposed Parkside Village, asked the Board to look at the planning and development process of Crozet, and to work with the developer,, residents and community to find a solution. 5.1 Appropriation: Education, $42,603.05 (Form #98082). APPROVED ASSIGNMENT 5.3 Appropriation: HUD Section 8 Housing Assistance, $1,531,673 (Form ~99016). APPROVED 5.4 Appropriation: School Division $638,298 (Form #99017). APPROVED 5.5 Appropriation: Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant (Form #990.18). APPROVED 5.6. Appropriation: Federal and State Drug Seized Assets, $38,318.76 (Form #99019). APPROVED 5.7 Appropriation: Local Law Enforcement Block Grant - FY 1998, $25,363 (Form #99020). APPROVED 5.8. Appropriation: Local Law Enforcement Block Grant - FY 1997, $5,180.29 (Form #99021). APPROVED 5,9 Appropriation: Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning · . Organization Grant (Form #99023). APPROVED 5.10 Appropriation: Virginia Department of Forestry "Living With Water" Grant, $5500 (Form #99024). APPROVED and AUTHORIZED County Executive to accept the grant and sign all required documentation. Ms. Thomas asked that the Board get a report on what this grant accomplished at its conclusion. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Clerk: Fowvard to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy ,,appropriate persons. Clerk: Fomrard to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Forward grant application to Steve Bowler. Water Resources: Provide update on grant. 5.2 Appropriation: Family Support Program, $111,570 (Form #99014). APPROVED 1. Call to order.. Meeting was called to Order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman. All BOS members present. 31erk: Acknowledge comments. 5.11 Road Name Change Request - Change the name of Cleveland Lane to Roseland Farm. GRANTED staff the Authority to coordinate/implement the requested road name Change. 5.12 Proclamation designating August 31, 1999 through September 5, 1999 as "Albemarle County Fair Week". ADOPTED 5.13 Resolution supporting the expansion of rail sen/ice from Bdstol, VA, to Richmond and Washington, DC. ADOPTED the attached resolution. 5.14 Temporary Designation of the Workforce Investment Area. APPROVED maintaining the current configuration of Planning Distdct 9 and 10 as the Local Workforce Investment Area. Information on local Board configuration and administrative recipient will come to BOS at later date. 5.15 Amend Personnel Policy P-40 to raise the tuition reimbursement. APPROVED the amendment. 5.17 Notice of Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the County's 1997/98 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Ms. Humphris expressed thanks to the County's fiscal officers. 5.20 Letter dated August 19, 1999, to the Honorable Charles S. Martin, from the Honorable Virgil H. Goode, U.S. House of Representatives - 5th District, re: assistance that may be available to farmers facing drought conditions in Albemarle and other counties. Mr. Marshall said he does not want to borrow money; he would like to receive assistance in the form of hay or feed. 7a. Discussion: Meadow Creek Parkway. DIRECTED staff to prepare a draft letter with recommended changes and include on the September 8th consent agenda. 7b. Other Transportation Matters. · Ms. Tucker said the CTB will receive the packet on the Meadow Creek Parkway to vote on September 16th, · SUPPORTED a continuous lower design speed for the entire section of the Meadow Creek Parkway as proposed by City Council. · Ms. Tucker said the traffic counts on Hilltop should be available in the next day or so. She will forward the information to Mr. Perkins. · Ms. Tucker said when emergency repairs were made to the bddge on Proffit Road (Route 649), the railroad crew found that additional repairs would be needed to bring the bddge up to the posted limit. These repairs will require an additional two weeks of work. · Mr. Tucker asked if Grassmere Road is still scheduled for improvements in this next fiscal year. Ms. Tucker said VdoT hopes to advertise the project and begin construction in the Spdng. · Mr. Perkins mentioned a request he received from a citizen for a "Children at Play" sign in the Free Union area. · Mr. Perkins asked staff to start the process for getting the Route 240~250 connector in Crozet built. He suggested staff Planning staff: Coordinate/implement change. Clerk: Forward proclamation to Fair Board. Clerk: Forward resolution to Lynchburg Chamber of Commeme, Radford City Council and local legislators. Clerk: Send letter to TJPDC. Clerk: Forward to Human Resources. None. County Executive: Contact Cooperative Extension to see what is being done. County Executive/Plannin.q staff: Prepare draft letter. Clerk: Set out in letter to Angela Tucker. Clerk: Forward in letter to CTB and copy Don Askew. Clerk: Forward to Juan Wade. get together with the landowners and others to look at ways for financing the project. Mr. Marshall thanked VdoT for installing the arrows on Route 20 directing traffic into the one lane, He asked about the possibility of additional signage warning drivers of the change from four lanes to two lanes. Ms. Tucker said she would discuss the issue with her staff, but did have some concerns about installing too many signs in the area. · Ms. Thomas encouraged VdoT to work with the Morgantown Road neighborhood and to address the issue of signage. · Ms. Thomas asked that the Board's statement to the Governor's Commission on the Future of Transportation be mailed. · Ms. Humphris asked why, when and under whose authority the signs that use to state the Charlottesville/Albemarle Tourism Information Center now states Monticello Information Center. · Ms. Humphris said the Virginia Chamber of Commerce has unveiled a new transportation model to prioritize projects. The State Chamber set up criteria for quality of road, cost benefits, environmental implications, etc., with a list of criteria assigned points, and in a neutral fashion rank them according to need. She asked staff to get a copy of the study. · Mr, Bowerman asked if VdoT has adopted a new color of green on signals. Ms. Tucker responded that they are new LED signals, Eventually .all signals will be replaced. 8. Request Adoption of Water Supply Emergency Ordinance. · DIRECTED staff to amend the draft ordinance to restrict water usage in the County. 9. School Board Report. Received, 10. Introduction of Dave Blount, Legislative Liaison, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. 11. Discussion: Burning Permit fee for agricultural activities. · A motion that bona fide agricultural operations be exempt from the fee failed by a tie vote. · Ms. Humphris asked that some of the language in the brochure on burning laws be amended to clarify some of the information. 12.' Presentation: Bright Stars and Family Support Program. Received. 13. Request to Adopt Resolution Ratifying the Filing of an Application with the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) for a Loan in a Principal Amount not to Exceed $2,835,000. ADOPTED the attached resolution. 14. Discussion: Resolution proposed by the Charlottesville Area Legislative Action Coalition (CAI.AC) regarding committees appointed by the Board of Supervisors. No action taken. 15. Work Session: CPA-97-05. Brass, Inc, (Willoughby) (deferred from July 14, 1999). · Agreed in general with the Commission's recommendation with the intent to require mixed use development Board indicated that they saw mixed use development to include residential. Agreed with 65,000 sq ft, but to also allow flexibility in revised proposal. Did not want to foreclose on flexibility of the applicant to address some of the on site pdority issues. 16. Closed Session: Legal and Property Matters. At 12:455 p.m., the Board went into closed session. Clerk: Forward in letter to appropriate individuals. County Executive: Look into the issue. Clerk: Forward letter to Jane Dittmar. County Executive: Rewrite proposed ordinance. Clerk: Include on September 8th agenda. None. None. Fire/Rescue: Amend brochure. None. Clerk: Forward resolution to Brenda Neitz. None. Clerk: Include on September 15TM agenda. Planninq staff: Revise recommendation as discussed. 17. Certify Closed Session. At 2:57 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and certified. 18. Appointments. APPOINTED Mr. John Hood to the Board of Code Appeals (BOCA) and the Fire Prevention Code of Appeals, with said terms to expire on November 21,2004. 19. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. · Ms. Thomas mentioned their recent trip to Seattle and Portland. She suggested that a transit person comment on major site review proposals. Ms. Thomas suggested staff prepare a draft mission statement for the High Growth Coalition to be reviewed by the Board in the next several weeks. · Ms. Humphds mentioned a letter from a constituent regarding landscalping. She will forward a copy of the letter to Wayne Cilimberg. Ms. Humphfis mentioned a recent condition of the ARB for US Cellular Camp Holiday Trails (ARB-P[BP]-99-17). It did not appear to her that the condition follows this Board's restrictions. Ms. Thomas suggested that if the ARB does not know about how panels can be snug to the poles, that someone educate them on this matter. · At 4:46 p.m., the Board went back into Closed Session. · The Board reconvened at 6:15 p.m. and certified. ..20.. Adjourn~ The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Clerk: Send out appointment letter and copy appropriate persons, Planning staff: Coordinate with City transit. County Executive: Prepare statement. Planning staff: Look into the concerns that were expressed. Note: Copies of all attachments are on the following pages. A signed copy is forwarded in the regular mail to the responsible individual. If you need a signed copy, please let me know, and I will fomrard one to you. Attachment I - Resolution supporting expansion of rail sewice Attachment 2 - VPSA Resolution David P. ~ Charloffe Y. HUmphds Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. COUHTY OF A[REMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road · Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 September 7, 1999 Charles S. Martin Walter E Pefldns Sally H. Thomas Ms. Eve Watters 5771 Hilltop Street Crozet, VA 22932 Dear Ms. Watters: Thank you for your comments to the Board of Supervisors on September I, reggrding traffic conditions and proposed development in the Crozet area. During discussion of transportation matters on the agenda, the Board did request that VdoT and County Planning staff consider financing alternatives for ways to begin the implementation-of the Route 240/250 connector. Again, thank you for your comments. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/ec cc: Board of Supervisors Printed on recycled paper For years I've given thanks for the wholesome America that flourishes on Hilltop Street, Crozet. We share our street daily with all ages: strolling, biking, jogging, dog-walking, enjoying craft shows, ball games, horseshoes, swimming, concerts, fireworks. And the Independence Day parade, which this year nearly cost me a missed job. Luckily, I figured it out just in time my street was being comandeered again, and managed to get loaded and get out early enough to beat the parade and get to my performance. You see, for my peaceful well-tended cul-de-sac, and for more than 200 more Park neighborhood homes, there simply is no way out, other than ParkSt./TaborSt. It's already overloaded, it's already dangerous, and really only the co-operation of most residents has so far prevented tragedy. But without increased road connectivity, the proposed Weatherhill Homes development spells disaster. We live here and can see it- the school bus stop on that busy, tricky intersection, the many JAUNT trips for elderly and disabled passengers, how one idling UPS truck blocks traffic in both directions, the growing numbers of drivers who pay no attention whatsoever to stop sign or speed limit. We all dread the grim scenarios that loom when emergency vehicles are needed. I speak only for myself, but I've listened to my neighbors, without hearing any word ofstopping development. Instead they've spoken out with integrity to prevent mistakes that make property unsafe and unliveable, and will cause troubles for the County for years to come. They have found much common ground with the developers, and with the rest of Crozet. There seems to me a consensus to work for energetic solutions to develop infrastructm'e NOW to produce an "Everybody Win" prosperity tomorrow. Dialogue with these determined residents has already won remarkable concessions from the developer. This is an opportunity for enlightened planning which will benefit us all for generations. Charlotte Y. Humphris ~orrest I~ Marshal, Jr. COUNTY OF Al REMARI F. Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdnlim Road Charlottesville, Vhxjinia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 September 7, 1999 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas Ms. Mary Dickens 605 East Rio Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ms. Dickens: Thank you for your comments to the Board of Supervisors on September 1, regsrding the proposed Meadow Creek Treatment Plant Redevelopment plan. When this issue comes before the Board for discussion, it will take your comments into consideration. Again, thank you for your comments. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/ec cc: Board of Supervisors Printed on recycled paper C I'TY OF'CHARLOTTESVILLE Department of Community Development City Hall · P.O. Box 911 Charlottesville, Virginia · 22902 Telephone 804-970-3182 Fax: 804-970-3359 Augua 26,1999 Dear Adjacent Property Owner: As part of the City's desire to keep community residents informed about activities which might affect them, this letter is being sent to you as an adjacent property owner to inform you that The Cox Company, for the applicant,~rxa~n Corporation, has submitted a site plan. This site plan is for a housing development otf 165-245]esidential units called Meadow Creek Residential Village off Pen Park Lane. You are invited to a meeting for the preliminary review of this plan to be held in the Michie Annex Conference Room, No. B-281, City Hall, on Wednesday, September 1, 1999 at I0:00 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to give all adjacent property owners the chance to become familiar with Wrenson Corporation's development plans and to allow you to make suggestions at the planning stages. If you have any questions or wish to look at the site plan, please stop by the Department of Community Development, Room B-270, City Hall, or call me at 970-3182 and I will be happy to help you. Sincerely, Jim Hemdon Neighborhood Planner JH/bw 'ou ere Where: 1300 Pen Park Rd. (Last building on left before you enter Pen Park) Date: 08/12/99 (Thursday) Time: 5-7pm Meadowcreek Treatment Plant Redevelopment Design Meeting It has been over a year since we lost met to discuss future development plans for the Meadowcreek Treatment Plant Site. The Developer has taken your design ideas and tried to incorporate many of them into a preliminary land plan. That work is now complete and we would like to show you the results and ask for your help in refining the plan for submissJon to the City. For more information, call Frank Stoner 979-7334 or Satyendra Huja 970-3186 Highlights · See the latest maps and plans · Learn about new urbanism · Roundtable with the Developer · Review preliminary schedule · Share your ideas and concerns IEeadowcz'eeIt llesideaEaI IrilIa fe SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Total Acreage: County 6.0 Acres Unit TYPes and Mix: City Prope~Onl~ -~.- · Cottages & Bungalows (40-50 foot lots, 1100-1600 sq. fi.) 26 · Zero lot line Village Homes (could be live/work units) 26 · Rear yard Homes with or without rear garage apartments 22 (50-60 foot lots, 2,000 to 2,500 sq. ff.) · Golf Course frontage homes 12-18 (1800 - 2700 square feet) · Townhouse/Big house Multifamily 68 · TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS PLANNED · ESTIMATED AGGREGATE DENSITY 120-150 ~,," 4 - 5 units per acre · Designated recreational · Other Common areas · Flood Plain · Non-buildable slopes · Off-site community gardens · Roads 2 acres (approx.) 4 acres (approx.) 5 acres (approx.) 1.75 acres (approx.) 2 acres (approx.) 2.2 acres on site/ .57 off site Amenities/Community Services (P~~) · Community gardens · Community playground and pool · Walking/biking trails to Meadowcreek and the Rivanna G-reenbelts · Village green · Pocket parks in every neighborhood with connection to Meadowcreek Golf Course and Pen Park. · Community facility near the entrance could be Day care (for children or elderly) or other community service facility. Meadowcreek Treatment Plant Redevelopment NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES Environmental Remediation As most people know, the subject property is the former site of the Meadowcreek wastewater treatment plant. The plant was abandoned in 1979 and has been vacant ever since. It is an eyesore and a danger to the neighborhood. This site will be completely remediated as pan of the proposed development. Most, if not all of the existing structures would be removed. All underground tanks and abandoned pipes would be removed. All hazardous substances (asbestos, contaminated soils, etc.) would be removed. Primary access and emergency access for the community will be from Pen Park Lane. The Holmes avenue connection was thoroughly evaluated and deemed to be infeasible. A bridge connection was too expensive. A fill connection was costly and required purchase of additional land or easements from adjacent landowners to accommodate the slopes. Other access points from Pen Park and the floodplain were studied but deemed infeasible. At this point, no access is contempleted from Vegas Court. Density ( See Development Summary) The PUD plan shows a total of approximately 150 units. The average density is 6 units per acre. Approximately 45% of the units will be townhouse, condominium or multifamily. 55% will be single family detached. Planning/Design Themes The City directive for development of this site was clear. They wanted something unique and innovative. They wanted a community which could integrate some of the principles of sustainability and traditional neighborhood design, They wanted us to create a community which has some sense of place and unique qualities on every street which help distinguish it from accepted patterns of suburban development. They wanted us to develop a plan which was responsive to needs of the surrounding community. We believe that the proposed PUD accomplishes thom all those objectives. (See SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.) Traffic The proposed development will likely generate approximately 1,000 vehicle trips per day accessing Rio Road. Several improvements will be required to facilitate this additional traffic Rio Inlersection Improvements First, there nmst be a left turninglane on the Souflitxxmdside of Rio Road- This will allow traffic coming from the north to emer Pen Pafl~ I_ane without holding up traffic on Rio Road- This taming lane is already ~ in the County's six year ~ plan but couldbe accelerated by the develop:x if it agreed to pay for fl~ese Sustainability Features: (Proposed) 1. Adaptive reuse or recycling of on site structures, components, and materials. 2. Energy efficient design and construction with the goal of significantly reducing utility consumption. 3. Allow purchasers the option of homes that utilize indigenous, non-polluting, or recycled building materials. 4. Fiber optic connection for high speed telecommunications and Internet access. 5. Preserve and restore local ecosystems and biodiversity by protecting significant trees and topsoil and avoiding pesticide use and chemical fertilizers. 6. Maximize open green space for recreation and ecosystem preservation. 7. Pedestrian and bicycle links to the Meadowcreek and Rivanna greenbelts. 8. Encourage the development of community vegetable gardens 9. Encourage carpooling to reduce vehicle trips per day among residents. 10. Create live/work housing with the objective of"zero commute". 11. Create homes for all ages to help foster diversity and a sense of community. 1. Sidwalks throughout the community 2. Emphasis on the public realm; creating quality public space that can be enjoyed by all. 3. Narrower streets to help create a more intimate, pedestrian friendly environment. 4. Rear alleys to help get cars offthe street and out of the fi-om yards of homes. 5. Careful attention to design to enhance the streetscape. 6. Elimination of culdesaes where ever possible. 7. Pedestrian and bike connections to the greenbelts and other areas of the City including Charlottesville High School Widening of Pen Park Lane and extension of State Road Widening of Pen Park Lane from the intersection of Woodmont Road to the entrance of the proposed development will be necessary to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the community. These improvements would be done at the expense of the developer. Meadowcreek Parkway The third requirement stipulated by the Developer is that a final approval and construction schedule be established for the Meadowcreek Parkway. As you know, this road will take most of the through tragic off Rio Road. As many of you know, a 2 lane version of the parkway was approved by City Council on July 19 and will go to the Commonwealth Transportation Board in September or October Property Values We believe that property Values will be enhanced by the proposed development. The existing treatment plant remains are an eyesore and a detriment to the neighborhood. While many neighbors may prefer that this property be converted to a park or some other use which has less impact, these alternatives are not consistent with the City's comprehensive plan or general principles of smart infill growth which dictate that we maximize the utilization of urban land before expanding growth further into our rural countryside. While many of you may have lived in this neighborhood since it was countryside, you can,. no doubt, appreciate it's close, convenient location in todays ever expan~ suburban sprawl. This proximity, together with the imtovative, high quality development which is being contemplated, will only serve to improve your property values in the years to come. Project Schedule Under our most current schedule, we would hope to complete our PUD review and get final plans approved no later than May 2000. ff that holds true, we would begin sitework, road improvements and amenities;in the Summer of 2000 ~d bring our first homes to market in the spring of 2001. Prior to approval of the pUD, however; ~we p~ to beg/n envi~, onmeatai remediation of the property. Wais work could begin as soon as November of tlXis ye,at. Obvio~.ly, mi~ schedule is tenative and many factors could change our timeline, not the least of which would be a fimheVdmyqn construction of the Meadowcreelc Parkway. Charlotte Y. Humphris Forrest R. Marshal, Jr. COUNTY OF AI_R~ Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Chadottesville, Vh~jinia 22902-4596 (804} 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 September 7, 1999 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sallp H. Thomas S~nuel M~ Mr. Wemer Gstattenbauer 5762 Tabor Street Crozet, VA 22932 Dear Mr. Gstattenbauer: Thank you for your comments to the Board of Supervisors on September 1, regarding the impact the proposed housing development at the end of Hilltop Street will have on the neighborhood. During discussion of transportation matters on the agenda, the Board did request that VdoT and County Planning staff consider financing alternatives for ways to begin the implementation of the Route 240/250 connector. Again, thank you for your comments. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/ec cc: Board of Supervisors Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Foa~ R. M. msh~ Jr. COUNTY OF Al Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville, V'n'ginia 22902...459(5 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 September 7, 1999 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas Mr. Kelly Strickland Weather Hill Homes 2250 Old Ivy Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 Dear Mr. Stricldand: Thank you for your comments to the Board of Supervisors on September 1, regarding the planning and development process of Crozet. During discussion of transportation matters on the agenda, the Board did request that VdoT and County Planning staff consider financing alternatives for ways to begin the implementation of the Route 240/250 connector. Again, thank you for your comments, and the Board will consider them as they look at this issue. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/ec cc: Board of Supervisors Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance Ella W. Carey, CMC, ~..~C~ September 8, 1999 Board Actions of September l, 1999 At its meeting on September 1, 1999, the Board of Supervisors approved the following: 5. i Appropriation: 5.2 Appropriation: 5.3 Appropriation: 5.4 Appropriation: 5.5 Appropriation: #99018). 5.6 Appropriation: 5.7 Appropriation: 5.8 Appropriation: 5.9 Appropriation: #99023). 5.10 Appropriation: #99024). Education, $42,603.05 (Form #98082). Family Support Program, $I 11,570 (Form #99014). HUD Section 8 Housing Assistance, $1,531,673 (Form #99016). School Division Appropriations, $638,298 (Form #99017). Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant, $49,562 (Form Federal and State Drug Seized Assets, $38,318.76 (Form #99019). Local Law Enforcement Block Grant - FY 1998, $25,363 (Form #99020). Local Law Enforcement Block Grant- FY 1997, $5,180.29 (Form #99021). Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization Grant (Form Virginia Department of Forestry "Living With Water" Grant, $5500 (Form Attached are the signed appropriation forms. Agenda Item No. 13. Request to Adopt Resolution Ratifying the Filing of an Application with the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) for a Loan in a Principal Amount not to Exceed $2,835,000. ADOPTED the attached resolution (original was forwarded to Brenda on September 2, 1999). /~wc Attachments pc: Roxanne W. White Robert Walters Jackson Zimmerman Ginnie McDonald James Camblos Stephen Bowler Anne Gulati Kevin C. Castner Kathy Ralston John Miller David Hirschman APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 98~99 NUMBER 98082 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: SCHOOL/GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL DONATIONS AND GRANTS. 1 2203 I 2252 EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 61101 601300 BROWNSVILLE INST/REC SUPPLIES $17.32 61101 601300 HENLEY INST/REC SUPPLIES 17.32 1 3104 60212 601300 WOODBROOK INST/REC SUPPLIES 1,000.00 I 3102 61311 132100 TITLE VI SALARIES 6,676.00 1 3102 61311 210000 TITLE VI FICA 510.72 1 3102 61311 601300 TITLE VI INST/REC SUPPLIES 8,904.30 I 3115 63322 160300 ADULT EDUCATION SALARIES 3,465.00 1 3115 63322 210000 ADULT EDUCATION FICA 265.07 I 3115 63322 550100 ADULT EDUCATION TRAVEL 81.00 I 3115 63322 601300 ADULT EDUCATION INST/REC SUPPLIES 187.27 1 3115 63322 800100 ADULT EDUCATION EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 1 3116 63348 132100 ADULT EDUC. MINI GRANT SALARIES 5,932.61 I 3116 63348 210000 ADULT EDUC. MINI GRANT FICA 453.84 1 3116 63348 600200 ADULT EDUC. MINI GRANT FOOD SUPPLIES 16.08 1 3116 63348 601300 ADULT EDUC. MINI GRANT INST/REC SUPPLIES 62.52 1 3133 63321 132100 GENERAL ADULT EDUC. SALARIES 7,862.67 1 3133 63321 210000 GENERAL ADULT EDUC. FICA 651.33 TOTAL $ 38,103.05 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION $34.64 2 3104 18000 181232 SOUTHLAND CORP 1,000.00 2 3102 33000 330105 TITLE VI FUNDS 16,091.02 2 3115 24000 240225 ADULT EDUC. DATABASE PROJ. 5,998.34 2 3116 16000 161206 ADULT EDUC. MINI GRANT 5,423.00 2 3116 51000 510100 ADULT EDUC. MINI GRANT 1,042.05 2 3133 24000 240240 GENERAL ADULT EDUC GRANT 8,514.00 TOTAL $38,103.05 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE / DATE JUNE 30 1999 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 NUMBER 99014 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: FAMILY SUPPORT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION FROM PRIOR YEAR FUND BALANCE. CODE 1557 53150 1557 53150 1557 5315O 1557 53150 1557 53150 1557 5315O EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 312210 CONTRACT SERVICES 312700 CONSULTANTS 550400 TRAVEL-EDUCATION 800200 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT 800710 SOFTWARE $8,000.00 22,500.00 1,500,00 5,540.00 55,002.00 19,028.00 CODE 2 1557 51000 TOTAL $111,570.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 510100 FUND BALANCE $111,570.00 TOTAL $111,570.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: SOCIAL SERVICES APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE ? ? ! DATE APPROPRIATION REQU EST FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 NUMBER 99016 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: HUD .GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR HUD PUBLIC ASSISTANCE GRANTS. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1227 81920 300205 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES $98,449.00 1 1227 81920 312800 PROF. SER. AUDIT 400.00 1 1227 81920 579001 HOUSING ASSIST. PAYMENTS 890,928.00 1 1227 81921 300205 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,980.00 1 1227 81921 579001 HOUSING ASSIST. PAYMENTS 21,388.00 1 1227 81922 300205 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 38,097.00 1 1227 81922 312800 PROF. SER. AUDIT 400.00 1 1227 81922 579001 HOUSING ASSIST. PAYMENTS 439,953.00 1 1227 81922 930009 TRS. TO GEN'L FUND 40,078.00 TOTAL $1,531,673.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1227 33000 330015 SEC8-001 MOD REHABASSIT $989,777.00 2 1227 33000 330016 SEC 8-002 VOUCHER PROGRAM 23,368.00 2 1227 33000 330017 SEC 8-003 FAMILY UNIFICAT 418,528.00 2 1227 51000 510100APPROPRIATION-FUNDBAL 100,000.00 . TOTAL $1,531,673.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: HOUSING APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE · / DATE FISCAL YEAR: APPROPRIATION REQUEST 99~00 NUMBER 99017 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: MIGRANT EDUCATION CONSORTIUM GRANT. CODE 1 3103 61101 1 3103 611O1 EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 132100 MIGRANT EDUC GRANT SALARI ES $13,280.00 210000 MIGRANT EDUC GRANT FICA 1,018.00 I 9000 61101 800707 TECHNOLGY GRANT EQUIPMENT 624,000.00 1 2210 61101 135000 STONE ROBINSON PARTTIME WAGES 4,162.00 1 2210 61101 210000 STONE ROBINSON FICA 338.00 TOTAL $642,798.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 3103 33000 330102 MIGRANT EDUC GRANT $14,298.00 2 9000 24000 240265 EDUC. TECHNOLGYGRANT 624,000.00 2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION 4,500.00 TOTAL $642,798.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: SIGNATURE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ,-~'~-~ '¢ ~ ^DATE AUG. 18, 1999 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99~00 NUMBER 99018 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR COPS MORE GRANT FOR EQUIPMENT FUNDING. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1523 31010 310000 PROF. SERVICES $5,660.00 1 1523 31010 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT 16,055.00 1 1523 31010 800710 ADP SOFTVVARE 22,000.00 1 1523 3101'0 930009 TRANSFERTO GENERAL FUND 5,847.00 TOTAL $49,562.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1523 33000 330001 FEDERAL GRANT REVENUE $32,787.00 2 1523 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE 16,775.00 TOTAL $49,562,00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE ^DATE AUG. 18, 1999 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99~00 NUMBER 99019 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: DRUG ASSETS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND FEDERAL AND STATE DRUG SEIZED ASSETS. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1234 39000 580902 DRUG SEIZED ASSETS $612.52 I 1235 39000 580902 DRUG SEIZED ASSETS 33,057.25 1 1236 39000 580902 DRUG SEIZED ASSETS 4,648.99 TOTAL $38,318.76 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1234 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE $612.52 2 1235 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE 33,057.25 2 1235 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE 4,648.99 TOTAL $38,318.76 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE / ^DATE AUG. 18, 1999 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 NUMBER 99020 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR 98 LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT. CODE 1537 31013 1537 31013 EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 120000 OVERTIME WAGES $23,561.00 210000 FICA 1,802.00 CODE 2 1537 51000 TOTAL $25,363.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 510100 FUND BALANCE $25,363.00 TOTAL $25,363.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE APPROVALS: SIGNATURE DATE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 NUMBER 99021 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR 97 LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT I 1536 31013 120000 OVERTIME WAGES $4,812.00 I 1536 31013 210000 FICA 368.29 TOTAL $5,180.29 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1536 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE $5,180.29 TOTAL $5,180.29 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE APPROVALS: SIGNATURE DATE AUG. 19, 1999 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 NUMBER 99023 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR METRPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION GRANT. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION 'AMOUNT 1 1208 81201 930009 SALARIES-REGULAR $2,000.00 1 1208 81301 110000 SALARIES-REGULAR 4,622.00 1 1208 81301 350000 PRINTING & BINDING 50.00 1 1208 81301 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES 300.00 1 1208 81302 110000 SALARIES-REGULAR 16,400.00 1 1208 81302 310000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,000.00 1 1208 81302 350000 PRINTING & BINDING 474.00 1 1208 81302 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES 500.00 I 1208 81309 110000SALARIES-REGULAR 11,500.00 I 1208 81309 350000 PRINTING & BINDING 1,000.00 1 1208 81309 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES 552.00 TOTAL $42,398.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1208 24000 240500 GRANT REVENUE-STATE $4~040.00 2 1208 33000 330001 GRANT REVENUE-FEDERAL 32,318.00 2 1208 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE 2,000.00 2 1208 51000 512004 TRANSFER-GENERAL FUND 4,040.00 TOTAL $42,398.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: PLANNING APPROVALS: SIGNATURE DATE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AUG. 23, 1999 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99~00 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW YES NO X GENERAL FUNDING FOR VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY URBAN FORESTRY GRANT. 99024 EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT I 1000 41000 601302 FORESTY GRANT SUPPLIES $5,500.00 TOTAL $5,500.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1000 24000 240230 FORESTRY GRANT $5,500.00 TOTAL $5,500.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: ENGINEERING APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE AUG. 23, 1999 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #98082, in the total amount of $42,603.05, for various school donations and grants. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Castner, Breeden; Ms. White AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY'. Yes ~ ~-"'"'""'"~ BACKGROUND: At its meetings on June 14, 1999, and June 28, 1999, the School Board approved the following appropriations: Appropriation of $16,091.02. Federal funding for the Title VI Grant was increased by $2,673.00 from the original budget amount of $43,223.00. In addition, Title VI Grant funds were not fully expended in the 1997-98 fiscal year leaving a total grant balance of $13,418.02. These funds will be used to cover expenses in the 1998-99 fiscal year. Appropriation of $5,998.34. As a pilot site for the new Literacy Pro Virginia Adult Education Data System, the Albemarle Adult Education Program received additional funds. These funds were used to purchase equipment and software needed for the Pilot Project and to reimburse staff for training and extra hours worked in implementing and testing the new system. Appropriation of $6,465.05. Albemarle County Adult Basic Education received $2,423.00 from Albemarle & Charlottesville Social Services Agencies for classes to prepare their Virginia Incentive Employment to Work Program clients to pass the Virginia Ddver's License Written Examination. Funds in the amount of $3,000.00 were also received from the Saudi Arabian Consulate for an intensive Beginning English as a Second Language Class. In addition, there is a fund balance of $1,042.05 from the 1997-98 fiscal year. Appropriation of $8,514.00. The State Department of Education Office of Adult Education approved Albemarle County Schools' application for $8,514.00 in State Department of Education funding to support the General Adult Education (GED) Program. The Program provides instructional services to meet the needs of adults who are working toward a high school diploma. Appropriation of $4,500.00. Stone Robinson Elementary School received a donation from the Stone Robinson PTO in the amount of $4,500.00. The funds will be used to cover expenses for the Volunteer Coordinator position at Stone Robinson. Appropriation of $34.64. The Albemarle Education Association has donated $17.32 to Henley Middle School and $17.32 to Brownsville Elementary School. These donations came as a result of a fundraiser the AEA held with book stores in the area to donate monies for school libraries. Appropriation of $1,000.00. Woodbrook Elementary School received a grant award from the Southland Corp in the amount of $1,000.00. This program, entitled People Who Read Achieve, will fund the purchase of instructional materials to be developed into kits for students in grades K/1 - 5 to directly support the Virginia Standards of Learning and the Albemarle County Reading Curriculum. This program will help motivate students to read more and help improve their reading comprehension skills. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisor's approve the appropriations, totaling $42,603.05, as detailed on Appropriation #98082. 99.150 BOARD OF SUPER ,,:,:, :,,- ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Memorandum DATE: July 15, 1999 TO~obert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive FR~ Kevin Castner, Division Superintendent RE: Request for Appropriation At its meeting on July 12, 1999, the School Board approved the following appropriations: o Appropriation of $200.00 for Western Albemarle High School. Western Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $200.00 from Linda Girvin. This donation is be used to offset the cost of new band uniforms. o Appropriation of $1,000.00 for Yancey Elementary School. Yancey Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1,000.00 fro~ the B.F. Yancey PTA. This donation is be used to pay the salary of a school nurse for the 1999 Summer School Program. o Appropriation of $795.19 for Murray Elementary School. Murray Elementary School received donations in the amount of $795.19. Foundation Advisers donated $500.00, Brian & Jean Wheeler donated $250.00, and Kathy & Stephen Thornton donated $45.19. These donations will be used for miscellaneous supplies, instructional supplies, and data processing supplies. It is requested that the Board of Supervisors amend the appropriation ordinance to receive and disburse these funds as displayed on the attachment. sram xc: Melvin Breeden Ella Carey BOARD SUPERVI .... Request July 15, Page 2 for Appropriation 199 1998-99 Appropriation Donation-Western Albemarle High School Revenue 2-2000-18100-181109 Donation $200.00 Expenditures 1-2302-61101-601300 Instructional Supplies $200.00 1999-00 Appropriation Donation to Yancey Elementary School Revenue 2-3310-18000-189900 Expenditures 1-3310-61120-133100 -210000 Donation Part-time Wages-Nurse FICA $1,000.00 $923.50 $76.50 SI,000.00 Donation-Murray Elementary School Revenue 2-2000-18100-181109 Expenditures: 1-2215-61411-580000 -601300 -601600 Donation Miscellaneous Expense Inst/Rec Supplies Data Processing Supplies $795.19 $250.00 $250.00 $295.19 $795.19 [8O4) 823-43~4 FAX (804) 823-5~2~ Western 5941 ROCKFISH GAP TURNPIKE CROZET, VIRGINIA 22932 TO: FROM: DATE: Sandy Morris, Fiscal Services Anne Coughlia, Principal V June 22, 1999 Attached is a check in the amount of $200.00. Please deposit this into 1-2302-61101- 601300. The check is from a parent to offset the cost of the new band uniforms. Thank you and let me know if you have any questions. /lb .1fA The 1998-1999 PTA, in conjunction with the 1999-2000 PTA at B. F. Yancey, is happy to present this check for one thousand dollars to you to be .used to pay the salary of a School Nurse for the 1999 summer school program. We believe that a School Nurse is vital to the health and well being of students at school and are glad we can help to provide one for Yancey Elementary's needs. .Sincerely, ~arcia L. Grove- 1998-1999 President B. J. Per, ins- 1999,2000 President bate: ,Tune 16, 1999 Listed below are donations received at Virginia L. Murray Elementary. Foundation Advisers, 2405 Ivy Rood, Ch'villa, Va. 22903 $500.00 (Company matched Thomas & Barbara Felker's donation Their adddress is 3980 William Court, Ch'villa, Va. 22903 Brian & ,Tean Wheeler, 89 Langford Place, Ch'villa, Va. 22903 $250.00 Kathy & Stephen Thornton, 100 Bedford Place, Ch'villa, Va., 22903 $45.19 (refund from car tax) Please apply these donations to - 1-2215-61101-601300 1-2215-61101-601600 1-2215-61411-580000 $250.00 (I:nstructional) $250.00 (Data Processing) $295.19 (Miscellaneous) COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Memorandum DATE: _August'2, 1999 TO:/~t W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive I,II1 FR~ ~ln Castner, Division Superintendent ~ IZ.'" f RE.''-~Re~uest for Appropriation At its meeting on June 14, 1999, the School Board approved the following appropriations: o Appropriation of $16,091.02. Federal funding for the Title VI Grant was increased by $2,673.00 from the original budget amount of $43,223.00. In addition, Title VI Grant funds were not fully expended in the 1997-98 fiscal year leaving a total grant balance of $13,418.02. These funds will be used to cover expanses in the 1998-99 fiscal year. o Appropriation of $5,998.34. As a pilot site for the new Literacy Pro Virginia Adult Education Data System, the Albemarle Adult Education Program received additional funds. These funds were used to purchase equipment and software needed for the Pilot Project and to reimburse staff for training and extra hours worked in implementing and testing the new system. o ApproprSation of $14,298.0~. Virginia Migrant'Education received additional Incentive Grant Funds from the Office of Migrant Education. · The Ablemarle County Regional Migrant Education P~cogram received extra funds from this grant to increase direct tutorial instruction for eligible Migrant Students. o Appropriation of $6,465.05. Albemarle County Adult Basic Education received $2.,423.00 from Albemarle & Charlottesville Social Services Agencies for classes to prepare their Virginia Incentive Employment to Work Program clients to pass the Virginia Driver's License Written Examination. Funds in the amount of $3,000.00 were also received from the Saudi Arabian ConsUlate for an intensive Beginning English as a Second Language Class. In addition, there is a fund balance of $1,042.05 from the 1997-98 fiscal year. o Appropriation of $8,514.00. The State Department' of Education Office of Adult Education approved Albemarle County Schools' application for $8,514.00 in State Department of Education funding to support the General Adult Education (GAE) Program. The Program provides instructional services to meet the needs of adults who are working toward a high school diploma. Request for Appropriation Page 2 o Appropriation of $624,000.00. Chapter 935, 1999 Virginia Acts of assembly (the 1998-2000 Appropriation Act) authorizes the Virginia Public School Authority to conduct an education technology grant program in the spring of the year 2000. The primary purpose of this educational technology grant program is to provide for (1) networking, retrofitting, and upgrade of school buildings, (2) netWork-ready multimedia microcomputer for classrooms, and (3) network-ready microcomputers for student use. ~lbemarle County meets or exceeds the minimum requirements necesbary to receive funds. For participation in the Spring 2000 Technology Grant Program~ localities are required to provide a match equal to 20 percent of all grant amounts (the total of grant amounts for components a through d). At least 25 percent of the local match shall be used for teacher training in the use of technology. The local match is provided by funds already alloca~ted to CIP technology expenditures and operational funds already in the school budget. This grant will be coordinated with other CIP.~chnology projects as indicated in the Albemarle County Schools Comprehensive Technology Plan for 1998-2003 adopted by the School Board on December 14, 1998. It is requested that the Board of Supervisors amend~the appropriation ordinance to receive and disbursed these funds as display, ed on the attachment. smm xc: Melvin Breeden Ella Carey , P~e 3 Revenue: 2-3102-33000-330105 2-3102-51000-510100 Expenditure: 1-3102-61311-132100 -210000 -601300 1998-99 APPROPRIATION Additional Title VI Funds Additional Title VI Funds Appropriation Fund Balance Salaries FICA Ed & Rec Supplies Adult Revenue: 2-3115-24000-240225 Expenditure: 1-3115-63322-160300 -210000 -550100 -601300 -800100 Education Database Pilot Project Adult Ed Database Pilot Salaries FICA Travel Ed/Rec Supplies Equipment Project Miqrant Revenue: 2-3103-33000-330102 Expenditure: 1-3103-61101-132100 -210000 Education Consortium Grant Migrant Ed Salaries FICA Consortium Grant Revenue: 2-3116-16000-161206 2-3116-51000-510100 Expenditure: 1-3116-63348-132100 -210000 -600200 -601300 Adult Education Mini Grants Tuition-Adult Ed Appropriation Fund Balance Teacher Wages FICA Food Supplies Ed/Rec Supplies $ 2,673.00 $13,418.02 $16,091.02 $ 6,676.00 $510.72 $ 8,904.30 $16,091.02 $5,998.34 $3,465.00 $265.07 $81.00 $187.27 $2,000.00 $5,998.34 $14,298.00 $13,280.00 $1,018.00 $14,298.00 $5,423.00 $1,042.05 $6,465.05 $5,932.61 $453.84 $16.08 $62.52 $6,465.05 General Adult Education Grant Revenue: 2-3133-24000-240240 Expenditure: 1-3133-63321-132100 -210000 General Adult Ed Grant Salaries-Other Manager FICA $8,514.00 $7,862.67 $651.33 $8,514.00 . P~_~e 4 1999-2000 APPROPRIATION Department of Education Technology Grant Revenue: 2-9000-24000-240265 Expenditure: 1-9000-61101-800707 Dept of Ed. Technology Grant Technology Grant-Equipment $624,000.00 $624,000.00 Jack Jouett Middle School Parent Teacher Organization 2065 Lamb Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 August 16, 1999 Charles S. Martin Chair Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re~ Request for Funding for School-Related Activity: Middle School "Yeung Ach'levers" Program Dear Mr. Martin, On behalf of the Jack Jouett Parent Teacher Organization and at the direction of the Albemarle County School Board, we request $10,000 to $15,000 for a new program for middle schoolers during the afternoons after the end of the normal school day. We hope you agree that the YMCA's Young Achiever program is an important benefit to Albemarle County middle school students and has the possibility to enhance the students' instruction and academic experiences while providing them a continuation of the school environment with adult supervision. When the past Middle School After School Enrichment Program was eliminated at the April 1999 School Board work session, the recommendation included was for parents and staff to work with their individual schools to set up new programs. The Jack Jouett PTO has done so with the support and approval of the principal, Russel Jarrett and the support of the YMCA. Other principals have been contacted at Burley and Walton to consider such a program. As the School Board's decision was made after the budget process, this request was not made during the normal 1999 budget cycle. Middle School students need mentoring, tutoring, role modeling, community service opportunities, planned activities, physical activity, goal setting and accomplishments. The YMCA is a known organization in this county. Mr. Harold Boyd the director of this program has successful run and continues to successfully run programs for middle school age children. The program has a proven curriculum used by the YMCA in numerous other communities of the United States. Some of the programs are over twenty-five years old. The national director has offered to come to meet with you or the school board if that is needed. We have initial budgets for three different enrollment projections and plan for the program to be revenue-expenditure neutral if the school facilities are available to the program to use as a school activity. Though we know that the start up of programs have additional expenditures and unexpected challenges, as well as we want other middle schools to join the program, therefore we will dealing with start up and expansion at the same time. Lastly, we want all middle schoolers to be able to attend so we would like to use funds for scholarships for full or reduced fees for free- lunch students. Concerning the long-term funding implications, we anticipate there will be initial start up costs at each school and on-going needs for reduced fees and scholarships for the program: As we gain experience, we will be able to predict more accurately the exact costs. We are making this request to endure the success of the Young Achievers Program for the success of the students, the schools and their families. We request you seriously consider the attached resolution for assisting a strong program to start in the fall of 1999. Plans are to start the program in the Jack Jouett and to open the enrollment to other Middle School students in the county. We hope that this program will be a model for the other middle schools and that they will follow. Si.ncerely'~ ~~{ Ball~rd Hoffman 112 Middlesex Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 CC: JOhn E. Baker, School Board Chairman Kevin C. Castner, Superintendent of Albemarle Schools Cheryl Wetmore-Simpson, Jack Jouett PTO President Russel L. Jarrett, Jack Jouett Principal RESOLUTION YMCA Young Achievers Program for Middle Schools in Albemarle County Whereas, the YMCA, a local non-profit organization, is establishing a Young Achievers program; Whereas, Young Achievers program has a successful curriculum proven in numerous other YMCA communities throughout the United States with some of the programs over twenty-five years old; Whereas, Mr. Harold Boyd, the director of the YMCA Young Achievers program has successful run and continues to successfully run programs for middle school age children; Whereas, middle school students need mentoring, tutoring, goal setting, role modeling, counseling and planned activities and accomplishments; Whereas, the Albemarle County Park and Recreation program is on limited days during the school year and not all students will participate in sports; Whereas, Middle School years are a difficult and critical time in the development of most individuals; Whereas, the majority of students have one or more parents working or occupied between 3:45 PM and 6 PM; Whereas, the safety, well-being and success of each child is a concern for this community and research shows that middle schoolers benefit from being involved and having adults present, while conversely, unsupervised middle schoolers are more likely to be enticed or inclined to get into trouble; Therefore be it resolved, the Albemarle County School Board Reserve may contribute $15,000 for the YMCA Young Achievers Program to be in one or more county middle schools starting in the Fall 1999. Charles S. Martin, Chairman August 18, 1999 AUG,-1J'99(F~I) 16:23 UVA DEAN ARTS & SCI TEL:804 924 1~17 P,'O02 AL~~ COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Offic~ of d~ $~ool Bo~rcl 401 Mc. lnti~ l~md Charlotto~vi[l~. Vi~,tia 22902~4596 June 25, 1999 Kobby Hoffm~ lack $oueit Middle School Parent-Teacher Organization 210 Lambs Lane Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ms. I-].offman: Thank you for making a presentation a~ the June 14 Board meeting requesting funding for the YMCA Young Achievers Program. Atiaehed for your information is the protocol for the School Board in considering such requesm, Please be advised that your requea is beinl~, proce~ed according to the protocol. Note that Paragraph 3B recommends that the request be made directly to the Board of Supervisors. You may expect to hear from the School Board by the Augu~ 9. 1999 meeting, Thank you for your intcr~st in our schools. Sincerely, IEB/mme cc: Albemarle County School Board Kevin C. Castner, Superintendent Bnclo~ure "We F~ect AUG.-13' 99(F,.RI 16:24 UVA DEAN ARTS & SCI TEL:S04 924 1317 P 005 STAFF/BO __ARD PROCEDURES and PR._OTOCOL~ APPROPRIATIONS FROM ~ $CIt00L BOARD RESERVE l, School Board Reserve The Albemarle County School Board Reserve is eslablished, each budget cycle, u th~ sole operational reserve, which ii uadegi~natsd for specific pro/ram use. This undesi/nated reserve may scrve as a sowcc of ftmdir~ tlmt gives the Board flcxfvility 1o continue or implement programs that are not identified in the approved Aan~ Operating Budget. This reserve may also be u 'tflized to meet unexpected expenses beylmd the ability of an/ndividual program to fund ~r beyond the abiliD' of thc Su~rintcndent to reallocate resources wit.hour impacting the operation of other School Board approved pro,:ams. 2. Criteria New programs must be essential to the delivery ofinsiruction and/or the benefit of Albemarle County students. These pro/ranis must also be consistent with the Mission and Goals of the Albemarle County Public Schools. A request for funding of an unexpected expense must first be approved by the Superintendent. Requests must delail the spcoific reasons for the unexpected expenses and s~oagly j~tify the ~lditional funding '~,equlrcmca~s, The amount of the reserve is d~tcrn4incd during lhe development of the Annual Operating Bud~t 3. Internal and External Requests Requests for and thc allocation ofrc~cr~ funds must mcct thc following proccdvrcs: A, Internal Requests)[nehding the School Board The Superintendent and/or designees may offer recommendations ;o the Board to allocate reserve ftmds using the criteria listc'd in No. 2. All recommendations generated by staffmust be · pproved by the Superinlendem prior to prcscnU~tion to the School Board. School Board members may elso offer ~'ccommauchtions to the Board as a corporate body. The request presented to the Board may be a one-pa~c memorandum to the School Board Chair, or the Board mcrnber may bring up the request durin~ a r~gu.lar meeting undcr ~ agenda item of"Other Business by Board Members," Ifa nu~ority of the Board approves the requested concept, then the Beard member will be asked to prepare a one-pa~e memoraruium for consideralion a~ ~ nexl regular Board meedng (see No. 4, School Board Scheduling Request) or at a later cl~te as determined by Board in consultation with ~ Stuff, as an at~achmcnt to the one-page memorandum, should detail any opcr~tional or policy difficullies associated with the request and make i~s recommendation regardiu~ funding of the request or modification afthe request. Public commcm va'll be takcn ~t ~hc lime that the request i~ presented. After public ~stimony, the Board may ~gce the followin8 ~ctions: AUGo-l~'99(F~]) 16:24 UVA DEAN ARTS & SGI TEL:804 924 1~17 P 004 Psge 2 (1) Approve/not ~pprove t.~ fiutdin~ request. (2) Defer a decision ~o a later date. (:~) l%cqucs~ additional suppot~g documentation to j,,s~ify the request ~nd then resohedule the issue on the Board's a$cnda at a later date for action. B. Exler~tal Requests AFocm~lc Coun~ Public Schools' advisory councils, community or~uizations, or the public at large may offer recommendations to the Board to allocate reserve funds using the criteria listed in No. 2. Howcvcr, r. be Bom'd does not have the legal authority to make donations or gifts to outside organizafioas. Sheuk~ say o~ganL~tio~ or similar group wish to nmk~ a request for funding for a school-related activity, the proper procedure is to advise the School Boari o~ the reques~ but to init/ate the request di~ectly to the Albemarle County Board of' Supervmors. I.f thc School Board is supportive of thc request, it may inform the Board of Supervisors prior to the letter's consideration of the fm~i,,g request 4. School Bom'd Scheduliag of Request A request presented to the Board mus~ be made in ~e form o£ one-page memorandum ~o thc Superintendent for inclusion a~ an agenda item at a Board work session. The memorandum must include the followin~ infommtion: a. The name andpurpose of the request. b. Thc rationale for fupdi,,.~ outsid~ the normal budget year. c. The relevance to lhe criteria above. d. The amo~mt requested and long. m~n f~dins/replications (ma~ching funds, ~aut% recun-/ng expense, one-t/me fund/nl, etc.) c. The impact on the School D/vision if not f~nded. The School Board Chaimma and Sup~ent, in consultation with staff, will dctc~,~'~ine tithe request m~:ts thc criteria established in No. 2 and if the request is worthy of consideration by the entire School Board. Should the request mcct thc criteria and bc considered worthy by both the School Board Chair~,-~ and the Superintendent, staffwill analyze this request and a rmffrecommcndation re~rding the request will be presented to the School Board Chair Should the request not meet the requirements listed in the criteria or not worthy of cousideration, a letter will be drafted and si/laed by the School Board C-'hainnm which briefly explains the School Board's policy or expectations in this area. The Schoot Board will be notified of any decision within seven days. S, School Board Consideration The request and staff's recommendation will be considered at a Board work seshon where consensus must be reached before the request appears as an action iron at the next rc~lar Board meeting. Public commit will be taken at that time. Alter public tesiimony, the Board may take one of the following a, Approve/not apixove the fimding rcq~st. b, Defer a decision to a later date, c, l~eques~ additional supporting documentation to justify the request and then reschcdulc thc issue on the Board's a$cr!da at a later date for action. AUG,-1J'99,(F~I) 16:2¢ UVA DEAN ARTS & SGI TEL:804 924 1217 P, O0$ 6. School Beard Follow-up Once tt~ Board takes action on an cxtcmal reque~ lilc School Board Chair will respond in wri~ to the individual or orgenizel~on making ~© rc~uest about thc Board's decision, The Board may ask School Division staffto provide follow-up if a request is funded. Follow- up may include periodic upda~cs ~o d~e School Board in wri~tr~ or in repor~ scheduled on ~ School Board a~en~la, as well as requests to amend th~ appropriation m~nmlce as needed. Adopted: April [2, 1999 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Family Support Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #99014 in the amount of $111,570 for the Family Support Program. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Ralston AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes The County's Family Support program administered by the Department of Social Services places family workers in the elementary schools to provide early intervention case management, counseling and assistance to children and their families. The program is 100% funded with Federal IV-E funds, which are leveraged by our local dollar expenditures for foster care related prevention services. DISCUSSION: In FY99, the County was able to leverage additional IV-E funds using County, as well as City prevention service expenditures. Since community prevention program expenditures were being used to leverage funds for the Family Support program, the Department of Social Services offered the additional federal dollars to the participating agencies for one-time needs they identified. The four agencies involved are the Health Department, Children, Youth and Family Services, the Commission on Children and Families and the Juvenile Assessment Center. One-time items being purchased include computer equipment and software, as well as some limited furniture and travel. Some of the funding will be used to help the Commission implement an outcome based funding framework for community agencies with a focus on performance measurement and a new reporting process. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #99014 in the amount of $111,570. The fund balance on the attached appropriation form refers to the fund balance in the separate Family Support Fund. There are no local dollars in this appropriation. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 99.165 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - HUD Section 8 Housing Assistance SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation 99016 in the amount of $1,531,673.00. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters, Mss. White, McDonald AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes BACKGROUND: The Section 8 Housing Program is an ongoing rental assistance program offered by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Section 8-001 program provides housing assistance with 178 subsidies. Program 8-001 is funded through June 2002. The Section 8-002 program provides 34 housing vouchers. The Section 8-003 program provides housing assistance for 34 units. The federal government will merge section 8-002 into section 8-003 during the current fiscal year. DISCUSSION: The final amount of the Federal HUD grant will be determined by the final amount of assistance rendered to residents. Fund balance will be used for current programs. It is estimated that grant 8-001 should be approximately $989,777.00, grant 8-002 approximately $23,368.00, grant 8-003 approximately $418,528.00, and fund balance approximately $100,000.00 for a combined total of $1,531,673.00. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of appropriation 99016 in the amount of $1,531,673.00. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - School Division Appropriations SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation 99017 in the amount of $638,298.00 for a Migrant Education Grant and an Education Technology Grant STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Castner, Breeden; Ms. White AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ~~ BACKGROUND: At its meeting on June 14, 1999, the School Board approved the following appropriations: Appropriation of $14,298.00. Virginia Migrant Education received additional Incentive Grant Funds from the Office of Migrant Education. The Albemarle County Regional Migrant Education Program received extra funds from this grant to increase direct tutorial instruction for eligible Migrant Students. Appropriation of $624,000.00. Chapter 935, 1999 Virginia Acts of Assembly (the 1998-2000 Appropriation Act) authorizes the Virginia Public School Authority to conduct an education technology grant program in the spring of the year 2000. The primary purpose of this educational technology grant program is~to provide for (1) networking, retrofitting, and upgrade of school buildings, (2) network-ready multimedia microcomputer for classrooms, and (3) network-ready microcomputers for student use. Albemarle County meets or exceeds the minimum requirements necessary to receive funds. For participation in the Spring 2000 Technology Grant Program, localities are required to provide a match equal to 20 percent of all grant amounts (the total of grant amounts for components a through d). At least 25 percent of the local match shall be used for teacher training in the use of technology. The local match is provided by funds already allocated to CIP technology expenditures and operational funds already in the school budget. This grant will be coordinated with other CIP technology projects as indicated in the Albemarle County Schools Comprehensive Technology Plan for 1998-2003 adopted by the School Board on December 14, 1998. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations, totaling $638,298.00, as detailed on Appropriation #99017. "' /- :5'd BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 99.149 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation 99018 in the amount of $49,562.00 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Miller, Breeden, Walters; Ms. White AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: × INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes BACKGROUND: The COPS MORE 96 grant was approved for the period June 1, 1997 through June 30, 1999. This appropriation requests expenditure approval for the balance of the grant period through November 30, 1999. The grant was originally approved to provide a digital mug shot imaging system and five computer workstations for officers. The mug shot imaging system will allow photographs to be captured and stored electronically. The officer workstations will upgrade older equipment so officers will have full access to the records management system. DISCUSSION: The remaining federal grant is $32,787.00. The local match was transferred in 1997/98. There is no local match remaining to be transferred. Excess local funds will be returned to the general fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of appropriation 99018 in the amount of $49,562.00. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Federal and State Drug Seized Assets SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation 99019 in the amount of $38,318.76. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters, Miller, Camblos, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: IN FORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: Periodically, the County receives revenues for assets seized in federal and state drug enforcement actions. proceeds are utilized for additional law enforcement activities. The DISCUSSION: This appropriation requests approval of the receipts and expenditures for federal and state drug seized assets for the period July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000 and fund balance from prior years. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of appropriation 99019 in the amount of $38,318.76. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 99.153 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Local Law Enforcement Block Grant- FY 98 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation 99020 in the amount of $25,363.00. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters, Miller, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: The Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program Was authorized by the US Omnibus Fiscal Year 1998 Appropriations Act for the purpose of providing units of local government with funds to underwrite projects to reduce crime and improve public safety. This grant will be used to fund overtime for a police officer in the Esmont area. This is the second year of the grant. DISCUSSION: The federal revenues were received in a previous fiscal year. The local match was transferred in a previous fiscal year. There is a fund balance of $25,363.00 to fund current year operations. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of appropriation 99020 in the amount of $25,363.00. BOARD ,OF SUPERVISORS 99.155 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Local Law Enforcement Block Grant- FY 97 SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation 99021 in the amount of $5,180.29 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters, Miller, Ms. White BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ACTION: ITEM NUMBERr INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATI'ACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ~~'~/"'""'~ / The Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program was authorized by the US Omnibus Fiscal Year 1997 Appropriations Act for the purpose of providing units of local government with funds to underwrite projects to reduce crime and improve public safety. This grant will be used to fund overtime for a police officer in the Esmont area. The grant extends through September 30, 1999. DISCUSSION: The federal award has been received in the previous fiscal year. The local match has been transferred in the previous fiscal year. There is a remaining fund balance of $5,180.29 for operations through September 30, 1999. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of appropriation 99021 in the amount of $5,180.29. BOARD OF' SUPERVISORS 99.154 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization Grant SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Request approval of Appropriation 99023 in the amount of $42,398.00. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters, Cilimberg, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: The 1999/2000 Unified Planning Work Program was prepared by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission for the Charlottesville Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization. The program includes transportation studies and,ongoing planning activities, including a Transportation Improvement Program that lists road and transit improvement for the upcoming three years, and the 20-year Charlottesville Area Transportation study updated every five years. Other activities address traffic congestion reduction, city-county bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and public-private transit development. DISCUSSION: The work to be performed by the County of Albemarle will be funded by a $32,318.00 Federal Grant, a $4,040.00 State Grant, and a $4,040.00 transfer from the Planning Department's approved Budget. Unutilized prior year local matches resulted in a fund balance of $2,000.00 which will be returned to the general fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Appropriation 99023 in the amount of $42,398.00. 99.160 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF .gLBE E MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: David Hirschman, Water Resources Official Ella W. Carey, CMC, 4~,~.~ ~/~ September 13, 1999 "Living With Water" Grant At its meeting on September 1, 1999 the Board of Supervisors authorized the County Executive to accept the "Living With Water" Grant and sign all required documentation. At the conclusion of this grant, the Board would like to receive a report on what it has accomplished. /ew~ CC: Stephen Bowler Bill Mawyer COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Approp dation -"Living With Water" Grant SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of the grant and approve Appropriation #99024 in the amount of $5,500. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Mawyer, Bowler, Hirschman AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: X ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: IN FORMATION: IN FORMATION: Dept. of Forestry letter dated 7/27/99 BACKGROUND: The Water Resources group of the Engineering department applied for a federally funded grant through the Virginia Department of Forestry in June of this year. An "Urban Forestry" grant from the Department of Forestry for a program entitled "Living With Water: Riparian Protection Ideas for Homeowners", has been approved in the amount of $5,500. The County, and its partners in the grant - the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District, Rivanna Rowing Center, and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority - are required to provide a 100% match to the grant award. Our contribution to "match" the grant will be in the salaries of our Watershed Manager and our Water Resources Manager as well as from donated volunteer hours, rather than new expenditures. An appropriation of $5,500 is needed to create a "cost center" from which the County can finance the program until invoicing the Department of Forestry on a quarterly basis. The County will be reimbursed for the entire $5,500. DISCUSSION: The project will take an educational approach to help achieve the stream buffer goals set forth in the Water Protection Ordinance. Riparian homeowners in Albemarle County will learn of the importance of maintaining and restoring healthy, vegetated riparian buffers along streams, rivers, and reservoirs and become familiar with techniques and materials for doing so. Activities sponsored by the grant will include: · Development and distribution of an educational packet with an explanation of County buffer policies and good buffer maintenance practices · A demonstration planting along the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir at the Rivanna Rowing Center which will be followed by a public educational event to highlight the demonstration planting. The effort will begin in September and conclude in May of next year. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the County Executive to accept the grant and sign all required documentation and approve ApDro~)daJ, io_n~99024 in the amount of $5,500. No local funds are req hired for this appropriation. BOARD OF SUPERVI$(JR JAMES W. GARNER Sra.," Fores~e~ COMMONWEALTH o{ VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY Fontaine Research Park 900 Natural Resources Drive Post Office Box 3758 Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-0758 July 27, 1999 804-977-6555 (V/TDD) FAX 804-296-2369 Mr. Stephen Bowler Albemarle County Dept. of Engineering and Public Works 401 Mclntire Road, Room 211 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Bowler: On behalf of the Virginia Department of Forest~, the U. S. Forest Service, and the Southern Group of State Foresters, it is my pleasure to notify you that a grant of $5,500.00 has been awarded to Albemarle County for its Living With Water: Riparian Protection Ideas for ltomeowners proposal. This award represents a partial award of your original request. Your project has been assigned the code 99UCF53 which should be used in future correspondence. Your organization is to be commended for taking advantage of this program to enhance urban forestry efforts in your community or organization. Enclosed is a package containing paperwork required to activate the grant. Please fiH out these forms and return within 30 days of the date of this letter. If your paperwork is not received in this time period, funds will be awarded to another project (we will allow an extension if you notify us with a valid reason for the delay). Also enclosed is a package containing the forms (Request for Reimbursement) that must be submitted robe reimbursed for project expenses, Please read the instructions provided for completing these forms. Also please read page 3-section 14 of'the Memorandum of Agreement document that describes your record keeping and expense documentation responsibilities. We cannot reimburse your organization for expenses without proper expense documentation! All of the enclosed paperwork and future correspondence regarding your grant project should be directed to: U & CF Program, c/o Department of Forestry, P. O. Box 3758, Charlottesville Virginia 22903. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please feel free to contact me at (804) 977-6555. Congratulations on your grant award. I wish you every success in the implementation of your project. Sincerely, Paul F. Revell Urban Forestry Coordinator COUNTY OI ALBEMARI,E MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Tex Weaver Ella W. Carey, CMC, ~j~g/ September 13, 1999 Road Name Change Request At its meeting on September 1, 1999 the Board of Supervisors approved the road name change of Cleveland Lane to Roseland Farm, at the request of the landowners. The Board also granted staffthe authority to coordinate/implement this change. /ewc CCi Wayne Cilimberg Tom Foley COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Road Name Change SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Road Name Change Request STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Weaver AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes BACKGROUND: Staff has completed the road name change phase of the Enhanced 911 implementation Project in accordance with the Board's road name change policy. The Board's policy states that after this phase of the project has been completed, no further changes to road names would be permitted without Board approval. Staff has been made aware of a situation for which a road name change should be further considered. DISCUSSION: Request to change the name of Cleveland Lane to Roseland Farm at the request of the landowners, Mr. and Mrs. David L. King (see attached letter). The farm name has been changed to Roseland Farm. A map indicating the location of this road is also attached. The property owner will be responsible for costs associated with new signage. RECOMMENDATION: ShoUld the Board approve the new road name as requested, the Board should grant staff the authority to coordinate/implement the above referenced change. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 99,156 Mr. and Mrs. David L. King 780 Half Mile Branch Road Crozet, Virginia 22932 (804) 823-2966 Fax (804) 823-5867 July 22, 1999 Mr. Damon Pettit Department of Planning and Community Development County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Re: Readdress of Cleveland Lane Dear Mr. Pettit: Last Friday I met with you regarding a request for a readdress of Cleveland Lane. As you may remember, Cleveland Lane is totally within the boundaries of our farm which we call "Roseland". Our farm sign'is located at the entrance to the farm, which is the intersection of Cleveland Lane and Half Mile Branch Road and reads "Roseland, Private". It can be seen from either lane of Half Mile Branch Road. Although Cleveland Lane dead ends inside the farm, many people seem to believe that it either loops back to Half Mile Branch Road or even somehow ends up in Greenwood or Yancey Mills. As a result, we often have cars wandering through at all times of the day and night. Additionally, the mailing address for all three houses on the farm is 780 Half Mile Branch Road, which unfortunately is not in the correct sequence on Half Mile Branch. This aggravates the problem for delivery people and the like. We have also recently established a vineyard on the farm which will be known by the "Roseland" name and as a result, we hope that a readdress would help aleviate any confusion for this purpose as well. Please accept this letter as our petition for a readdress of Cleveland Lane to "Roseland Farm, Private" and feel free to call me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, David L King I ~._ 1 ROTHWELL LN W~ T~'R ! // ~"~ YANCEY ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WE~EK WHYS, for the past 18years, the Albemarle County Fair bas entertained tens of thousands of guests during its annual production; and 'the Albemarle County Fair is unique in many ~vays, founded by a group of community spirited people ~vbo ~vanted something special for their neighbors and friends to enjoy and enrich tiwir lives. The theme Ires abvays empkasize~l the County's agricultural and forestal heritage; and the Albemarle County Fair is a non-profit corporation operated by dedicated volunteers, officers and directors; and the Albemarle Coun~ Fair offers an atmosphere conducive to families and their children. A frlou~, safe, carefree atmosphere is the hallmark of the event. Unique in the state in that all food and drink is sold by local non-profit organizations as an opportunity for them to raise monies for their worth~vhile programs; and the Albemarle Canmfy Fair supports agricultural and rural lifestyles, offers exhibits of home-art skills, crops, large livestock, small livestock and poultry, ~vith competitions in livestock and numerous other farm skills, and nightly entertainment for all to enjoy; NOW, THEREFORE, L Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proelaim the week of AUGUST 31, 1999 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 5, 1999 ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK and urge all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activi~ and programs sponsored and supported by the more than 300 volunteers, public and area. businesses. CHAIRMAN ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS David R Ek~verman Charlotte Y. Humphris Forrest R. Mamhall, Jr. COUNTY OF Al REMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclniire Road Charlottesville, V'n~inia (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 September 13, 1999 Chades S. Martin Walter E Perkins lk~te I-bll Sally H. Thomas $amuel Miller Mr. Rex Hammond President Lynchburg Chamber of Commerce PO Box 2027 Lynchburg, VA 2450 i Dear Mr. Hammond: At its meeting on September 1, 1999, the Board of Supervisors adopted reaffirmed its support of passenger rail service from Washington, DC, and Richmond, Virginia, areas to Bristol, Virginia. Enclosed is a resolution adopted by the Board. If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincere!y, ~'('"~ila w. Carey, CMC, Cl,e/k /EWC CC: The Honorable Emily Couric The Honorable Mitchell VanYahres The Honorable Paul Harris Roy I. Lloyd, Jr., City Clerk, City of Radford Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphris ,lad~ Jouett COUNTY OF ALBEMAIqI_E Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclnt/re Road Charloffeswille, ~Fn~inia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 September 13, 1999 Charles S. Martin Waiter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas Mr. Roy I. Lloyd, Ir., City Clerk City of Radford 619 Second Street Radford, VA 24141 Dear Mr. Lloyd: At its meeting on September I, 1999, the Board of Supervisors adopted reaffirmed its support of passenger rail service from Washington, DC, and Richmond, Virginia, areas to Bristol, Virginia. Enclosed is a resolution adopted by the Board. If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. /EWC Enclosure Printed on recycled paper David lq. Bowerman Chmlotte Y. Humphris Forrest R. MambO, Jr. COUNTY OF AL13EMA~I F. Offi~ of Bo~d of Supen~m 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, V~rginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5848 FAX (804) 296-5800 September 13, 1999 Charles S. Martin Walter E l~rkim Sally H. Thomas The Honorable Emily Couric Senator PO Box 5462 Charlottesville, VA 22905 Dear Senator Couric:: At its meeting on September 1, 1999, the Board of Supervisors adopted reaffirmed its support of passenger rail service from Washington, DC, and Richmond, Virginia, areas to Bristol, Virginia. Enclosed is a resolution adopted by the Board. If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. /EWC Since, rely, .-;i ! "-''~ i/?'i ~!. ¢'~; 5....i. -" F~llh W. Carey, CMC, ~lerk Enclosure Printed on recycled paper Chafiott~ Y, Humpl'~ J~k Jo~tt Fonmt R. M~h~ll, & COUNTY OF' Office of Board 'of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlott~m,'ille, V~'~inia 22902-4596 (804) 2965843 FAX (804) 2965800 September 13, 1999 Charles &Martin Walter E Pefidns ~ H. Thomas The Honorable Mitchell Van Yahres Delegate - 57th District 223 West Main Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Delegate Van Yahres: At its meeting on September 1, 1999, the Board of Supervisors adopted reaffirmed its support of passenger rail service from Washington, DC, and Richmond, Virginia, areas to Bristol, Virginia. Enclosed is a resolution adopted by the Board. If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. /EWC Sincerely, "Ella W. Carey,~t~,MC, 7erk / Enclosure Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphfis Formst R. Ma~hall, Jn COUNTY OF Al _REMA~I F_ Office of Board of Supe~sors 401 Mclnfim Road Charlottesville, Vaginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 September 13, 1999 Chmtes S. Martin W~e~ E Perkins Sally H. Thomas The Honorable Paul C. Harris Delegate - 58~ District 100 Court Square Annex, Suite B Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Delegate Harris: At its meeting on September 1, 1999, the Board of Supervisors adopted reaffirmed its support of passenger rail service from Washington, DC, and Richmond, Virginia, areas to Bristol, Virginia. £ndosed is a resolution adopted by the Board. If you need any additional information, please do not hhsitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, / .. / / ~--/'" _~ / / -L.Ellh W. Carey, C Clerk /EWC Enclosure Printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the feasibility of expanded passenger rail service from the Washington, DC, and Richmond, Virginia, areas to Bristol, Virginia, has been studied and documented by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation; and WHEREAS, this passenger rail service would provide an attractive transportation alternative that could lead to economic, tourism, environmental and other social benefits; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors believes this passenger rail service is both cost-effective and consistent with a well-planned, multi-modal transportation system in the Commonwealth of Virginia; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, reaffirms its support and endorsement for the provision of passenger rail service from the Washington, DC, and Richmond, Virginia, areas to Bristol, Virginia; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors encourages the implementation of this rail service and pledges its assistance to the Commonwealth of Virginia in implementing said service. 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 by a vote of 6 to 0 on September 1, 1999. . ~ei'k, Board of~up~,.D~sors ? COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUM MARY AGENDA TITLE: Resolution regarding the expansion of rail service from Bristol, VA to Richmond and Washington SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Adoption of the enclosed resolution STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes /, BACKGROUND: The enclosed letter regarding the expansion of rail service in Virginia and a meeting scheduled in October is provided for your information. In addition, the letter encourages the Board's adoption of the attached resolution supporting expanded rail service from Bristol, VA to Richmond and Washington D.C. DISCUSSION: If the Board should choose to support the enclosed resolution, it will be adopted with your approval of the consent agenda. 99.162 ~3()ARD OF SUPERVISORS C. batvb, OF. Cowo e ce August 13, 1999 Dear Community Leader: I am pleased to report that the Leadership Forum on July 12 at LynchburE College for the purpose of"Galvanizing Support for Expanded Passenger Rail Service in Virginia" was a successful session. Speakers delivered a great deal of information related to the feasibility of this project. The consensus of those attending was to constitute a project task force, which would be a coalition of governmental jurisdictions located along the Bristol to Washington and Bristol to Richmond corridors as well as the Chambers of Commerce and the colleges and universities that would benefit by expanded passenger rail sen~ice. Lt. Gen. Samuel V. Wilson, President of Hampden-Sydney College, who was one of presenters at the July 12 Forum, offered to convene a group in the Farmville community. We are pleased that the Fannville Area Chamber of Commerce, the Town of Farmville and Prince Edward County have agreed to host a luncheon meeting of interested parties who support the concept of expanded passenger rail service...and are willing to work to help make it happen in Virginia. Please mark your calendar: Passenger Rail Task Force Organizational Meeting Tuesday, October 12, 1999 12 noon to 2 p.m. Farmville Train Station 510W. Third St. Farmville, Virginia 23901 We will mail you an official invitation in September with a detailed agenda and directions to the meeting site. Additionally, we would encourage your organization to adopt a resolution of support. A resolution draft accompanies this letter, for your consideration. Thank you for your continued interest in this exdting project. Sincerely, Rex Hammond President Office · 201.5 Memorial Avenue, P.O. Box 2027 · Lynchburg, VA 24,501 · (804)-845-5966 · FAX (804) 522-9592 URL:www. lynchburgchamber.org · E-mail:info@lynchburgchamber. org 619 SECOkD ST. * 24141 August 27, 1999 Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman, Board of Supervisors Albemarle County 401 Mclmire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Gentlemen: The enclosed resolution reiterates Radford City Council's position of full support in re- establishing railroad transportation in Virginia. For Radford City Council: Sincerely, Roy I. Lloyd, Jr. City Clerk RILjr/saw Enclosure: (Resolution) BOARD OF SIJPERVISO~..,~.~ CITY OF RADFORD: "THE NEW RIVER CITY" RESOLUTION BY RADFORD CITY COUNCIL SUPPORTING EXPANDED RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION BACKGROUND: During the early and middle part of this century, Radford served as a hub for rail transit and was admirably served by it through the years. It provided many good jobs, and its positive effect on commerce weighed very heavily on local economies. The advent of interstate highways and increased use of personal and commercial vehicl.es impacted so severely on the economic feasibility of continued rail 'transportation that it was phased out over a short period of time. Now, under public pressure to provide more transporta- tion capacity, and because of the impact of enormous cost to the public for enlarging present highways on which present demand far exceeds design capac- ity, the need to re-examine and re-implement rail transportation is so appar- ent that it cannot be ignored. The following is a declaration of Radford City Council in support of expanded railroad transportation. WHEREAS: Public and commercial use of transportation facilities has escal- ated sharply, during the past 20 years and now encroaches on absolute limits of safety and capacity with an intensity not expected to diminish, and, WHEREAS: The decline of air service and the near elimination of bus service has resulted in major increases in the use of private transportation to link Virginia's communities, businesses, and recreation centers, and WHEREAS: Commercial truck traffic throughout the Commonwealth seriously com- promises the ability of commerce to move harmlessly on highways to meet com- mon public demands without imposing manifold threats to other users, and WHEREAS: DoCumented vehiclecollisions, injury, death, and delays, demand new and immediate solutions to said overuse which now seriously impacts on the safety and well being of people and products as well, and WHEREAS: Current railroads have the capacity to carry commodities, manufac- tured products, passengers, and mail, each to its own destinations, with safety, reliabilitY, and at acceptable costs. T~ERE~RE-7.~E-.~IT-R~SO!A.~D that Radford City Council enthusiastically supports expanded rail service to include transportation of passengers, freight, mail and commodities throughout the Commonwealth. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,. that the current demand for increases in capacity along the Interstate 81 corridor and the enormous costs thereof, can best and most economically be addressed bythe use of existing railroads which would result in enormous savings in time and resources to Virginia's taxpayers. The positive impact on citizen safety and economic development would be enormous. Thomas L ./tarnes, Mayor Draft of Sample Resolution WHEREAS, the feasibility of expanded passenger rail service from the Washington, D.C., and Richmond, Virginia, areas to Bristol, V'trsjnia, has been studied and documented by the Virsjnia Department of Rail and Public Transportation; and WHEREAS, this passenger rail service would provide an attractive transportation alternative that could lead to economic, tourism, environmental and other social benefits for and its citizens; and WHEREAS, the believes this passenger rail service is both cost-effe~'tive and consistent with a well-planned, multi-modal transportation system in the Commonw ofV rsiniai THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the r~ its support and endorsement for the provision of passenger rail service from the Washington,. D.C., and Richmond, Virsjnia, areas to Bristol, V'tr~inia4 and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the encourages the implementation of this rail service and pledges its assistance to the Commonwealth of V'~rginia in implementing said service. David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Hurnphris Forrest R. Mamh~, Jr. COUNTY OF Al REMARI F. Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntim Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 September 13, 1999 Charles $. Martin Waiter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas Ms. Nancy O'Brien Executive Director Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission PO Box 1505 Charlottesville, VA 22902-1505 Dear Ms. O'Brien: At its meeting on September 1, 1999, the Board of Supervisors supported maintaining the current configuration of Planning District 9 and 10 as the Local Workforce Investment Area. /EWC Sincerely, E~a W. Carey, Clerk,C~C / Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Workforce Investment Act (WIA) SUBJECTIPROPOSALIREQUEST: Request approval of temporary designation for the Workforce Investment Area. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENT~: No ~ REVIEWED BY: ~,~-"'~" BACKGROUND: The Workforce Investment Act, which will go into effect on July 1, 2000, includes specific requirements for setting up local Workforce Investment Boards and one-stop job centers in our area. These local Workforce Investment Boards will replace the current Private Industry Councils (PIC) and will have representatives from the business community, community agencies and one-stop job centers, all of whom will be appointed by the local governing bodies. One of the first required actions by localities under the new act is to designate a Local Workforce Investment Area that will be represented by this locally appointed Workforce Board. Requested local designations must be into the State Workforce Investment Board by October 12. A final plan, including local WIA Board members and program objectives, must be completed and into the state by April DISCUSSION: The Workforce Investment Act provides three options for local area eligibility for designation as a local workforce investment area. Option one, which is an automatic or permanent designation, applies only to units of government with a population over 500,000. Option two is a temporary designation, which applies to any unit of local government (or combination of local governments) with a population of 200,000 or more that has performed successfully in the last two years under the PIC configuration. In 1998, Planning District 10 had a population of approximately190,000. Option 3 is also a temporary designation and applies to any unit of local government or combination of units not meeting option 1 or 2. Any local area under 200,000 applying for this new designation must provide justification to the state workforce board that they are a rural area, a regional economic development alliance or are involved in joint local planning initiatives, etc. At a August 20th meeting sponsored by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, elected officials and administrators from all the localities in Planning District 9 and 10 expressed the desire to remain in the same configuration as the current PIC, which includes PDC 9 and PDC 10. This representative group also approved submitting a request to the state for a temporary designation for PD9 and PD10 to be our Local Workforce Investment Area. The next step will be a follow-up meeting to begin discussions on the composition and approval process for the local Workforce Investment Board. This meeting will occur as soon as the State Workforce Investment Board approves and distributes the official membership requirements for these local boards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval to maintain the current configuration of Planning District 9 and 10 as the Local Workforce Investment Area. Information on our local Board configuration and administrative recipient will be brought to you at a later time. 99.158 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Michael Thom pson, Director Human Resources Ella W. Carey, Clerk, September 13, 1999 -~ Personnel Policy Amendment At its meeting on September 1, 1999, the Board of Supervisors approved the attached amended Personnel Policy P-40 that raises the tuition reimbursement to $300. /ewd Attachment COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGEN DA TITLE: Personnel Policy Amendment SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval for Personnel Policy amendment to raise tuition reimbursement from $100 to $300 STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes · REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: During FY99/00 budget work sessions, the Board of Supervisors approved increasing the tuition reimbursement to County employees from $100 to $300, the total cost of which was $3,500. Under this program, Albemarle County employees may be reimbursed for any course work that is relevant to their County work and is not offered by the County's own staff development program. Participants must have the course approved in advance by their department head or immediate supervisor and must provide evidence of a passing grade in order to receive reimbursement. DISCUSSION: The attached Personnel Policy only changes the reimbursement amount from the previous $100 per fiscal year to a $300 maximum. No other changes have been made to the policy. Although the Board approved the tuition reimbursement increase during the budget process, the Board must also approve the amended policy. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached amended Personnel Policy P-40 that raises the tuition reimbursement to $300. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 99.164 COUNTY Of ALBEMARLE PERSONNEL POLICY §P--40 §P--40 COURSE REIMBURSEMENT - CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES While the primary purpose of staff development funds is to provide training to groups of County employees on an internal basis, the need to take job-related courses on an individual basis is also recognized. When individual coursework is taken, the following criteria shall apply relative to reimbursement: 1. The content of the course is not something that would be covered under the County's staff development program; 2. The course is relevant to the individual's current position in the County and will improve skill in this position; The course is approved in advance by the department head or immediate supervisor and the Staff Development Coordinator; and, 4. The course is taken outside of the normal working hours. Requests for course reimb,ursement should be made to the Staff Development Coordinator prior to the semester in which the course ~s to be taken. Only one course per semester will be approved for an individual with additional courses per year being approved only as funds are available up to a maximum of $300 per fiscal year, Upon receiving proof of a passing grade, reimbursement will be made for the tuition cost for up to a maximum of three credits. This policy is not meant to fund general education requirements leading toward a degree. Amended: August 7, 1996; July 1, 1999 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Allocations for Interstate, Primary, and Urban Highway System - Albemarle County SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Comparison of FY1998/99-2003/04 and FY 1999/01-2004/05 Primary Plans STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes ITEMNUMBER: INFORMATION: X INFORMATION: REVIEWED BY:~~..~..--~' The FY 1999/00-2004/05 Primary Road Final Allocation Plan,was approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board on June 17, 1999. The following information compares the new Plan with the FY 1998/99-2003/04 Final Plan. DISCUSSION: Attachment A is a table comparing planned allocations to Albemarle on selected projects for the five common years in the Primary System Improvement Program. The thirteen projects in the table are listed below with additional comments related to each project. 1. I -64 Fog DeteCtion System: Afton Mountain fog detection upgrading. No change. I - 64 Rest Areas: Sewer upgrade of the eastbound rest area 3E at mile marker 105 (base of Afton Mtn) and the westbound rest area 3W at mile marker 113 (near Ivy). This was one project last year and has been separated into two projects this year. Rest area 3E has been fully funded. Allocations to 3W over the five common years have been reduced by $361,000. Cost of the two projects increased by $23,000. Rt. 29: Widening from City line to Rio Road. This project is complete. No change (money shown in the Plan is to complete project funding). Rt. 29: Widening from 4 to 6 lanes from Rio Road to South Fork Rivanna River. The project is complete. Total project cost increased by $15,000 (money shown in the Plan is to complete project funding). Rt. 29: Widening from South Fork Rivanna River to Airport Road. The plans are being developed for this project and should be presented to the Board of Supervisors this fall. Allocations in the five common years have been reduced by $2,466,000. No construction funding through 04/05. The total cost of the project has been reduced from $27,432,000 to $9,915,000. According to VDOT, this reduction is due to the following reasons: VDOT felt it was premature to list the construction cost for this project. Improvements of this nature are constantly changing, VDOT is experiencing a cash flow problem due to cost overruns and Iow estimates on projects throughout the Commonwealth. VDOT had not been closely using its 70% rule. This rule basically states that no construction can begin on a project until 70% of the construction funds have been allocated. Twelve other major projects in the Culpeper District experienced the same type of cost reduction. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA TITLE: Final Allocations for Interstate, Primary, and Urban Highway System September 1, 1999 Page 2 Rt. 29: bridge replacement at South Fork Rivanna River. Allocations in the five common years, as well as the total project cost, decreased by $55,000. Western Bypass: Allocations over the five commons years have increased by $25,000. No change in total project cost. Rt. 29 Access management study from Airport Road to Greene County line: This project has not been allocated any funding over the five common years. Rt. 29: Improvement to vertical alignment near Route 641. Allocation in five common years, as well as total project cost, increased by $497,000. 10. Rt. 29: Bridge replacement at South Fork Hardware River (southbound lane). Allocation in the five common years, as well as the total project cost, increased by $12,000. 11. Rt. 20: Bridge replacement at Hardware River (southbound lane). The allocation in the five common years has increased by $331,000. 12. Rt. 20: Preliminary engineering only for widening to four lanes from Rt. 53 to Mill Creek Drive. $200,000 previously funded. VDOT has done some preliminary engineering. No additional allocations are programmed for this project. 13. Rt. 250: Intersection improvement at Bellair (Route 809). This project has been completed. The total project cost increased by $127,000. These thirteen County projects were listed to receive $53,559,000 in the FY 1998-2005 Plan between FY 99-00 to FY 03- 04 (the five common years of both plans). The same projects are listed to receive $51,684,000 in funding over the same five years in the 1999-2005 Plan, a decrease of $1,875,000. Attachment B is a table comparing planned allocations in Albemarle on selected projects for the five common years in the Hazard Elimination Safety Improvement Program. Total project costs have decreased by almost $400,000. One new hazard elimination safety project was added to this year's plan: Rt. 20 ~- Improve horizontal and vertical alignment at intersection with Route 726. The total project cost is $300,000, with a $270,000 allocation in FY 99-00. RECOMMENDATION: Provided for information only. 99.171 .A Cc: Angela Tucker A:1999primary plan update.exe.doc ATTACHMENT A COMPARISON OF FY 1998-1999 AND FY 1999-2005 FINAL PRIMARY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ALLOCATIONS FISCAL YEAR FUNDING PER EACH PLAN {IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARSt IFy99-00 Ifyoo-01 Ify01-02 IFY02-03 IFV03-04 , TOTA'- over Changel TOT PROGRAM ~ 5 yr period From/PROJECT COST ELEMENT ~' 98-04, 99-05~ 99-05, 98-04, 99-05, 98-04, 99-05, 98-04, 99-05~PLAN P N~i P N~ PLAN,i~ PLAN' 98-04, 99-05 99-05~  PLAN 98-04t~ 98-04 I 99-05 Fog Detection 296 0 System Sewer at Rest 0 0 0 350 350 700 (361) 3,570 Area, 3E & 3W * 20:Widening- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~= NCL to Rio Road 1.000 710 0 0 0 1.710 0 21.195 (1) 29: Widening- ~ ~ 650 Rio Road to S. Fork Rivanna 776 565 0 0 1.991 15 11.501 (1) S. Fork Rivanna 167 436 463 465 469 ~l 2,000 (2,665)! 9,915'* to Airport Road Replacement 1.000 2.460 1.271 307 0 5.038 (55) ~ 6.840 S. Fork Rivanna 29: Bypass ~4,105 ~4,360 ~8,510 ~[~110,000 10,000~36,975 25 ~ 168,472 20:Albemarle ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Access Mgmt (2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 Study-Airport-GCL 29:lmpr°ve verticalS' ~ L~ alignment on SBL ~ 388 200 147 0 0 735 497 1,435 near Rte. 641 Replacement over 12 0 0 0 0 12 12 822 S. Fork Hardware Replacement 200 579 500 406 0 1.685 331 1.654 Hardware River lanes near Rte. 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 250: Realign east ~ ~ Routeintersection809 near 216 127 0 0 0 343 I 127 708 TOTAL ~ 8,160 ~ 9,522 ~ 11,456~ 11,528~ 10,8191~ 51,684 (1,875)~ 228,208 (1) Project completed. (2) Preliminary Engineering Only ( ) Negative number. * FY 98/04 this was one project. FY 99/05 this has been separated into two projects. ** Does not include construction cost. ATTACHMENT B COMPARISON OF FY '1998-1999 AND FY 1999-2000 FINAL PRIMARY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ALLOCATION I HAZARD ELIMINATION SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGP, AM FISCAL YEAR FUNDING PER EACH PLAN /IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS/ PROGRAM I ~ 5 yr pe~od Fmm/PROJECTCOST 0 ', 0 0 270 at Rt. 726 inteme~ion Impmve~, 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~70 at Rt. 250 Route 631, guardmil~l widen shouldem, ho~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365** impr.turn lanes ~o ~o ~to ~1o ~!o I~o o ** Project completed *** New ~mject COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ,AGENDA TITLE: Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: X The County of Albemarle has been awarded the Government Finance Officers Association's Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for its 1997/98 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. The CAFR has been judged by an impartial panel to meet the high standards of the program including demonstrating a construction "spirit of full disclosure" to clearly communicate its financial story and motivate potential users and user groups to read the CAFR. 99.146 1999 SECOND QUARTER BUILDING REPORT County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 INDEX I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month (Charts A & B) I1, Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Charts C& D) II1.Comparison of All Building Permits (Chart E) IV. Comparison of Certificates of Occupancy (Charts F-H) KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA Single-Family (includes modular) Single-Family Attached Single-Family Townhouse Duplex Multi-Family Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park) Accessory Apartment -2- During the second quarter of 1999, 231 permits were issued for 232 dwelling units. In addition, 4 permits were issued for mobile homes in existing parks at an average exchange value of $2,500, for a total of $7,500 I. COMPARISON OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY MONTH Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month MO NTH 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 JAN 64 183 49 190 50 26 54 38 49 FEB 31 72 56 53 43 44 44 39 84 MAR 57 64 58 72 47 61 57 65 65 APR 62 72 76 69 46 71 75 62 102 MAY ' 44 62 45 60 41 63 118 65 55 JUN 54 48 79 70 62 41 89 85 75 JUL 58 62 81 186 51 87 59 74 AUG 58 126 116 49 44 105 34 221 SEP 55 48 45 47 56 64 48 68 OCT 39 43 68 51 42 186 216 61 NOV 42 49 65 60 66 43 49 48 DEC 50 37 67 32 48 44 62 48 TOTAL 614 866 805 939 596 835 905 874 430 Chart B. Three Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month 240 IChart B: Three Year Comparison of New Residential D.U, by Month 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL MONTH AUG SEP OCT [31997 m1998 BI1999 ~ NOV DEC Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development, Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources -3- Quarter 2 II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS Chart C. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units b~, Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SFrrH DUP MF MHC AA D.U. D.U. RIO 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 6% JACK JOUETT 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2% RIVANNA 68 14 22 0 0 0 1 105 45% SAMUEL MILLER 23 6 0 0 0 1 0 30 13% SCOTTSVILLE 22 10 0 0 0 2 0 34 15% WHITE HALL 37 ! 4 0 0 0 2 0 43 19% TOTAL 170 34 ~ 221 0 0 5 1 232 100% Chart D. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL SF SFA SF/'I'H DUP MF MHC AA UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 13 0 6 0 0 0 0 19 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 9 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 7 10 0 0 0 0 0 17 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 11 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 CROZET COMMUNITY 14 4 0 0 0! 0 0 18 HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 27 4 16 0 0 0 0 47 PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 RIVANNA VILLAGE 14 0 0 00 0 0 14 I DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 85 34 22 0 0 0 0 141 RURAL AREA 1 25 0 0 0 0 1 0 26 RURAL AREA 2 19 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 RURAL AREA 3 24 0 0 0 0 3 0 27 RURAL AREA 4 17 0 0 0 0 I 0 18 RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 85 0 0 0 0 5 1 91 TOTAL 170 34 22 0 0 5 1 232 Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development, Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources Quarter 2 III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS Chart E. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial Distdct and Construction Type MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING TOTAL DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM. No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ RIO 15 2,752,408 64 1,073,907 6 1,323,500 34 1,488,888 119 6,638,703 JOUETT 5 1,836,500 12 573,945 2 1,988,500 30 , 1,795,146 49 6,194,091 RIVANNA 104 13,820,778 70 1,488,477 3 1,029,500 25 1,042,748 202 17,381,503 S. MILLER 30 6,705,365 38 1,490,977 3 75,000 6 153,000 77 8,424,342 SCOTTSVILLE 34 2,815,000 51 1,358,751 6 120,000 6 9,395 97, 4,303,146 WHITE HALL 43 6,880,868 60 1,116,437 6 110,500 8 355,378 117~ 8,463,183 TOTAL 231 34,810,919 295 7,102,494 26 4,647,000 109 4,844,555 661 51,404,968 * Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in Residential Alteration Category. IV. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY Chart F. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type SCHOOL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL PERCENT DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA D.U. TOTAL D.U. Agnor-Hurt 8 0 8 0 0 0 1 17 9.04% Bmadus Wood/Sutherland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Bmadus Wood/Jouett 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4.26% Brownsville 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 11.70% Crozet 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 3.72% Greer 0 0 0 0 0! 0 0 0 0.00% Hollymead 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 13 6.91% Meriwether Lewis/Henley 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.06% Meriwether Lewis/Jouett 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2.13% Murray 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4.26% Red Hill 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2.13% Cale/Budey 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.06% Cale/Walton lg 9 0 0 0 0 0 28 14.89% Scottsville 1 0 0 n 0 1 0 2 1.06% Stone Robinsort/Burley 21 ~ 3 0 0 0 0 0 24 12.77% Stone Robinson/Walton 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2.66% Stony Point/Burley 7 0 0 0 0 0' 0 7 3.72% Stony Point/Suthedand 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 3.19% Woodbrook 16 6 0 0 0 0 0 22 11.70% Yancey 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3.72% TOTAL 150 27 8 0 0 2 1 188 100.00% Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development, Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources Quarter 2 IV. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY (continued) Chart G, Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/'rH DUP MF MHC AA RIO 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 JACK JOUETT 1 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 1 RIVANNA 61 16 8 0 0 1 0 86 SAMUEL MILLER 27 2 0 0 0 0 0 29 SCOTTSVILLE 27 7 0 0 0 1 0 35! WHITE HALL 31 2 0 0 0 0 0 33 TOTAL '150 27 8 0 0 2 1 188 Chart H. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 4 0 8 0 0 0 1 13 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 10 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 10 ' 7 0 0 : (3 0 0 17 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 9 2 0 0 (3 0 0 11 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 4 0 0 0 (3 0 0 4 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CROZET COMMUNITY 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 18 HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 23 7 0 0 0 0 0 30 PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 RIVANNA VILLAGE 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 91 27 8 0 0 0 1 127 RURAL AREA 1 13 0 0 0 0 (3 0 13 RURAL AREA 2 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 RURAL AREA 3 18 0 0 0 0 (3 0 18 RURAL AREA 4 21 0 0 0 0 1 0 22 RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 59 0 0 0 0 2 0 61 TOTAL 150 27 8 0 0 2 1 188 Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development, Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources FAX (804) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832 TTD (804) 972-4012 August19,1999 Jeff Dise Kirk Hughes & Associates 220 East High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Official Determination of Number of Parcels and Development Rights (Property of The Miller School of Albemarle-Tax Map 85, Parcel 49) Dear Mr. Dise: What follows is the parcel determination for the other Miller School property. The parcel determination for the main campus is written by separate letter, dated June 29th. The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information and plat that you have submitted for the above-noted property. This is the plat titled "Composite Survey of The Miller School of Albemarle containing 503.30 acres +/-" dated February 15, 1999. Without further information about the location of the end of State maintenance for Rt. 694 and/or some other factors, it is not appropriate at this time to determine whether Tract 1 is one or two parcels. In brief, it is our finding that this property consists of seven (7) or eight (8) separate parcels. These parcels are as follows: TAX MAP 85, PARCEL 49 containing 503.30 acres Tract 1 (3.5 acres) This tract is subdivided by Miller Lake Road (Rt. 694) which becomes a private road at some undetermined point. Once further information is obtained, we can determine if this tract is split into two (2) lots. If Tract 1 is split, it would be as follows: Lot lA (2.78 acres) on the east side of Miller Lake Rd. - 1 development right, no additional rights. Lot lB (0.72 acres) on the west side - No additional development rights. This parcel may not be buildable. Tract 2 (275 acres) This tract is subdivided by Miller Lake Road (Rt. 694). Whiteside Branch runs through it and it contains a pond. The road divides it into two (2) lots. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 08/19/99 2 Determination of Parcel (TM 85, P49) Lot 2A (226.40 acres) on the west side of Miller Lake Rd.- 5 development rights and 10 parcels of · minimum 21 acres. Lot 2B (48.60 acres) on the east side of the road - 5 development rights and 1 parcel of minimum 21 acres. Tract 3 (0.25 acres) This tract is on the west side of Rt. 694, Lot 3 (0.25 acres) - No additional development rights. This lot may not be buildable. Tract 4 (39,5 acres) This tract is on the west side of Rt. 694 towards the end. It includes several structures, based on the composite survey. Lot 4 (39.5 acres) - 5 development rights and 1 parcel of minimum 21 acres. Tract 5 (124 acres) This tract does not appear to have state road frontage and is located in the southwestern portion of this entire property. Lot 5 (124 acres) - 5 development rights and 5 parcels of minimum 21 acres. Tract 6 (39.8 acres) This tract does not appear to have state road frontage and is located in the southern portion of this entire property. Lot 6 (39.8 acres) - 5 development rights and 1 parcel of minimum 21 acres. Tract 7 (21.25 acres) This tract does not appear to have state road frontage and is located in the northern portion of this entire property. Lot 7 (21.25 acres) - 5 development rights. summary, this is the total number of separate parcels: 1 or 2 (Tract 1 ) 2 (Tract 2) 1 (Tract 3) 1 (Tract 4) 1 (Tract 5) 1 (Tract 6) 1 (Tract 7) 8 or 9 parcels Please note that the words "parcel" and "lot" are used interchangeably and are intended to carry the same meaning for the purpose of this determination. If your client intends to sell off any property separatel~ *This acreage is estimated. The actual number of development rights is dependent on surveyed acreage and actual building sites which comply with the zoning regulations. The number of hypothetical rights is calculated at the rate of 1 development rigt per 2 acres or existing lot, with five being the maximum number of development rights allowed. 08/19/99 3 Determination of Parcel (TM 85, P49) we strongly urge them to discuss with staff how it could be done in keeping with the goals and principles of the Rural Areas and the Comprehensive Plan. We are happy to meet with you and/or your clients at any time. Property of this size, with this many individual parcels and in a sensitive location such as this, requires significant thoughtful planning prior to any off-conveyances and development. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have the right to appeal it within thirty (30) days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of:Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. In order for an appeal to be considered complete, it shall include a completed application and $95 fee. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Amelia G. McCulley Zoning Administrator Cc: The Miller School of Albemarle Ella Carey, Clerk to Board of Supervisors Reading file by Tax Map Correspondence file 1 by tax map, 8 or 9 by determination *This acreage is estimated. The actual number of development rights is dependent on surveyed acreage and actual building sites which comply with the zoning regulations. The number of hypothetical rights is calculated at the rate of 1 development rig per 2 acres or existing lot, with five being the maximum number of development rights allowed. ~'VIRGIL I-~,~GOODE, JR. 5TH DISTRICT. VIRGINIA August 19, 1999 The Honorable Charles S. Martin Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4579 Dear Charles: Thank you for your letter regarding the terrible drought conditions tha~ farmers in Albemarle County and other counties in the region are suffering. I appreciate very much your sharing with me your thoughts on this important issue. I have heard from many farmers, residents, and local elected officials regarding the drought conditions, and I am very much aware of the severe situation that the farmers are experiencing. I and nay office have talked with the state Farm Service Agency office, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Washington about various types of assistance that mav be available to farmers. The Virginia Department of Agriculture indicated to my office that farmers can call the marketing office at 804-786-3947 and they will try to link livestock farmers who need hay with farmers ~n other areas of the state who have some hay available. I have also written letters to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and President Clinton on the matter, and cnclosed is a copy of my letter to the President. I have also enclosed a copy of the notice from the USDA to Governor Gilmore indicating that Albemarle County has been granted a disaster declaration which makes farmers eligible for some assistance in the form of low interest loans and cost sharing. However, I know that the loans that the USDA can offer are not going to be of much help to many farmers and therefore I will continue to urge the Secretary and the President to provide additional and immediate assistance. As you may know, the Senate has passed an emergency agriculture disaster assistance bill which provides $7.7. billion in direct assistance for farmers. This bill will likely go to conference committee when Congress returns after Labor Day, and I am going to urge the conferees to designate a larger amount of the emergency funds for livestock and feed assistance that will directly benefit farmers m our area. Thank vou agmn for your letter, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments. With kind regards, I am Sincerely yours, ~ .~Goode BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 7021 ' 11'3B ' ' 8-18-g9 , · ' P ;#2 August 16, 1999 The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton 1600' Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, D. C. 20500 Dear Mr, President: I urge you to activate the United States military to make water deliveries ~o drought- stricken areas of our couub'y, As you know, some areas of Vir~uia, ~s well as og~e~ s~a~.s, are baked from the W~ heat of ~his summer; there is no relief in aigh~, and crops and livestock are imperiled. As our a~ricul~re industry is uud~ so is a significant se~-nent of our economy, aot to mention the foodstuffs that we rely upon for subsistence. Utilizing thc military to deliver water to these areas is as wise a usc of governmental assistance as I can krmgin~, The farmers [u my district, ss we~l as those across the sun-baked areas of our nation will appreciate your earlics~ response to this plea for help, Sincerely yours, Vlrsil Ooode, Sr. VGJI~: cid I~IINTED O~ I~IECYCLEO PAl'Ell ~ ~9 ~8:~! FA~ 202 720 8077 USDA/OCR ~002/004 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OI=FICE OF THE SECR~"'rARY Thc Hollorabl¢ J~mo_~ S. Gilmore, Ill Governor of Virginia Richmond, Virginia 23219 Dear Jim: Th~ is in further response to your let~r of August 3, 1999, requesting a disaster desigaation for five comities in Virgi~i~ due to losses caused by cxtrcme heat and drought that occurred from ]u~ 15, 1998, through the present, and c0ntlnning. Those cOU~Iic.,s a~e: Fre~rick Giles Louisa Montgomery Warren The D~paxtmem of Agriculture (USDA) has reviewed the Damage Assessmeat Reports, along with the additioaal survey information submittal by the Stare Executive Director, Far~ Service Agency (FSA). Based on thin r~riew, USDA h~8 ~ia__~_ that all five COnnties llamed in your request have sustaimd sufficient production losses m warrant a Secretarial disaster defiant!on. Therefore, I ~m designating all five of the above counties as primary nautral disaster areas. In accordance wi~h section 321(a) of thc Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, the following additional areas of your State are nm~._ed as contiguous disaster ~.Onnties mid indepezglent cities: Albgmarle Fluvmina Radford City Bland Goochland Rappahaaaock Clarke tiaaover Roanoke Craig Orange Sheaaadoah Fauquier Page Spotsylw~b Floyd Pulaski Winchester City AN I~O,..U,,,~U.. OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER · * ;9 18: 1], F,~ 202 720 8077 USDA/OCR ~]003/004 Th~ Honorable lames $. Gilmore, HI Page 2 ~s des~oa ~ ~mi]y-s~.ed z~a~a operators in both primary and contiguous counties cligiblc to be considered for low-interest emergaucy loans from FSA. FSA will consider each loan application by taking into account the extmg of losses, security available, repaymeat ability, and other eligibility require. Local FSA offices can provid~ aff~ farmers wirh. funhm' ~nfoi~m~tion. Secretary James S. Gilmore, IR Governor COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Office of the Governor August 18, 1999 Barry E. DuVal Secretary of Commerce and Trade Mr. Charles S. Martin, Chairman Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Mr. McCarthy: Thank you for your correspondence concerning Albemarle County's agricultural crop losses and the resolution adopted by the County Board of Supervisors requesting disaster designation and federal assistance. Governor Gilmore asked me to respond to your concerns on his behalf. On August 11, 1999, the Secretary of AgriCUlture granted the Governor's request for primary disaster designation for Louisa County and extended contiguous designation to Albemarle County. This action makes farmers in your county eligible for federal disaster assistance. Since primary designation for Albemarle County could benefit farmers in neighboring counties, I have asked Commissioner Courter to coordinate a review of the damages experienced by Albemarle County. Mr. Courter will be working with officials of the United States Department of Agriculture in Virginia to obtain a formal, up-to-date report of crop damages experienced by Albemarle County farmers. The Governor will need this official damage assessment report in order to seek a federal disaster designation for your locality. I will share with you any correspondence the Governor may send to the Secretary of AgriCulture on behalf of Albemarle County. Again, thank you for bringing your county's agricultural emergency to our attention. BED/cas Sincerely yours, Barry E. DuVal hO A RD OF SUPERVISORS C: $. Carlton Courter, III, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services P.O. Box 1475 · Richmond, Virginia 23218 · (804) 786-7831 · TDD (804) 786.7765 Charlottesville August 18, 1999 The Honorable James S. Gilmore, III Governor of Virginia State Capitol, Third Floor Richmond, VA 23219 Dear Governor: As you are aware, Albemarle County is presently facing financial losses in the millions of dollars due to drought conditions. As of July 26th, the county was 16 inches shod of rainfall for the year of which 8 inches was during the growing season. The adverse affects of excessive heat and drought on cattle, --p-~t-uTe;hayfand; corn, and-soybean yields have resulted in an estimated loss of almost 8.5 million dollars to our farmers. Our Chamber is dedicated to representing the private sector, promoting business and enhancing the quality of life in the greater Charlottesville region. Agribusiness is a critical economic sector and a business enterprise which enhances the county's extraordinary quality of life. We fully support agribusiness and its strategic role in our region. We write to add our voice to that of the Supervisors' of Albemarle County as they request the county be designated as a drought disaster.area. Thank you in advance for your support of our region. c.' The The /...~--~rely, ___.~ident Honorable Charles S. Robb Honorable John W. Warner The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. The Honorable Virgil H. Goode, Jr. The Honorable Emily Couric The Honorable Paul Harris The Honorable Mitchell Van Yahres 'z/Charles Martin, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Robed Tucker, County of Albemarle Bob Hauser, Chair, Chamber Frank Kepiinger, Chair, Chamber's Agribusiness Group Linda Tucker, Director of Economic Development, Chamber Page Williams, Vice-Chair, Chamber's Economic Development Division P.O Box 1564 Fifth & Market Streets C h a ri ottesville. VA 22902 Phone (804) 295-3141 Fax {804) 295-3144 www. cvillecha m ber. org e-mail: cacoc@cfw, com BOARD OF SUPERVISORs [] [] Charlo~H~p~ COUNTY OF ~ REMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 McInth~ Road Chadottesville, Y'n~nia 22902-4596 (8O4) 296-.5843 F/~X (8O4) 296.58OO September 13, 1999 Ms. Angela G. Tucker Resident Engineer 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Ms. Tucker: At its meeting on September 1, 1999, the Board of Supervisors made the following comments regarding transportation matters: Agenda Item No. 5.11. Road Name Change Request - Change the name of Cleveland Lane to Roseland Farm. APPROVED the change and authorized County staff to coordinate/implement change... Agenda Item No. 7a. Discussion: Meadow Creek Parkway. Directed staff to prepare a draft letter with recommended changes for the September 8~ Board meeting. Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters. · You indicated that the CTB would receive the packet on the Meadow Creek Parkway to vote on September 16~h. · The Board SUPPORTED a continuous lower design speed for the entire section of the Meadow Creek Parkway as proposed by City Council. · You said the traffic counts on Hilltop should be available in the next day or so. You will forward the information to Mr. Perkins. You indicated that when emergency repairs were made to the bridge on Profit Road (Route 649), the railroad crew found that additional repairs would be needed to bring the bridge up to the posted limit. These repairs will require an additional two weeks of worlc · Mr. Tucker asked if Grassmere Road is still scheduled for improvements in this next fiscal year. You said VdoT hopes to advertise the proiect and begin construction in the Spring. Mr. Perkins mentioned a request he received from a citizen for a "Children at Play" sign in the Free Union area. · Mr. Perkins asked staff to start the process for getting the Route 240/250 connector in Crozet built. He suggested staff get together with the landowners and others to look at ways for financing the project. · Mr. Marshall thanked VdoT for installing the arrows on Route 20 directing traffic into the one lane. He asked about the possibility of additional signage warning drivers of the change from four lanes to two lanes. You indicated that you would discuss the issue with your staff, but did have some concerns about installing too many signs in the area. Printed on recycled paper Ms. Angela Tucker September 13, 1999 Page 2. _Ms. Thomas encouraged VdoT to work with the MOrgantown Road neighborhood and to address the issue of signage. Ms. Thomas asked that the Board,s Statement to the GoVernor's Commission on the Future of Transportation be mailed. Ms. Humphris asked why, when and under whose authority the signs that use to state the Charlottesville/Albemarle Tourism Information Center now states Monticello Information Center. Ms. Humphris said the Virginia Chamber of Commerce has unvdled a new transportation model to prioritize proiects. The State Chamber set up criteria for quality of road, cost benefits, environmental Lmplications, etc., with a list of criteria assigned points, and in a neutral fashion rank them according to need. She asked staff to get a copy of the study. Mr. Bowerman asked if VdoT has adopted a new color of green on signals. You responded that they are new LED signals. Eventually all signals will be replaced. /EWC CC: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Tom Foley V. Wayne Cilimberg Since, rely, "... Elia'~W. Carev. Clerki CMC David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphris Fattest R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEHAEI_F. Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdnfire Road Charlottesville, V'n'ginia 22902..4596 (804) 2965843 FAX (804) 296-5800 September 13, 1999 Charles S. ~ Walter F, Perkins Sally H. Thomas Mr. Donald R. Askew, District Administrator Virginia Department of Transportation 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, VA 22701 Dear Mr. Askew: At its meeting on September 1, 1999, the Board of Supervisors held an open discussion of the Meadow Creek Parkway. During the discussion, the Board continued its support for a well-designed four-lane parkway. In addition, the Board endorsed the same design speed that is being proposed by the City on its portion of the parkway, regardless of the number of lanes built. /ewe Sincerely, ........... :?/ . ?'5--?/ ,' ?-'" / ,./? -" ~lli' W: C~, CMC / Clerk CC: Shirley J. Ybarra H. Carter Myers Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD OF SUPEI VISORS AGENDA TITLE: Discussion: Meadow Creek Parkway SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Proposed response to City Council's comments to VDOT on the Meadow Creek Parkway. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: As was decided at the August 4, 1999 Board of Supervisors' meeting, a discussion on the Meadow Creek Parkway was deferred until all Board members could be present. Listed below are the five points raised in the letter of July 19, 1999 from Virginia Daugherty to Charles Martin along with proposed responses for your review. DISCUSSION: 1. First, the Council is interested in revisiting the previous CATS and the regional network of roads. There has been considerable discussion about a "eastern connector", a "near eastern connector", and other additional roads, both north and south of the City, that would complete the regional network. The Council is not committed to any particular road, but is very interested in discussing the regional network and particularly interested in facilitating better means for traffic to move from areas north of the City to Pantops and the eastern part of the County. Response - The MPO will be updating the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) next year. The MPO has already started the process of gathering background data for this update. The MPO has also received Transportation Community and System Preservation Grant (TCSP) funding for the Eastern Planning Initiative. The grant included slightly over $500,000 to study issues related to growth and transportation in the eastern half of the Planning District, including roads north and east of the City. The Planning District will be working over the coming months to establish an advisory committee and hire a consultant for this project. The County believes these two initiatives provide the best opportunity to address the City's interest. Second, we wish to explore a further acquiring additional parkland over and above the acreage necessary to replace land taken for the road. This parkland could be acquired between the 250 By-Pass and Rio Road, and perhaps all the way to the Rivanna River. We think that considerable discussion should occur on this idea, and are willing to commit capital funds to the acquisition of land with the County to make this concept a reality. Perhaps the City and County should consider jointly applying for federal grants to supplement and enhance our local funding of any possible initiative. We are open to a wide variety of approaches, includihg the notion of a park land commission and/or a model similar to the Towe Park City/County arrangement. Response - The County has take a strong position for the preservation of parkland with this project and has recently adopted a resolution that has been forwarded to the City and VDOT supporting the acquisition of additional parkland adjacent to Phase I. It should be noted that the northern end of Phase I as it comes into existing Rio Road is developable urban infill land as identified in the County's Land Use Plan. As well, land along the portion of Rio Road which will become part of Meadow Creek Parkway is already developed and directly accessed by that development. North of Rio Road, Phase II of the parkway runs through more urban development land as identified in the Land Use Plan. The County envisions the parkway having pedestrian and biking facilities along its entire length. However, currently it would be contrary to the County's Land Use Plan and inconsistent with current development to have a continuous park all the way to the Rivanna River. Third, in its letter to VDOT, the City states that it may hire a technical consultant to monitor design and construction of the City portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway. We think that it might be useful for the City and the County to cooperate in the hiring of a consultant and setting forth a charge that includes design consultation for the County portion of the road. In that way, we would get some consistency of design and be better able to integrate the County and the City portion of the road. We do not wish to slow construction of the road but instead improve its design. Response - Th e MPC has a Design Committee that has been working with VDOT and their design consultant over the past three years to assure objectives for the project as established by the City and County through the MPC are met. The MPC is the proper venue to determine if there is a benefit to the MPC Design Committee having a separate design consultant. The hiring cfa consultant at this time may extend the design process. Fourth, the City has requested that VDOT give up any right that it may have to facilitate the construction of cellular towers in and along the right-of-way for the Parkway. Given Albemarle's previous position on these matters, we thought it might be appropriate for us to join together in setting forth our concern about cell towers in the right-of-way, and to jointly seek agreement with VDOT on this issue. Response - The County is in full support of the City's proposal regarding cellular towers in the Meadow Creek Parkway right of way. As noted in the City's letter, the County has registered its general displeasure with VDOT's policy on cellular towers to State and Federal officials. Fifth, we are concerned about how the County portion of the road integrates with the City portion, particularly at Melbourne Road. It is in the interest of both the City and the County to have safe pedestrian access across the road at that point. Consequently, we would ask that you join with us to approach VDOT about that critical intersection. Response - The County is in full support of the City's position regarding the parkway's intersection with Melbourne Road. The Meadow Creek Parkway Design Committee has been working to provide pedestrian access at this intersection. RECOMMENDATION: Provide response to the City's request of July 19th reflecting suggested responses listed above. With regard to the League of Women Voters' request to prepare an environmental impact on Meadow Creek, David Hirschman has requested VDoT to provide riparian, restoration improvements to Meadow Creek during construction of the Parkway. Any response to VDoT should remind them of this request. 99.168 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE City Council P.O. Box 911 * Charlottesville, Virginia · 22902 Telephone (804) 970-3113 July 19, 1999 BOARD OF Charles Martin Chair, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 411 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear'Charles: Please find attached a copy of our comments provided to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) on the proposed Meadowcreek Parkway. We attach this letter so 'that the Board may have a detailed explanation of our concerns and comments, as this road is a part of the regional transportation network affecting both City and County. As you know, there has been considerable discussion of this road and its impact on the City. Some of this discussion has focused on how the City and the COunty can better cooperate on design of the road, and how better to design a regional transportation network for the next twenty years. With this in mind, we are interested in exploring, with the County, the following issues: First, the Council is interested in revisiting the previous CATS and the regional network of roads. There has been considerable discussion about a "eastern connector", a "near eastern connector", and other additional roads, both north and south of the City, that would complete the regional network. The Council is not committed to any particular road, but is very interested in discussing the regional network and particularly interested in facilitating better means for traffic to move from areas north of the City to Pantops and the eastern part of the County. 4 Second, we wish to explore a further acquiring additional parkland over and above the acreage necessary to replace land taken for the road. This parkland could be acquired between the 250 By-Pass and Rio Road, and perhaps all the way to the Rivanna River. We think that considerable discussion should occur on this idea, and are willing to commit capital funds to the acquisition of land with the County to make this concept a reality. Perhaps the City and County should consider jointly applying for federal grants to supplement and enhance our local funding of any possible initiative. We are open to a wide variety of approaches, including the notion ora park land commission and/or a model similar to the Towe Park City/County arrangement. Page Two July 19, 1999 Third, in its letter to VDOT, the City states that it may hire a technical consultant to monitor design and construction of the City portion of the Meadowcreek Parkway. We think that it might be useful for the City and the County to cooperate in the hiring of a consultant and setting forth a charge that includes design consultation for the County portion of the road. In that way, we would get some consistency of design and be better able to integrate the County and the City portion of the road. We do not wish to slow construction of the road but instead improve its design. Fourth, the City has requested that VDOT give up any right that it may have to facilitate the construction of cellular towers in and along the right-of-way for the Parkway. Given Albemarle's previous position on these matters, we thought it might be appropriate for us to join together in setting forth our concern about cell towers in the right-of-way, and to jointly seek agreement with VDOT on this issue. o Fifth, we are concerned about how the County portion of the road integrates with the City portion, particularly at Melbourne Road. It is in the interest of both the City and the County to have safe pedestrian access across the road at that point. Consequently, we would ask that you join with us to approach VDOT about that critical intersection. We appreciate your interest in working with us on the above matters and eagerly await your responses with your suggestions as to how to move forward. Sincerely, Virginia Daugherty Mayor i http:llavenue, orgllwv Iwv~avenUe.org fax: 804-970-1708 TO: Robert Tucker County Executive, Albemarle County Virginia Daugherty Mayor, City of Charlottesville RE: Meadow Creek DATE: 11 August 1999 The League of Women Voters recommends an additional issue be added to the City of Charlottesville's recent proposal to Albemarle County for the development of the Meadow Creek Parkway: the environmental impact on Meadow Creek itself. The League is concerned that the planning and design of the Parkway will have unintended and unanticipated, long-term, cumulative effects on the quantity and quality of Meadow Creek itself. It is a stream akeady under considerable stress. For example, it is the only one in the entire Rivanna River Basin that. failed to, achieve an overall "excellent" rating for benthic macrovertebrates. All others hadexcellent ratings. It has the worse water quality in the region as determined by the Isaak Walton League's methodology. More than any other stream, it has been channelized and buried, particularly in its headwaters. Depriving those portions of sunlight and fresh air has severely impaired the natural biological processes and water cleansing ability of the creek. Yet, according to the Rivanna River Basin Report, "Meadow Creek, with stable stream beds, may be an excellent candidate for restoration, provided water quality issues are addressed." (Emphasis ours.) Certainly any plans for the Parkway should include strategies not only to improve the quality of its waters, but also to seize the opportunity to restore it to its pre-"buried ditch" status. Don't forget Meadow Creek in Meadow Creek Parkway's development! Sincerely, Helen B~ Snook Co-president, LWV of Charlottesville and Albemarle County "...a non-.partisan organization aceaCicateac to t6e j~romotion of informeaC anaC active j~artici, pation of citigerts in government." COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Water Supply Emergency Ordinance SU BJECT/PROPOSALIREQU EST: Emergency Water Supply Ordinance STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Davis, Foley AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ACTION: X CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: For the past several months, this area has been experiencing very limited rainfall and high temperatures, corn pounded by a mild winter with little snowfall. The County recently requested the Governor to declare our agricultural area a disaster area for federal loan purposes and other federal disaster relief. DISCUSSION: For these past several months, our reservoir capacity has been declining for our urban system and currently (as of 8-26-99) stands at 77% of capacity. Recently, our daily demand has been decreasing gradually, which we believe may be due in part to moderating temperatures and voluntary water conservation by our citizens. However, with UVA students due back this week this trend may change. There is an immediate need to control and restrict the use of water until such time as the water levels in the reservoirs serving the County are greater than 80% of total capacity. An emergency ordinance implementing such controls and restrictions is attached. RECOMMENDATION: While we are still hopeful that rainfall will increase and voluntary water conservation measures will continue to reduce demand, staff believes that an emergency exists and recommends that the attached emergency ordinance be adopted. 99.170 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DRAFT: AUGUST 26, 1999 AN ORDINANCE DECLARING THE EXISTENCE OF A WATER SUPPLY EMERGENCY AND IMMPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF WATER WltEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has been advised that the water levels at the reservoirs which supply potable water to the urban area of the County are less than eighty percent (80%) of total capacity; and WHEREAS, reservoir water levels have dropped significantly during the past month due to the continuing lack of significant rainfall; and WHEREAS, historically the month of September is the month of the highest water consumption in this area; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the supply of water available to the County will continue to decrease unless there is significant rainfall or water conservation measures are implemented; and WHEREAS, there is an immediate need to control and restrict the use of water until such time as the water levels in the reservoirs serving the County of Albemarle are greater than eighty percent (80%) of total capacity; and WHEREAS, during the continued existence of such water shortage the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the urban area of Albemarle County requires that certain uses of water, not essential to public health, safety and welfare, be reduced, restricted or curtailed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, as follows: Section 1. The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County finds that there exists a local emergency with regard to the shortage of potable water in the urban areas of Albemarle County surrounding the City of Charlottesville. Section 2. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this ordinance, shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Authority: The Albemarle County Service Authority. Available water capacity: The amount of water present in the reservoir system, as determined at any particular time by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and expressed as a percentage of the reservoir system's total usable water capacity. County Executive: The County Executive of Albemarle County, or his designee. DRAFT: AUGUST 26, 1999 Executive Director: The Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, or his designee. Reservoir: The urban reservoir system located in Albemarle County, Virginia, used as a source of water for the Observatory and North and South Rivanna Water Treatment Plants. Water: Potable water treated at the Observatory and North and South Rivanna Water Treatment Plants and withdrawn from the public water distribution system. Section 3. The Authority and its Executive Director are hereby authorized and directed to implement conservation measures by ordering the restricted use or absolute curtailment of the use of water for certain nonessential purposes for the duration of the water shortage in the manner set out in this ordinance. Section 4. The following restrictions on water use are hereby imposed: A. Stage One. When the Reservoir reaches 80% of available water capacity, the Authority shall provide the public with weekly updates on water supply status through the news media. Advisories will be issued on pending restrictions as the water supply decreases. B. Stage Two. When the Reservoir reaches 70% of available water capacity, the Authority shall request the public, through the news media, to voluntarily conserve water whenever possible. Lawns or yards in the County may be irrigated or watered only on odd- numbered days, and only before 7:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m. on those days. It shall be unlawful to irrigate or water in violation of this restriction. C. Stage Three. When the Reservoir reaches 65% of available water capacity, the following uses of water are prohibited, and shall not be permitted until the water supply returns to at least 70% of Reservoir capacity, and it shall be unlawful for any person to use water for any of these purposes during the prohibition: 1. The washing of automobiles, tracks, trailers or any other type of mobile equipment except in licensed commercial vehicle wash facilities. 2. The washing of streets, driveways, parking lots, service station aprons, office building, exteriors of homes or apartments or other outdoor surfaces except where mandated by state law or local ordinance. 3. Watering of outside shrubbery, trees, lawns, grass, plants, home vegetable gardens, or any other vegetation, except from a watering can or other container not exceeding three gallon capacity. This limitation shall not apply to commercial greenhouse or nursery stocks which may be watered before 7:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m. in the minimum amount required to preserve plant life. 2 DRAFT: AUGUST 26, 1999 4. The operation of any ornamental fountain or other structure making a similar use of water. 5. The filling of swimming or wading pools requiring more than five (5) gallons of water, or the refilling of swimming or wading pools which were drained after the effective date of this ordinance, except that pools may be filled to a level of two (2) feet below normal, or water may be added to bring the level to two (2) feet below normal, or as necessary to protect the structure from hydrostatic damage, as to pools constructed or contracted for on or before the effective date of this ordinance. 6. The service of drinking water in restaurants except upon request. 7. The use of water from fire hydrants for any purpose other than fire suppression unless otherwise specifically provided by the Executive Director. 8. The operation of any water cooled comfort air conditioner which does not have water conserving equipment in operation. Section 5. It shall be unlawful for any owner of any residential unit or units or any owner of any commercial or industrial establishment which is found to be an excessive user of water due to leakage from water lines or plumbing fixtures on the premises to fail to take immediate action to repair and stop such leakage after so ordered by the Executive Director. Section 6. The Executive Director shall be authorized to issue orders to effect compliance with this ordinance. Section 7. Exemptions and Appeals. A. Any person may apply, in writing, for an exemption from the restrictions imposed by this ordinance. Such application shall be filed with the Executive Director and shall specify the grounds or reasons why the restrictions would impose an undue hardship on the applicant. A written decision shall be rendered by the Executive Director within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of the application. The Executive Director may approve or deny the application, or approve the application with such conditions or limitations as may be appropriate. The Executive Director may also grant temporary exemptions for such periods of time as may be necessary for the Executive Director or the AuthOrity to consider the request for an exemption. B. The applicant may appeal the decision of the Executive Director to the Authority. Notice of the appeal shall be in writing and filed in the Office of the Executive Director within five (5) calendar days after the date of the Executive Director's decisiOn. The Authority shall grant the applicant, at applicant's option, the opportunity for a hearing on the appeal. The request for a hearing shall be included in the written notice of appeal. The hearing, when requested, shall be held within ten (10) calendar days of the request. A decision shall be rendered by the Authority within ten (10) calendar days after the hearing. In the event no hearing is requested, a decision shall be rendered within ten (10) DRAFT: AUGUST 26, 1999 calendar days after the receipt of notice of appeal. The Authority may approve or deny the application on appeal, or approve the application with such conditions or limitations as may be appropriate. The decision of the Authority shall be final, subject to such remedy as an aggrieved party may have at law or in equity. Section 9'. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance or an order of the Executive Director or of the Authority shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Each day such violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. Section 10. An emergency having been found to exist, this ordinance shall be effective immediately upon passage. For State law as to authority of County to adopt this ordinance, see § 15.2-924 of the Code of Virginia. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to __., as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Mr. Bowerman Ms. Humphris Mr. Marshall Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins Ms. Thomas Aye Nay Clerk, Board of County Supervisors GREG: FYI AND LARRY'S, DUE TO THE RAPID REDUCTION IN RESERVOIR CAPACITY, I HAVE ADDED THE EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY ORDINANCE FOR BOARD ADOPTION, TO THE SEPT. 1ST BOARD MTG. AGENDA. WE ARE CURRENTLY AT 72%. THE CITY PLANS TO ADOPT THEIR EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ON AUG. 30TM . IF YOU NEED ANY ASSISTANCE tN PULLING THIS TOGETHER, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. THANKS, BOB ROBERTW. TUCKER, JR. COUNTY EXECUTIVE BTUCKER(~.ALBEMARLE.ORG inal Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 7:08 PM Sally Thomas Larry Davis; Bob Tucker Water supply emergency ordinance You asked whether a public hearing was required in order for the Board to adopt a water supply emergency ordinance. Virginia Code § 15.2~924(A) (text below) authorizes tho board to adopt a water supply emergency ordinance, but does not require a public hearing. In addition, Virginia Code § 15.2-1426(F) provides that emergency ordi~ may be adopted without prior published notice, provided that if the ordinance will extend beyond 60 days, it must be readopted within the 60-day pafod with the required published notice. I hope that this adequately responds to your question. If you have any further questions, please cOntact Larry or me. § 15.2-924. Water supply emergency ordinances A. Whenever the goveming body of any locality finds that a water supply ~nergen~ exists, it may adopt an ordinance restricting the use of water by the citizens of such locality for the duration of such emergency. However, such ordinance shall apply only to water supplied by a locality, authority, or company distributing water for a fee or charge. Such ordinance may include appropriate penalties designed to prevent excessive use of water, including, but not limited to, a surcharge on excessive amounts used. Greg Karnpmer gkamptne~albemarle.or.q September 1, 1999-10:00 to 10:15 a.m. A Monthly Communications Report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. Philosophy and Purpose format will be the same for each monthly presentation. Past ~ School Board Briefs - August 9 and August 23 (Attachments 4 and 5) ~ Report form the Superintendent Comparing Albemarle Test Scores on the SOLs with the State (Attachment 1) )~ Summary of Summer Major Projects } As of Monday August 23fa, the school division employed 125 new teachers, 25 bus drivers and approximately 20 other employees for the school year )~ There will be 46 trailers throughout the division } We are pleased that the division website has shown to be an excellent communications tool with some 118,000 hits from October 98-August 99 )~ 45 high school students graduated from the summer program, with 14 from Albemarle )~ The latest report from the State, of the 132 School Divisions, Albemarle County Schools is one of 13 who offers a Charter Schools opportunity to our citizens Present *)~ School Division Calendar/Handbook will be out in 2-3 weeks. > Murray High School Welcome Letter from the Principal (Attachment 2) > Monticello High School maintenance status Future > Monthly meeting with area legislators; first meeting on September 10. )~ Members of the School Board will be attending the County Fair to dialogue with the community and distribute school information August 9, Board Brief > Non-Pubhc School Student Access August 23 Board Brief School Board/Superintendent Priorities (enclosed with BrieD Welcome to Albemarle County Meeting Guide (Attachment 3) Albemarle County Schools Long Range Planning Committee Report Criminal Justice Services Grant CIP for 2000-2005 Future > Superintendent's Information Meeting with School Board and Board of Supervisors Candidates, September 15, 1999, 5:00 to 6:30 p.m., Room 331 )~ Superintendent's Round Tables Begin in September. The first is on September 29, 1999 at Albemarle High School, 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. )~ Superintendent and Board Chair will meet with the Chamber of Commerce on October 4 )~ The new Ivy Creek School will be dedicated on October 20 Albemarle County Public Schools DATE: TO: FROM: RE: July 29, 1999 Comparison of Albemarle County and State SOL Test Results Yesterday, the Virginia Department of Education released 1999 state results from the Standards of Learning (SOL) testing program. I want to share with you the results of our preliminary analysis. The table on the following page shows 1998 and 1999 percent passing and the change from 1998 to 1999 for both Albemarle County and the state. Highlights include: 1999 Albemarle County pass rate was higher than Virginia on 24 out of 27 SOL tests, compared to 22 out of 27 in 1998 * Improvement from 1998 to 1999 in Albemarle County was higher than Virginia on 19 of 27 SOL tests · The largest improvements in passing rates for Albemarle County were on the following tests: · Grade 5 English: Writing: 85.7 % passing, up 18.6 % · High School English: Reading: 74.4 · High School English: Writing: 78.3 · High School Algebra I: 60.7 · High School Algebra H: 54.5 · Grade 3 History & Social Science: 66.3 · Grade 5 History & Social Science: 67.8 · Grade 8 History & Social Science: 51.8 · Grade 5 Science: 77.1 · High. School Ear~ Science: 69.1 % passing, up 10.3 % passing, up 13.9 % passing, up 12.0 % passing, up 14.1 % passing, up 14.3 % passing, up 38.1 % passing, up 10,.7 % passing, up 12.2 % passing, up 12.5 One test on which scores dropped si~t~nificanfly was World History from 1000 A.D. to the Present / World Geography. This drop does not represent a decline for a whole cohort of students. Instead, this test was taken by only 106 students, many of whom had failed the earlier world history course or were identified as at risk. Next year, this course and test will be taken by most 10~ graders who are the first cohort required to have four history credits to earn an Advanced Studies diploma. Dr. Castner and I continue applauding the hard work and on-going efforts of our staff and teachers. Attachments (3) Standards of Learning Tes, ts Passing Rates for Albemarle COunty Public Schools and Virginia Albemarle County Virginia 1998 1999 Change 1998 1999 Change SOL Test Passing Passing from Passing Passing from Rate Rate 1998 to Rate Rate 1998 to (%) (%) 1999 (%) (%) ~ 1999 Grade 3 English 59.3 65.6 +6.3 53 61 '+8 Mathematics 63.3 68.8 +5.5 63 68 +5 History & Social Science 52.0 66.3 +14.3 49 . 62 +13 Science 69.4 75.3 +5.9 63 68 +5 Grade $ English: Reading, Literature, & Research 70.8 77.7 +6.8 68 69 +1 English: WHting 67.1 85.7 +18.6 65 81 +16 Mathematics 46.3 56.0 +9.7 47 51 +4 History & Social Science 29.7 67.8 +38.1 33 46 +13 Science 64.9 77.1 +12.2 59 67 +8 Computer/Technol%,y 79.8 89.1 +9.3 72 81 +9 Grade 8 English: Reading, Literature, & Research 65.6 73.9 +8.4 64 67 +3 English: Writing 68.6 74.2 +5.6 67 70 +3 Mathematics 57.5 67.0 +9.5 53 60 +7 History & Social Science 41.1 51.8 +10.7 35 40 +5 Science 73.0 81.3 +8.3 71 78 +7 Computer/Technology 70.3 76.6 +6.3 63 72 +9 High School English: Reading, Literature, & Research 64.1 74.4 +10.3 72 75 +3 English: Writing 64.4 78.3 +13.9 71 81 +10 Algebra I 48.7 60.7 +12.0 40 56 +16 Algebra II 40.4 54.5 +14.1 31 51 +20 Geometry 67.1 66.1 ~1.0 52 62 +10 Earth Science 56.6 69.1 +12.5 , 58 65 +7 Biology 77.9 83.2 +5.3 72 81 +9 . Chemistry 82.6 83.4 +0.8 54 64 +10 World History to 1000 AD + World Geography 66.0 73.5 +7.5 62 68 +6 World History from 1000 AD to the Present + World Geography 42.4 33.0 -9.4 41 47 +6 U. S. History 33.6 40.2 +6.6 30 32 +2 . . I Albemarle County Public Schools Department of Instruction July 29, 1999 Sthte ........... reports:' ................... : . ::. ...... rise" ""m stU:d en AssOCiated Press RICHMOND -- Virginia public ~chool students improved their scores on all 27 of the new statewide standardized tests in the second year they were given, but still performed poorly on history and math exams. The state Department of Educa- tion released statewide passing rates Wednesday for students who took the Standards of Learning tests ·in the spring. The depart- ment said it was still tabulating how well each school did and expected to have those results by late August. Last year, only 2.2 percent of the state's 1,813 public schools did well enough to meet accreditation requirements that will be in place by the 2006-2007 school year. The tests are given in grades 3. 5, 8 and high school. By 2004, stu- dents will have to pass the tests to graduate from high school. Students showed the greatest improvement on tests in algebra, fifth-grade writing, and third- and fifth-grade history. But there was a lot of room for improvement in most of those areas. The number of students passing the Algebra II test increased from 31 percent to 51 percent. In Alge, bra I, the passing rate improved from 40 percent to 56 ~ercent. For third-grade history, the number of students passiiig wen~ from 49 percent to 62 percent; for fifth-grade history, .from 33 percent t~46 percent; .... : .................. · . In'fifth-grade writing, the Pass- ing rate jumped from 65 percent to 81 percent. . -, , -: ': 'Virginia's: teachers deserve praise and c{Mit, for this accora- plishment,' said Kirk T. Schroed- er,, Presid.ent of the 'f~rginia Board of Education.'"l'he fruits of their Iabors are beginning to show. I'm especially:encouPaged' by' the sig- SOL pass rates ......... Percentage rates at which students in schools statewide passed the 1999 Standards o! Learning tests, arranged by grades and s~]b]e~ts. ' with 1998 percentage rates in parentheses. · Grade 3 English 61% {53%) Math 68% (63%) History 62o/o (49%) ' Science 68% (63%) Grade 5 English reading 69% (68%) English writing 81% (65%) Math 51% (47%) History 46% (33%) Science 67% (59%) Computer/Tech 81% (72%) Grade 8 English reading 67% (64%) English writing 70% (67%) Math 60% (53%) History 40% {35%) Science 78% (71%) Computer/Tech 72% (63%) High school English reading 75% (72%) English writing 81% (71%) Algebra I 56% (40%) Algebra II 51% (31%) Geometry 62% (52%) ' Earth science 65% (58%) Biology 81% (72%) Chemistry 64% (54%) World history 1 68% (62%) World history II 47% (41%) U.S. history 32% (30°/°) Source: Va. Dept. of Education. were 81 percent in fifth-grade writ- ing and computer tochhology, and - high school writing and biolOgy... The m~t dismal scores·were m.... high school American histo~; with' a 32 pei'cent paSSin, g rate that ~kas' only two percentage points bettep . than last year. Eighth-graders did- n't do'much bette/"with the' per:. Centag~ passing at '40 pe~;cent:,' up nificant increase'in algebrai". ...... · Patti D. Stapletpn, state super- insentient [of' pul~lic instruction, ~id he expe~ s~m;es ~ conthl{le to improve as teachers and stu- dents, get.more 'familiar 'with the standards and schbols adjt{st their · curriculum' to match the tests. ~ l,; ,,l,~ .... -'-- -~ .... · .. 'from 35 perCent last year. Educators have said the Stan-' · dards, of 'Learning required the: greatest'curriculum changes" inL' 'social studies; Some 'critics have. complained that questions on the Mstory tests recluire students to' memorize trivial facts rather than County schools mark :dr ......, p ,:-?...... " - ' ard im mvemeat by observing that~ · ' K -' '. · -' ire moving closer..to fu. ll.ac.cre.d, itatmn sta-. rl'~ County students reqmreme, n.~ m.n)~n~%%u~°ftests _ and' 'were bette~' prepared for tho te.s~;: i. 7.'"' 8 PETEFI SAI/ODNI . · ' ..- ' ' ne state-instituted start-. ^lbema ....... ~ . _ _ areas ami 1~ out o.i ai, o~Ju. ...... ~, .... hard to nrepare for the tests ¥. · .... tun. According to t . ' - · - ' hoois met me reqmre- ...... . , at the' Oatly Progress.staff wnler ' . chobis must achteve full accred-. -. ;.~,,vt~xt,rl their scores on 2~ four elementary sc ..... . . :- ~o-r because we dtdn t know .wh .., · · tu- ' itation status by 2007. Supen . .. me · dus Wood, · tests woum l~,a ..... U . . Albemarle County pubhc.-~cho, ol .s .... 's ' - 'Our interest now t of 27 SOL tests, corn . Those schools mdude~ Broa. . ~'-- ' lo- -ear held contribute to dents "dramatically* improved ,be!r Stan- .Ke,m.;C. Casta~cr¢~ldim kove ag~ius' its-; O_~..~i ,,,idn'tk,lr' ](}(}~ scores', Hollymead, Meriwether Lewis.and Sro.ny. :.',~,'evae~i ~naSctreY~.in ~:t scores: 'bei school beard officials announced Monday. · own results P · Almost ?,000 students in the third, mitred to' mei~ting and exceeding state . : "Fou{ other schools Came 6lose to meet- 'said. ' ' · . . ' pen to schools that fail to meet full arcred..-i iitth; 'eighth ~nd ninth through tweifth".accreditation requirements in all' county history, mathematics and science. · lng-full accreditation requirements: W~ed- It is unclear'at this time What will hap-i gradts took the second round of SOL tests schools.' · in.~ay. Students improved tbeit;'scores on To meet full accreditation status, at Albemarle schools in 1998 met ~equire- brook El6mentary School and Henley, Jack ' least '/0 percent of students in each school ments in four out of 16 content areas and Jouett and Sutherland middle schools." itation status by 2007.· 25 out of 27 SOL tests, compared with must pass each SOL, te!C Studen.?_t,~skhe' eight out of 27 SOL tests -- but no schools Director of Curriculum Developmen[ ' The coordinator of testing and pr?gram[ · ' ~be across- Sec SOL-on B.2i, tbei{ 1998 scores. '. ' '. ' ' · . . . ". The scores .indicate Albemarle schools 'the tests in four subject areas: ~.np~ , 'met full accreditation requirements. ; Sylvia. Hende~o.n explained i]-~''~'~ ..: .'.:. ~ '1 .~orMng ~ de~me wna:'~: mean~ , "' ' ' 'v~ i~ ~st r~u~ dlca~ the a~ Will. ~,~ ~ ' , - ' · · .h0t:'~e'oov' falling in~ive ofh~ t~ey I~ °~ tne~ '.? ~t ~a~ mem~ O~lion'Said, ~e don't kno~ ;.. :~iY.':~ L~:?' ';'.,":'.:'-' :;~" '"" " ' July 20, 1999 MURRAY HIGH SCHOOL 1200 Forest Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Telephone (804) 296-3090 Dear Parents: It seems hard to believe, but school will be starting in just five weeks. As you begin to think about the opening of a new school year, we wanted to let you know about a school of choice in our community. In Albemarle County we are fortunate to have three excellent comprehensive high schools which serve the majority of our students quite well. Most of the students in these schools are successful academically, socially, and are involved in their schools. There are, however, students who do not fare as well in the traditional high school setting. These students need another place to thrive. For them, there is Murray High School. Murray is a small, non-traditional high school in Albemarle County. Our vision is to create a caring community where quality learning takes place in a safe, respectful, non- coercive environment that meets the needs of diverse learners. As a school of choice, we believe that all students can learn and succeed when provided with a caring, supportive learning environment that meets their needs and interests. Murray High School is not for every student, but it is exactly the right place for some. Murray High School is for students who are not reaching their potential or who are in danger of not completing high school. These students feel that the traditional school setting is not right for them. Unlike most students who exper/ence the usual ups and downs of school life, they often feel lost in a large school and feel isolated from other students and teachers. These feelings may result in a loss of motivation to succeed in school. The unmotivated high school student is often one who was successful in elementary school, perhaps in middle school, but who has lost interest in high school and now has low grades, poor attendance, and unsatisfactory relationships at school. Although all students may experience some dissatisfaction in high school, for some students the dissatisfaction becomes constant. For these students, Murray High School may be the answer. We have included with this letter a fact sheet about Murray that includes the questions we are asked most often by prospective students and their parents. We encourage you to read this information even if your child is not interested in Murray in order to learn about the educational choices provided in our school division. To receive more information about how Murray High School might meet your child's needs, please call us at 296-3090. Our best wishes for a safe and restful summer and a wonderful school year. Enclosure Sincerely, Vicki C. Miller Principal "A Community of learners experiencing success." Questions Parents and Students Ask About Murray High School What type of student goes to Murray? Students at Murray represent a wide variety of interests, talents, and personalities. The Murray student is one who has found that the traditional high school does not meet their academic and/or personal needs. They feel "lost" in the crowd or have lost their motivation to succeed in school because they feel disconnected from the subject matter, from teachers, or from other students. Students come to Murray because they do not feel like they "belong" in their traditional school. Students who choose Murray are those who are not performing at their full potential in the traditional high school. Is Murray 'High School an accredited high school? Yes. Murray High School is a part of the Albemarle County Schools and is fully accredited by the Commonwealth of Virginia. We operate as a small, non-traditional alternative to the larger, comprehensive high schools in our county. Isn't an alternative school only for students with behavior problems? No. Although it is true that in many school districts the alternative school is one designated for students who have been removed from the regular school because of serious behavior issues, this is not the case with Murray High School. Murray students choose to come here because their needs are not being met in the traditional high school. If a student goes to Murray High School, can they go to college? Yes. Murray offers a curriculum leading to the general or advanced studies high school diploma. Many Murray students go on to colleges and universities, many go directly into the workforce, and some choose a combination of work and study. Information about career pathways, college selection, and career counseling are available from the guidance counselor to help students and parents make informed decisions about their future. Who can attend Murray and what about transportation? Any high school student eligible to attend school in Albemarle County may apply to Murray High School. Students who are accepted for admission must make a commitment to attend regularly, be actively involved in learning activities, allow students to learn and teachers to teach, and to mediate problems if necessary. Transportation is provided between the base school (the school to which the student is assigned currently) and Murray .High School each day. How is Murray like the other high schools? Our curriculum is very similar. The core classes we offer are the same as those in the other high schools in Albemarle County. Because of our small student population the number of electives we offer is less than that of the other high schools. As an accredited school, we base our classes on the Albemarle County curriculum and the Virginia Standards of Learning. Students at Murray follow the same standardized testing procedures as the other high schools. Like the other schools, we operate on the school calendar adopted for all coumy schools and follow the Albemarle County Schools Policies and Regulations that govern school operations, student services, and personnel. How is Murray different from the other high schools? Size: One of the most noticeable differences is our size. At full capacity we serve just over 100 students. This means that students and staffwork as a learning community where "everybody knows your name." Teamwork is essential to our success. Learning Environment: We are different in our approach to learning. Students do not receive "D's" or "F's" at Murray. Until material is learned so that the student receives a "C" or better (the level at which we say a student has mastered the material), a mark of "Incomplete" is received. Using this mastery learning model, students work independently and take the time they need to master material. Classes at Murray are characterized by independent, interdisciplinary, and experiential learning activities. Unlike the other high schools, students take only 3.5 classes each semester. (Like the other high schools, Murray students may earn 7 credits a year.) Student Responsibility and Involvement: Every student and staff member is responsible for the success of our school community, and we accept the responsibility of making appropriate choices. We are different from other schools in how school problems are resolved. Community meetings of the entire school are held to identify issues for study or action, to discuss problems to be solved, or to celebrate school and individual accomplishments. Run by students and based on the concept of town meetings where every voice is important, these commun/ty meetings allow students and staff to share the responsibility of developing workable solutions and plans of actions. Problem Solving and Conflict Resolution: On a personal level students and staff are required to mediate or "work out" any differences they have with others. The mediation process involves learning to understand and respect the other person's point of view and coming to a workable plan to solve the immediate problem and prevent furore ones. Parental involvement in solving problems is high. Communication between parents and teachers is frequent in order that families may provide the best possible support. Extracurricular Activities: Extracurricular activities are normally limited to class related activities, such as our original drama production each year. Another example is the PULSAR program that provides ongoing activities to establish cooperative relationships both within the school and with community members and law enforcement officials. Community service is an essential part of this program, and all students participate in PULSAR. We do not offer an extracurricular athletic program, but Murray students who wish to participate in school athletics may d° so at their base school. How do we get more information about Murray High School? Call us. We'll be happy to talk with you by phone (296-3090), or you may schedule an appointment. We also have parents and students who want to talk with you about our school. e What is the deadline to apply for admission this fall? To ensure a place at Murray High School next fall, completed applications should be sent to us no later than August 20, 1999. To receive an application, please call us. John Baker From: Sent: To: Subject: Frank Morgan Tuesday, August 31, 1999 2:25 PM John Baker FW: MHS Warranty Issues John - Hem's the detail on Monticello. Call me or Al if you have questions, ~Original Message---- From: Al Reaser Sent: Tuesday, August 31,19G9 1:38 PM To: Frank Morgan Subject: MHS Warranty Issues Major warranty Rems and original contract Rems that were not completed to our satisfaction are as follows: · Roof leaks in various locations · Floor tile - Manufacturer Defect · Heat in Unit E - Athletic Director's Office and In School Suspension · Gym Bleachers - Defective Wheels · Noise from heating and air conditioning units in Forum and Black Box · Erosion control items · Track surfaces peeling in limited areas · Gym floor paint peeling · Air balancing deficiencies, damper and exhaust fans · Baseball field lighting adjustments and re-aiming The majority of the items have been completed; however, some can not be fully tested until winter, For some items, the repair/fix is not acceptable and we are still holding $135,000 in retainage to insure these items are completed. Other items will require some modification of the original design for which we will holding the consultants responsible. It will take us another year to address all of the remaining, outstanding issues, as noted below: · Roof leaks - one in the Forum and. one.in the cafeteria · HVAC - noise in the Black Box and Forum are being corrected and the HVAC warranty has been extended through the 1999/2000 heating season. · Track - repairs were not acceptable and the contractor will be correcting the work. · Warranty Issues - red house waterproofing, remove sir fence on PVCC property. The Gym bleachers wheels have been replaced and we are negotiating a settlement to recover Damages. (costs for refinishing the floor, etc.). Except for the defective tile and bleacher wheels, the close out process is normal for this size of project. The process will continue through this year and we are preparing to reduce the contractor's retainage to $35,000, because most of the original work has been completed to our satisfaction. There is also a balance in the construction account to accommodate any problems that may arise, which were not part of the original contract. I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me on 973-3677, should you require any additional information ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD BRIEFS Also available at http'.//k12.albemarle, org "WE EXPECT 'SUCCESS" SCHOOL BOARD MEETING: August 9, 1999 BOARD ACTIVITY The Board appointed Ms. Ann, Shipe, representing the Jack Jouet[ District to the division s HEalth Advisory Board for a one-year term. Board consensus was reached regarding the School Board's 1999-2000 School Improvement Team Schedule. The schedule will be sent to principals in the near future. The Board agreed to hold monthly (September-December and April-August) informational meetings with Delegates Harris and Van Yahres and Senator Couric to discuss ongoing educational issues. The first meeting is scheduled for Friday, September 10, 1999, 12:00-1:30 p.m., in Room 235 of the County Office Building and will focus on Improving the Standards of Learning. The Board reviewed and provided input regarding the draft Welcome to Albemarle Coumy Meeting Gu/de, which provides information about understanding how Board meetings are conducted and how citizens may participate in the meeting process. The Board will approve the guide at its August 23 meenng. The Board appointed Mr. Koleszar and Mrs. McKeel as primary md alternate delegates, representing the division at the Virginia School Board's Association 0rSBA) Annual Meeting in November. The Board welcomed the following staff members to the division: · Ms. Patricia Hughes, Instructional Coordinator for Social Studies · Dr. Kevin Hughes, Testing Coordinator and Program Analyst · Ms. Phyllis Kasonik, Instructional Coordinator for Special Education · Ms. Allison Gwynn, part-time Assistant Principal at Western Albemarle High School and part-time Diversity Coordinator IVY CREEK SCHOOL The construction of Ivy Creek School is substantially complete and the school will open on time for the 1999-2000 school year. The Dedication Ceremony is scheduled for Wednesday, October 20, 1999, at 10:30 a.m. at the school. AFTER-SCHOOL ENRICHMENT REPORT The Albemarle County After-School Enrichment Program (ASEP), a self-sustaining business formed in 1982, provides after- school care in all 15 elementary schools, averaging 1,000 elementary students daily and has an annual budget of $1.3 million. Tuition and fees pay for salaries and operating expenses; the daily tuition of $7.00 has not increased since 1995, though operation time increased by 30 minutes in 1998-99 and average daily attendance increased from 500 in 1995 to 1,000-plus in 1999. Staff costs increased as finding experienced, qualified staff became difficult. The ASEP faces significant challenges: (1) at the current tukion rate, budget projections for FY 1999:00 exceed projected revenue; (2) labor and operating costs will continue to rise; 0) finding qualified and experienced staff will continue to be a concern; and (4) increased staff development will be needed to offset lack of experienced, qualified staff. Due to anticipated fiscal pressures including rising labor and operating costs, continuing technology upgrades, and increased need for staff development, staff recommended adjusting the per day fiat rate, staff to student ratio to 1:15 to offset costs, and institute a prepaid billing system to eliminate revenue lag and bill collection time. Other issues facing the ASEP are rapid growth, uncertainty of number of students with special needs, bill collecting and suspension of nonpayment, and program time increased due to the school schedule changes; Staff recommended three tuition rate scenarios to the Board, all of which had the following common assumptions: · Student-Staff Ratio of 15 to 1 (Head Teachers are not included in this ratio at schools where average daily attendance is 70 or greater). · $20.00 Registration Fee for each student (same as last year) · $15.00 Late Fee (same as last year) · Actual Usage Patterns from 1998-99 data · $9.00 and $10.00 daily rates for Emergency/Drop-In Use · Fund Balance goal of 15% of annual budget attained over 3-year period. After reviewing the three scenarios and taking public testimony and based on staff's recommendations, the Board approved Scenario 2,with a $7.90 average daily rate that includes the following advantages: Most frequent users receive discount Models business marketing practices Enhances cost control Bills are for even dollar amounts Encourages consistent purchase of services Slighdy discourages drop-ins Offers true graduated tuition scale Enables better planning of daily program Encourages greater use of program Infrequent users pay highest amount The Board noted that another advantage isthat nine days are built into the attendance structure at no additional cost to parents. Staff noted that a disadvantage was that less frequent users would exceed $8.30 per day 1999-2000 BOARD AND SUPERINTENDENT PRIORITIES At the Board'g June 17, 1999 Retreat, each member provided input as to possible priority areas for both the short and long term. The ideas generated at the Retreat were combined with ideas provided by the Parent Council, Teacher Advisory, Principals, and Department Heads, in addition to ongoing areas from 1998-1999. At the August 9 meeting, the Board.reviewed the priorities and narrowed the priorities to those most relevant for the 1999-2000 school year. The Retreat Committee was asked to take the remaining recommendations and to prioritize them into long term 2000-2004 priorities. Public testimony and possible Board action .will be taken on the 1999-2000 Board/Superintendent Priorities at the Board's August 23, 1999 meeting. STANDARDS OF QUALITY Each year as a part of the Annual Report to the General Assembly on the conditions and needs of public information in Virginia, the Board of Education is required to report the level of compliance by local school divisions With the requirements of the_ Standards of Qualky. Albemarle County Public Schools was in compliance with the Standards of Quality for the 1998-99 school year. The Board authorized the Chairman and Superintendent to forward the Standards of Quality affidavit to the Virginia Department of Education. COMMENDATIONS The School Board named Chris Callahan, Assistant News Director, at WINA Radio to the Virginia School Boards Association Media Honor Roll with a plaque bearing 'its Resolution of Appreciation for Mr. Callahan's exemplary media coverage of school news and events. REDUCTION-IN-FORCE UPDATE As of August 9, 14 out of 15 teaching p6sitions were secured, with three weeks left before school starts to place the remaining poskion. NON-PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENT ACCESS In August 1996, the School Board voted in favor of a limited pilot to allow non-public school students to attend county high schools on a part-time basis in the core academic courses during the 1996-1997 school year. Using the results of the 1996-97 pilot and House Bill 1860 allowing non-public students to enroll in public school classes, the Board voted in July 1997 to extend the pilot to the 1997-98 school year. In July 1998, the Board again expanded the pilot to include after school activities not governed by the Virginia High School League and that non-public school students could enroll in a maximum ofthree During the 1998-99 school year, 7 non-public school students took courses in Albemarle's middle and high schools. Principals reported only minor problems resulting from schedule changes, split schedules resulting from rotating schedules and the communication glitches resulting from both. The Board was presented with proposed Policy JECB, Admission of Non-Public Students for Part-time Enrollment in Middle Schools and High Schools. The policy includes the additional courses of health or physical education noted in the Standards of Quality and the Appropriations Act. Non-public school students can now participate on a part-time basis in English, math, science, history, social studies, vocational education, fine arts, foreign language, physical education and health. 'The Average Daily Membership (Al)M) continues to be 0.25 per course up to a maximum of .50. The Board receded the proposed policy for first reading and provided recommendations to staff. Public testimony and Board action will occur at the August 23 meeting. STANDARDS OF LEARNING AND MIDDLE SCHOOL HONORS PROGRAM The division received the official Standards of Learning te~t scores frbm the state. This information was communicated to the public through the media and can be found on the division's Website. The division gave the end-of-course SOL tests to students in secondary summer school. Recent Standards of Learning data received from the state is currently being analyzed regarding the performance of our African-American students in comparison to Caucasian students. Information will be provided to the Board in the near future. Staff continues to review the Middle School Honors Program, emphasizing the need for staff development and training in differentiating instruction to meet the needs of all students in their classes. The Board will receive a formal report in December. Albemarle County School Board Meeting Guide Welcome to an Albemarle County School Board Meeting. The members of the Albemarle County School Board and the Division Superintendent are pleased that you have chosen to participate. We have prepared this School Board Meeting Guide to assist you in gaining the most information possible and an understanding of how Albemarle County School Board meetings are conducted and how you may participate. The School Board schedules regular meetings and work sessions each month. Meetings of the School Board are typically held in the Albemarle County Office Building .The exact times and room numbers of the meetings are published in the newspapers, placed on the community bulletin board in the County Office Building, and listed on the Albemarle County School's website, in advance of the meetings. Types of Albemarle County School Board Meetings Regular Meetings are normally held the second Monday of the month. These meetings normally have the "Action" items that the School Board is considering. Regular meetings will have actions that were taken under advisement by the Board that will appear as "Consent Agenda Items". The meeting Regular agendas will have timed allocations for each item on the agenda. Awards and commendation to students, staff, and the community are normally presented at these meetings. Work Sessions are meetings held the fourth Monday of the month. These meetings normally have in-depth discussions and presentations of programs and ideas that the School Board and the School Division staff are considering. Many ideas from these meetings are then presented at the regular meetings for adoption. On occasion there may be an action item scheduled that the Public can provide input on. Closed Meetings (formerly called "executive sessions") are meetings that are conducted for student disciplinary problems, employee hearings, personnel issues, property, and legal matters. While the general subject of these meetings are made known, the meetings themselves, are not open to the public. Closed meetings are normally held before or after the Regular Sessions or Work Sessions. Special Meetings are meetings held to specifically address a topic such as budget or school boundary redistricting. Public Input for Meetings The Albemarle County School Board, consistent with Virginia law, requires public comment at meetings involved with the approval process for the School Division Budget and the redistricting of school attendance boundaries. While public comment is not required at other meetings, the Albemarle County School Board provides for public comment at two oppommities on the Regular School Board agenda. One opportunity is the agenda item: "Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda From the Public or Division Employees". The other oppommity is before any "Action" item on the agenda. Addressing the Board Members of the public who wish to address the Board are required to sign up with the School Board Clerk in person on the day of the meeting. The public will not be allowed to sign up to address the Board or add additional names, after the agenda is approved at the meeting. Persons addressing the Board are asked to be courteous and respectful. The presentations are to be short and to the point. Information papers may be provided to the Board members and are useful to explain salient points not possible in the oral presentation. There is normally no dialogue between the public and the Board members Personnel issues are not appropriate for public discussion. These issues should be addressed by letter or in private. Comments from the public are normally limited to three (3) minutes. Comments are taken under advisement by the Board. School Board Briefs Within one week after each meeting, the School Board Clerk's office prepares a summary of the Board meeting called Board Briefs, Copies are available at each school and are also available for mailing upon request. The full official Board minutes are normally available for approval, publication, and dissemination at the next subsequent Board meeting. Board Briefs is also available on our Website http://kl2.albemarle.or~. The Conduct of Meetings Regular Meetings are conducted using Robert's Rules of Order. Work Sessions are usually less structured and dialogue between members is orderly yet comparatively informal. Dialogue between staffpresenters and the Superintendent and Board Members usually result from the exchange of ideas and presentation of data. The public may attend but does not participate. The Chairman is responsible for the orderly conduct of the meeting. Attendance at Closed Meetings is limited to the Board. Other persons whose attendance is relevant to a particular issue usually include the Superintendent and the Deputy County Attorney. Other persons, at the discretion of the Board, may also be invited. A motion to go into session and a motion to come out session is a requirement for Closed Meetings. Special meetings, depending on their nature, may have public comment. Body Corporate The Albemarle County School Board consists of seven (7) members who are elected by magisterial districts. Individual members have no duties or powers beyond those assigned them by the School Board as a whole. For this reason School Board meetings have a great significance to the community as we conduct the business of providing the most effective policy and management of the School Division as possible. We appreciate and value your opinion and participation in these community meetings and look forward to your regular attendance. A Typical Regular Meeting Agenda 6:30 Call to Order Agenda Approval Pledge of Allegiance Moment of Silence Consent Agenda Approval Announcements Commendations 7:15 Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda From Public or Division Employees * 7:45 School Board Business 8:00 Committee Reports 8:15 Year-to Date Financial Report 8:30 - 10:00 Programs and Activities by the Superintendent and Staff- Presented for Information or Action * 10:00 Other Business by Board Members Closed Session (when required for matters permitted by law) Certify Closed Session 10:30 Adjournment * Opportunity for Public Comment John E. Baker, At-Large, Chair R. Madison Cummings, Jr., Samuel Miller District, Vice-Chair Stephen H. Koleszar, Scottsville District Diantha H. McKeel, Jack Jouett District Susan C. Gallion, Rio District Jeffrey D. Joseph, Rivanna District Charles M. Ward, White Hall District School Board Clerk Tina Pendleton Fuller Superintendent Kevin C. Castner Deputy_ County Attorney Mark Trank Should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to call the School Board Office at (804) 972-4055. Visit our Website at http ://kl 2.albemarle.org. Additional sources of meeting policy and school information are contained in the documents and publications shown below: · Albemarle County School Board, Policies and Regulations, Section B, School Board Governance and Operations · Superintendent's Quarterly Newsletter School Talk · Albemarle County Monthly Publication Bits and Pieces · Virginia School Board, published by the Virginia School Boards Association · Virginia School Laws 22.1, Education Title 15.1, Counties, Cities & Towns 4 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD BRIEFS Also available at bttp://kl2.albernarle, org "'WE EXPECT SUCCESS" SCHOOL BOARD MEETING: BOARD ACTIVITY AND ACTION After taking public testimony, the Board approved the 1999- 2000 School Board/Superintendent Priorities. Twenty-three priorities were approved and are delineated as an attachrg, gE!_ to the Board Briefs. In addition, the priorities V/ill'ge posted on the division website. After taking public testimony, the Board approved Policy JECB, Admission of Non-Public Students for Part.time / Enrollment in Mid~lle Schools and High &hools. The policy{,. includes the additional courses of health or physical education noted in the Standards of Quality and the Appropriations Act. Non-pUblic school students can now participate on a part-time basis in English, math, science, history, social studies, vocational education, fine arts, foreign language, physical education and health. The Average Daily Membership (A.DM) continues to be 0.25 per course up to a maximum of .50. The Board approved the Welcome to Albemarle County Meeting Guide, which provides information about understanding how Board meetings are conducted and how citizens may participate in the meeting process. The brochure will be provided at Board meetings, put on the division website, and made available upon request. The Board expelled two middle school students for the first semester of the 1999-2000 school year for being in possession of a look-alike weapon. The following individuals were appointed to acting administrative positions for 1999-2000: Alison Gwynn - half-time Acting Employee Relations Coordinator and half-time Assistant Principal at Western 'Albemarle High'SchoOl ....... · Ashby Kindler - half-time Acting Assistant Principal at Western Albemarle High School · Andy Grider - Acting Assistant Principal at Henley Middle School COMMENDATIONS Kimberly Walters, a member of the United States National Swim Team, represented the United States in New Zealand at the World Disability Swim Championship last year. At age 11, sh.e was the youngest swimmer to ever represent the United August 23, 1999 _ States in International competition. She was also the youngest ' iwimmer from 55 countries at the World Championships. Klm returned from the United States National Championship where she broke a world record and 2 American records. At age 12csheholds 1 World and 3 American records. Kim attends Sutherland Middle School and will enter the 7th grade this school year. In addition to her athletic prowess, Klm loS in her academic studies. NG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE The Long Range Planning Committee consists of school division and local government staff and seven citizens appointed by the School Board. The Committee extensively studied a variety of factors impacting facility needs. In July, 1998 the Board received its first Committee report with a follow up report presented to the Board on August 23. Based on its study of factors impacting facility needs, the Committee drew the following conclusions. Areas of the County with the most significant population growth in the foreseeable future will be the North 29 corridor and in the southern and eastern urban ring. While population growth and enrollment increases will also continue in the western part of the County, the pace will be slower than in the North 29 corridor or in the southern and eastern urban ring. There will be a need for a capacity increase at the dementary, middle, and high school levels. The most significant need will be at the elementary and middle school levels. Some of this need will be driven by revision ~of the building capacity'formula to reflect the implementation of differentiated staffing. 4. The need for the Northern Elementary School is critical because of the rapid growth in the North 29 corridor. The rapid projected growth in the North 29 corridor indicates the need for additional elementary, middle, and high school capacity in the next 15 years. Cale Elementary School and Brownsville Elementary School continue to show a trend that will cause both schools to be over capacity in the near future. Because of the implementation of differentiated staffing, the formula to determine individual building capacities needs to be adjusted. Committee Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Recommendations: 1. Increase the capacity of the Southern Urban Elementary School from 400 to 600. 2. Move land purchase for the Southern Urban Elementary School forward two years, to 2000-2001. 3. Increase the'addition to Jack Jouett Middle School in 2003- 2004 to reflect a capacity of 750 instead of 690. 4. Establish a new project in 2004-2005 to increase capacity at Henley Middle School from 690 -750. 5. Early land acquisition for projected needs, in approximately 15 years, for new elementary, middle, and_. high schools in the North 29 Corridor. Committee Redistricting Recommendations: Redistricting for the Northern Elementary School should occur and be completed during the 1999-2000 school year in preparation for the school's opening in the fall of 2001. As a part of the redistricting process for the Northern Elementary School, steps should be taken to relieve existing crowding at Cale Elementary School and eventual crowding in the Crozet area, specifically at Brownsville Elementary School. During 199%2000, the Committee will review its work in light of updated enrollment projections, new residential development information, and other relevant factors. CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES GRANT An increase in the presence of School Resource Officers (SROs) at the middle school level was identified by staff and community members as an area 0f ongoing need. Funding for one additional SRO position has been procured through a Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services Grant. This grant, to be administered by local government, covers 75% of salary and benefits and is potentially renewable for 'four years. Under this program, the participating school division must provide the remaining 25% of the salary and benefits for the officer, in this case, a match of $11,447. TheAlbemarle County Police Department will assume-att other-costs, including equipment, training, and other normal operational expenditures. The total estimated cost for the position, including training and equipment is approximately $70,000. The Board allocated $11,447 of the School Board Reserve to ) fund this much needed position. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (CIP) FOR 2000/2001 - 2004/2005 The CIP for the school division is a five-year budget, updated annually to adjust for changing needs. In order to allow local government to accurately project its five-year capital expenditures, all departments are instructed to submit new projects in the fifth year of the plan. Only emergencies, clearly identified as critical need projects, or unanticipated technology needs, may be submitted in the first four years. School administration and staff have had an opportunity to submit ~requests, which have been reviewed, screened, and financially estimated by the Building Services Department. The enrollment of the school division is projected to grow from 12,205 in 1999-2000 to 12,967 in 2003-04, a growth rate of 6.24%. Th/s localprojection is actually lower than the 13,300 being projected for Albemarle County for the same period by the Igreldon Cooper Center. Between 2004-05 and 2013-14, enrollment is projected to grow from 13,174 to 15,196, a growth rate of 15.35%. The total enrollment growth rate proj.e, cte~!.;{rom '1998-1999 to 2013-14 is 3,215 or 26.83%. The Long Range Planning Committee extensively studied enrollment projections and a variety of other factors affecting facility needs, including reducing the teacher to pupil ratios and the implementation of differentiated staffing. Based on these considerations, the following recommendations have been rporated into the FY 2005 CIP Request: Project Completion Change ~ 1. Jouett 2003 Enlarge to 750 Students Addition 2. Southern 2004 Increase Capacity to 600 Elementary Students 3. Southern 2004 Site Purchase Moved Forward Elementary 2 Years to 2000/01 4. Henley 2005 Increase Capacity to 750 Addition Students 5. Site Land 2005 Begin Acquisition Process Acquisition 6. M.alntenamce 2005 Incorporated Additional Request Projects The total five-year Capital Improvement Request is $63,394,158. Projections cannot fully capture the potential growth associated with the large scale Research Park in the North 29 corridor and other industrial development that is now underway. Therefore, the current enrollment estimation could be dramatically affected by rapid increases in the availability of employment in'the area. Additional maintenance req_ue~ts include the replacement of the heating and air conditioning systems at Henley, Jouett, Brownsville and Woodbrook, all of which will be 40 years old at the time of replacement. These are significant new maintenance projects. Additionally, it is necessary to address lighting upgrades or replacements for classrooms and field lights. The 1998 School Safety Audit identified a need for upgrading exterior lighting in various schools, which has been included in the FY2000/01 request. The Board received the report for information and will take public testimony and action on the proposed program at its September 13, 1999 meeting. 1999-2000 SCHOOL BOARD/SUPERINTENDENT PRIORITIES All priority categories are keyed to the Standards of Quality (SOQ) and include the status of multi-year priorities. I. A Culture of Continuous Improvement (SOQs 1,3) Ae II. 'Standards of Accreditation-(Year 2 of a 4-year priority) By the year 2002, all schools in the division will meet the state accreditation requirements. (Under the SOA, students have until 2004 to meet the verified credit requirement for graduation, and until 2007 to meet SOL test result requirements for school accreditation.) Parent Survey(Reinstatement of an ongoing priority) The Par6nt Survey will be administered in grades K-12. Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment (SOQ ~1) Literacy (Year 2 Of an ongoing priority) ........ Work will continue to implement the recommendations of the Literacy Task Force. The ultimate goal of all literacy initiatives will be to have all students reading at grade level. Major emphasis will be placed on grades K-3, but emphasis will be placed in all grades. Middle School Performance Standards (Year 1 of a 2-year priority) Middle School performance standards will be developed and implemented, with major emphasis on differentiated instruction. Exit Portfolios (Year I of a 2-year priority) A plan to implement exit portfolios that represent in-depth student performance in grades 5, 8, and 12 will be developed. Elementary Report Card (Year 2 of a 3-year priority) The common elementary report card will be piloted and re£med so that it can be fully implemented during the 1999-2000 school year. Elementary Foreign Language (Year 3 of a 3-year priority) A decision will be made whether or not to pursue implementation of foreign language instruction in elementary school. Extended Learning Time (Year 1 of a I-year priority) A review of the research on the instructional impact of extended learning time will be completed and a recommendation developed concerning this area. III. Safety and School Climate (SOQs 2,6) Ao School Improvement Goal- Climate (Year 1 of an ongoing priority) All School Improvement Plans will include at least one objective to address school climate. Equity and Diversity Committee and Discrimination Incident Reporting (Year 1 of an ongoing priority)~ T~e Equity and Diversity Gommittee~vill be-orgmai~ed and-a-disc'hmimttion,iaeident reporting procedure will be implemented. Alternative School (Year 2 of a 3-year priority) A short-term and long-term proposal will be developed for the implementation of an alternative program to serve students experiencing behavioral problems. Safety Planning (Year 1 of a 2-year priority) The Superintendent will present the School Board with a detailed report on safety, including current initiatives in place, proposed initiatives, and funding implications. IV. Bo Co Vie C. VIII. ,4. Technoloev (SOQs 1,2,5) Technology Plan (Year 1 of an ongoing priority) The Division Technology Plan will be updated to reflect the implementation of the Department of Technology. The Plan will place major emphasis on teacher training and expectations for students that exceed those outlined in the Standards of Learning. Human Resources (SOQs 2,5) Strategic Plan for Total Compensation (Year 1 of a 3-year priority) A Five-Year Strategic Plan for Total Compensation will be developed and presented to the Joint Boards. FY 2000-2001 budget requests in this area willreflect thisplan. Strategic Recruitment Plan (Year 2 of a 3-year priority) A Strategic Recruitment Plan will be developed to increase minority representation in teaching and administrative positions, to develop future administrative leadership within the school division, to increase the pool of applicants for hard-to-fill positio~to promoted.the overall retention of employees. Teacher and Administrative Evaluation Instruments (Year 2 of a 3-year priority) The revision of Teacher and Administrator Evaluation instruments will be completed consistent with guidelines being developed at the state level, with the goal of implementing a large-scale pilot during the 2000-2001 school year. Enrollment and Facilities (SOQ 2) Northern Elementary School (Year 1 of a 2-year priorityd All necessary planning, including redistricting, will occur so that the Northern Elementary School will open in the fall of 2001. The redistricting process will occur during the 1999-2000 school year. Construction Planning (Year I of an ongoing priority) Earlier planning, site acquisition, and construction tirnelines will be instituted for new facilities~ The cooperative roles of the school division and local govemmem in this process will also be reviewed. Improving and Streamlining Operations (SOQs 2,6,7) Communications Plan (Year 2 of a 2-year priority) The Division Communications Plan will be £malized and implemented. Leave Policies (Year 2 ora 2-year priority) Revised leave policies for teachers and classified staff will be adopted. Section J (Students) Policies (Year 2 of a 2-year priority) Section J (Students) of the policy manual will be reviewed and revised as part of the ongoing review o£ the manual. Career Preparation (SOQ 1) CA TE-CPrb~ram Revib'~ (Year i of a 12year p~iority) The School Board will monitor the progress of the work of the CATEC Design Committee. Charlottesville Albemarle School Business Alliance (CASBA) Assessment (Year 3 ora 3-year Priority) The mission and programs of CASBA will be assessed. Evidence: Progress on these priorities will be clearly communicated to the Board by category on a monthly basis through an Annotated Project Summary provided in a Thursday Letter. In addition, the Board will receive a formal midyear update in December on the priorities. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Discussion: Burning Permit Fee for Agricultural Activities. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Pumphrey, Spicer AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: No BACKGROUND: Mr. Perkins recently requested that the Board consider reviewing the need to assess a burn permit fee to farmers burning land debris. The current fee for a burn permit is $125 and is valid for 60 days. The permit requirement is designed to help ensure that fire officials are aware of planned burning activities and are able to conduct an investigation prior to the bum. During the current calendar year, the County has issued 91 bum permits for farms, for which only 13 have paid a fee. Few farms have paid a fee because staff has worked with landowners to .reduce the debris to be burned by advising them on alternative means of disposing of the debris. This includes chipping, mulching and the use of debris for firewood. By reducing the amount of debris, landowners are able to avoid the assessment of a fee. Larger farming operations that are unable to significantly reduce the amount of debris to be burned, however, are unable to avoid the fee. DISCUSSION: One issue to consider is that the elimination of the permit fee for farms may serve as a disincentive for landowners to reduce the amount of the debris that is actually burned. Smaller burns improve fire safety and result in fewer calls for service or the need for monitoring. The vast majority of burn permits issued have not required a fee because the ultimate burn was so insignificant. Without the requirement of a fee, the number of permits and actual burns could actually increase, as will the complaints and need for investigations. The majority of investigations currently conducted are a result of fire companies requesting assistance at the scene of a fire. RECOMMENDATION: This item has been provided for Board discussion and review. BOARD OF SUPER¥ISOR 99.169 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Bright Stars/Family Support Presentation SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Background information for the Bright Stars/Family Support Presentation STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Ralston, Haines AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: IN FORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Bright Stars pre-school initiative began in FY96 under the leadership of the Department of Social Services and an advisory board of school and community agency representatives. The program began at Stone Robinson and has added a new program each year at Greer, Agnor Hurt and Cale. In FY98/99, the Department of Social Services implemented a new Family Support Program in all of the County's elementary schools to complement the pre-school program and work with children and their families from kindergarten through 5th grade. DISCUSSION: Charity Haines, Bright Stars and Family Support Program Coordinator, will provide an update on both the Bright Stars and Family Support program. Attached for your information prior to the presentation is a brief report on the FY98/99 Bright Stars program and two background articles, one on program design for pre-school programs and one on assessment tools to measure early childhood performance. Additional hand-outs on the Bright Stars and Family Support program will be provided at the meeting. RECOMMENDATION: No action is required by the Board. This material is provided for the Board's information only. BO~RD OF SUPERVISORS 99.166 Bright Stars Report 1998-1999 School Year l, ghat the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, That must the community want for all its children. John Dewey Background/History: The Bright Stars program is an early intervention program for at-risk four- year-olds. The program is an important part of the continuum of services for families and children that is supported by the Albemarle County Department of Social Services. The Bright Stars program seeks to foster support for the family as a whole by providing quality early childhood education and broad family support during the preschool year and beyond. The Bright Stars program completed its fourth school year in June of 1999. During the 1998-1999 school year 64 children were served. Bright Stars programs are located in Stone-Robinson, Greer, Agnor-Hurt and Cale Elementary schools. Over the last four years, the program has served 152 students. The program is looking forward to serving 64 children during the 1999-2000 school year at the same locations. The program is operated by an Advisory Board, which is comprised of community members representing various agencies, principals, teachers and parent representatives. (See Attachment). The school principal, the family coordinator, an Albemarle County preschool teacher and a preschool teaching assistant run the individual programs, based at a school site. All four locations use the High/Scope Child Development Curriculum and the Child Observation Record with the students. The Advisory Board and the school-based programs seek to fulfill the following goals through the Bright Stars program: · Provide age-appropriate education and enrichment opportunities · Help families access appropriate community resources · Facilitate and sustain parental involvement in their children's education · Serve as a model for collaboration among county government, schools and the community · Enhance children's relationships with other adults and peers; to enhance children's social interactions. The Program and Curriculum Bright Stars students attend preschool in a self-contained classroom 5 days per week during regular school hours. Many also attend the after-school enrichment programs. Bright Stars uses a "point" system to select families that otherwise might not be able to provide a high-quality preschool program for their children. Children are assigned points for certain factors, including but not limited to: 1. Whether or not they qualify for free or reduced lunch 2. Whether or not they have a sibling in school who is having difficulty 3. If there are medical or mental illness problems 4. If there is a speech or other developmental delay 5. If there is known domestic abuse Funding for the program is provided by the Commonwealth through the Virginia Preschool Initiative Grant, instituted in 1995 by the Virginia Department of Education, with matching funds allocated by Albemarle County. Additional program support is provided by the USDA, which helps to provide a daily breakfast, lunch and snack. In-kind services are provided by the schools such as, classroom space, utilities, bus service, janitorial services, office supplies and staff time. Local agencies provide training to staff, parents and children, dental and medical assessments and education and volunteers in the classrooms. The curriculum used in Bright Stars' classrooms is High/Scope. This curriculum targets six development learning areas for children including, Initiative, Social Relations, Creative Representation, Music and Movement, Language and Literacy and Logic and Mathematics. High/Scope is based in the philosophic ideal that children learn by doing, touching, acting and feeling. The curriculum boasts a substantial longitudinal research base. (See Attachment). Children are assessed informally, every day through teacher observation translated into anecdotal records. A computer program keeps track of the children's progress and assists the teacher in guiding the curriculum toward student needs. Data is continually being collected not only on the children's academic progress but also on the extent of family involvement in the program. Family Support Supporting families in need is the backbone of the Bright Stars program. A child's preschool education is simply one piece of the support struggling families require. Bright Stars is a holistic program, which offers parents a variety of opportunities to gain additional knowledge that will help their child's development. Family Nights are held monthly in all four programs. These gatherings are designed to be social and educational. Information is provided on such essential topics as, child development, discipline, health and nutrition and literacy. Childcare is provided for the families through a cooperative arrangement with the University of Virginia. Dinner is also provided and is a highlight of the evening. During 1998- 99 parents attended Family Nights in increasing numbers and were encouraged to also attend larger school events like Math Night at Greer and The Spring Fair and Spaghetti Dinner at Cale. Here are some comments from parents about these Family Nights: "The dinner was great and that counselor really talked about my child!" "I could do that at home with all my kids." "I'm going to try to spend 15 minutes every day being with my kid - just one-on-one." More than half of the families realized their own personal goals during the year. These goals included getting a driver's license and passing a GED. Family coordinators help each family to set these goals at the beginning of the year and then provide support and encouragement for them to follow through even when it is hard. Home visits are another essential component of the support program. The Family Coordinator visits each child's home regularly during the school year. During these visits the Coordinator interacts with all members of the family, introduces books for the family to read, initiates a family or child-focused activity, asks questions about family needs and progress and monitors progress on the in dividualized service plan. At graduation time, all four programs held special "ceremonies" to acknowledge the progress and success each child and family had made. Principals from the school sites attended and took part in the ceremony. Parents were overheard talking and laughing with one another and saying how much their children had gained from the program. One parent summed it up - "I hope Bright Stars keeps going for a lot more years!" Early'Childhood Education Just Keeps Mattering More By Rebecca Jones From The American School Board Journal Shakespeare to their bellies. Others smoke pot, watch Jerry Springer, and curse the dog. If the disparitY contin- ues afterbirth, it shows up in class- rooms in five or sixyears~ with some kids ready to conjugate French verbs and*others not knowing what state they live in. Teachers can spot the versity School of Medicine, father of two school-age children, and an ad- viser to the Parents As Teachers Na- tional Center in St. Louis. Can anything be done to prevent the nightmare? Many neuroscientists sayyes. Their research indicates that intensive interVention inthe early Years can make a dramatic difference, especially for at-risk ~/:hildren. *The kids earmarked for failure: They c~'t brain is not fully developed at birth, sit still, listen, concentrate, and f°l- they say,-with vital neural connec- low directions. They don't knoWcol- tionS yet to. be made !n the fffst few ors: Or- seasons; EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION , such research, state legislatures and school districts around the country are racing to save kids-and special education costs---. bycreatingand expanding early child- hood education programs. Dozens of studies'including the legendary High/Scope Perry Preschool Project .that' began tracking preschoolers in the 1960s and.continues-to follow 'those same "kids,' nowin theirq0s-- show that e]fective preschool pro- grams;produce, everything from higher IQs and fewer special educa- tionreferrals to bigger paychecks and lowerdivOrce rates. : 'These programs are expensive, bUt theirp~yoff ts-impressiVe: R. Clay Shouse; director**of educational pro- gramsat High/Sc0peEducational Re- Search Foundation,'ln Ypsilanti, ; every dollar spent on ~ has and 14% of Researchers have compiled clear, convincing evidence of what works in early childhood education. But the studies concentrated on at-risk chit- -dren, Do the same principles and strategies apply with ordinary kids? "My.sense is that they do," says Fran Favretto, director of the research- oriented Center for Young Children, which serves the offspringof faculty, staff, and students at the UniversitY of Maryland, College Park. "Children need to be in environments with in- structional integrity." Here's what researchers say creates such envi- ronments: 1. Decide--and deaign--what you need. Get the advice of special- ists in early childhood education. And a background in elementary educa- tion is not enough. "Four-year-olds are not miniature 8-year-olds," says Barbara Wilier, of the National Asso- ciation for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), in W. ashington, D.C.: "Simply as signing your staff who may have been trained in other ele- ments of elementary education is not appropriate. You've got to make sure people really understand early child~ hood and really understand early childhood education." ' childhood education (ECE) ;indeed different from elementary active, de- and baladces reasonable ex- play. n elementaW al~ ~ NAEYC president and at the Frank Porter Gra~ ham THE EDUCATION DIGEST,~ on classes, or on hell rial relationshi ~ofspa- Be(ore look at the preschools in ~ourl ~om- bat." :heaper and ultimately better a'problem]yight Off the tsklyou to make by Offering wrap-around pro- grams thatcombine goOd-qualttyday care with a preschool experience. ~lf You createreally.wonderful twO-and- a'half-hour-a-dayprograms.~Mitchell · says; ,lOts and lots of: kids are not going tobe able to take advantage of Some states one~16and EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION there to take care of the menial chores or the totletlng~ Otherwise, you're diluting the Intensity" of the prOgram. The most effective teaching in an ECE classroom is one-on-one. "You sit down on the-flOor and have a genuine conversatio, n between a big person and alittle person, rather than haVing an adult ask a 16tof ~lUestions that have right or wrong answers," says Shouse. The most effective teachers draw kids into 'school-like discourse pat- terns" by asking questions,' Freve says--not 'What letter iS this?" but thought-Provokers like, 'WhiCh. of theseobJects do youthinkwill float?" SUch qU~tions are good preparation forschool;shesays: "Research shows children are genuinely-pUzzled by this-~ of qu~sti°n' if ct,.heY'-"re' not used~o it; [Theywonder] Wl~yis this be for children to get enough one-on- one time?" The answer, his meta- analysis ot 38 ECE research studies says, is 15, with a certified teacher and a trained assistant in 'the class- room. This is in line with NAEYC's recommendations, which advocate different staffing patterns according to children's ages. "If you .want 'to · intervene [with at-risk children ], you need a more intensive programf Freveexplains, which "means smaller class size." 4. Engage kids In learning. Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget taught that children learn best when they con-~ struct meaning out of their environ- ment. In ECE today, that translates to finding less~ns where children live and engaging in hands-on activities initiated by kids and guided byteach- ers. lt also translates to an absolute adult asking me a'questiOn ,s,.he Obvi-. horror ~f worksheets, despite many ouslY knOWs'the answer to?!~ · · parents Yearnings. At a HeadStart research confer- time 'Washington, D.C, a teacher that these parents might their children are working on a curriculum. If so, they but worksheets it. Re- search:shows "it seems to matter you have content in your cur- not just that you let [kids] play ~ a e&i~rete THE EDUCATION DIGEST fact and moving on to an abstract idea. Shouse criticizes most pre- schools for doing the opposite: "They'll tell you that children learn· best from concrete to abstract, but what they're doing is starting~with the abstract--the books, videos, sto- ries about a fire station--rather than starting with Ia visit to] the fire sta- tion itself.; Some subjects beg tO be covered in an ECE curriculum. Ongolngstud- les at the Unlverslty .of California- lrvine and the University of Wiscon- sin-Oshkosh Indicate that music train- ing improves kids' spatial-temporal reasonlng--thekind used in propor- tional math, fractions, and geometry. Gordon Shaw, Professor Emeritus at lrvine, and president of M.I.N.D. (Mu- sic IntelligenceNeuralDevelopment) Institute, in Orange County, says, "If yo, u're looking fpr long-term benefits, I think we don't have all the answers yet, but all the indications are that music is really helping to hardwire the brain to improve what we call spatial-temporal reasoning." $. Make. room to grow. "A good- teacher can' make almost any space. work," Freve Says, butNAEYC recom- mends at least 35~square feet·of us- able play. space ipdoors per child; and your state prob.ably has mini- mum requirements'as we,!l.~!deal~y, an ECE centershould alsohave low 'sinks and small toilets, pr~fer.a:b!y claSSroom. ... , .~.~ ?,. thaw. hen !ndiana.,;.iicenslng .,~...ps~l__ t~ ant Bob. Mi!.Is:.i:enters an, room, he- s ~ysh~: immedlatel~.lo'o!~., as~nd/~at~ea °~eg!:and ., ~.. .~.,..~: .... ~ ~, .... , ...... an art easel open and available? Does the room have a good supply of unit blocks? Is the teacher actively In. volved in play with the children?" Based on her research, Freve loolcs for a logical, somewhat tidy arrange- ment of interest areas ("In the Art Area, you have only art materials-- you don't have small manlpulatives"); unstructured materials such as blocks, Legos, and art supplies (and plenty of them: ~Children shouldn't be fighting over theme);· and a large selection of books, papers, pens, and other literacy-related materials, A computer is OK, she says, but ~lf you're just starting up a program or if you don't have, a lot of money, that's not where I would put my money. It's a luxury." Outdoors, NAEYC recommends at least 75 square feet of play ,space per child. (If you don't have enough space, you can take fewer kids out- side at a time.) For safety'S sake, preschoolers need a separate play- ground, .with equipment specifically designed for 2- to 5ryear-olds, says D~nna Thompson, director of the National Program for Playground Safety at the University of Northern Iowa:.~l wouldn't allow them robe On the school-age equipment·· atYall. Ever." -Btit you might not need tradlt!onal playground., equipment. Opportuni- ties ~to, build things out of*sand;~wa- ter, and other matkrla.~s are P~obably morelmportanL ThompsOn~'a!So;rec- omm~ncis ,,a'.tricyCle l~ath;~i!t~ds] .capr. ide a*r o~un~ot bplL.*~aybeii~ a~': figU~ s0m t i'n EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ~. Take emro of teeth, toes, and tummlea~ Effective, research-backed ECE programs usually provide den- tal, medical, and diagnostic services or referrals. And food, Small, growing children need to eat more frequently than big people--which makes snacks important, says Suzanne Rigby, a nu- tritionist at the American School Food Services Association, In Alexandria, Virginia: ~Their little tummies can't sit and eat all the calories they·need'' in three meals. Because fat is important in form- ing brain cells, very young children shouldn't limit fat intake. Rlgby, known for her cut-the-fat advice for older kids, recommends going be- yond the federal dietary guidelines (which advise not restricting fat for children under age 2) and allowing more fat for 3- and 4-year-olds, as well. She advises gradually tapering down until kids reach recommended guidelines 01miring fat to 30% of the caloric intake) by age 5. "Offer things in moderation," she advises. "Train those little taste buds to like fruits and vegetables and to like foods that aren't really fatty, but don't be so concerned if there is some fat in the diet.~ 7. Teet gently. Many researchers are understandably nervous about testing preschoolers, even for school readiness. Most such test~s have not been good predictors of children's performance in the early grades. "The question is. should we test young children?' asks Samuel Meisels, an~'ECE assessments re- searcher at*'~he University of Michi- gan. 'I answer It With both a yes and a no. The no is if we're going to use group-administered, standardized achievement tests.' In addition to tripping kids up with multi-step di- rections, such tests "don't give us a true picture of what kids know, and they tend to focus on things out of context." Meisels says yes to individually administered tests designed to iden- tify kids suspected of needing spe* clal help. Waiting until kindergarten or first grade means waiting to "start a special ed referral, which can take a long, long time," he says. "The.prob- lems just get concretized." Be aware that testing preschoolers is a touchy subject, "We don't want children to be tiered and classified at the preschool age," says Evelyn Moore, president of the Black Child Development Institute, in Washing- ton, D.C. Meisels agrees and has de- signed the respected "Work. Sampling System," a performance assessment tool that depends on ECE teachers' observations over a school year to determine school readiness. 8. Don't forget parents. Educa- tors have long known that the surest indicator of children's success in school is the involvement of their parents or guardians. And the best time to hook parents is in the early years. In fact, some experts attribute the notorious "fade-out" of many Head Start students~their failure to keep pace in the early grades, after leaving 'Head Start--to the fact that their parents are no longer as deeply Involved as they were during their kids' Head Start years. Research shows that the most el- THE EDUCATION DIGEST fective ECE programs, especially for at-risk students, include home visits where teachers get to know families better and share information about stages of child development. The Perry Preschool provides just half- day sessions for kids, so teachers can devote their afternoons to visit- ing homes--enabling each family to receive a.90-minute visit every week. Many successful programs bring parents into .the classroom. Training and paying parents as teaching assis- tants can also help the staff achieve an ethnic and racial mix representa- tive of the community, provide role models for children, and keep the community informed about what's going on at the school--not bad goals for all schools, says Moore: "I think if we had had community oversight of our public schools, we would not have the deterioration that came from so many years ofneglect and people not knowing how bad things were." Some states and school districts are trying to reach and involve par- ents even before preschool. Georgia sends each new mother home from the hospital with a classical music CD or tape, for instance, and Parents as Teachers (PAT) representatives from Missouri school districts prowl hospital maternity wards, seeking re- cruits for the enrichment program that has been endorsed by neurosci- entists. PAT offers personal visits by trained parent educators, weekly meetings with other parents, medi- cal referrals, and other resources. By the time PAT children leave the pro- gram at age 3, their language skills are significantly more deyeloped than those of other children.their age; And the comparative .advantage conti~ ues through at least fourth gr~de~ says Mildred' Winter. executive/dj? rector of. PAT. . . .. ..~.,: The fact that the program is.ag~ able to families at all income. makes PAT 'more.p0iitic~y' able," says Winter;it also recogn~ that a parent's income and tional level aien-'t the .only factOrS that can place a child, at ris.k.'..~:~. seeing dOctors,/aw~.ers,--~and ers sign up for-PAT, She "other people Say,':That.'s a Pr~. for winners.' Parents.won't co~-' it's seen-as a program for loser~i~ ~lrnost every parent 'and i school district would like to think~l their children as winners,Atop-fit ~ .ght ECE program can help make.them So, but such programs are not che~P~ If your district decides--or is required' by law--to offer an ECEiprog~am~ researchers beg you to commit your- self to excellence. "Don~t try.to dOE on the cheap," says Barnett. Researcher Mitchell agre .es: "We know that bad prog.~ s'actuallFhUrt children, 'and. mediocre~ programs don't do them any good. It's the~qUal- ity programs that.make a difference." But even the best prggr~_m-~ can, t inoculate kids against-l~verty,~:poor parenting, and ineffective SchOOlS, More than 30 years after he helped launch Head Start for loW'inco_m,~ .~ch!l~, dren, Zigler continues to aslc -~ What can you realistically expect from. a one-year program? Weshouid exp~. ~ better school readiness .... but th~t:'~ not the end of the line." 14 APRIL 1999 Lawrence J. Schweinhart president-elect Clinton and the nation's governors have all endorsed the first national education goal, which states that by the year 2000 all children in America will start school ready to learn (U.S. Depart- ment of Education, 1991). On April 6, 1990, then-Governor Clinton wrote with reference to the elabo- ration of this goal, "I worked very hard to achieve the appropriate language, 'All disadvantaged chil- dren will have access to high- quality and developmentally ap- propriate preschool programs.'" This goal is of primary importance because early childhood experi- ence has proven critical to the subsequent educational and eco- nomic success of all children Lawrence J. Schweinhart chairs the research division of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. With funding from the National Head Start office, he recently directed the develop- merit and validation of the High/Scope Child Observation Record. Co<lirector of the High/Scope Perry Preschool study, Larry has testified .Sefore many policymakers and advocates on the lasting benefits of high-quality early childhood programs. Young Children ,, July 1993 The assessment field must develop new practices, such as performance-based assessment, that are consistent with the early childhood profession's process goals. (Berrueta-Clement, Schweinhart, Barnett, Epstein, & Weikart, 1984). The nation's success in meeting the goal of universal readiness to learn in school can only be ascer- tained if it is correctly defined and assessed. If misdefined, it could mis- lead our efforts to contribute to young children's development and make us think that we are doing our best to prepare them for school when in fact we are not; thus, as- sessment emerges as an endeavor that will literally define the suc- cess of the early childhood field. The challenge of early child- hood assessment is to apply the methods of the assessment field to the goals of the early childhood field, process as well as outcome goals; but the standard testing practicesmdeveloped for older children, adolescents, and adults-- conflict with these process goals. The early childhood profession must not surrender its process goals to resolve this conflict, for to do so would bring irreparable harm to the field and to the young children it serves. Rather, the as- sessment field must develop new practices, such as performance- based assessment, that are con- sistent with the early childhood profession's process goals. Why assess young children? Early childhood programs in child care centers and homes, Head Start agencies, and schools need good assessment tools. While parents' first purpose in placing their children in child care programs is to have someone take care of their children's immediate needs, parents' increasing aware- 29 Much testing gives children the underlying message that the teacher alone is in charge. ness of how early childhood pro- grams can contribute to children's development is moving them to- ward holding child care programs accountable for this contribution. National Head Start, despite its cur- rent priority for increased fund- ing, needs good assessment tools because people worry about its effectiveness, and the congres- sional authorization and appro- priations process guarantees con- tinuing scrutiny. Schools have a long tradition of assessing indi- vidual performance; the purpose of the first intelligence test developed by Alfred Binet was to predict who would need special help in school (Binet & Simon, 1916). In particular, special-education programs are as- sessment driven, with their medi- cally derived approach of diag: nosing educational problems, then prescribing educational treat- ments for these problems. Indeed, everyone concerned with early childhood programs needs good tools to assess children's de- velopment. Children and their fami- lies need good assessment tools to know if the children are spending their time well and laying the foun- dation for their future success. Teachers need good assessment tools to determine children's devel- opmental status and to know how children are responding to teaching practices. Administrators need good assessment tools to know if the staff they supervise are truly con- tributing to children's develop- ment. Policymakers and taxpay- ers need good assessment tools to know whether their early child- hood program investments are worth making. A recent Gallup/Phi Delta Kappa poll found that 74% of the American public believe that preschool programs will help chil- dren from low-income families do better in school in their teenage years (Elam, Rose, & Gallup, 1992), but people still want evidence that their own programs are accom- plishing this goal for their own children. By mapping the dimen- sions of children's development, good assessment tools define for everyone concerned exactly what the goals of early childhood pro- grams are and what it means to start school ready to learn. There are two types of early childhood assessment--screening and progress assessment. Screen- ing helps decide who is eligible to enter a program by examining children's performance at that time (Meisels, 1985, 1987). Progress assessment clarifies program ob- jectives and how well children, teachers, and programs are reach- ing these objectives after some program experiences. The misassessment of young children An early childhood assessment tool ought to meet four criteria; it should be (a) developmentally ap- propriate, (b) reliable, (c) valid, and (d) user-friendly. It should be developmentally appropriate in breadth of content--including not only language and mathematics but also initiative, social relations, creative representation, and music and movement. It ought to be devel- opmentally appropriate in process, permitting young children to ini- tiate their own activities as well as respond to teacher questions and demands. It should be reliable, scored in substantially the same way by various scorers and inter- nally consistent across items. It should be valid, correlating as ex- pected with concurrent measures of children's development and background characteristics and future measures of school success. Finally, it should be user-friendly, easy for teachers or other scorers to use and meaningful in their day- to-day experience with young children. National associations of educational researchers, psy- chologists, and measurement spe- cialists have published general Standards for Educational and Psy- chological Testing (1985), but these do not deal with the criterion of developmental appropriateness. Just as David Elkind (1987) ex- pressed concern with the misedu- cation of young children, so must we be concerned with the mis- assessment of young children. As- sessment, after all, defines the goals of education. As the mis- edUcation of young children springs from the incorrect defini- tion of early childhood-care and education, so does misassessment spring from the incorrect defini- tion of early childhood process and outcome goals: Much testing of young children constitutes misassessment because the testing is not developmentally appropriate. Much testing presents young children with a series of de- mands to answer here and now, although the children may not be inclined to respond immediately. Test questions each have one right answer, although the child may not understand the question or may give a creative answer that is considered incorrect. Much test- ing gives children the underlying message that the teacher, alone is in charge and that children must do exactly what the teacher says. Ironically, much testing also un- dermines teacher authority be- cause tests are designed to be teacher-proof and achieve their high reliability by minimizing the role of teacher judgment in the assessment process. Like teacher-directed instruc- tion, much testing presents pre- 30 Young Children · July,1993 Much testing presents young Children with a series of demands to answer here and now, 'although the children may not be inclined to respond immediately. scribed, virtually scripted behav- ioral sequences. It guarantees that children are observed performing various skills by sacrificing the child initiative that is central to good early childhood programs. It involves an interaction style that has few parallels in children's lives beyond school and thus lacks eco- logical validity, Children may re- ject or grow tired of the respon- dent role. The idea is to use a benign, unobtrusive process to assess children's knowledge, but such testing is neither benign nor unobtrusive because it is foreign to children's experience. Much testing focuses narrowly on numbers, letters, shapes, or colors--simple language and ba- sic logic--but ignores initiative, creative representation, social re- lations, and music and movement. Much testing is inappropriate to children's various cultures and day-to-day experience (National Center for Fair and Open Testing, 1991): White, middle-class test de- velopers have too easily assumed that everyone shares their cultural experience. Further, test results may be misused to make high- stakes placement decisions, mislabeling children as having some handicap that they do not actually have. Appropriate assessment of young children Because much testing fails on the criteria of developmental ap- propriateness, an alternative is needed that embraces the various aspects of child development and permits young children to initiate at least some of the activities or actions on which they are to be as- sessed. That al- ternative is the systematic obser.- vation of chil- dren's ordinary activities in de- velopmentally appropriate pro- grams. Observa- tion fits an inter- active style of curriculum, in which give-and- take between teacher and child is the norm. Al- though careful ob- servation requires effort, the ap- proach has high ecological valid- ity and presents minimal intrusion into what chil- dren do in devel- opmentally ap- propriate pro- grams (Goodwin & Driscoll, 1980). Children's activi- _~ · ~ ties naturally m-~ tegrate all dimen- ~z sions of their~ development. ~ Although anec- ~ dotal notes are of tremendous im- portance in sys- tematic observa- tion, they alone are not enough to constitute appro- priate early childhood assessment because they offer no criteria against which to judge the devel- opmental value of children's ac- tivities and actions, nor do they provide evidence of reliability and validity. A better alternative is to use anecdotal notes to complete developmental scales of estab- lished reliability and validity. Such an approach permits children to To use the High/Scope Child Observation Record (COR), the traitted teacher assesses each child's behavior and activities in six categories of development: initiative, creative representation, social relations, music and movement, language and literary, and logic and math. ematics. Over several months the teacher writes brief notes describing episodes o£ the child's behavior in these six categories. Young Children * July 1993 31 engage in activities anytime and anywhere that teachers can see them. It defines categories of ac- ceptable answers rather than single right answers. It expects the teacher to set the framework for children to initiate their own activities. It embraces a broad defi- nition of child development that includes not only logic and lan- guage but also initiative, creative representation, social relations, and music and movement. It is culturally sensitive when teachers are trained observers who focus on objective, culturally neutral de- scriptions of behavior (for ex- ample, "Pat .hit Bob"), rather than subjective, culturally loaded inter- pretations (for example, "Pat is an aggressive child"). It empowers the teacher by recognizing the teacher's judgment as essential to assessment. Finally, if the assess- Test questions each have one right answer, although the child may not understand the question or may give a creative answer that is considered incorrect. ment tool is honed to great clarity by progressive revision and field testing, it will be user-friendly. Several efforts are now under way to develop appropriate assessment tools for young children. Work on multiple intelligences by Howard Gardner at Harvard University has led to an effort to develop better assessment techniques called Project Spectrum, directed by David Feldman at Tuffs University (Adams Teachers score the COR two or three times a year, obtaining initial ratings six to eight weeks into the program year. The COR has also been used by trained outside observers, observing sets of four children over three program ses- sions, for research on programs themselves. The COR and these other development efforts point the way to a style of early childhood assessment that respects both the methods of the assessment field and the process and outcome goals of the early childhood field. Without such assessment tools, the early childhood field runs the grave risk of distortion by using tests that embody a style of education that is inconsistent with developmentally appr~ priate practice. With appropriate assessment tools, the early childhood profession can come to terms with both the young children it serves and the great promise that society hopes for and expects it to accomplish. & Feldman, in press). Samuel Meisels and his colleagues at the University of Michigan are develop- ing and field testing The Work Sam- piing SystemTM for preschool through third grade in schobls around the country (Meisels, 1992; p. 34, this issue). The Project :Con- struct National Center, directed by Sharon Ford Schattgen at' the Uni- versity of Missouri--Columbia, has deyeloped for the state of Missouri a matrix of developmentally appro- priate activities for children from three to seven years old and Plans to field test instrumentation in 1993. Recently, with funding from the national Head Start office, the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation (1992) completed de- velopment of the High/Scope Child Observation Record for Ages 2-1/2 to 6 (COR) for use in all develop- mentally appropriate early child- hood programs, regardless of whether or not the High/SCope curriculum is used. A two-year study found the COR to be fea- sible, valid, and reliable .when used by 64 Head Start teaching teams in southeastern Michigan (Schweinhart, McNair, BarneS, & Larner, in press). Crucial to the p.olect s success were several days of initial training and the on- going support of project staff and Head Start administrators. To use the COR, the trained teacher as- sesses each child's 'behavior and activities in the six categories of development, with examples' of items, listed below: · initiativemexpressing choices, engaging in complex play · creative representation--~making, building, pretending _.. · social relations--relating to adults, making friends · music and movement---exhibiting body coordination, imitating movements to a beat · language and literacy--showing interest in reading, beginning read- ing, beginning writing 32 Young Children · July !993 · logic and mathematics--sorting, counting objects, describing time sequences Over several months the teacher writes brief notes describing epi- sodes of the child's behavior in these six categories. The teacher then uses these notes to rate each child's behavior on 30 five-level COR items within these catego- ries; for example, the item "ex- pressing choices" has the follow- ing five assessment levels: 1. Child does not yet express choices to others. 2. Child indicates a desired activity or place of activity by saying a word, pointing, or some other action. 3. Child indicates desired activity, place of activity, materials, or play- mates with a short sentence. 4. Child indicates with a short sen- tence how plans will be carried out ("I want to drive the truck on the road"). 5. Child gives detailed description of intended actions ("1 want to make a road out of blocks with Sara and drive the truck on it'~). Teachers score the COR two or three times a year, obtaining ini- tial ratings six to eight weeks into the program year. The COR has also been used by trained outside observers, observing sets of four children over three program ses- sions, for research on programs themselves (Epstein, 1992). The COR and these other development efforts point the way to a style of early childhood assessment that respects both the methods of the assessment field and the process and outcome goals of the early childhood field. Without such as- sessment tools, the early child- hood field runs the grave risk of distortion by using tests that em- body a style of education that is inconsistent with developmentally appropriate practice. With appro- priate assessment tools, the early Childhood profession can come to Young Children · July 1993 Much testing also undermines teacher authority because tests are designed to be teacher-proof. terms with both the young chil- dren it serves and the great prom- ise that society hopes for and ex- pects it to accomplish. References Adams, M. &Feldman, D.H. (in press). Intel- lectual development and diversity: The view from Project Spectrum. In R. Pasnak & M. Howe (Eds.), Emerging themes in cognitive development. New York: Springer- Verlag. Berrueta-Clement, J.R., Schweinhart, L.J., Barnett, W.S., Epstein, A.S.. &Weikart, D.P. (1984). Changed lives: The effects of the Perry Preschool Program on youths through age I9. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press. Bluet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The develop- ment of intelligence in children (E.S, Kite, Trans.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Elam, S.M., Rose, L.C., & Gallup, A.M. (1992, September). The 24th annual Gallup/Phi Delta Kappa Poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 41-53. Elkind, D. (1987). Miseducation: Preschoolers at risk. New York: Knopf. Epstein, A.S. (1992). Evaluation of the High/ Scope Training of Trainers project (final report). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educao tional Research Foundation. Goodwin. W.L.. & Driscoll, L.A. (1980). Hand- book for measurement and evaluation in early childhood education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. High/Scope Educational Research Founda- tion. (1992). High/Scope chiM observation record. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press. Meisels, S.J. (1985). Developmental screen- lng in early childhood: A guide (rev. ed.). Washington. DC: NAEYC. Meisels. S.J. (1987). Uses and abuses of developmental screening and school readiness testing. Young Children, 42(2), 4-6, 68-73. Meisels. S.J. (1992). The Work Sampling Sys- tem: An overview. Ann Arbor, MI: Author. National Center for Fair and Open Testing. (1991). Standardized tests and our children: A guide to testing reform. Cambridge, MA: Author. Schweinhart. L.J.. McNair, S.. Barnes. H., & Lamer, M. (in press). Observing young children in action to assess their develop- ment: The High/Scope Child Observation Record Study. Educational and Psychologi- cal Measurement, Standards for educational and psychologi- cal testing. (1985). Washington, DC: Ameri- can Psychological Association. U.S. Department of Education. (1991). America 2000: An education strategy: Sourcebook. Washington. DC: Author. Copyright 1993 by Lawrence J. Schweinhart, c/o High/Scope Educational Research Foun- dation, 600 N. River St., Ypsilanti, MI 48198. Contact author for reprint permission. [Vol- ume 48, Number 5] Have you read this NAEYC book about why NOT to assess the wrong way? Achievement Testing in the Early Grades: The Games Grown-Ups Play Constance Kamii, Editor The trend is to observe and record, and to do much less testin~ Grown-ups at all levels involved with teaching and testing in kindergarten and the primary grades need to stop playing the "looking-good game" and consider the facts: The use of norm-referenced testing has gone hay- wire. Expert theoretician Constance Kamii and a team of concerned professionals explain how test mania does not tell us what we need to know about children's progress, encourages bad teaching, and harms children. NAEYC order #340 $8 Conmnce Karnii, Editor 33 Meet the Bright Stars Alumni ~.,~, ~a. ~.me~,t~esrana~m, sest~parent wants for his own children, that must the community want for all its children. · Traditionally, "At-risk" children are referred to as children of low socio- economic status who are at risk for academic failure · HIGH SCOPE - Children learn by doing - Plan-Do-Review - Daily Assessment - COR - 1998-1999 Findings - Language and Literacy · · Home Visits · Accessing Services · Family Nights · School Events · Neighborhood Events - Southwood & Whitewood · 94 Graduates between 1996 - 1998 · 42% male, 57% female · 43% Caucasian, 43% African-American & 8% Asian · 78% qualified for Free or Reduced lunch while in the Bright Stars Program · 62% still receiving support from Family Coordinator · 21% have moved from their Bright Stars schools · 1% had received Special Education identification · Continue on-going assessment of students · Continue to encourage feedback from parents · Compile and organize final report for Bright Stars "customers" - Winter 2000 · Continue to collaborate and seek out other ways to serve our "customers" Family Support Program A ecilaberative Venture between the Albemarle County Department of Social Services, the Albemarle County Sciteal System and Community Agencies Supporting Early Intervention and Prevention Services Program Rationale Earlier and longer Interventiens are mere effective Active participatien by parents and children show greatest progress Cemprebeflslve cervices and multiple routes have larger effects Program Goals .~, Promote family stabilization and literacy ® Empower families to effectively and positively parent their children ® Promote pecitive relaffenchlps and effective Interactions ® Assist families In utilizing private and public resources to address problems program Oescflptlon II I I I Expands an existing Family Support Program at Stone Bchlnsen and Greet Coordinates with Bright Stars and Bead Start Provides case management servlcesto children In grades K - 5 Program Design Social work presence In ali 15 elementary schools Referrals come from principals, guidance counselors, taachers Referrals also come from social services, community agencies and families Participatlonlsvoluntarv - FSW's are persistent and respectful Program Activities II I ~ ~ ® Talkand nlOOtWlth tamlBos Attend school meetings with parents eonseltaOon Modeling Develop neighborhood and cemmunl~ groups Outputs and Outcomes ® January- lane 231 referrals ® 149 cases epaned ® 2~0 children served : ~ ® 15 cases closed to date ~ ~ DataCellection  ~ ® Mestreferrals [69%] -limited social skills · ~ Followed by: ~ · emotional/behavior problems [29%] ( · abrupt behavior change [18%) ~ · parent/caretaker oveMhelmed [17%] ~ · Poor school attendance/tardiness Most Frequent Services Accessed ® Counseling ® CAP/MACAA ~® Medical ® Albemarle Cty - P&R, Housing Pregram Evaluatlen II II Internal data collection ~ ® ~d4f-year mffsurveys Meetlngswlth principals Involvement with Weldon Coeper Institute COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Virginia Public School Authority SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request adoption of a resolution approving the filing of an application to the Virginia Public School Authority for a loan in a principal amount not to exceed $2,835,000. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Castner, Breeden; Ms. White AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: Funding for the FY 1999/00 Capital Improvement Budget anticipated the issuance of $2,835,000 in bonds through the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) for various school projects. DISCUSSION: Participation in the bond issue requires both the School Board and Board of Supervisors to pass a resolution authorizing application to VPSA. It is anticipated at this time that the School Board will pass the resolution at their meeting on August 23, 1999 and the Board of Supervisors on September 1, 1.999. The required application has already been submitted to VPSA by their September 2, 1999 deadline. A number of actions (resolutions, public hearings, approvals) will be required between now and November 1999 to meet the requirements of VPSA and to maintain their time schedule. The required documents will be submitted to you as received by the Director of Finance from the County's bond counsel. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the passing of the resolution authorizing and ratifying the application to VPSA. 99.145 At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, held on the Ia day of September, 1999, at the time and place established by such Board for its regular meetings, in accordance with Section 15.2-1416 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, at which the following members were present and absent: PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Mr. Charles S. Martin Mr. Walter F. Perkins Ms. Sally H. Thomas ABSENT: None. the following resolution was adopted by the affirmative roll call vote of a majority of all members of the Board, the ayes and nays being recorded in the minutes of the meeting as shown below: MEMBER VOTE Mr. Bowerman Aye Ms. Humphris Aye Mr. Marshall Aye Mr. Martin Aye Mr. Perkins Aye Ms. Thomas Aye RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION WITH THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY FOR A LOAN IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,835,000 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County, Virginia, (the "County"), in collaboration with the Albemarle County School Board, has determined that it is necessary and desirable for the County to undertake various capital improvements for its public school system: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board hereby ratifies the filing of an application with the Virginia Public School Authority for a loan to the County in a principal amount not to exceed $2,835,000 to finance various capital improvements for its public school system. The actions of the County Executive, in collaboration with the other officers of the County and the Albemarle County School Board, in completing and delivering an application to the Virginia Public School Authority are hereby ratified. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately. The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, certifies that the foregoing instrument constitutes a tree and correct extract from the minutes of a regular meeting of the Board held on the 1~t day of September, 1999, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. WITNESS my signature and seal of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, this 1 a day of September, 1999. (SEAL) C~rk o-'Tihe Board of Supervisors, Al]~fmarle County, Virginia ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Office of the School Board 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 To: Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance (6) Ella W. Carey, Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Jackson Zimmermann, Director of Fiscal Services From: Tina Pendleton Fulle~~'< Clerk of the School Bo~ard Subject: Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) Bond Resolution Date: August 25, 1999 At its meeting on Monday, August 23, 1999, the School Board adopted the enclosed Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) Bond Resolution. If there are questions, please call the Clerk's office at 972-4055. /tpf BOARD OF SUPERVISORS "We Expect Success" At a regular meeting of the Albemarle County School Board held on the 23rd day of August, 1999, at the time and place established by suer School Board for its regular meeting, at which the following members were present and absent: PRESENT: Mr. John E. Baker; Mr. R. Madison Cummings; Mrs. Diantha H. McKeel; Mr. Stephen H. Koleszar; Mrs. Susan C. Gallion; Mr. Jeffrey D. Joseph; Dr. Charles M. Ward. ABSENT: None. The following resolution was adopted by the affirmative roll call vote of a majority of all members of the School Board, the ayes and nays being recorded in the minutes of the meeting as shown below: MEMBER VOTE John E. Baker R. Madison Cummings Diantha H. McKeel Stephen H. Koleszar Susan C. Gallion Jeffrey D. Joseph Charles M. Ward AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY FOR A LOAN IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,835,000 AND REQUESTING AND CONSENTING TO THE ISSUANCE OF SCHOOL BONDS WHEREAS, the Albemarle County School Board (the "School Board") has determined that it is necessary and desirable for Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"), to undertake various capital improvements for its public school system; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD: 1. The filing of an application to the Virginia Public School Authority for a loan to the County in a principal amount not to exceed $2,835,000 to finance various capital improvements to the County's public school system is hereby authorized. The School Superintendent, in collaboration with the other officers of the School Board and the County, is authorized and directed to complete such application and deliver it to the Virginia Public School Authority. 2. The School Board (a) requests, pursuant to Section 15.2-2640 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Code"), that the Board of Supervisors of the County issue its general obligation school bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $2,835,000 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing various capital improvements to the County's public school system and (b) consents, pursuant to Section 15.2-2638B of the Code and Article VII, Section 10(b) of the Constitution of Virginia, to the issuance of the Bonds. 3. The Clerk of the School Board is authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this resolution to be delivered to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately. The undersigned Clerk of the Albemarle County School Board certifies that the foregoing constitutes a tree and correct extract from the minutes of a regular meeting of the School Board held on the 23'~ day of August, 1999, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. WITNESS my signature and the seal of the Albemarle County School Board this 24th day of August, 1999. (SEAL) Clerk, Albemarle County School Board 2 At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, held on the 1st day of September, 1999, at the time and place established by such Board for its regular meetings, in accordance with Section 15.2-1416 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, at which the following members were present and absent: PRESENT: ABSENT: the following resolution was adopted by the affirmative roll call vote of a majority of all members of the Board, the ayes and nays being recorded in the minutes of the meeting as shown below: MEMBER VOTE RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION WITH THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY FOR A LOAN IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,835,000 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County, Virginia, (the "County"), in collaboration with the Albemarle County School Board, has determined that it is necessary and desirable for the County to undertake various capital improvements for its public school system: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board hereby ratifies the filing of an application with the Virginia Public School Authority for a loan to the County in a principal amount not to exceed $2,835,000 to finance various capital improvements for its public school system. The actions of the County Executive, in collaboration with the other officers of the County and the Albemarle County School Board, in completing and delivering an application to the Virginia Public School Authority are hereby ratified. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately. The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, certifies that the foregoing instrument constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a regular meeting of the Board held on the 1st day of September, 1999, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. WITNESS my signature and seal of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, this day of September, 1999. (SEAL) Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Albemarle County, Virginia COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Resolution Regarding Public Input into County Policy Issues SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Ms. Catlin AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: IN FORMATION: ATTACHM .ENT.S.: REVIEWED BY: /~~/ BACKGROU ND: Albemarle County local govemment has always recognized the critical need to incorporate public input into the county'spublic policy processes and has striven to use all opportunities available to make meetings themselves as well as minutes and other documents accessible to citizens. The county introduced new procedures as of July 1, 1999, that not only meet new FOIA standards but also provide expanded opportunities for the public to become aware of and get involved in critical policy issues as they are discussed and developed. Board Chairman Charles Martin received the attached letter frOm Bob Watson, Director of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Legislative Action Committee, requesting that the Board adopt a resolution which reinforces the need for the county to remain vigilant in and committed to basic principles of open government. In response to Mr. Watson's letter, Chairman Martin asked staff to review the resolution and existing county policies and to recommend action to the Board on this issue. DISCUSSION: As the Board of Supervisors considers the attached resolution, they should be aware of the following information with regard to specific items mentioned in that document. Meeting Notification Public bodies (and any subcommittees of those bodies) are required to post the date, time and location of all their meetings at least three working days in advance in a public location within the County Office Building, which we have designated as the first floor lobby near the Visitors Entrance. A bulletin board is being put up specifically for that purpose by the Engineering and Public Works De partment, Standing meetings (such as the Planning Commission which meets every Tuesday evening at 6:00 pm) can be posted as one listing on an annual basis. Any changes in date, time or location should be posted by the appropriate department. Meetings not occurring on a regular basis will be posted by the appropriate department. Departments will also be responsible for taking down expired notices within three days following the meeting. Emergency meetings occurring with less than three days notice should be posted as soon as date, time and location information is available. Minutes We are legally required to record minutes for public bodies as determined by the County Attorney's Office. Even when minutes are not required, all committees and subcommittees are strongly encouraged to record minutes of all meetings. Agendas and Associated Materials Agendas of meetings of public bodies will be made available to citizens who request them by whatever means - email, regular mail, picking up in person - is most convenient to all parties. OF SUPERVISORS At least one copy of all agenda packets and, unless exempt, all materials furnished to members of a public body for a meeting shall be made available for public inspection at the same time such documents are furnished to the members of the public body. Agenda packages are "furnished" when they are sent to board members. Although the term is not well defined, it is the County Attorney's opinion that once they leave our hands to go to members, a copy must be available for inspection by the press. Staffing County staff are appointed to all major appointed committees. While it is very difficult to assign dedicated staff to every committee due to manpower issues and the sheer number of appointed committees, every effort is made to insure that the committee receives staff support and input as is appropriate to its mission. Membership We advertise all openings on Board-appointed committees through paid advertisements in the local media as well as through other outlets such as newsletters and on the homepage RECOMMENDATION: Should the Board choose to adopt a resolution to express its support of efforts to make local government and its processes accessible and responsive to citizen interests and concerns, staff has prepared a draft resolution that incorporates issues brought forward by Mr. Watson and procedures that have been implemented to meet FOIA standards as described in the discussion section of this summary. 99.161 DRAFT RESOLUTION PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and local government are dedicated to full public participation in the development and formulation of public policy issues including the appointment of citizens to committees which consider these issues; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County has developed a set of guidelines regarding the openness and accountability of the public bodies and Board-appointed committees which develop and recommend critical policy initiatives to the Board for their consideration; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County local government is fully aware of and compliant with Freedom of Information Act standards regarding meeting notifications, availability of agendas, minutes and other documentatiOn, and other topics of governmental accessibility; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors supports continued vigilance in insuring that county departments and staff aggressively solicit public involvement in and response to policy issues; NOW THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED, That the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, does hereby state that committees appointed by the Board publicize dates and time of their meetings in accordance with FOIA guidelines, that such committees keep minutes of their meetings, that staff be assigned to committees as workload permits, that committees establish reasonable dates for the estimated completion of their work, and that membership opportunities to all committees be properly advertised and that committee composition be representative of diverse viewpoints in the community. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true correct copy of a resolution adopted by the County Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at a regular meeting held on Clerk, County Board of Supervisors Management Committee Carol Clarke Sam Craig Charlottesville Area August 9, 1999 Legislative Action Coalition Jane Ditmar Katie Hayes Dave Phillips Ivo Romenesko Dave Rothwell Frank Stoner Deborah van Eersel Don Wagner Governmental Affairs Director Bob Watson Mr. Charles Martin Chairman, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 200 Pine Ridge Lane Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 Dear Mr. Martin, As you are aware, openness in governmental functions is becoming a very important issue. From a legalistic standpoint the various aspects of the Freedom of Information Act are receiving statewide attention. The Policy Formulation process on a local level needs input from knowledgeable citizens so that the product that is considered during the public hearing or policy adoption phase is a balanced regulation or ordinance, well thought out considering many points of view. There are many o'f us who are active in the local policy arena who believe that Albemarle County needs to address the policy formulation process and provide for more openness or sunshine in governmental actions. We continue to find that some Committees appointed by the Board tend to operate behind a veil of secrecy. They do not publish when they are going to meet, they do not provide an agenda, they do not keep minutes of their meetings, and in short tend to exclude external dialogue. Consequently, the public only hears of a proposed ordinance when it is ready for the public hearing. I believe that the fiasco of the Mountain Top Protection Ordinance could have been avoided during the public hearing if more citizen input had been garnered. Consequently, I am attaching a Resolution for adoption by the Albemarle CoUnty Board of Supervisors. 550 Hillsdale Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22901 · Phone (804) 817-2380 · Fax (804) 817-2836 · Email: calac@calac.org A coalition of the: Blue Ridge Home Builders Association · Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Chamber of Commerce · Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors® Mr. Charles Martin August 9, 1999 I feel that this can be discussed b.y the Board in many fashions. It can be a regular agenda item (put forth by a representative of the supporters - probably this writer), or it could merely be a Consent Agenda item after each Board Member reviews the subject. Mr. Martin, the entire thrust of this proposal is openness in governmental actions. The more that sunshine prevails, the less contentious atmosphere will appear during the Policy adoption process. You may also be aware that Bob Tucker is moving aggressively to address this issue and has issued a directive to all County Departments in regard to meeting notifications, agendas, and minutes. I met with Bob and Lee Catlin on August 3rd, and they suggested I write and meet with you to discuss my proposal. Very truly yours, Robert F. Watson Government Affairs Director RFW/ns CC: Robert Tucker, County Executive Lee Catlin 0020 ~:OO'NTY 6ie ALBEMARL~ Resolution Board of Supervisors Albemarle County, Virginia Whereas, the Board of Supervisors periodically appoints citizens to committees to consider public policy issues and, Whereas, these committees may recommend ordinance enactment's to the Board of Supervisors and, Whereas, the Board of Supervisors recognizes the importance of public input in the policy formulation process find, .Whereas, the Board of Supervisors desires complete openness in the policy formulation process and, Be it therefore resolved by the Board of Supervisors that: All committees appointed by the Board of Supervisors shall publicize the dates and times of their meetings in a manner to be determined by the office of the County Executive. All committees appointed by the Board of Supervisors shall keep minutes of their meeting, completed within 30 days or prior to their next meeting. This applies to temporary and standing committees. A County staff person will be designated to serve as a contact for the public for each appointed committee. Members of the public may attend committee meetings but may not participate unless granted permission by the chairman of the committee. Each temporary committee (i.e.: Historic Preservation) shall have a reasonable date established for completion of their work. o Members of the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission may not be a Chairperson of Committees appointed by the Board but may attend, speak, and act .as liaison to the Board. Membership opportunities to all committees shall be properly advertised and the Board will strive to appoint committee members that will result in providing representation for diverse points of view on each issue being addressed. Adopted: Robert Tucker, Witness County Executive Albemarle County Charles Martin, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 0021 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: CPA 97-05 Brass, Inc. [Willoughby Tract] SU BJECT/PROPOSAL/REClUEST: Work Session to discuss CPA 97-05 Brass, Inc., a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan to change the designation of property consisting of 53.89 acres from Industrial Service to Regional Service, for development of a shopping center. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: X ACTION: IN FORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes/~ / REVIEWED BY: /~'~A~F~-''~ BACKGROUND: Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for property consisting of approximately 53.89 acres located in Urban Neighborhood 4, described as Tax Map 76M(1 ), Parcels 2A and 2B, lying east of Fifth Street Extended (State Route 631 ) and north of Interstate 64, within the Scottsville Magisterial District. The proposal seeks to change the designation of the property from Industrial Service to Regional Service, to support the eventual rezoning from LI, Light Industrial, to C-1, Commercial, or PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center. The applicant is proposing development of a regional shopping center, with a maximum of 160,000 square feet to be occupied by a big box anchor store, with 90,000 square feet of associated retail, for a total of 300,000 square feet. DISCUSSION: The Board of Supervisors has considered the Brass, Inc. project on two occasions: at the July 7, 1999 work session, and at the July 14, 1999 public hearing. At the public hearing, the Board indicated that a subsequent work session would be scheduled for September 1. The Supervisors made specific requests for additional information, which staff has attempted to provide in the form of attachments to this memorandum. Other information will be provided at the work session. Since the July 14 public hearing, several Supervisors have visited the site with staff and members of the Planning Commission. Attachments: Applicant's project comparison II. Wal-Mart article III. Parking discussion IV. Commercial inventory 99.157 OARD OF SUPERVISORS WILLOUGHBY RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ATTACHMENT I Original PrOposal Site design to maintain positive relationship with surrounding community. Planning Commission Site design to maintain positive relationship with surrounding community. Revised Proposal Site design to maintain positive relationship with surrounding community. NO reference to mixed use. Mixed use plan is encouraged. Mixed use plan is encouraged. Open space/recreation uses for shoppers and neighborhood residents. Open space/recreation uses for shoppers and neighborhood · residents. Open space/recreation uses for shoppers and neighborhood residents. Master Plan (PD-SC) Master Plan (PD-SC) Master Plan (PD-SC) 300,000 sq. ft. limit on all development. 310,000 sq. ft. limit on all development. 310,000 sq. ft. limit on all development. No limit on retail uses, other than the 300,000 sq. ft. total limit 250,000 sq. ft. max. on retail uses 250,000 sq. ft. max. on retail uses No limits on particular building sizes. 65,000 sq. ft. limit on individual buildings. Any building in excess of 65,000 sq. ft. shall be designed to easily subdivide into 65,000 sq. fl. bays and must possess architectural facades and massing to present appearance of a building of 65,000 sq. ft., or less No limit on single user size. No parking design proposal. A single user may not occupy more than 160,000 sq. ft. (including outside displays/sales). Parking shall be internalized to the extent possible. A single user may not occupy more than 160,000 sq. ft.; provided that addtitional 10% of building, allowed for outside storage and display. Parking shall be internalized to the extent possible. No minimum roof/foundation requirements. 1/3 of roof and foundation to be two-story (or greater). Two-story buidings and facades shall be encouraged. \\CHA~536~2588~Wittoughby Project, Docs\Proposal Comparis~ns.xts $¥,.epriated with permission of Et erg3, Focus Magazine. F N[_I (iY [0CLl5 [ ATTACHMENT II I' Wal-Mart sets new standards to achieve super efficiency ith the opening of thc WaI-Marl Environ- employees. mental Demonstration Store last year in BSW International. however, is a large, almost Lawrence. Kansas, environmental architcc- 5{10-en~ployee l'irm that offers. Brown savs. a holistic turc came into the mainstream. This effort, approach, encompassing ;ill aspects of design, cngi- which won both thc Edison Electric neering, and management Institute Award in thc Best Retail underone rool: BSW prin- Project category, as well as a ,IL~{.lgcs Choice cipal Rover Workman award for addressing environmental cduca- recalls that in 1986. when tion. represents tile first big convenlional name to design all environmental store fi'om thc ground up. Steve Brown, AIA. the pro.leer manager with the architectural firm that designed this store (qktlsa, Oklahoma-based BSW International). points that with the exception of a few governnlcnt and health carc facilities and showcases sponsored bv nonprofit environmental organizations, most envi- ronmental buildings are residences, and most envi- ronmental firms are small opcratiotls of one to five tile firm hooked up with what today is the world's largest retailer, "Sam YValton said to us. 'I can't get architects to talk to me seriously and treat me like mv buildin,,s m'c important.'" BSW. however, took both ~/alloll and his build- ings scriottsly, so it was well-positioned to respond to WaI-Marl's increasing environmental awareness. "Because WaI-Mart's customers expressed growing concern regarding cnvitx~lm~cnlal issues, we imple- mented a nation-wide recycling illld c~lvironmenial 14 ENERGY FOCUS No. 2 1995 awareness program." says Wal-Mart vice-pt:es- idcnt,'lbm Scay."Thc design ot. an ecologically sensitive buikling was thc next logical step in a strong commitment lo global responsibility." A list of primary issues was developed by Wal-Mart executives and thc BSW design team, with a focus on energy efficiency, sus- tainability, recycling, indoor air quality and increased CllVironnlcntal tlWal'enes8. Parameters placed on the prtqect were to maintain the retailer's highly recognizable image within a pre-defined budget and schedule. The new store cost 20 percent more than a conventional store, but Wal- Mart hopes to make this up through increased energy efficiencies. This new t2t,062 sq, ft. store, complete with a 2,000 sq. ft. recycling center, is located on a 18.65 acre site in suburban Lawrence~ which has a primary trade population of approximately 60,000 and a secondary one of about 80,000. Lawrence was selected because it is a progressive university com- munity with a history of commitment to environmental concerns. Dru Meadows, AIA, CCS, CSI, manager of iBSW's Green Team, says that a principle underlying the project was its "life cycle assessment." This is a method that selects materials that minimize negative effects to the environment..it evaluates the entire life ot. a product, from raw materials acquisition and processing, to packaging, distril'mtion, use. and ultimately its reuse or disposal. .Here are some of thc accomplishments resulting I¥om the use of this method: Salvage of existing materials: An aban- doncd bowling alley was on thc selected site. 'Fhc structural steel in the bowling alley was retrieved and donated to a minority college for usc in its building prograrn. The concrete and concrete block were crushed and used l'or base t'ill in thc new project's parking lot. Thc existing asphalt parking lot also was crushed and reused in thc new parking lot. Prior to demolition, the trees on-site were carefully removed and stored during the winter. Once construction was completed, the trees were replanted on site and almost all sur- vived and arc thriving. Sustainably harvested wood: Sustainably har- vested wood was used for the project's major structural elements and roof because it requires less energy 'from extrac- tion to production than steel and because it is a renewable resource. Sustainably harvested wood allows use of newer, second growth trees, preserving old- growth timber, biodiversity, and habitat. The wood on this project represented a "thin- ning" of the tract. Wood was also left on the ground in the tract to serve as a wildlife habitat. Water: Storm water detained on site is recycled and reused as landscape irrigation. A sand filter system sifts out parking lot solids, restdting in usable irrigation water that is stored in an on- site retention pond. A "gray water" collection and reuse system was also incorporated in the design. To further con- serve water consump- tion, iow water use fix- tm'es were installed in the building. Recycling: Wal-Mart has taken the successful recycling program it has implemented in its other facilities one step further for this project with a separate on-site center. This center has the capacity to accommodate 15 differ- ent products, including paper, glass, tin, rub- ber, and several catagories of plastic. In addition, recycling bins for collecting mer- chandise packaging are conveniently locat- ed at checkout areas in the store. Merchandising: Each department submit- ted environmental ideas for their merchan- dise, sales, and displays. Many of these ideas ENERGY FOCUS No. 2 1995 15 16 ENERGY FOCUS were implemented. New merchandising techniques incorporated in the project include providing bulk merchandise for dis- tribution in reusable take-home containers. In addition, merchandise display signage was made h'om recycled paper and plastic. Clear Air Design: "A result of construc- tion, operation, and maintenance oF build- ing products and systems is that indoor pollution levels are often 100 to 1,000 percent greater than outdoor levels," says Seay. To address this concern, Material Safety Data Sheets (MDS) were requested from suppliers for every product under consideration in the building. The information received was analyzed for the presence of CFCs (chlorgfluoro- carbons), VOCs (volatile organic compounds) and other toxic mate- rials. This project also incorporated advanced technology, computer controlled HVAC and lighting systems that provide energy efficiencies while achieving exceptional standards for lighting, temperature, and air quality. HVAC System: To provide heating and cooling for the store, a unique HVAC sys- tem was developed. The basic cooling sys- tem utilizes "low temperature," 100 percent outside air combined with thermal ice stor- age and energy recovery. This meets several of the store's goals because it: cools the building, improves indoor air quality (ASHRAE standard 62-1989); reduces energy consumption; increases/improves air circulation; lowers indoor relative humidity; and uses a non-CFC system design. In order to conserve energy, ther- mal recovery of 80 percent efficien- cy is employed both in the heating and cooling modes of operation. When the building is occupied, cooling is provided by an outdoor air "economizer" (chilled water from the ice storage tanks). During the unoc- cupied hours, the compressors are operated to refreeze the thermal ice storage tanks, for use the following day. When necessary, a combined capacity from the ice storage tanks and compressor operation provides cool air to the building. The compressors utilize a new generation, 134A, non-CFC refrigerant. The ice storage system, takes the peak off of day- time electric use, thereby reducing the utility demand charge. No. 2 1995 Skylight System: The daylighting system uses 58 skylights with a dimmable fluorescent lighting system. The dimming system includes photo sensors mounted at the;base of the skylight wells that continuously mea- sure the amount of daylight entering the building and automatically adjust the level of the dimmable light fixtures accordingly. (The building control system overrides these photo sensor controls when necessary, i.e. to dim lights at night when the store is not open.) · Nine of these skylights were .the first application of a technologically advanced skylight system that provides efficiencies that may revolutionize the industry. This skylight system design is based on a typical 4x8 foot roof opening. It utilizes a unique patented lens inside an insulated glass aperture, advanced solar optic film, and a reflector sys- tem opposite the lens, which distributes day- light evenly in a 24-foot radius from the cen- ter of the unit. The aperture is divided into three openings facing different directions to optimize light collection even when the light levels are weakest. The advantage of this design over a typical plastic diffusing skylight is that it delivers an average 50 percent more light into the building with only half the glass opening. This reduces both heat'loss during the winter and heat gain during the summer. Initial studies indicate that the Store's HVAC and lighting systems are using 20-30 pement less energy to operate than a compa- rable conventional system. Although the store itself is an educational experience, Wal-Mart has taken the matter one step further with a permanent 1,200 square foot education center. This includes informational displays, some with video, that explore the earth, the environment, and what actions all citizens can take to become better residents. Special tours can be arranged for large groups. Seay points out that 40 percent of the annual resource expenditure in the U.S. is consumed by the construction industry and approximately 14-25 percent of. our total municipal waste stream is made up of con- struction debris from building projects. "This project has proven that it is feasible to 'do the right thing' environmentally, and still gener- ate increased profits (16 percent in skylit areas) and achieve lower operating costs, through energy efficient I-IVAC and lighting systems," Seay explains.."If every retailer was willing to investigate environmentally sensi- tive development options, the positive impact on overall global sustainability would be enormous." ATTACHMENT III J These comments were provided by the Zoning Department in response to a question from the Board about reducing the parking ratio for this project and site. ..... Original Message ..... From: Jan Sprinkle Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 2:36 PM To: Susan Thomas Subject: RE: Brass, Inc: BOS work session Sept 1 We really don't have any mechanism to allow us to change from the PD-SC 5.5 spaces per 1000sf gross leasable floor area. Also, since that's already quite a reduction from most normal mixes of shopping center businesses, I'm not sure that we'd want to change. Straight retail requires 10 spaces per 1000sf for the 1 st 5000sf per business; restaurants are 13 spaces per 1000sf. There aren't many businesses that require less than the 5.5 standard - over- the-counter sales, like shoe repair, is only 1/50sf open to the public because those customers are usually in and out quickly and the larger area only accommodates a few employees; furniture stores are 1/400 because they need so much display space for their large items and they don't attract the numbers of customers that something like a grocery store does; grocery stores are 5 spaces per 1000sf of GROSS floor area which usually equates to more than the 5.5 "leasable area". The 5.5 was developed specifically to address the sharing of spaces because customers often park in one space and visit several businesses. ATTACHMENT IV Commercial Inventory [August 1999] North Fork Research Park Industrial Service (zoned PD-IP) Hotel-Motel-Conference Supporting Retail Hollymead Commercial Regional Service (unzoned, Comp Plan only) Towers Land Trust Regional Service (unzoned, Comp Plan only) Pantops Commercial Regional Service (zoned PD-MC, site plans pending) Peter Jefferson Place Office/Regional Service (zoned CO and PD-MC) Office Supporting Retail Residential 1-64/Route 29 South Intersection [SW quadrant] Regional Service (unzoned, Comp Plan only) Southpointe Community Service (PD-SC zoning pending) Brass [Rooker/Rieley alternative] Community Service [proposed] Residential square feet 190,000 110,000 156,000 977,550 145,000 250units 300,000 250,000 60,000 acres 57 30 241.5 50 37 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE AGENDA TITLE: CPA 97-05 Brass, Inc. [Willoughby Tract] SUBJECTIPROPOSAL/RECiUEST: Work Session to discuss CPA 97-05 Brass, Inc., a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan to change the designation of property consisting of 53.89 acres from Industrial Service to Regional Service, for development of a shopping center. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish; Ms. Thomas AGENDA DATE: July7,1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: BACKGROUND: INFORMATION: X ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ~'"'""~' / Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for property consisting of approximately 53.89 acres located in Urban Neighborhood 4, described as Tax Map 76M(1), Parcels 2A and 2B, lying east of Fifth Street Extended (State Route 631 ) and north of Interstate 64, within the Scottsville Magisterial District. The proposal seeks to change the designation of the property from Industrial Service to Regional Service, to support the eventual rezoning from LI, Light Industrial, to C-1, Commercial, or PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center. The applicant is proposing development of a regional shopping center, with a maximum of 210,000 square feet to be occupied by a big box anchor store, with 90,000 square feet of associated retail, for a total of 300,000 square feet. DISCUSSION: Brass, Inc. has been before the Planning Commission on nine occasions: initial meeting to adopt a resolution of intent to ~"'~onsider amending the Comprehensive Plan on November 13, 1997; work sessions on March 31, June 30, December 15, ~998, and February 23, 1999; public hearings on March 30 and April 27, 1999; May 11,1999 meeting; final vote, June 1, 1999. The June 30, 1998 meeting was a joint work session with the Charlottesville Planning Commission, who also was invited to attend the December 15, 1998 work session at which the applicant's consultants made a presentation. At the February 23, 1999 work session, staff proposed an alternative to'the applicant's request, in the form of a Community Service (mixed use) designation. The Commission subsequently asked staff to draft specific language for both the Community Service alternative [proposed by staff] and for the applicant's requested Regional Service alternative, for its rewew and consideration. A third proposal was later drafted by two Commissioners, and it was this proposal ("Rooker/Rieley Alternative Community Service Designation") that was recommended for approval to the Board of Supervisors by a 4-3 vote at the Planning Commission meeting of June 1, 1999. The recommended proposal generally supports theconcept proposed by the applicant, but limits the total size of the big box anchor and imposes certain design requirements on the site and structures. The following materials are included as attachments to this summary: II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. June 3, 1999 Planning Commission action letter (includes Rooker/Rieley Alternative) Staff's Community Service (mixed use) alternative Applicant's [original] Regional Service proposal Applicant's response/counter proposal to RookedRieley Alternative l Staff's comparison of RookedRieley, applicant's counter proposal, and staff's Community Service (mixed use) alternative February 23, 1999 staff report Size Comparisons for Commercial Developments Related Articles Public Comment Fiscal Impact Analysis February 5, 1999 letter from Charlottesville Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission has recommended Designation Proposal (A~tachment II). approval of the RookedRieley Alternate Community Service 99.113 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mchfire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (8O4) 296-5823 ATTACHMENT ~lune 3, 1999 Steven W. Blaine P O Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: CPA-97-05 Brass, [nc (Willoughby) Dear Mr. Blaine: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 1, 1999, by a 4-3 vote, recommended to the Board of Supervisors approval of the "Alternate Proposal" for Community Service designation crafted by Commissioners Rooker and Rieley for CPA-97-05 and presented at the May 1 I, 1999 Planning Commission meeting (copy attached). /fyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, / Susan E. Thomas Senior Planner SET/jcl Cc: Ella Carey ALTERNATE CO, .~IUNITY SERVICE DESIGNA, ,ON PROPOSAL Community Service Designation: The Community Service area located south of the Willoughby residential development and north of' 1-64 between Fifth Street Extended and Avon Street Extended, accessed via Bent Creak Road, is intended to serve as a retail; office, research and residential center within Neighborhood Four. BeCause of its location at the corner of two Entrance Corridors, this site is of high aesthetic and environmental sensitivity and importance. Development of the site shall seek to continue the scale and existing character of the proposed CommunityService (mixed retail, office, research and residential,) use and surrounding uses. Fifth Street functions as one of the gateways to the Charlottesville: Albemarle community because of, in part, the access opportunity provided by the !-64 interchange. The land uses along this road establish the first image and impression of both the larger urban area and this particular neighborhood to those who pass by or visit from other areas in the region. Building Limitations: Because of the large size of the site and because of the specific topographic and demographic conditions of the. site, the limits on allowable building square footage for the site will be altered from the normal Community Service designation as follows: Maximum total square footage of buildings: 310,000 s.f. There is no maximum limit on residential use subject to the overall maximum s.f. limit of 310,000. MaXimum total square footage of buildings for mixed retail (including outside display, sales and storage areas), office and research uses: 250,000 s.f. While mixed use is encouraged within the 250,000 s.f., there are no specific levels of uses required. Ail buildings in excess of 250,000 s.f. must be residential. To make the buildings as reusable as possible by future users, the size of any individual building will be limited to no more than 65,000 s.f. Parking shall be internalized to the greatest extent possible, with parking areas distributed throughout the site in front of and behind the commercial structures, and trees and other landscaping material uSed to minimize visual impact (parking orchard concept). Principals of environmentally responsible and energy efficient design will be incorporated to a significant extent in site development, for example: Minimize impervious pavement: To minimize impervious pavement, any paved parking areas in excess of those spaces required by code, are to be composed of pervious surfaces, such as grass pavers or stabilized turf. Energy efficient building' Insulation, provision for day-lighting, and other energy conscious elements should be incorporated into the design. · Minimize roof and foundations: To minimize roof and foundation areas, a minimum of 1/3 of the roof and foundation areas are to be occupied by two-story (two floor), or greater, buildings. · Master Plan: Prior to 're-zoning a master plan for the entire property showing the layout, grading, ~:haracter and scale of the project will be developed and submitted. · Space will be made available for a recycling center (not counted against square foot limits).' Appropriate Uses: · Service stations are not considered to be a compatible Community Service, use for this site. Environmental Protection: A publicly accessible greenway shall be constructed along Moore's Creek and Biscuit Run as recommended in the Land use Plan, Neighborhood Four; Rev. 5/11/99 -3- Exemplary specimen or old growth trees, 24" or larger DBH, will be preserved to the extent practicable during site development; particular care will be given to protection of existing stands of trees that provide screening from adjacent streets and highways; A vegetative buffer shall be maintained along Biscuit Run and Moore'S Creek undisturbed by site development. Because of the .proximity of Biscuit Run and Moore's Creek, and the potential impacts resulting from a large amount of impervious cover, an on-site mitigation plan that exceeds standard BMPs, detention standards, and water quality standards shall be incorporated into the site design. The plan of development shall include features to minimize impacts from impervious surfaces on water quality; parking areas, roads and other impervious areas shall meet only the reasonable needs of the proposed uses (see General Land Use Standards, p.21). Transportation: Site development must include pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and a continuous walkway and travelway must be provided from Fifth Street to and throughout the site. ~ Rezoning of the property will be timed with any required road improvements, which may include, but are not necessarily limited to, one or all of the following: · improvements to Bent Creek Road, Fifth Street northbound (a continuous right turn lane northbound on Fifth Street from the 1-64 westbound off ramp to Bent Creek Road), · improvements to the 1-64 eastbound off ramp and intersection with Fifth Street (signalization and double laning), and · improvements to Fifth Street southbound (installation of a continuous right turn lane). Rev. 5/11/99 -4- ATTACHMENT II ] Community Service designation · The Co.mmuni'ty Service ~ea located south of the Willoughby residential development and north of 1-64 between Fifth Street Extended and Avon Sti'eet Extended, accessed via Bent Creek Road, is intended to serve as a residential, retail and office/research center for the Neighborhood. Because of its location at the comer of two Entrance Corridors, this site is of highaesthetic and environmental sensitivity and importance. Development of the site shall seek to continue the scale and existingcharacter of the proposed Community Service (mixed residential, retail and office/research) use and surroundifig uses. Fifth Street functions as one of the gateways to the Charlottesville-Albemarle community because of, in part, the access opportunity provided by the 1-64 interchange. The land uses along this road establish the first Linage andimpression of both the larger urban area and this particular neighborhood to those who pass by br visit from other area~ in the region. Approval of the rezoning of the site will be timed to follow the development'of a definition of mixed use and associated development guidelines/standards, currently in progress by both the Development Area Initiaffves Stuhty Committee (DISC) and staff. ~ However, expectations for this area include development under a master plan which incorporates the following general principles: Site Design Site design shall maintain a positive relationship with the surrounding community, acknowledging the proximity of the Willoughby residential neighborhood and historic districts wit]~in the City of Charlottesville through the use of appropriate materials, architectural features, color, internal and external lighting, anct other design elements; The site shall reflect a mixed use plan of develgpment, to include Urban Density Residential, Community Service (including retail anchors of moderate size), and Industrial/Office Service uses. The Residential use shall not be less than one third (1/3) of the total approved square footage of the site, at full build-out; Site development shall relate to the surrounding properties and public streets; All facades of commercial buildings visible from a public road shall continue design elements found on the front of the buildings; Loading docks, trash collection facilities, outdoor storage and related facilities shall be incorporated into the design of building(s) so that they are not visible; Areas of open space/recreation shall be provided for shoppers and Neighborhood residents; Principles of sustainable design will be incorporated to a significant extent in site development. Appropriate Uses Service stations are not considered to be a compatible Community Service use for this site. Environmental Protection A greenway shall be constructed along Moores Creek and Biscuit Run as recommended in the Land Use Plan, Neighborhood Four, Exemplary specimen or old growth trees will be preserved to the extent practicable during site development; The plan of development shall include features to minimize impacts from impervious surfaces on water Cl~'ty;, parkingareas, roads and other '_tmpervious areas shall meet only the reasonable needs of the proposed uses (see General Land Use Standards, p. 21). Transportation All improvements to Bent Creek Road within the corporate limits of the City of Charlottesville must be approved by the City;, Site development must include pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and a continous walkway and travelway must be provided from Fifth Street to and throughout'the site. R.A.¢ T COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION Submitted By: Brass, Inc. Legal Counsel The Cox Company Development Planners/Bngtneers ge HI. TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF REQUEST .................... ~... .......... 1 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS AND BACKGROUND ....... 2 A. CHARACTERISTICS ..................................... 2 B. BACKGROUND ......................................... 3 CRITERIA IN SUPPORT OF CHANGE TO LAND USE PLAN . . . 3 A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE .... 3 B. THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ............................................... 5 C. PUBLIC FACILITIES .................................... 6 D. ENHANCED DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES ............ 7 E. OBSERVATIONS UNDER EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION ..................................... 7 EXHIBIT A: EXHIBIT B: EXHIBIT C: EXHIBIT D: EXItIBIT E: EXHIBIT F: EXHIBITS VICINITY MAP EXISTING LAND USE MAP LAND USE MAP D (NEIGHBORHOODS 4 AND 5) PLANNING AREA RECOMMENDATION INVENTORY OF INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL USE ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY LETTER I. SUMMARY OF REQUEST 'The applicant, Brass, Inc., is the owner of approximately 53.89 acres located in the Scottsville Magisterial District of Albemarle County. The property is located to the southeast of 5th Street Extended and is adjacent to Interstate 64. The property currently is zoned light industrial (Lr), and is designated on the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Map (adopted June 5, 1996) as Industrial Service. The applicant seeks a change in the Land Use Map from the Industrial Service designation to the Regional Service designation. The purpose of the applicant's request ultimately is to support a commercial rezoning of the property (to either C-l, or PD-SC). The goal of the rezoning will be to enable the owner to present a comprehensive plan of development of the entire property that is attractive to retailers who will serve the community and the region. The applicant's request should be supported for the following reasons: 1. The proposed Regional Service designation for this property will serve the Comprehensive Plan's regional planning objectives better than the current Industrial Service designation. Regional commercial traffic (and the congestion related thereto) along the Route 29 North corridor will continue to expand. Residence-to-shopping trips from areas south of Charlottesville now converge onto Route 29 North via Interstate 64 and Route 250. The applic~t's proposal presents an opportunity to create a retail attraction south of the City, at the intersection of 5th Street Extended and Interstate 64. This location serves as a point of interception of the current pattern for shoppers traveling to Route 29 North. Therefore, a regional shopping center at the proposed location not only will provide more convenience to residents from south and east of Charlottesville, but also will have the effect of improving the daunting growth patterns associated with the Route 29 North corridor. 2. The proposal is supported by the Land Use Plan for Interstate Interchange ~Development, as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The Regional Service designation is consistent with neighboring development patterns, particularly given the commercial development across 5th Street, in the City of Charlottesville. 4. Regional ,Service and commercial zoning for the property will assist in achieving the Comprehensive Plan's policy toward infill deVelopment. 5. The property can be adequately served by existing public facilities and utilities. 6. The property generally conforms to the land use standards for Commercial Development, as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Retail businesses locating at the property will generate sales taxes, utility taxes and will increase the real estate taxes attributable to this property. These businesses will not directly impact school and homing requirements and therefore will be net revenue producers. II. PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS AND BACKGROUND A. CHARACTERISTICS The property appears on the Albemarle County Tax Maps on Map 76M(1), as Parcels 2A and 2B. Attached for reference as Exhibit A is a vicinity map. Also attached as Exhibits B and C are a map of the property's boundary, showing existing land uses, and the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Map depicting Neighborhoods 4 and 5. Interstate 64 borders the property to the south. A Grand Piano warehouse facility lies to the east of the property. The nearest residential use is the Willoughby Subdivision, lying approximately 300 feet to ihe north. An extensively wooded area provides a nattaal buffer between the property and the Willoughby Subdividsion, as does Moore's Creek. The property has access to 5th Street Extended via Bent Creek Road (State Route 1104). Between the Property and 5th Street Extended lies a Hardees, and an Exxon service station. To the south, on 5th Street, is a Holiday Inn. Directly across 5th Street from the property is the Willoughby Shopping Center (Food Lion, CVS, Family Dollar). Approximately 2.402 acres of contiguous property also owned by the applicant, but not included in this submission, is located within the limits of the City of Charlottesville. This 2.402 acres has frontage' on 5th Street Extended. The property is generally wooded; Approximately 14% of the property consists of slopes of greater than a 25% grade. The property possesses a significant amount of fi'ontage along both Moore's Creek and Biscuit Run. A floodplain exists along Moore's Creek and along Biscuit Run. B. BACKGROUND The property is part of what was the original 300 acre Willoughby farm. In the 1960's and 70*s the property was designated for a major shopping area. From 1975 through 1985, the property was part of the Willoughby Planned Unit Development (PUD). In 1985, the County approved a proffered rezoning of a 49.377 acre portion of the property to light industrial (LI). In 1989, the County aproved a rezoning request to add the 4.516 acre residual to the LI District. The owner has actively marketed the property, regionally as well as nationally, as a mixed-use, light industrial/office park. Among those users who have located in the area who previously considered the site were the University of Virginia Health Services Foundation (now located at Fontaine Research park), National Optronics (now at the former CSX property), and the National Ground Intelligence Center (now on Route 29 North). The property has not proven attractive to the office-type user. The owner now seeks an alternative land use that is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and that is also financially feasible. A shopping center is more feasible than an office park development for this property given that the site's characteristics tend to favor a single phase, comprehensive development plan, rather than developing individual parcels, piece-meal. A commercial zoning (either C-1 or PD-SC) would allow the owner to pursue one or more large, anchor tenants to secure viability for a regional,sized (300,000 square feet total) shopping center. III. CRITERIA IN SUPPORT OF CHANGE TO LAND USE PLAN A. COMPREHENSWE PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE The County's Policy for Submittal of Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, last revised December 11, 1991, (the "Policy") sets forth the criteria by which proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan shall be reviewed. The first of the Policy's criteria emphasizes the regional perspective of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant's proposal meets this criteria in several ways: 3 i) a regional shopping center near the interehaage of Interstate 64 and 5th Street Extended will provide aa alternative retail attraction for shoppers who otherwise must travel to the already congested Route 29 North corridor; ii) the potential for relief of congestion in the Route 29 North area presented by this request is a unique oppommity for regional planning, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's regional scope; and iii) the proposed change contributes to the goal of a balanced land use plan by reducing' the disparity of available commercially-zoned land between those Development Areas to the north, and those to the south of Charlottesville. Regional commercial traffic along the Route 29 North corridor will continue to expand. The limited availability of large tracts within the Growth Areas to the south of the "urban ring" has no doubt contributed to the lack of commercial development in this area. The subject property presents an oppommity to supply existing and future demands for commercial activity and thereby provides an oppommity for regional benefits. Residence-m-shopping trips from areas south of Charlottesville now converge onto Route 29 North via Interstate 64 and Route 250. The subject property, if ultimately rezoned, will create a retail attraction south of the City. Shoppers from south and east of the City, including Scottsville, Buckingham, and Fluvanna, and from the west, Waynesboro and Staunton, will have a retail alternative to the Route 29 North corridor. Since the property lies near the interchange at Interstate 64, its location provides a means of intercepting, traffic that otherwise flows through the City, or other parts of the urban ring. Therefore, a regional shopping center at the proposed location not only will provide more convenience to residents from south and east of Charlottesville, but also likely will help alleviate one of the region's most daunting growth patterns -- congestion attributable to regional shopper travel to and along Route 29 North. The proposed change to Regional Service will reduce the disparity between Neighborhood 4 (in which the property is located) and other areas to the north of the urban ring in terms of the relative inventory of commercial land uses. As the PolicY's statement of criteria indicates, one of the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan is to "provide and plan for a balance of land uses,..." The applicant's proposed change will further this purpose by adding potential commercial inventory to Neighborhood 4 which when compared with other areas, in the urban ring, possesses a dearth of commercially-zoned land. Attached as ~ are two charts depicting the amount of acreage zoned for commercial uses (C-l, CO, HC, and PD-SC), and for industrial uses (LI, HI, and PD-IP) in the Growth Areas. The figures upon which these .charts are based were provided by the County's Department of Planing and Community Development. In terms of the availability of land for commercial uses, the disparity between the neighborhoods to the south (Neighborhoods 4 and 5 ) and those of the north (Neighborhoods 1,2, and Hollymead) is quite significant. On the other hand, in terms of the availability of land for industrial uses, Neighborhood 4 surpasses all others, except for the Commtmity of Hollymead. While a number of other factors must be considered in interpreting the Land Use Map's effectiveness on the County's overall planning, these charts suggest that the shifting of an industrial use designation (Industrial Service) in Neighborhood 4 to a commercial designation (Regional Service) favors "a balance of land uses". B. THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The applicant's proposal supports the "Goals and Objectives" of the Comprehensive Plan. The property is located in a Growth Area and not in a Rural Area. Therefore, the proposal is not in conflict with the County's primary Growth Management goal: to protect the Rural Areas. The proposal also supports the County's secondary Growth Management goal: to promote a variety of land uses within the Development Areas, with emphasis placed on infill development. The property is a prime example of an opportunity for appropriate infill development. The 50 icres of undeveloped area is particularly unique given its close proximity to the urbah core, and to one of the gateways to the City of Charlottesville. The surrounding, existing development supports the property as an infill opportunity. One of the benefits of the County's infill policy is to encourage efficient land use within the Development Areas. This may be accomplished through plans for development that take a regional perspective, rather than planning one building at a time. Due to the relatively high projected costs of developing under this site's physical characteristics, the applicant's proposed alternative land use warrants a comprehensive site plan of development. Development of the property through a comprehensive site plan is more likely under a regional-scale, commercial zoning, than under the existing light industrial zoning. Developing a regional-scale, shopping center will produce a more efficient overall land use than, for example, a series of self- storage warehouses, or a series of office buildings (as now permitted under the existing zoning). The Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Plan for Interstate Interchange 5 Development (the "Interchange Plan") supports the applicant's proposed commercial land use. The Interchange Plan specifically endorses a regional shopping cemer at the Interstate 64 and 5th Street interchange (north side only). (Land Use Plan, page lo0. C. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. Utilities. Sufficient public and private utilities either already serve or are immediately available to the property. The recently installed Biscuit Run Sewer' Intercepter traverses the property. A 12" diameter water line serves the site. Attached as ~ is a copy of a letter from Mr. Peter C. Gotham of the Albemarle County Service Authority regarding the availability of water and sewer to the property. Abundant three phase electrical service and natural gas are available as well. 2. Transportation. The commercial uses contemplated by this request can be accommodated by the existing roadway network. According to the Southern Charlottesville Transportation Study, dated June 25, 1995 (the "Southern Study"), the 5th Street/Ridge Street/Route 631 corridor is the highest capacity north/south corridor within the area. (Southern Study, page I12). The Southern Study notes that this four-lane roadway possesses only three traffic signals along the corridor, between Interstate 64 and West Main Street. The Southern study recommends planning for installation of traffic signals at the Interstate 64/Fifth Street interchange. The Southern Study identified a need for these traffic signals based on current land uses along the Fifth Street traffic corridor. Thus the need has already been identified under current conditions and development of the property, whether by-right, under the existing zoning, or as a shopping center under the proposed rezoning will not create the need to install the Southern Study's recommended improvements at Fifth Street and Interstate 64. The applicant expects to develop appropriate traffic modeling as part of a rezoning request for the property. Based upon available traffic data, a commercial development with a total build-out of 300,000 square feet should not reduce the level of service operations at any of the adjacent street intersections to levels below those already determined to be acceptable by Virginia Department of Transportation guidelines. D. ENHANCED DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNIT~S The applicant's proposed commercial use will be implemented through a unified, comprehensive plan of development for the entire property. In addition to the efficiencies outlined above, this proposal offers opportunities for the protection of natural resources through a comprehensive approach, rather than through a piece- meal, office/industrial subdi~sion approach. For example, a unified plan of development for the enlire tract can create, up-front, an integrated system of Best Management improvements for desired watershed management. Similarly, a regional-size, single phase project may present an oppommity for the owner/developer to work with the County and City to implement appropriate regional environmental objectives, such as those set forth in the recently-completed Moore's Creek Regional Stormwater Management Plan. The applicant's proposed commercial land use at this site can comply with all of the Commercial Land Use Standards, as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. E. OBSERVATIONS UNDER EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION The applicant has actively been marketing the property for office/industrial use since 1989. The applicant has sought office and high-end industrial users, such as research and development firms. The project must now compete with recently- developed office/research parks such as Fontaine, North Fork, and Peter Jefferson Place. To date, no such users have contracted to locate at the site. Feed-back suggests that one of the issues is that tenants in this category generally do not desire an entrance through commercial or pad uses, such as those found at the entrance to this site. On the other hand, the existing commercial uses at the entrance to this site are perfectly compatible with a regional shopping center and a large, anchor tenant. In essence, market experience over the past eight years supports the applicant's proposed change in use. Retail businesses locating at the property will be net revenue producers. The proposed property would support a center comparable in size to the Rio Hill Shopping Center in Albemarle County. Reported sales from the 280,000 square foot, Rio Hill Shopping Center were $86,000,000.00 last year. The direct reimbursement to Albemarle County was 1%, or 860,000.00, in addition to indirect funding for schools from the State's general fund, attributable to the remaining 3.5% of the sales tax. Rio Hill pays approximately $120,000.00 in real estate taxes annually. All tenants pay a 10% tax on utilities consumption as well. The retail businesses 7 locating at the subject property will not directly impact school and housing requirements, and therefore will have a significant positive, fiscal effect for the County. IV. CONCLUSION The applicant's requeSt to change the Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan meets the criteria set forth in the Policy and should be approved for the reasons stated at the outset. 1. Comprehensive Plan's Development Perspective. The proposed Regional Service designation for this property will serve the Comprehensive Plan's regional planning objectives better than the current Industrial Service designation. A regional shopping center at the proposed location provides an opportunity to alleviate a deleterious regional growth pattern which has resulted in congestion on Route 29 North. The Regional Service designation is consistent with neighboring develOpment patterns. 2. The Goals and Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant's proposal supports the "Goals and Objectives" of the Comprehensive Plan. Regional Service and commercial zoning for the property will increase the likelihood of achieving the Comprehensive Plan's policy toward in.fill development. The proposal is supported by the Land Use Plan for Interstate Interchange Development, as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The property conforms to the land use standards for Commercial Development as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Adequate Public Facilities. The property is adequately served by public facilities and utilities. The retail businesses locating at the property will not directly impact school and housing requirements, and therefore will have a significant positive, fiscal effect for the County. 4. 'Enhanced Development Opportunities. The applicant's proposed commercial uses will be implemented through a unified, comprehensive plan of development for the entire property. This proposal offers opportunities for protection of natural resources through a comprehensive approach. 5. Experience under existing use designation. Market experience over the past eight years supports the applicant's proposed change in use. The applicant respectfully requests recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission, and approval by the Board of Supervisors. EXI~RIT A VICINITY MAP Vicinity Map l"=2000' WILLOUGHBY TRACT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT Comprehensive Plan Amendment ooaa Albemarle County, Virginia EXHIBIT B EXISTING LAND USE MAP I I( /./ / J BOOTH REFRIO/' SUPPLY C_~:" ..,// ,// / ! PARCEL 2.402 A¢~ : ." t//ll/..'/I /I \ \\ !\\ EXHIBIT C LAND USE MAP D (NEIGHBORHOODS 4 & 5) NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE COMMUNITY SERVICE REGIONAL SERVICE OFFICE/REGIONAL SERVICE OFFICE SERVICE TRANSITIONAL INDUSTRIAL SERVICE NEIGHBORHOOD DENSITY (~ECO~ENDED 3-6 DU/AC~ U~BAN OENSIT¥ (RECO~ENDED 6.01.-34 DU/AC) OPEN SPACE PARKS AND GREENWAYS INSTITUTIONAL Existing Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhoods 4 & 5 1#~2900' WILLOUGHBY TRACT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT Comprehensive Plan Amendment oaaa Albemarle County, Virginia EXHIBIT D PLANNING AREA RECOMMENDATION I I '".Ill : /. / PARCEL $.40,P, A¢% ! / ! 1 I ! I.,,1ii1.,'1! Izl//I "11 ,V · ,,,,/ / ,"// TO RT. 84 .,. / EXHIBIT E INVENTORY OF INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL USE Industrial Land Uses by Neighborhood/Community 1400 1200 looo 800 600 400 200 0 472 0 1,420 Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood Community of Community of Community of I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Crozet Hollymead Piney Mountain Source: 1996 Development Activity Report produced by the Office of Mapping, Graphics and Information Resources, Department of Planning and Community Development, County of Albemarle, VA 700 600 o soo O. 400 · 300 E E o o -o 200 O N ~00 Commercial Land Uses by N ')borhood/Community 'Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood Community of Community of Community of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Crozet Hollymead Piney Mountain Source: 1996 Development Activity Report produced by the Office of Mapping, Graphics and Information ResourCes, Department of Planning and Community Development, County of Albemarle, VA EXHIBIT F ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY LETTER P.O. Box ;OO~ ~68 SPOTNAP RD. CHAi'-~_Of'TESVtLLE. VA · (804) 977-45'11 FAX (804) 979..O698.' August 22, 1997 Mr. James McLaughlin McGuire, Woods, Battle & BoOthe P.O. Box 1288 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Tax Map 76M(1), Parcels 2A,2B Dear Mr. McLaUghlin: This letter serves to confirm our phone conversation that public water and sewer are available to the above referenced parcels. A I2" diameter public water main runs along 5t~ Street and also enters parcel 2B on the east end from Willoughby subdivision. A 30" diameter sewer line parallels Moore's Creek and Biscuit Kun. Enclosed is a rough sketch showing the approximate location of the water and s6wer lines relative to the parcels in question. Please be aware the parcel information may be outdated as it comes from an older version of the tax map. We trust this information is sufficient for your needs. Let us know if you need additional information or if we can be of further service. Peter C. Gorham, P.E. Senior Engineer PCG/lbt ATTACHMENT IV ] MEMORANDUM TO: Susan Thomas FROM: Steven W. Blaine DATE: May 21, 1999 CPA- 97- 05; Brass, Inc. At its Max, 11 meeting, the Albemarle County Planning Commission considered an Alternate Community Service Designation Proposal developed by Commissioners Reiley and Rooker, (the "Max, 11 Proposal"). Attached to this memorandum is a copy of the Applicant's response to the Ma3' 1 ] Proposal. The Applicant's response is black-lined to show the changes to the May 11 Proposal, in order to facilitate your review. The following is a summary of the Applicant's response: 1. Regional Service Designation, The Applicant's proposal is entitled, "Regional Service/ Entrance Corridor." This designation is more in line with the Comprehensive Plan's existing Interstate Interchange Policy which identifies this parcel for Regional Service. As pointed out by staff, the development criteria contained in the May 11 Proposal may be achieved in either the Community Service or the Regional Service designations. Certain development criteria within the May 11 Proposal however are inconsistent with the gen6ral criteria for Community Service under the existing Comprehensive Plan (e.g., permitting up to 310,000 square feet of.development instead of only 250;000 s.f.). The Applicant's suggested designatiOn preserves the integrity of the COmmunity Service designation, yet at the same time incorporates the development criteria of the May 11 Proposal. 2. Building Area Limitation. The May 11 Proposal restricts the size of any individual building to 65,000 square feet &building area. This effectively precludes the shopping center from attracting a major anchor tenant and therefore would likely render the project infeasible. Not only would this preclude a major, general discount operator, such as a Wal-Mart, K-Mart, or Target, it would not likely attract any of the specialty discounters either, (e.g., Circuit City, Home Depot, Builder's Square, or Staples), or value grocery stores such as Ukrops, or Harris Teeter. In order to attract smaller retail shops, it is critical to anchor the center with a major tenant which will draw shoppers to the center. Many of these major tenants will seek a market presence in excess of 65,000 s.f. The May 11 Proposal states that the 65,000 s.f. limitation is intended to "make the buildings as reusable as possible by future users..." The Applicant submits that this objective may be achieved without being so restrictive on the size &the buildings at the outset. Thus the Applicant proposes to require the developer to design any building in excess of 65,000 s.f to readily accommodate a redivision into smaller stores of up to 65,000 s.f. Charlottesville has had a number May 21, 1999 Page 2 of successful conversions of this type. An example is the former Roses, at Barracks Road. store was divided to form Bed, Bath and Beyond, and Harris Teeter. The Applicant asks the Commission to bear in mind that the existing Light Industrial zoning contains no limitation on the size of the buildings which may be constructed. The Cox Company analysis 15resented at the December 15 work session indicated that the site would sustain LI buildings of up to 1,640,000 square feet. The PD-SC ordinance, (which pertains to planned shopping centers, and which is the zoning designation that the Applicant would seek) will permit up to 700,000 s.f(with an FAR of approximately 0.30). In contrast, the Applicant's proposal would limit the total density for commercial uses to 250,000 s.f., (for a 0. I0 FAR). The Applicant's proposal contemplates over 29 acres of open and green space, to include pedestrian trails, a green way, and soccer field. It is important to bear this in mind when making comparisons to big box sites such as Lowe's on 29 North, which only contains the building and parking lot. There is no difference iriqand use impacts-between the Applicant's proposal and the May 11 Proposal. If three retail establishments of 65,000 s.f. each may occupy three separate buildings which also may be interconnected, (as alloWed in the May l 1 Proposal), how is there any greater traffic impact, lighting, noise, storm water management considerations, etc. with one single building of 195,000 s.f.? The answer is: there is none. In fact, the larger single building will employ an economy of building systems which wil? more efficientlY use the density allocated to this site. The Applicant proposes to limit the single user to 195,000 s.f., but Would' require the developer to design a building to accommodate three 65.,000 s.f. smaller stores ifredivision ' became necessary, ~ ' Discount retailers are able to offer the discounts in the products they sell based in part upon volume, and upon the merchandising and sales systems that employ a large, simple building footprint. The Applicant's market analysis demonstrates a need for a discount store at this location. Ifa discount operator is precluded by the restrictive 65,000 s.f. limit, what the communitY is left with is simply another strip center like what already exists across 5th Street at the FoOd Lion Center. Moreover, a smaller scale center, with small specialtY shops, is more likely to compete directly with businesses in the downtown area~ The May 11 Proposal would allow a single user to occupy a total of 160,000 s.f. albeit in separate bUildings The Applicant challenges the Commission to identify any successful retailer that occupies separate structures. 3. Second Story Buildings. The May 11 Proposal requires a minimum of 1/3 of rOOf and foundation areas to be occupied by two-story buildings. In contrast, the Applicant's proposal encourages, but does not require second story buildingS. Retailers are not attracted to second story loCations. Experience reveals that such locations do not take advantage of"foot traffic'' or May 21. 1999 Page 3 "walk-in" business, that single floor locations attract. Retail experts,cite the recent failure of the MI Design location as prime example. Second floor locations may be appropriate for office, or residential uses. Since the May 11 Proposal does not require such uses, it would be inconsistent to require a two story design that is only compatible with such uses. 4. Traffic Improvements. The Applicant's proposal reflects the transportation improvements that a developer will proffer during a rezoning. There is no traffic analysis that would indicate the need, as a result of the development of this project for a contiguous right turn lane on 5th Street southbound. In fact, the City has expressed hostility toward such improvements. This recommendation, together with the original recommendation for a contiguous right turn lane on 5th Street northbound, came from VDOT. As you know, VDOT does not have jurisdiction over City streets. Moreover, when pressed on this issue at our meeting with the resident engineer, Ms, Tucker conceded that as a consideration of future development along this corridor, the City ought to require property owners with abutting property on 5th Street to plan extensions of a right turn lane. That recommendation should not have been interpreted as a requirement for such improvements to be timed with the rezoning of the Willoughby property. In conclusion, we request that you forward the Applicant's response to the Planning Commission. We believe that the planning principles and objectives presented by the two proposals are essentially the same. However, while preserving these principles and objectives, the Applicant's proposal at the same time assures that the p.roject will be successful. Therefore, we urge the Commission to adopt the language submitted.. The Applicant will have representatives available between now and the next meeting of the Commission. We respectfully request any opportunity to discuss the matters presented here with the Commission. cc: Mr. James B. Murray, Jr. Mr. Frank Cox This redlined draft, generated by CompareRite (TM) - The Instant Redliner, shows the differences between - original document : V:k2588kBRASS~DOC99\ALTERNATE COMMUNITY SERVICE DESIGNATION PROPOSAL.DOC and revised document: V:k2588kBRASSkI)OC99kA.LTERNATE COMMUNITY SERVICE DESIGNATION COUNTER PROPOSAL.DOC CompareRite found 26 change(s) in the text Deletions appear as Overstrike text surrounded by { } Additions appear as Bold text surrounded by [] t-n~rr,,rm-v em, xrrr,~:~ [REGIONAL SERVICE/ENTRANCE CORRIDOR] DESIONATION PROPOSAL c ~-.:~ ~ [Regional Service/Entrance Corridor] Designation: The ~c, ...... :~"' ~ [Regional] Service area located south of the Willoughby residential development and no~th ofi-64 between Fifth Street Extended and Avon Street Extended. accessed via Bent Creek Road, is intended to serve as a retail-{-~[,] office, [and] research {and resideata~ center within Neighborhood Four. Because of its location a~ the comer of two Entrance Corridors, this site is of high aesthetic and environmental sensitivity and importance. Development of the site shall ~seck ......,,~ ~,.,..,,.,~: .... ~ [remain compatible with] the scale and existing character of the proposed~t~,~,~.~-..,...,::'-'~ [Regional] Service (mixed retail, office, ~ ......................... ,/ ................... ~ and researc use and near residentia uses. Fifth Street functions as one of the gateways to the Charlottesville-Albemarle community because of, in part. the access opportunity provided by the 1-64 interchange. The land uses along thi~ road establish the first image and impression of both the larger urban area and this particular neighborhood to those who pass by or visit from other areas in the region. Building Limitations: Because of the large size of the site and because of the specific topographic and demographic conditions of the site. the limits on allowable building square footage for the site will be altered from the normal {c.,~,.,,,,,,,~,,,,~:~,, ~ [Regional] Service .designation as follows: · Maximum total square footage of buildings: 310,000 s.f. · Maximum total square footage of buildings for mixed retail (including outside display, sales and storage areas), office, research and residential uses: 250,000 s.f. · While mixed use is encouraged within the 250,000 s.f., there are no specific levels of uses required. · All buildings in excess of 250,000 s.f. must be residential. To make the buildings as reusable as possible by future users, ~ any i di idual b ildi g { ill 1.~ u....:,~-~ ~- ........ t... ~ct: nnn . .e 1....4:..:4...! l...:l.4:.r, .... n v u n w .......... ,, ,,., ...... ,., .................. ,.,.~.,~,,,, . . ,. ......... ~, ............. ~ o...- ...................... n excess of 65,000 s.f. should be d,esigned such that at a future date such building may be subdivided] with minimal physical changes, so that ~ [each sub-divided portion] may function as [an] 2 individual~..~:~o..,~oo~oj~ [business, occupying up to 65,000 s.f]. Individual buildings may be attached and interconnected. A single user may not occupy more than ~ [195,000] s,f. of ~ ........ gs} [building area]. Expectations for this area include development under a master plan which incorporates the following general principles: : · Site Design: Site design shall maintain a positive relationship with the surrounding community, acknowledging the proximity of the WilloUghby residential neighborhood and historic districts within the City of Charlottesville through the use of appropriate materials, architectural features, color, internal and external lighting, and other design elements. A mixed use plan of development is encouraged. All facades of commercial buildings visible from a public road ~ [should] continue design elements found on the front of the buildings. Loading docks, trash colleCtion facilities, outdoor storage and related facilities shall be incorporated into the design of building(s) so that they are not visible. Areas of open space/recreation shall be provided for shoppers and Neighborhood residents. ' Buildings should not appear monOlithic; articulation (massing, architectural feature~) should be used to reduce the overall size of large buildings; uninterrupted facades shall be avoided in the design of the principal structures by incorporating windows, recessed areas, projections, awnings, arcades and other features which vary the visual, impact of the buildings. Roof design shall mitigate the visUal impacts of the large scale structures and associated buildings, with special attention directed to visibility from areas of higher elevation. Parking shall be internalized to the greatest extent possible, with parking areas distributed throughout the site in front of and behind the commercial structures, and trees and other landscaping material uSed to minimiZe viSual impact (parking orchard concept). -[-lamampa~ [Principles] of environmentally responsible and energy efficient design will be incorporated to a significant extent in site development, for example: · Minimize impervious pavement: To minimize impervious pavement, any paved parking areas in excess of those spaces required by code, are to be composed of pervious surfaces, such as grass pavers or stabilized turf.. · Energy efficient building: Insulation, provision for day-lighting and other energy conscious elements should be incorporated into the design. Minimize roof and foundations: To minimize roof and foUndation areas, ~ca (two. floor), or greater, buildings [should be encouraged, particularly for mized uses, including residential]. · Master Plan: Prior to re-zoning a master plan for the entire property showing the layout, grading, character and scale of the project will be developed and submitted. · Recycling Center: Space will be made available for a recycling center (not counted against square foot limits). · Appropriate Uses: Service stations are not'considered to be a compatible Community Service use for this site. " Environmental Protection: A publicly accessible greenway shall be~,,..,,,o,.,': ..... ,.,,,..,,,.,~ [reserved] along Moore's Creek and Biscuit Run as recommended in the Land Use Plan, Neighborhood Four. Exemplary specimen or old growth trees, 24? 'or larger DBH, will be preserved to the extent practicable during site development; particular care wiI1 be given to protection of existing stands of trees that provide screening from adjacent streets and highways. A vegetative buffer shall be maintained along Biscuit Run and Moore's Creek, undisturbed by site development. Because of the proximity of Biscuit Run and Moore's Creek, and the potential impacts resulting from a large amount of impervious cover, an on-site mitigation plan that {cxcecd~o~,,,,,,,,,~-~'~,~ ~ [implements] BMPs, detention standards, and water quality standards shall be incorporated into the site design. The plan of development shall include features to minimize impacts from impervious surfaces on water quality; parking areas, roads and other impervious areas shall meet only the reasonable needs of the proposed uses (see General Land Use Standards, p.21). Transportation: 4 Site development must include pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and a continuous walkway and travelway must be provided fi.om Fifth Stree~ to and throughout the site. Rezoning of the property will be timed with any required road improvements, which may include, but are not necessarily limited to one or all of the following: · improvements to Bent Creek Road; · Fiftl~ Street northbound (a continuous right mm lane northbound on Fifth Street from the ~ ~A ..... .~. .... a ~ .... ~ [bridge at Moore's Creek] to Bent Creek Road): · improvements to the 1-64 eastbound offramp and intersection with Fifth Street (signalization and double laning); and · improvements to Fifth Street southbound t~:"~*~"~*:^- ^*' lane) l l(extension of the left turn lane into Bent Creek Road)]. \\CHA~2536L2588\bras.~doc99~altemat¢ community service designation [counter] proposal.doc ATTACHMENT V COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Planning Commission Susan E. Thomas, Senior Planner June 1, 1999 CPA 97-05 Brass, Inc. At the meeting of May 11, 1999, the applicant was invited to respond to the Alternative Community Service Designation Proposal [5:00 pm revision] ("Alternative Proposal") offered by Co ,nu-nissioners Rooker and Rieley. The applicant's response ("Applicant's Response") is attached, as well as staff's original recommendation ("Staff Recommendation") and the Alternative Proposal. Also attached are letters from the public and a memorandum from DISC. Staff has set forth below a comparison of those elements of our original recommendation for Community Service which were carried over to the Alternative Community Service proposal, and from there to the applicant's response. Community Service Designation [introductory paragraphsl Staff Recommendation. In describing this Community Service area as a residential, retail and office/research center for the Neighborhood, staff emphasized continuation o'f the existing scale and character of the surrounding uses. Timing of the rezoning was tied to DISC and staff development of standards. Alternative Proposal Commissioners Rooker and Rieley retained the general wording of the first two paragraphs from the staff proposal, but deleted the reference to timing of the rezoning to DISC and/or staff standards. Applicant's Response. The area is designated for Regional Service rather than Community Service; residential use is deleted from the described mix of uses; the concept of"compatibility with" is substituted for "continuation of" the scale and existing character of the proposed uses and surrounding uses; and, the role of the 1-64 interchange is discussed in establishing the first image and impression of the larger urban area and this neighborhood. Building Limitations Staff Recommendation. Staffproposal did not include this element as a separate catagory. The allowable limit under Community Service is 250,00 SF. Alternative Proposal Mixed retail/office and research limited to 250,000 SF; 60,000 SF additional allowed if it is residential. Mixed use encouraged but not mandatory. Size of individual buildings limited to 65,000 SF; defined as being subdividable at a future date with minimal physical changes; may be attached and interconnected; no single user may occupy more than 160,000 SF, including outside display, sales and storage areas; master plan of site required. Applicant's Response. Maximum total square footage for mixed retail (including outside display, sales and storage areas), office, research and residential uses of 250,000 SF; mixed use encouraged but no required levels of uses; 60,000 SF allowable if it is residential. Individual buildings in excess of 65,000 SF should be designed so that may be subdivided at a future date with minimal physical changes; and may function as an individual business, occupying up to 65,000 SF. Master plan of site required. Site Design StafRecommendation. 1/3 each Urban Density Residential, Community Service (including retail anchors of moderate size), and Industrial/Office Service uses, Residential not be less than 1/3 of site at full build out. Alternative Proposal Includes staff language with a few changes: encourages rather than requires mixed use [residential]. New language introduced: adds "energy efficient" to principles of sustainable design, as well as reference to minimizing impervious pavement, incorporating energy efficient building elements, requiring 1/3 of roof and foundation to be 2-story or greater, master planning site prior to rezoning; making space available for recycling center. Applicant's Response. Continues much of Alternative Proposal language. However, substitutes "should" for "shall" in language regarding faqade design continuing elements found on front of building. Encourages rather than requires 2-story design, "particularly for mixed use, including residential." Deletes requirement for 1/3 of total roof and foundation area to be 2 stories or greater. Appropriate Uses Same language under all three proposals. Environmental Protection Staff Recommendation. Establishment of greenway and maintenance of buffer along Moore's Creek and Biscuit Run. Preservation of old speciment or old growth trees to the extent practicable; minimize impervious pavement impacts on water quality; avoid excessive parking, roads and other impervious surfaces. Alternative Proposal Elaborates on tree preservation and screening; requires on-site mitigation plan that exceeds standard BMP's, detention standards, and water quality standards incorporated into site design. Same language for greenway and maintenance of riparian buffer. Applicant's Response. Substitutes "reserved" for "constructed" regarding greenway along Moore's Creek and Biscuit Run; substitutes "implements" for "exceeds standard" BMP's. Transportation Staff Recommendation. States that all improvements to Bent Creek Road within corporate limits must be approved by City. Requires pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and continuous walkway and travelway from Fiffia Street to and throughout the site. Alternative Proposal. States that rezoning will be timed with required road improvements, which may include but are not necessarily limited to one or all of the following: improvements to Bent Creek Road; continuous right turn lane northbound for 1-64 westbound off ramp to Bent Creek Road; improvements to the 1-64 eastbound off ramp and intersection with Fifth Street (signalization and double laning); and improvements to Fifth Street southbound (installation of a continous right mm lane). Applicant's Response. Substitutes "bridge at Moore's Creek" for "1-64 off ramp" in defining extent of continuous right turnlane northbound; substitutes "extension of the left turn lane into Bent Creek Road" for "installation of a continuous right turn lane." [The first change addresses a misconception staff had regarding the extent to which the applicant was willing and/or able to construct the continous right turn northbound lane on Fifth Street, in that the bridge functions as a construction constraint on widening of Fifth Street. The continous right turn lane southbound is a feature VDOT identified as desirable, but all parties acknowledge that the grade differential poses design problems.] Attachments: A - Staff Community Service Designation B - Rooker/Rieley Alternative Proposal C - Applicant's Response D - Letters from the Public E - Memorandum from DISC ATTACHMENT VI STAFF REPORT CPA 97-05 BRASS, INC. STAFF PERSON: SUSAN E. THOMAS PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION: FEBRUARY 23, 1999 .REQUEST: CPA 97-05 Brass, Inc. [Willoughby] - Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for property consisting of approximately 53.89 acres located in Urban Neighborhood 4, described as Tax Map 76M(1), Parcels 2A and 2B, lying east of 5th Street Extended (State Route 631) and north of Interstate 64, Within the Scottsville Magisterial District. The proposal seeks to change the designation of the area from Industrial Service to Regional Service, to support a future rezoning from LI, Light Industrial, to C-l, Commercial, or PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center. Work sessions on this project has been held on March 31, June 30 (in joint session with the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission), and December 15, 1998. It is anticipated that this will be the final work session, and a public hearing has been scheduled for March 9, 1999. At the work session of December 15, the Commission indicated to staff a desire that the final work session discussion should focus on comprehensive plan/land use issues, set forth below. HISTORY: The property is part of the original Willoughby farm, and in the 1960's and 1970's was designated for a major shopping center. From 1975 - 85 it was part of the Willoughby Planned Unit Development. In 1985, the County approved ZMA 85-14 with proffers, rezoning 49.377 acres to LI. In 1989, ZMA 89-14 was approved, with proffers, adding 4.516 acres of residue to the LI district. During the i995/1996 review and update of the Land Use Plan, the recommendation for industrial service remained unchanged. CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The north side of the 1-64/5th Street interchange is subject to' the Interstate Interchange Development Policy (p. 64, Land Use Plan). The 5th Street corridor as currently developed provides Regional Service as well as Community Service scale uses (Holiday Inn, Willoughby Shopping Center, fast food restaurant and gas stations), while addressing to a large degree the goals of the Entrance Corridor district. At full build-out, 'its appearance will undoubtedly take on a more urbanized appearance. Nonetheless, with two substantial properties anchoring the northwest and northeast comers (the former Virginia' Power office building and the Holiday Inn), this interchange benefits visually from the absence of the common proliferation of small highway oriented businesses characteristic of these locations and thus visual impacts from furore development take on added significance. The Land Use Plan recommends thata buffer along the Interstate be maintained or established to protect the visual character of the area as seen from the roadway, and that development plans along Route 29 South, 1-64 and 5th Street/Route 631 be sensitive to their status as Entrance Corridor Roadways. STAFF ANALYSIS: Location Opportunities (factors favorable to this request): · Neighborhoods 4 and 5 are relatively undersupplied with this type of retail, and Brass would enlarge the retail inventory, ~ The site's proximity to 1-64 is convenient and efficient for the large proportion of regional (non-local) shoppers who are expected to visit the site. A big box development in this location may attract and/or intercept retail traffic that would otherwise use Route 29 North, thereby improving the traffic congestion on that major corridor. · The property abuts commercial uses, some of which are located between it and 1-64. It appears to be consistent with the Interstate Interchange policy. Cons~aints (factors unfavorable to this request): The applicant's proposal is not a neighborhood oriented development, and in fact would be an importer of shoppers, many of whom would be from outside the local area. It may negatively impact and ultimately disrupt the prevailing commercial development pattern, which is more of a Community Service and smaller scale Regional Service nature. Th~ site shares a substantial boundary with the Willoughby residential development, its closest existing neighbor. Because of the scale, size, and lay-out of the proposed development, as well as the elevations of the two sites (Willoughby is higher and will comparatively be higher still after the Brass site is graded), it can be expected to create substantial visual and noise impacts for those residents'. It also would visually impact to some degree 1-64 and Fifth Street, both of which are zoned as Entrance Corridors..Although. the applicant indicates a commitment to a neighborhood oriented design concept, the potential size of the big box anchor is difficult to mitigate from a visual standpoint. The applicant's assertion that a big box commercial development at this location would divert traffic from Route 29 North, thereby improving congestion and growth patterns there, is difficult if not impossible to verify. An equally strong argument might be made that discount shoppers will shop this location in addition to shopping the existing superstores on the Route 29 Corridor. It is also difficult to predict with any certainty that shoppers who want to reach the site from the 29 Corridor would use the 29/250 by-pass to reach 1-64, and then take 1-64 east to Fifth Street. City and County neighborhoods lying between Brass and the 29 Corridor may feel substantial pressure from shoppers driving from one site to the other. Environmental Opportunities: · Development of the site under a unified plan allows for a coordinated approach to mitigating impacts, particularly water quality and quantity issues created by the large building footprint 2 and parking area. The applicant has indicated a willingness to incorporate public amenities such as a greenway and playing field into the site design. The site may not be appropriate for development with a single footprint of this size. The very substantial impacts to Moores Creek and Biscuit Run (and the resulting BMP's) anticipated from the Brass proposal might be avoided or reduced under by-right development. Although the existing Light Industrial zoning permits uses which also require large structures, a review of the May 15, 1985 Board of Supervisors meeting minutes as well as marketing efforts during the last fourteen years indicates that office/research park uses were consistently envisioned for the site. A single Light Industrial structure as large as this one (up to 210,000 square feet for the big box anchor, with 90,000 square feet additional retail also likely to have a single footprint) appears to be unlikely. Staff agrees that a unified plan of development allows for better coordination and oversight in constructing required improvements, but reiterates that some or many of those improvements might not be necessary under a less intensive type of use which by definition creates fewer impacts. Furthermore, the County's engineering regulations are intended to address impacts from a wide variety of development activity, and assuming they are properly administered, they should effectively do so regardless of the type of use. (See Attachment A, Memorandum from Water Resources Manager) Transportation Opportunities: · Fifth Street currently has the capacity to handle projected traffic from this Regional Service development. The applicant is willing to make substar[tial transportation improvements, including installation of a signal at the 1-64 eastbound off ramp and Fifth Street Extended, a northbound right turn lane into the Brass site, and improvements to Bent Creek Road. The applicant has also indicated a willingness to consider improvements to Fifth Street southbound. Constraints: · Bent Creek Road is the single point of access to the site, a serious limitation for a use generating such a high volume of traffic. The ability of Bent Creek Road to accommodate needed improvements (widening, etc.) is constrained by the presence of existing businesses (Hardees and Exxon) at the intersection with Fifth Street, and the fact that at least in the case of Hardees, access is exclusively from Bent Creek Road. The distance between Fifth Street and Moores Creek is short, making stacking and turning movements more difficult to address. The City of Charlottesville controls the intersection of Fifth Street and Bent Creek Road, and has indicated its opposition to certain improvements (widening and installation of a median) that might mitigate traffic congestion at the entrance to the site. 3 The' Southern Connector and Alternative D identified in the Southern Cities study both would enhance access to the site and its benefits to Neighborhoods 4 and 5. However, it is not clear that either or both of these transportation linkages will be constructed. The latter is conceptual at best; the former has had past support from the Board of Supervisors but no information exists as to when it might actually be built. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment request has been submitted (but was deferred) to remove the Southern Connector l~om the Six Year Plan; without additional cOnnectiOns between the Route 20 South corridor and Fifth Street, or an interstate interchange on Avon Street Extended, it seems inevitable that City neighborhoods will.see increased traffic as shoppers attempt to access the site from these areas. Infill Opportunities: · This is one of a few parcels sufficiently large to accommodate a regional shopping center close to the existing population center. It would serve the existing residential development in the' area, as well as future growth projected for Neighborhoods 4 and 5. It utilizes land that has not successfully developed in a Light Industrial use. The applicant has indicated a willingness to provide public amenities in the form of recreational features that are recommendations in the Land Use Plan (greenway) and/or well established community needs (soccer field). · The proposal would convert a development area parcel from one designation to another, rather than expand the development area boundaries. Constraints · The concept of infill is linked nationally and locally to the effort to control sprawl. Generally the term refers to the development of parcels within the urban ring or core which previously have been by-passed as development has moved further out to cheaper rural land. Current thinking emphasizes the desirability of developing these vacant parcels, which benefit from existing infrastructure and markets, before extending costly services to newly expanded growth areas. Infill means more than simply building on empty parcels Within the urban area. Implicit to the concept is the appropriate fit of a proposed USe to the property. When properly done, infill development should make full use of the site's capacity while minimizing the land disturbance associated With the project. The Brass proposal attempts to super-impose a large "footprint" use on a site which has a variety of environmental constraints. The scale of the proposed development makes it unlikely that a mixed USe (commercial/residential, commercial/office/residential) would be 4 successful on the site. It does not address the goal of locating employment close to housing. For these and other reasons, it does not represent infill development as it has been implemented elsewhere or articulated by the DISC. Elements ofinfill design (currently under discussion by the DISC) that would better use the site's inherent assets might be: - use of a greater percentage of the site for the proposed development itself (versus filling the site with landscaping or public amenities to compensate for impacts); - minimization of. grading through a series of smaller "footprints" (development pads) which can better accommodate existing contours and allow for filtering of nm-off; - size, scale and massing of structures appropriate to the surroundings, which relate visually to nearby residential as well as other commercial properties; - opportunity to mix housing with commercial, including affordable housing; - selection of uses which avoid the need for high volumes of parking area, emphasizing those which can share parking; - 'fit the use to the area, respecting the existing land use pattern, adjacent uses, and function of the location and neighborhood to the larger area. By definition this type of retail development requires and perpetuates the emphasis on vehicular travel. Because of its location, surrounding land use, and proximity to the urban core,, on this particular site options exist to reduce automobile usage or at least to develop pedestrian, bicycle and transit alternatives to more cars. These opportunities are mostly lost or at least greatly reduced with Regional Service development, based on its shopper mix (high percentage of non-local), nature of goods sold, required development pattern (size and scale makes walking difficult), among other factors. Although the public amenities suggested by the applicant are desirable, the County would attempt to get the greenway designation as a part of any development plan for the site. Floodplain and water quality regulations make it highly unlikely that it could be used for other purposes. The soccer field would be a community asset, but must be considered against the lost oppommity to use that portion of the site for development which, assuming demand exists, can eventually be expected to create pressure for expansion of commercial or other development into the Rural Area. It seems highly preferable to develop a site like this one to its maximum capacity, and look to other sites for land-intensive amenities such as playing fields. Existing Land Use Opportunities: · The 1996 Land Use Plan indicates that the southern urban area (Neighborhoods 4 and 5) is projected to accommodate sizable residential growth. It has access to Neighborhood and Community Service, which will increase when South Pointe is developed, but little Regional Service exists in the area. The Brass proposal would provide Regional Service in a designated Development Area, along a corridor characterized by small commercial 5 establishments oriented to Fifth Street which exhibit a traditional site by site pattern of. development. The residential development adjoining the site is separated by a natural buffer formed by Moores Creek and the associated floodplain. At the December 15 work session, the applicant provided sketch plans which suggested an intent to create a "center" as envisioned by Nco-Traditional development, which could provide a focal point for the Neighborhoods and larger area as well. Constraints: · The introduction ora use of this nature, scale and intensity will disrupt an established land use pattem which over time has achieved an equilibrium with the City's central business district, the downtown mall, and the old and new residential neighborhoods in close proximity to this site. Although existing commercial uses along Fifth Street may not reflect the kind of development standards the County and the City now encourage, these smaller businesses do serve residents' needs. It has been suggested that market forces and public policy should be combined to promote redevelopment of older commercial centers, through cautious approval of new commercial developments and emphasis on compact development. Impacts from a retailer so much greater in size than any other retail use in the area, with the possible exception of the Route 29 North business corridor, are potentially profound and' significant over time. Although the regional shoppers attracted to this supercenter may also visit and patronize downtown businesses, thereby contributing economically to revenues, the complete dominance of the big box in terms of size and financial strength means that any business decision its parent corporation makes potentially will reverberate throughout the southern urban area as a whole. In contrast to the Route 29 corridor, where there has developed a sort of parity among mega-retailers who may impact each other more than they do the mid-size and small retailers, the Fifth Street con4dor - and in fact Neighborhoods 4 ' and 5 - are unlikely to support more than one superstore due to the limited land available for such a use. In this sense, it is unlikely that a balance will develop that might over time stabilize the land use pattern as characterized by the 29 corridor. Development of the site as Regional Service will generate employment, as would Industrial Service. However, the nature of the jobs created is likely to differ widely. Industrial Service employment may offer greater long-term career potential for residents of the Neighborhoods, City and County. Furthermore, this area can and may be redeveloped in a more attractive, efficient fashion as the market dictates - and land use planning policy permits - in the future. It is as desirable to disburse employment centers as it is to spread retail. ConverSion of this site from an industrial/office park to a regional retail center may mean a lost opportunity for the New Urbanism/infill development goal of residential land use matched with employment opportunities that are close to it, reducing commUting distances and encouraging walking and. public transportation. ~ 6 Summary: The IndUstrial Service designation has not lead to successful development of this site over the past 14 years, and the applicant is seeking a Regional Service designation to develop a regional "big box" shopping center with other associated retail. Neighborhoods 4 and 5 currently do not have a surplus of retail to serve their growing residential populations, and Fifth Street already has an established commercial character. Redesignation from Light Industrial zoning to a commercial district would not expand the Development Area, but simply change the use of the property. Transportation capacity exists, and the site is well located for pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation access. The proximity of the Interstate is convenient for many local and regional shoppers. However, the Regional Service designation is overly intensive for the property and area. The large mount of grading and parking required for the proposed development would negatively impact the two streams and wetlands on the property, and the superstore would be out of scale with surrounding residential and commercial development. An oppommity exists on this site to develoP a successful mix of commercial/residential/office service uses consistent with the infill model currently under development by the DISC. A mixed use development would provide an opportunity to address several issues identified in the Land Use Plan: 1) the need for additional residential holding capacity in the existing designated Development Area; 2) provision o~f office/industrial employment oppommities south of town, thereby creating more of a balance of land us.es in the Neighborhood 4/5 area; and, 3) provision for some level of additional commercial in keeping with the desired character, scale and need of the southern Neighborhoods. Infill development on this site would take advantage of the proximity to the Interstate and Fifth Street corridor, better utilize access to-non-vehicular forms of transportation, allow for increased design flexibility relative to the topography, coexist compatibly with adjacent residential use, and establish parity with surrounding uses. Staff accepts the conclusions of the applicant's retail market analysis, that adequate market demand exists to support a Regional Service facility of this type. However, the applicant's study does not address the potential infrastructure requirements and other land use impacts that might result from the requested development. Similarly, the Shils Report forwarded to staff by the City of Charlottesville Planning Department offers various projections regarding the negative effects that a superstore can have on existing businesses and economies. Whether those projections would affect Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville as they have other communities is difficult to assess without a more comprehensive study. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Brass site be redesignated for Community Service, but with specific language amended into the Neighborhood 4 profile to describe the desired range and mix of uses. A residential element will be a mandatory component of mixed use for this site. The amended language in the Land Use Plan will address the desired mix of Urban Density Residential, Community Service, and Office/Industrial Service intended for this location, as well as other site specific considerations. Approval of the rezoning of the site, however, will be timed to follow 7 the development of a definition of mixed use and associated development guidelines/standards, currently in progress by both the DISC and staff. Among other elements, site development will incorporate establishment of the greenway along Moores Creek and Biscuit Run. Rezoning of the property will be timed with improvements to the Interstate Interchange, Filth Street, and Bent Creek Road (improvements to City streets will require approval by the City). Should the Commission disagree with staff's recommendation for Community Service and recommend redesignation to Regional Service, staff suggests that specific language be incorporated into the Plan amendment addressing issues and concepts discussed and proposed during the course ofrevlew of this project. The site will be developed under a neo-traditional design concept reflecting a scale which relates to the surrounding residential and commercial land uses and provides for pedestrian, bicycle and public transportation. Parking area design will incorporate trees and other landscaping material to minimize visual impacts. The site plan will incorporate establishment of the greenway along Moores Creek and Biscuit Run and the other public recreational amenities/areas proposed by the applicant at the December 15, 1998 work session. Rezoning of the property will be timed with improvements to the Interstate Interchange, Fiflah Street, and Bent Creek Road (improvements to City streets will require approval by the City). Attachments: A - 2/11/99 Memorandum from Water Resources Manager B - 2/17/99 Letter from Applicant A:\Brass 2-23-99.doc 8 IATTACHIqENT A"] COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Susan Thomas - Senior Planner David Hirschman - Water Resources Manager~~ February 11, 1999 Brass, Inc. Application & Moores Creek You have asked for comments regarding the Brass, Inc. application and impacts to Moores Creek from ~ading and site runoff. In order to address this issue, it is important to highlight what is currently known about Moores Creek and its watershed. Moores Creek & Its Watershed The Moores Creek watershed encompasses 35 square miles and drains approximately half of the City of Charlottesville and a portion of southern and western Albemarle County. The watershed is comprised of wide variety of land uses, from highly urbanized in and around the City to very rural sections in the headwaters. The headwaters of the main stem of Moores Creek are found in the Route 29 South area in the vicinity of Arrowhead. Biscuit Run is a major tributary that drains a section of southern Albemarle County. Morey Creek, another significant tributary, drains from the northwest, and receives runoff fi.om the Birdwood Golf Course in its headwaters, the Buckingham Circle area, and the Fontaine Research Park. Other tributaries include Rock Creek and Lodge Creek in the City, and Cows Branch, the "Lake Reynovia/Mill Creek" stream, and the "Monticello High S chool/Piedmont Community College" stream in the County. Ragged Mountain Reservoir is also within the Moores Creek watershed. The Brass, Inc. property includes the confluence of Biscuit Run with Moores Creek. From this point, the watershed is approximately 28 square miles. In 1996, Dewberry & Davis released the "Moores Creek Watershed Study," which was a joint effort of the City, County, and University. The study contains hydrologic, flood plain, and water .~,,,quality information for the watershed. The study also includes an action plan for watershed improvements and suggestions for regional stormwater management facilities. MEMORANDUM Brass, Inc. Application & Moores Creek February 11, 1999 Page Two The water quality section of the report is enlightening because it portrays existing conditions in Moores Creek. Moores Creek is characterized by relatively high sediment and nutrient levels during storm flows. Several heavy metals were also detected in elevated levels during storm events. Sources of these pollutants include: streambank erosion; runoff from construction sites; runoff from roads, parking lots, and yards; and atmospheric deposition. Empirically, we know that sedimentation is a major issue in Moores Creek, as much of the streambed is covered with sand and silt deposits from current and historic uses. However, the prognosis for Moores Creek is not. completely bleak, as biological monitoring has turned up stream organisms that can only survive in relatively clean water. This evidence would seem to point out that Moores Creek may be a good candidate for habitat and streambank restoration projects. The Dewberry & Davis study also identified flooding and "hydraulic capacity" problems with Moores Creek. The action plan includes bridge and culvert replacements to alleviate flooding, restoratio, n projects, debris.removal, flood plain policies, continued monitoring, and public education. Aside from these hard technical figures,, it is important to note that Moores Creek and its stream -,valley provide for recreational and habitat values in the mids} of the urban complex. Much of the stream valley in close proximity to the City is wooded. Both County and City greenway and greenbelt plans call for enhancement to trail systems along the creek. In addition, the Rivanna Trails Foundation is planning further extensions to its network, including paths along Moores Creek. Three City parks lie immediately adjacent to Moores Creek. These wooded valleys, path systems, and parks are important refuges in an otherwise urban landscape. Interstate 64 and its interchanges encroach very close to the creek in several locations. Other features of Moores Creek include the City's old landfill west of Avon St., the Moores Creek Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (~vhich provides wastewater treatment for the City and most of the County's sewered areas), and the old Woolen Mills complex at the Rivanna River confluence. A major restoration project is planned for Moores Creek in Azalea Park to address historic problems with streambank erosion. In summary, Moores Creek cannot be considered one of the area's pristine ecosystems, as the watershed has seen much urban and infrastructure development through the years. However, Moores Creek and its stream valley are critical for their habitat and recreational values. It is important to protect Moores Creek through careful site design, as well as to improve the stream through restoration projects, such as the one planned for Azalea Park. Much of the Moores Creek and Biscuit Run watersheds are within County-designated Development Areas. It will be a challenge to try to meet the infill objectives of the Land Use Plan while considering and striving for the protection and restoration of the creeks and rivers within the ecosystem. MEMORANDUM Brass, Inc. Application & Moores Creek February 1 I, 1999 Page Three The Brass, Inc. Proposal Current zoning for this property is LI, which would allow for a wide range of commercial and industrial uses. It is difficult to compare the impacts of the current rezoning request without knowing the particular development design and a particular by-right use. However, several general statements can be made: Impacts to Moores Creek will include construction-related impacts of erosion and sedimentation, as well as long-term stormwater runoff impacts involving sediment, nutrients, metals, and other water quality constituents associated with urban runoff. With regard to construction impacts, the "big-box" concept will necessarily involve a huge amount of~ading in order to provide a building site for structures and parking lots. Sediment control for these projects relies primarily on "perimeter" measures, such as silt basins, to control mass movementof sediment off-site. In general, more Fading requires more .and larger facilities, and more chances for sediment delivery into streams, especially during large storms. Smaller development envelopes that are developed at different times would be easier to control, since ~ading would be phased into smaller units and less contiguous land would be disturbed at any one point in time. This concept would probably involve much less overall site grading than the big-box approach. Once the site is constructed, the concern becomes "day-to-day" site runoff. Research generated in this field makes a strong link between the quality of water resources and impervious surfaces, such as roads, parking lots, rooftops, and driveways. As watershed imperviousness increases, we can expect degradation in water quality and stream habitat, and an increase in stream scour and bank erosion. For this reason, Albemarle County's Water Protection Ordinance utilizes a site'.s impervious cover to calculate the water quality treatment requirement for runoff. Best management practices (BMPs) are required to treat site runoffbased on the removal rate expressed in the calculations. In general, as impervious cover increases, the removal rate -- and the number, complexity, and/or size of BMPs -- also increases. The big-box design would generate more pollutants than smaller development envelopes. One would also think that the pollutant removal/BMP requirement would also increase. However, this may not be the case. With individual development envelopes, each individual site would be treated as a separate unit with regard to the calculations. Site imperviousness would be based on the property boundaries of each envelope, instead of the entire 54 acre parcel. For this reason, each site would likely require a fairly high rate of BMP treatment, equal to or surpassing the treatment required for the big box. The result would be more numerous BMPs, and probably a higher level of overall treatment when the entire parcel is considered. MEMORANDUM Brass, Inc. Application & Moores Creek February 11, 1999 Page Four There are several positive Sides to having one large site and a unified stormwater program. Fewer BMP facilities wOuld create less of a long-term maintenance issue. Also, a single site BMP plan may be better able to incorporate larger BMP facilities, perhaps with innovative design concepts, that could be effective in reducing pollutant loads. These favorable factors could help balance 'the fact the big box will generate a higher overall pollutant load. Efforts could also be made to reduce and/or disconnect impervious cover by design (see below). Another important factor with site deSign that relates to pollutant loads is the extent to which impervious surfaces are connected. As an example, consider two sites that each have 20 acres of impervious.cover. The first is a large building with attached parking lot and access roads. On this site, all the pavement is connected, and all of the site runoffis directed through storm sewer collection pipes to several outlet points. The second site has several detached buildings surrounded by turf grass, several smaller parking areas, and access roads. While the length of roadway is probably more than site #1, there are more opportunities to "disconnect" impervious surfaces: roof runoff can be filtered by grass, grass swales can intercept parking androadway runoff, etc. It stands to reason (and is supported by the literature), that the more that a site's impervious cover is discOnnected, the lower the resulting pollutant load. / The Water Protection Ordinance also contains a stream, buffer requirement. The buffer areas along Moores Creek and. Biscuit Run must be protected. There are also opportunities to enhance the existing buffers through additional planting of riparian vegetation, and, as the applicant has shown conceptually in the application materials, restoration of existing eroding streambanks. Regardless of the development concept (big box or separate envelopes), the stream buffer area can and should be protected. The one main caveat is that concentrated runoff should not cut through the buffer in stormwater channels or pipes, because this eliminates the "buffer" part of the stream buffer. BMP facilities should be outside of the buffer, and runoff should be spread out before it enters the buffer zone. Whether or not this rezoning application is approved, this site is likely to see development and intensification of use under existing zoning. In either case, additional pollutants and other stream impacts will be'generated that must be managed and mitigated. At this point, I cannot quantify the impacts to Moores Creek for a rezoned parcel versus a by-right use. Qualitatively, we know that impacts are related to the amount of overall grading, ultimate impervious cover, and the extent to which impervious surfaCes are connected.. I hope this information is helpful in the review of this proposal. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions. DJH/ctj File: hirschman~brass Steven W. Blaine swb~wbb, com McGumEWoo BATT - . &BOOTHE Court Square Building Post Office Box 1288 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-1288 Telephone/TDD (804) 977-2500 · Fax(804)980-2222 February 17, 1999 ATTACHSLENT B Direct Diai: (804)97%2588 Direct Fax: (804)980-2251 VIA HAND DELIVERY Ms. Susan Thomas Albemarle County Planning and Community Development Office 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: CP 97-505: Willoughby Proiect Dear Susan: This letter is in response to a memorandum from the City Planning Commission, dated February 5, 1999..Attached is a point-by-point response. In keeping with the County Planning Commission's directive at its December 15 work session, our response is in the context of the Comprehensive Plan considerations. I would appreciate it if you would make arrangements t~; clude the attachment with your staff report to the Planning Commissioners for their next/work session to be held on / February 26. / Very tru/ly/q~rs, / / i Ste~6fi W. Blaine \/ SWB:hll Enclosure Mr. James B. Murray, Jr. (w/enc.) Mr. Frank D. Cox, Jr. (w/enc.) Mr. Ronald Higgins (w/enc.) www, mwbb.com yoaY · AWl.a,,qTX · B,U:nMORE · BRUSSELS · CttAIII.OTI~ · CB,4RLUrrESVllJ.E · CHICAGO. JAClr~ONVlLLE , MOSCOW- NORFOLK · RIOIMON~) · T/SONS CORNER · W.~ItlNGTO~ · ZtlRICB (OF COMI~REHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT WILLOUGI~RY SITE CP-97-0~ I. REGIONAL PLANNING AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. A commercial use with regional focus at Sth Sweet and 1-64 better implements the County's regional planning goals than the current industrial use designatiotr This location will attract shoppers from south of the City. It also will serve as a point of interception for the many residents of the southern portion of the City, the County and adjoining communities whose current patterns are to travel to Route 29 North. The close proximity of the Interstate makes this an ideal location for a commercial use with a regional draw. This will in turn reduce congestion on roads supplying access under current consumer patterns to regional shopping destinations on 29 North such as Lowe's, Sears, K-Mart and Wal-Mart. Attached is a map depicting the projected relevant market area which will be served by the Willoughby location. Census data shows that there are an estimated 139,000 people fi/nag within this relevant market area. These potential customers who must now shop on Route 29 North will have an improved access to shopping off 1-64 at the Willoughby location. The existing County Land:Use Plan does not adequately support the projected market needs for regional commercial service. Market data indicates that the County already enjoys significant attraction for regional shoppers. The Charlottesville MSA has an average of $22,878 per household in annual retail sales. This is 25%higher than the State average of $18,20'0. The projected retail annual sales in this area is expected to rise from $1,400,000,000 (in 1997) to $1,800,000,000 in ten years. According to the "Retail Market Analysis for the Willoughby Tract," conducted by The Cox Company, the projected retail space demand over the next ten years will require an additional 240 acres. Neighborhoods 4 and 5 (in the County's Urban Ring) have a combined 21 acres of commercially-zoned land. Moreover, there are no significantly sized parcels anywhere in the County south of Route 250 to support regional commercial, yet this is the area projected to be the fastest growing in the next ten years. Therefore, the Land Use Plan does not adequately serve the projected need, nor does it align regionally-focused commercial uses with current growth patterns. A commercial use designation for this location will have an extremely positivefiscal impact for the County. Attached is a copy of the County's summary of the fiscal impact of the proposal: The County's analysis shows a net yearly benefit of $845,000.00. The additional revenue generated by this proposal can be used by the County for additional capital investment, such as school -1- improvements, which are being deferred under current budget constraints. The proposed change is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan for Interstate Interchange Development The Comprehensive Plan clearly states that Regional Service at the 5th Street and 1-64 location is appropriate as part of its plan for Interstate Interchange Development. See Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, page 101. IL MARKET STUDIES; RESPONSE TO USE OF SHII,LS REPORT. Existing market conditions and trends support the proposed change in the Comprehensive Plan and a regional shopping center at the t~/'dloughby sit~ The City Planning Commission has provided comment to the proposal in a memo dated February 5, 1999. The City Planning Commission's primary objection to the ComprehensiVe Plan change is based upon the argument that a discount retail store located at the Willoughby site will lead to a "disinvestment" (sic) and erosion of existing retail businesses in the County, as well as in the City. The City Planning Commission provides no market data in support of this position. Instead, the City Planning Commission cites a study conducted by an Edward B. Shils to support its argument. The market picture portrayed by the Shils report bears little resemblance to the Charlottesville/Albemarle region which will be served by th, e Willoughby site. The Shils report has no applicability to the regional focus of this Comprehensive Plan request. The Shils report apparently relates the views of retailers fi.om a few smaller downtown areas which, unlike Charlottesville, had no previous experience with large, discount retail competition. The'only towns mentioned in the Shils report specifically were: East Aurora, Arkansas, Glendora, California, Ventura, California, Hesperia, California, and Springvale,. New York. (The report also mentions a large fi.ench store that failed somewhere "northeast of Philadelphia.") The phenomenon described in the Shils report has not and will not occur in Charlottesville. Critics of the Willoughby proposal can point to no evidence whatsoever that the existence of K-Mart, Sears, J. C. Penney, and the more recent emergence of Sam's Club, Wal- Mart, Lowe's, and Goody's outside the Downtown shopping area have reduced the tax base for either locality. In fact, the tax bases for both localities, have increased since the first introduction of these businesses. Charlottesville's Downtown has sought for three decades to define and reach its unique market niche. This niche clearly does not include (nor does it seek) large department and -2- discount stores within the downtown business districts. Few, if any retailers in the Downtown currently compete with the discount retailers. This niche in downtown specialty retailing has been cultivated in an environment and during a period of time when discount retailing has matured. The Cox Company "Retail Market Analysis" and the consumer surveys submitted as pan of the CP-97-05 application refute the suggestion that Charlottesville/Albemarle possesses a weak marketplace prone to suffer the kinds of effects described in the Shils report. The City's shopping centers have some of the strongest retail establishments in the state. Buying power and per square foot sales bear this out. The Downtown, while not having the capacity nor the identity to serve the day-to-retail needs of the area consumers, still maintains a high regional profile for tourism, cultural events, students, businesses and professionals. The facts in The Cox Company's Retail Market Analysis and consumer surveys clearlY reinforce the strength of the regional market and refute the City planning Commission's position: Stren~h ofpemographic Support: A discount retail store at the Willoughby site will intercept a primary market area for regional discount store retailing Which COntains 139,000 persons (52,000 households) today and will grow to 146,500 by 2003. StrOng HousehOld Purchasing Power: Per capita income in the primary market area is over $19,000, with the 1998 average household inCome equal to $50,700. The average household sales.in the marketplace are roughly $23,000 (as compared to $18,200 statewide). Re~onal Consumer Spending: Today, the marketplace generates $1.4 billion in annual retail purchases, with this level predicted to reach ~$1.8 billion by 2010. Ch~lottesville as a Re~onal Retail Marketplace: Consumer surveys indicate that 45% to 48% of local discount superstore shoppers live outside of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Demand for New Retail Opportunities: Growth-driven retail demand over the next decade will support 1.8 to 2.2 million square feet of gross floor area. This translates into a land area requirement of roughly 240 acres for new commercial locations. Wil|0u_mhby v. Route 29 North: Both the Retail Market Analysis and consumer preference surveys reveal that for a majority of the region's population, the Willoughby site would be a more convenient location over the Route 29N "strip" for regional discount shopping. Route 29N Retail Shoppers: 6 out of 10 Route 29N shoppers indicated that Willoughby would be a more convenient place to shop for super discount and regional goods. Fiib] percent indicated they would be more likely to shop "downtown" if a discount superstore was located at Willoughby on the City's designated southern "gateway" entrance. However, 7 out ofl0 of those interviewed shop in the downtown less than six times per -3- yeRF. Fifth Street Shoppers: h-city consumers who shop at the 5th Street/Willoughby Shopping Center (Food Lion) are the least likely of all the regional shoppers included in'our survey to frequent the downtown. These same shoppers would prefer a retail center at the Willoughby in-fill site to those existing on 29N. Downtown Shoppers: 8 out of 10 downtown mall "shoppers" frequent Rt. 29N4 to 10 times per month, while 7 out of l0 come downtown less than 6 times per year. When queried as to V;,hat new stores were needed, not a single shopper interviewed indicated "boutique" or "specialty retail" shops were desirable. 100% of those interviewed identified "large department stores" and "discount superstores" as being most needed in the "downtown." The Shils report was based upon a limited survey that was not grounded in statistical legitimacy. Sampling deficiencies, biases, etc., apparently were not sorted out prior to the publishing of the document. For example, Shils only received a 9% response rate out of 6,000 surveys. The data taken in the Shils report is from only four states (New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania and California). Thus. the results clearly do not reflect any trends for Virginia. In essence, the conclusions drawn from the report cannot be applied specifically to any one community. At best, the statistical findings of the Shils report lead to conjectural application, particularly for Willoughby. On the other hand, the Retail Market Analysis and consumer surveYs conducted for this project bring us "right to the site" (with a very strong response rate and demographic coverage) and offer verifiable and statistically conclusive information about the Charlottesville/Albemarle marketplace. m. TRAFFIC IMPACTS. The Applicant has responded to all traffic issues presented by the applicatio~ Responses to comments from the F~rginia Department of Transportation and the City's Engineering Department can and will be incorporated into any Rezoning request in the form of proffera The City Planning Commission's memo of February 5 reflects a lack of understanding of the trafl]c analysis and planning to date. The applicant has met every request of VDOT, the County and the City's Engineering Department in analyzing the projected traffic and needed improvements for this site. Attached is a copy ora letter from Ramey Kemp, traffic engineer, dated February 1, 1999, describing the traffic analysis as relates to City street improvements. Contrary to the City's memo, the VDOT position is now consistent with the applicant's regarding 5th Street widening: extension of the right turn lane on the east side of 5th Street, and -4- extension of the left turn lane, southbound are all that is warranted by this proposal. The applicant has never advocated, and the projected traffic, including background traffic for the next 10 years does not warrant, widening the entirety of Sth Street. (No one has even suggested any need to widen Ridge Street.) The statement by the City Planning Commission that they will ensure that 5th Street and Bent Creek Road are never widened is out of sync with the City's own engineers' recommendations. The City Planning Commission'S statement also is out of sYnc with the Southern Charlottesville Transportation Study which has served as an important Planning document for both the City and the County since 1995. The Study recommends the connection of 5th Street and Avon Street at the Bent Creek Road location. The applicant's intent is to preserve this Planning option, while it is the City Planning Commission's apparent intent to frustrate it. The applicant asks the County to take a more regional approach to long-range planning than that exhibited bY the current City Planning Commission in this matter. IV. COMMERCIAL AREAS AND ~ COMPREtIENSIVE PLAN' The proposal will serve to reduce sprawl, rather than encourage it As the current market trends and growth patterns discUssed above indicate, there are strong demand and market conditions to support a regional shopping center at this SoUthern location. If the most logical location for this type of use, at the 1-64 interchange, is not utilized, will that not place greater pressure for this type of development on less suitable areas (in terms of transportation and utilities infrastructure) sOuth of Charlottesville? The result of not fully realizing the regional potential at this location in turn will contribute to sprawl, not reduce it. A Neighborhood or Mixed Use Designation is not the best use for this location. It has been suggested that a smaller scale, or neighborhood-type development may be preferred to the Industrial service or Regional Service uses. Again, this is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan's clear statement that Regional Service at the 5th Street and 1-64 location is appropriate as part of its plan for Interstate Interchange Development. ,The County is well on its way to approving a neighborhood shopPing center at SouthPointe. There has been no evidence presented that the market can support two SouthPointes. Moreover, in the twelve years or more that this property has been marketed, not a single developer has been interested in develOping a mixed office, retail, or residential project. The zoning history of this property also proves this point: a planned unit development never materialized despite PUD zoning being in place over a period of l0 years (1975-1985). It is now time for the land use designation to become aligned with the realities of the marketplace -- realities recognized by the County's own Interstate Interchange Development policy. -5- The proposed change in land use supports the County's policy toward in-filL The parcel is tucked in between the commercial strip of development in the City, along 5th Street, behind Taco Bell and the Waffle House, and 1-64. The proposed change in land use will relieve pressure to develop this type of use outside the Urban Ring, and thus eliminates pressure for further urban sprawl. This is an ideal location in part because it is circumscribed by an Interstate, an industrial warehouse, existing strip development along Sth Street, and natural features, such as Moore's Creek. There is no evidence for the proposition that a regional shopping center will open the door for another 29 North along 5th Street. The area south of the interchange has already an established pattern of development. The area to the north, up 5th Street, has an established residential development pattern. There is no basis for the argument that the current, industrial use designation, or a mixed use designation for that matter, will have a lesser impact on the natural, or environmental characteristics of the.site than the proposed regional use. In fact, as The Cox Company illustrations for potential site development indicate, a piece-meal development will likely lead to more site degradation than implementing an overall site development plan. Any mixed use for the site will likely be built out in piece-meal fashion in order to match absorption. V. CONCLUSION. The applicant has addressed the land planning issues presented by the request. For the reasons stated above, and based upon the information pre~ented by the applicant in its previous submissions on this project, the applicant respectfully requests recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission. -6- I ATTACHMENT VII ~i SIZE COMPARISONS for Commercial Developments Albemarle County, Virginia Business Fashion Square Mall Proposed 20-plex Theatre New Lowe's Sam's Club Wal-Mart Bradlee's (now Office Depot, Marshall's, and former Drug Emporium) Old Lowe's Rose's (Pantops) Kroger (Pantops) Kroger (Rio Hill) Harris-Teeter, Bed Bath & Beyond, Goody's Super K-Mart (existing K-Mart + planned expansion into adjacent Food Lion) Square Footage 500,000 180,000 165,000 139,000 114,500 [134,000 allowed] 84,000 82,500 65,300 60,000 79,000 96,000 University Hall 175,000 [all floors] A second stow for retailers --..,lanta Busin... Page 1 of 3 March 17, 1997 A second story for retailers As land prices escalate, developers build up, not out Bren~nn Murray Staff Writer Developers in metro Atlanta are taking retailers to new heights. Spurred to build skyward by population density and escalating land prices, retail developers here plan several multilevel, open-air shopping centers -- once considered too complicated to build and too tricky for shoppers to navigate. On March 7, Atlanta developer Kim King Associates bought 10 acres in the Platinum Triangle business district to develop a 200,000-square-f~ot shopping center. The center will have two levels and a two-tier parking deck. Architectural designs for King's project are being prepared, ' and construction on the yet-unnamed project is expected to begin in June. The center, which likely will have a cinema and several national tenants, could open in April 1998. Building small neighborhood centers has long been a strategy developers used to pack mom-and-pop tenants on one site. But constructing large-scale retail centers, anchored by convenience-oriented "big box" tenants, was, until recently, a developer's dream and a retailer's nightmare. "There used to be a basic role -- that open-air, two-story retail centers don't work," said Roman Stankus, vice president of Ogram/Ozell Architects Inc., an Atlanta architecture finn. "Most of them weren't able to find financing. As architects, we've seen a lot of concepts that never got built." Until now. In metro Atlanta, and in other cities where high-visibility property is scarce, multilevel retail centers once considered dead on arrival are now springing to life. http ://www.amcity. eom/atlanta/stories/031797/story6.html 6/1/99 A second story for retailers --, .danta Busin... Page 2 of 3 "Tenants are fmding out. that it works," said Jeff Fuqua, vice.president of The Sembler Co. in Atlanta. Sembler is close to announcing three anchor tenants in a 400,000-square-foot "vertical power center" on 10 acres across the street from Phipps Plaza in' Buckhead. "There aren't too many cornfields left to spread out and build a big shopping center," Fuqua said. Developers usually devote 10,000 square feet of retail space for every acre of land at their disposal. Sembler's project, called Lenox Marketplace, will have 40,000 square feet of retail space for every acre. For tenants, a vertical strip center might be the last chance to enter a lucrative urban market. But such developments come with a hefty price tag -- especially in Atlanta, where an acre of commercial property can cost $1 million, observers said. Development costs c~n a multilevel center can be twice what they would be to build a one-story shopping center, Fuqua said. For example, parking decks can cost between $5,000 and $9,000 per parking space, he said. In Atlanta, a handful of multilevel shopping centers built in the 1990s have been successful: · Perimeter Expo, the 175,000-square,foot center that faces Perimeter Mall, has two levels and a 98 percent occupancy rate. Cousins MarketCenters Inc. opened Perimeter Expo in 1993. · Buckhead Station, the 230,000-square-foot center on the Buckhead Loop, opened in December to much fanfare. It has several high-profile tenants on each of its two levels and a multilevel parking deck. · The Peach, a 156,000-square-foot shopping center in Buckhead, has two levels. Since opening in 1993, The Peach's occupancy rate has fluctuated, but it now stands at 97 percent. · peachtree Battle Promenade, a 45,000-square-foot project completed in 1985, has three levels and is currently 96 percent occupied. It was built as an eXpansion of Peachtree Battle shopping center on Peachtree Road. ~ Realizing Atlanta's real estate scarcity, retailers hre beginning to conform t° the new shopping center mold. Target Stores Inc., a unit of Minneapolis-based Dayton Hudson Corp., in December opened a two-level store, encompassing 123,000 square feet, in a multilevel shopping center near Miami. The store is Target's third http ://www. amcity.com/atlantaJStories/031797/story6.html 6/I/99 A second story for retailers --. Manta Busin... multilevel location in its 752-store chain. "Our stores are usually pretty sprawled out, but as we go into markets where the land just isn't available, we have to learn to operate amultilevel format," Target spokesperson Carolyn Brookter said. "The challenge for us is to figure out how to get people in 'and out of the stores easily, especially in densely populated areas," she said. A change in retailing habits requires a change in consumer habits, said Stankus, whose architecture firm designed Perimeter Expo, The Peach and Lenox Marketplace. Shoppers like to park close to a store and with few encumbrances, he said. Architects try to counter the misperception that multilevel shopping centers are difficult to maneuver, he said, by easing the vertical flow of foot traffic. "As more multilevel centers come on line, it worft take long for shoppers to figure out just where they are going to park and how they are getting to the door," Stankus said. Week of March 17, 1997 [ ~ I Top of the page Page 3 of 3 http://www.amcity.com/atlanta/stories/031797/story6.html 6/1/99 [ Strate es ]. Small Sites Don't Stop Big Retailers From Squeezing In ST~PHANIE STOUOHTON Post Staff g'~iter What Home Depot Inc. bmlt in the Cascades community of Lomtotm County loo~s h'ke any other Home Depot store, it's big and bulky. Ithu giant signs. And from the major routes, it sticks out ffke a monun~ to reta~ng. Now by to fred Home l)ep~'s ~ore in Fal~ Church, where large chunks of land can't be found ~s easily. From Route 7, turn into the Drive ~st Best Buy and Shoppers Food Warehouse, make a hairpin right turn at the Ross Dress for Less clothing outlet and pass Barnes & shopping center, is a hardware store tucked beneath a lnrldng deck. It's no wonder that oue of the most common questions to Home Depot Anxious to open stores in the .some of the dose4n and tight real estate markets iu the Washington area, fast~ro~ing retailers like Home Depot have beau discarding ing into smaller properties. They're higher stores. And they're grabbing properties that ~ wouldu't have touched five years ago. Lineus 'N Things,' for exampl~, soace in White Flint Mall in Kensing- and third levds d the retail center. "rhis is a nmtant sto~,' Andrew To,muter, a B~6ers ~o~ Fairfax County ~l Rockv/le Pike, rates in the Washing~ area have sf~ad~ d~ sJUn~ from 5.9 percent in 1995 to 5.4 percent in 1996 and then 3.5 percent in 1997, rea] estate ser~ finn in A]exan- 3f you're a hrg~cale re~er and hlgh-tra~c locations, yoffve got to be Creative Spaces Wooed by the Washington area's most populous and wealthiest communities but unable to find enough space, chain retailers are increasingly willin~ to move away from their big-box, suburban formats. Here are a few examples: I Grocer Harris Teeter not only plans to squeeze onto a 3.9-acre property in the Ballston community of Arlington with limited parking but also intends to build a two*story supermarket. · The Home Depot, right, at Seven Corners In Fails Church appears to tucked underneath a parking deck. The store, which opened in late 1997, is behind a shopping center and difficult to find if you're unfamiliar with the area. · klner~ '# Things opened an underground store last year across the street from Mazza Gallerie in the Washington neighborhood of Friendship Heights, Customers can take the escalator or elevator downstairs. · There wasn't enough space in Germantown, so two years ago, rival discounters Wal-Mart and Target cozied up to each other in the same shopping center. Typically, two discounters won't locate in the same center. · Borders Books & Music moved into White Flint Mall at Kensington four years ago by occupying space on the second and third levels of the center. The mall broke the tradition of being a home for small, one- level bookstores. · Rtq has been one of the smaller leaders in "creative space." Its recreational equipment store at Baileys Crossroads in Fairfax ' County faces away from the main highway and has little parking. But the store, which opened in the early 1990s, has long been a profitable one. &e STOP,~, Page [ Strate es] Retailers Squeeze Into Small Sites SI'ORFSi From Poba, 15 "Target fought on that i~aie for many months, and it wasn't going away, so they finally caved in," said David Ward, vice presi- dent of H&R Retail Inc. in Chevy Chase. Among the toughest markets to find suitable space are the Tysous area and the Rockville Pike corridor-~populous places with higher- than-average incomes for the Washington area. ,About 298,000 residsnts with an average household income of $104,000 live in the Tysons, Reston, Hemdon area, according to figures from KLNB. The Rockville Pike market has 329,000 people with an average household income of $114,000. Retailers crave these markets, not only for their dense populations and wealth but also for their high traffic counts and reputations as established retail hubs. Although chains like Wal-Mart and Circuit City dearly have more trouble finding proper- ready to compromise." It's not all about changing sizes and shapes. ~metimes grudgingly, retailers are signing less4han-optimal leases. In Gennantown, for example, dL~counters Target. and Wal-Mart ended UP in the same shopping centers. The two retailers don't mind being down the street from each other, but they rarely get as cozy as they did in Germantown. The combined clout of Target, the Gap and other big-name retailers had little effect on Commonwealth Atlantic Properties, the owner of Alexandria's Potomac Yard Center, which opened in 1997. The owner wants to keep its options open, so it told retailers they'd have to sign an agreement to vacate in a~ut 20 years. Retail chains typically demand 40-year leases with extension options. ties large enough to fit their big box4ike stores, even merchants that operate.smaller stores can be frustrated in their search for space in the Washington area. "It's a very. tight m. arket; there's no question about that," said Brian Cannard, a real estate manager for Recreational Equipment Inc. (RED. Cannard .enid he recently has been looking for sites in Columbia, where he expects to have fewer frustrations. His search for space along Rockville Pike continued for four years, "and there aren't many places in the nation where we've spent that much time doing that." In the Baileys Crossroads community of Falrfax County, REI settled for what many other retailers would eschew. The retailer, which is a cooperative and ~ifically seeks low~ost leases, rented a warehouse with no electric and heating systems, and converted it into a store. The location is far from ideal; it faces away from the main road and has little parking. But, adds Cannard, this is what counts: The rent is low, and the store makes money. · The idea of a tWo-story grocery store may have made Harris Teeter officials nervous at first. But SOnya Elam, a spokeswoman for thc Matthews, N.C., chain, ~id ~oppers have warmed to the concept. The retailer's first two-level store in' Atlanta opened last year. Downstairs, it keeps the standard grocery items. The upstairs mezzanine ~xtion has a wine section and a sit-down coffee bar, "It has been really successful for us, and customers seem to h'ke it," Elam ~id. For their part, customers don't ~ to mind when retailers have compromised. They'd rather have something nearby than nothing at all. 'I don't like driving to the suburban stores." said Mark Woods, a property manager who was shopping last week at the Home Depot in Arlington. 'I do my work right here." The store is a'qittle bit weird,' said Woods, a McLean resident. "But I don't think anyone cares. The fact that it's' close to where people need it is more imporlant.' *95 per day '1 wk. min." sTs per doy "1 mo. min." Many Hotels & Apartments VA, MD,DC CHOICE Arlington/CourthoUse Metro COURTLAND at COURTHOUSE 'The Right ChOice LUxury Furnished H0tel:Style ApartmentS immediate M°ve-lns Available- 1, 2 & 3 BRs · Free Cable TV · tlealth Club · Racquetball Courts * Indoor/Outdoor Pools · Free Garage Parking * Free Loca/Phone * 24 Hour Front Desk · Line~, Dishes · Housewares · Whirlpool Baths · Washer & Dryer ~ MicrowavefDishwasher · Weekly Maid Service * All Utilities Paid AIl the Comforts & Conveniences of Ho,,einseve~at~o. Va.; OC; Mo t°c%ns 1, ~ 3, and 4 ~fffil fully furnished and acce~oti~ed M day minimum my corporMe billing A maim ~redll cams accepled ' CALL TOLL FREE 1-877-707-9807 e-mAil: mmvanmr~O~M.com Checl Out Living :January 15th! BEt.TWAY LOC/College park Exit 258 Oetai~ Make Afl The D/fferencet " 14 Planning August 1994 When Wal-Mart Says 'Uncle' A few places are staring down the big box retailers. By Sylvia Lewis Talking to local officials throughout the country, you hear a lot of bra- vado about commun/ties facing down Wal-Mart and the other 'big box' chain stores and winning a variety of conces- sions. Some towns have taken the even more extreme step of turning the big retailer.s away in an effort to protect existing But a real David-and-Goliath struggle? Hardly. Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer with over $67 billion in sales last year, is still growing, and usually on its own terms. Las~ year alone, the company opened 147 new Wai-Marts and 163 Sam's Clubs in the U.S., and it bought up 122 Woo]co stores in Canada in January. This sum- LOT1 I '~m ~ soom LOT2 3 LOT5 2.1 ~S Compromise was the name of the game in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. BLOCK 5 10.03 ACREs PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (STEAMBOAT SPRINGS) Wal-Mart Stores a~e~d to change both the location and the facade of the store it proposed to build in Greenfield, Massachusetts. The town approved the project--but ~oters didn't. announced that it's forging into and Argentina, the first U.S. re- do so. Similar chains--including Kmart, Home and Price Costco--are bUilding well. Their facilities range to 200,000 square feet or and they're typically situated at mile from downtown and sur- parking. l~ven if one community rejects a big store, the chances are good that it try to locate nearby, possibly drain- business and sales taxes from town. 'They'll t~o to the next That's the tune they sing,' Christopher Duerksen of Clarion in Denver, which performs and market analyses-for cli- I.S. in the few parts of the country has some teeth position to say, 'We dare you to try moving next door:' Vermont, whose Act 2S0 allows envi- of projects with re- is the only state in the a Wig-Mart or Sam's Club, Wal-Mart proposals are pend- In Massachusetts, the Cape which controls devel- ,,000 square feet in the Barnstable County~ has re- 'om Price Costco for a 120,000-square-foot warehouse store in Sandwich, citing heavy traffic impacts, water usage, and deffradation of commu- nity character. The f'um is now chigleng- ing that decision in the Massachusetts superior court. Most often, however, local governments seeking to control commercial develop- ment must rely on planning and zoning codes. Both can be useful tools, as cities as farflung as Greenfield, Massachusetts, and Steamboat Springs, Colorado, have come to learn. 'When you have the power to rewrite zoning, you have the power to negoti- ate,' says John Mullin, ~lCP, of the De- partment of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst--and a con- sultant for a dozen cities in Massachu- setts and several elsewhere that are deal- ing with proposals from big box retailers. Mullin notes that communities that have, say, 50 undeveloped acres zoned for retail within 15 minutes of a major highway shouldn't be surprised if a big box retailer comes to call. 'These guys come because you set the laws that allow them to come,' Mullin tells his clients. Last-minute switch They also come when the zoning isn't in place--as in Greenfield, Massachusetts Ipop. 19,000}. In late 1992, Wig-Mart's real estate agent met with the town's Planning staff to inquire about a rezoning of a 6S-acre working sand-and-gravel pit on the east side of town. All but eight acres was zoned industrial; those eight. are rural residential. According Greenfield planner Teri Anderson, the town council asked the staff to rewrite the zoning code to accommodate the Wig-Mart proposal. Greenfield offered a rezoning scheme that would allow 27 acres of the site to be developed for a Wal-Mart and two other big stores--a total of 265,000 square feet. The rest of the site--except the eight residential acres--would be devoted to parking and landscaping. Wal-Mart had an option on the land, and the purchase was contingent on the firm getting the needed permits. While the town was busy rewriting its zoning code, the ~ was busy with impact reports. Because of the size of the project, the state required an environ- mental impact report. And Greenfield had required Wal-Mart to pay for an independent consultant's study of the development's economic impacts on the town. Satisfiedwith the answers, Greenfield' s 27-member town council approved a planned commercial district for the area in July 1993. It included provisions for sign controls,.ridge and slope protection, and design guidelines. The town won other concessions, too. Because the gravel pit is the site of an ancient Indian settlement, WaLMart agreed to pay for an archeological dig and to create a mobile exhibit of the findings for local schools. The firm also agreed to donate $50,000 to the town for down- town enhancement. And the current lan& owner said he would donate to the town a separate, ?5-acre parcel sothat Greenfield could expand its industrial park. Teri Anderson says Greenfield approved the project for several reasons: the eco- nomic benefit (though slight}, the negoti- ated agreements, and 'the opportunity to send a message to downtown merchants, who haven't been keeping in step with the times.' It was a done deal in the town coun- cil-but not among the voters. Despite the concessions, a citizens group called the Greenfield Community Pres° ervation Coalition, led by local business owners, got enough signatures to require a referendum on the rezonlng. Soon, 'Stop the Wal' bumper stickers appeared all over town, and the anti-Wal-Mart cam- paign became the leading topic of con- versation in gatherings on the town com- mon. Finally, last October, came the vote. Voters repealed the planned commercial district by a slim margin--and the Wig- Mart deal was dead. Now, says Teri Anderson, the town has no Wal-Mart, no areheological dig, and no easy way to expand its industrial park.' But at least it's got the zoning down pat if another big retailer comes to town. 'The one thing I fear is that the site is still up for grabs,' she says. 'If another 16 Planning August 1994 Price Costco wants to convert an old U.S. Steel warehouse into a wholesale outlet in Portland, Oregon. developer came to town, we'd go through the same thing all over again. Still, we have the technical parts in place; we'd only have to go through the political part.' Taj Mahal The circumstances--and the outcome-- were somewhat different in Steamboat Springs, Colorado (pop. 6,700}, a ski re- sort about 150 miles northwest of Den- ver. There, a smallish Wal-Mart--55,000 square feet--is one of two anchor stores in a commercial development called Can- tral Park Plaza, located about a mile from the ski lifts and just over a mile from downtown. This store doesn't look like most' other Wal-Marts. Besides being small for its type, it shares a shopping center with general. 'They'.re building in the most expensive way, in the most town-destroy- ing way,' he said in an interview. But he makes an exception for the Wal-Mart at Central Park Plaza--becaus~ofthe project's overall site design--and cites it as a posi- tive example of commercial development in his book. As in Greenfield a few years later, the Steamboat Springs Wal-Mart wasn't a shoo-in. Central Park Plaza had been approved as a planned unit development in 1986--with a 52,500-square-foot su- permarket as an anchor. In October 1988, the city council approved the developer's request for a revised PUD to accommo- date the Wal-Mart and another, smaller retail area. But the store didn't open for another four years. What 'intervened was, first, a citizen other stores instead of being a stand-alone, petition for a referendum on the Wal- Its design and landscaping conform to the Mart building permit, then, a lawsuit over rest of the plaza, and its sign .is half the size the company had requested. The result: 'I find our .center .is far more attractive than' comparable Wal- Mart-anchored centers,~ says ..Timothy Greene, director of real estate for Steam- boat Ski and Resort Gorporation, the firm that developed Gentral Park Plaza. More neutral observers agree. Randall Arendt, author of APA's new book, Rural by Design, is no fan of big box retailers in the referendum, and finally the vote it- self, held in June 1991. The vote was 56 percent for Wal-Mart, 44 percent against, and the store opened in September of the following year. According to a newspaper account of the weeks leading up to the 1988 council meeting, a Wal-Mart spokesman said that the firm had 'never had opposition like this in any way, shape, or form .... This will be the Taj Mahal of Wal-Marts.' Among the 17 provisions the city an~ the developer negotiated in 1988 were these: The Wal-Mart could have 107-square-foot back-lit .sign on its cade, comparable to the sign on the permarket. The developer would vide a master signage plan for the entir~.~ center and would donate $100,000 to th~. city over four years for downtown provements. "'. No rezoning was required for the ~ vised PUD, sa~s Ann Muhme, the cit~ planning director. But the prevailing lng, 'commercial resort,' makes ev~r~. thing in that district a conditional.~ except single-family housing. That tion encouraged protests against the cit~.~ decision--and opened the way to the ~ was a erendum, She .says. 'It horn~ situa,tion. It was, divisive to the co~ nity, she adds. But theWal-Mart.is.h~ and open, and it's' not as horribl~ expected.' Hard ball big box retailers as well. Price which already has is currently applying to land, Oregon, for mit to convert a vacant U.S.. Steel house, built in 1927, into a square-foot store. The firm 17 spot, about a hnlf-mile from downtown, because it's in the center of its trade area, according to Jack Fr~__nk~ Price Costco's director of development. 'We have an opportunity to [adapt] a historic building that lends itself to our use,' Frank said during a panel discus- sion at APA's conference in San Fran- cisco last April. 'When I first walked into t_his building, it took mt' breath away,' he added. 'Here was a Price Costco waiting to happen.' The firm has already jumped through a few hoops. Its first application for a conditional use permit was turned down in 1989. The property is located in an 'industrial sanctuary,' where commer- cial uses are not allowed unless it can be proved that industrial workers would shop there, says Michael Hayakawa, a senior planner with the Portland Plan- nin$ Bureau. But in 1991, the city decided to ex- empt landmark buildings from that rule. Price Costco then applied for landmark desi/nation, and the Landmarks Com- mission approved the proposal in Janu- ary. In lune the firm applied for design review--required for all local landmark buildings. That process could take a few months, says Jeff Joslin, also a planner with the city. 18 Flanmn8 ,'~usust z~,~ What's behind it Some of the resistance to the huge new stores stems from a preservationist im- pulse. Constance Beaumont, director of state and local policy at the National Trust for Historic Preservation in Wash- ington, D.C., says her organization is trying to show' communities the}, don't have to roll over and play dead when a big box retailer comes to town. They can negotiate instead, or they can decide .to have no store at all. -That is the theme of her new report,' How Su~rstore Sprav~l Can Harm Commu- nit/es (120 pp., $16 from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Mas- sachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 200361, published in June. 'We see a distinct new phase of supersprawl led by superstores,' Beau- mont says. 'There's almost an arms race. If one company builds large stores close together, others feel compelled to compete." The trust is concerned about big boxes for several reasons, Beaumont says. First, with 200,000 square feet or more per store and their outlying locations, they tend to drain business away from an established town core. 'That's a meta- phor for a larger problem--the hollowing out of the city,' she says. Second, they generate a lot of traffic (900 or more trips per hour, she says). And third, they're boxes [read 'ugly'). The trust hopes to persuade the chains to build downtown'or in established com- mercial centers--if they fit into their con- text. 'We're calling on retailers to show some initiative and leadership,' Beau- mont says. She applauds Price Costco's Portland project, for example, while criti- cizing the firm's proposal to build in Sandwich, Massachusetts, despite oppo- sition from the Cape Cod Commission. Beaumont also points to several model projects in her new report. Among them are Home Depot's Tulsa store, which preserved the facade of the city's historic Warehouse Market, and a 175,000-SCluare' foot Target store located in a converted department store in downtown Pasadena. Gift horse .Another reason that communities are, ther negotiating with big box retailers, opposing them is skepticism about purported £mancial benefits. Will firms bring more jobs and a broader. base, or merely Above all, discount retailing is ume business, says John Ronzetti, president of information resources at the National Retail MerchAnts These firms must sell massive, of items to keep their prices low. contrast, he says, traditional stores sell fewer ,items, but their pricea are higher on average. Part of the opposition to a Wal-Mart ia Greenfield stemmed from a 1995 report by RKG Associates of Durham, New Hamp. shire, and LandUse, Inc. of Hadley, Mas. sachusetts. The report--which Wal-Mart paid for--concluded that the city would be slightly better off with a Wal-Mart' because it would add 177 retail jobs ova.. 10 years and $51,000 to $100,000 in erty taxes annually. However, the con.. Home Depot's store in downtown Tulsa, opened this summer, incorporates the facade of the city's historic Warehouse Market. A second, unrelated store is under construction on the same site. 19 also estimated that the WaI-Mart ' 92,000 of the town's of retail space. Greenfield, as elsewhere, local mcr- question whether a big national is being predatory. Whir locate a new store in a region whose popula- flat, their ask, and where in the same chain are rela- , close? not surprised that they will go flat markets,' says John Mullin of University of Massachusetts. 'They there's a tremendous m_srket means that customers fickle if the price is right. 'The key Mullin says, 'is that the [big re- businesses.' studies have come to differ- conclusions on this point. A 1989 conducted for Wal-Mart by the University of Missouri College of Busi- concluded the f'um had a positive effect on number of retailers, he 14 Missouri coun- lies where liVid-Marts opened between 1983 and 1987. 'Aim _r~t all showed growth or revitalization after the opening of Wal- Mart,' the study concluded. On the other hand, Kenneth Stone, a professor of economics at Iowa State Uni- versity0 studied five years of sales data from 30 Iowa towns and concluded in a 1992 report that total sales in towns with Wal-Marts had increased at the expense of other retailers. In a typical town, Wal- Mart made $.17 million a year, but other merchants lost $10 million. Stone also found that towns within a 20-mile radius of a Wal-Mart had lost 25 percent of their sales through fiscal 1991. One caveat: 'These results apply to a state that has had static population, re- sulting in a fixed size retail 'pie," Stone noted. 'In areas of growing population and in cities, the retail pie is typically expanding, thereby diluting these effects.' In other words, growing areas can more easily absorb a big store without harm to other businesses. Grinch Yet another cause/or concern in some quarters is the story of what happened in Hearne, Texas (pop. 5,100). The Wal- Mart there opened during the 1980 Christ- mas season--and closed 10 Christmases later. According to news reports, a Wal- Mart spokesman said that the 46,000- square-foot store had never turned a profit and was one of only about a half dozen stores that the fh-m had shut down. It is still empty, 'an eyesore' on the edge of town, says Cynthia Wallace, manager of the local Chamber of Commerce. Local people apparently feel that Wal- Mart not only stole Christmas but virtu- ally killed off Hearne's downtown. 'It was a negative experience,' Wallace says. 'It left a real bad taste in everyone's mouth.' Local sales taxes also took a hit. Hearne had over $267,000 in sales taxes in 1990 and only $219,000 in 1991--an 18 percent drop. Yet Wallace points out that many busi- nesses survived, including the two local pharmacies ~nd a Western Auto. In a recent survey of the four square blocks of downtown, she found only six vacant stores. 'People talk about 'all those empty buildings,' but it's just perception,' she says. 'There is life after Wal-Mart.' The loyalists Not everyone is unhappy with the big boxes. 'The National Trust iS stuck on Wal-Mart,' says Elizabeth Miller, who is the manager of the Main Street project for the city of Bryan, about 25 miles south of Hearne. 'We Texans resent that because we've had Wid-Mart here for- ever. It's a nonissue for us.' Texas has 214 Wal-Marts. almost twi6e as m~nlr as any other state. Bryan also has an empty Wal-Mart. Last fall, the firm closed up its original 8~,000-square-foot store and opened a superstore [20~-,000 square feet} two miles away. This is an ongoing strategy. 'we believe in keeping our stores fresh for our customers,' salts the firm's 1994 an- nual report, 'and therefore we will ex- pand or relocate 70 to 75 Wal-Marts' in fiscal 1995, now under way. As a planner, Miller sees no inherent Problem with big box retailers. Nor does John Gann, ~ICP, head of Gann Associates in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, whose clients include communities of varioUS sizes in the Great Lakes region. In a piece published in the Wall Street Jour- hal last August, Gann said that Wal- Mart is being unfairly criticized for its business practices--especially by the National Trust. 'Facts are unimportant when a scape- goat is needed,' he wrote. 'And the truth is that older downtowns in both rural communities and metropolitan suburbs went into decline long before Wal-Mart came on the scene.' Competition is the American way, Gann added in a phone conversation. 'If there's no growth in population or income [in a particular locale], and ii a Wal-Mart or someone else big comes in, then sales will come out of someone else's hide. But that's our economic system, isn't In fact. there's some evidence that the threat of a big box can inspire local mer- chants. Teri Anderson says that's what happened in Greenfield, Massachusetts. ' One of the positive results from the Wal- Mart experience is that it galvsniT~d down- town,' she says. A couple of new stores have opened in downtown Greenfield since last October's referendum reject- inS a rezoning, Anderson says, and local businesses have put together a streetscape improvement plan. The lessons she learned: 'lru-st, it's important for communities to anticipate this kind of development, [and] . . . to have some control up front. In places where large-scale retail is allowed as of right in industrial districts, communities haven't fared so well. I understand that Wal-Mart doesn't negotiate on site plan- ning, landscaping, design, and mitigation impacts unless they have to/ Sylvia Lewis is Planning's editor and associate publisher. Memo AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION APRIL 1996 Site Planning for _ - Largo-Scale Retail Steres By Christopher Duerksen i Thc meteoric rise of largo-scale retail stores such as Wal-Mart and Target has been one of the headline planning stories of the 1990s. Commonly called big box retailers, these enterprises typically occupy more than 50,000 square feet and derive their sales volumes. They seem to be everywhere; no be it a rural town or urban neighborhood, can ignore the ;impacts big box retail stores can have on the character of a Community. Big box retailers vary greatly in size--some now have reached gargantuan proportions in excess of 150,000 square feet. Their market niches also vary. There are the discounters like Wal- Mart, the warehouse dubs like Pace, category Milers like Toys R Us and Best Buy (that offer a comprehensive selection of' merchandise in relatively narrow categories), and manufacturer's factory outer stores. But they have some common characteristics---large rectangular single-story buildings with standardi/ed facades, reliance on auto-borne shoppers who are accommodated by acres of parldng, and no-frills site · development that often eschews any community or pedestrian amenities. Some cities and towns, worried about the economic impact of big-box retailers on existing downtown merchants or the sprawl-inducing impacts of such developments, are saying no to these leviathans. But for a variety of reasons, the vast majority of communities have either rolled out the welcome mat or at least given grudging approval. Big box retailers do offer low prices and great convenience for an increasingly time-deprived society. And for those local governments that rely on sales tax revenues to finance local services, big box retailers are like manna from heaven. The critical question for these communities is, On what terms should the big boxes be wdcomed? On one end of the scale, communities that are unaware of their options or feel they have little leverage in negotiating with these retailing giants, the results can be plain vanilla rectangular boxes of industrial quality construction coated with corporate color schemes and surrounded by acres of asphalt with nary a bush or tree in sight. On the other end, a growing number of jurisdictions are requiring a higher level of architectural treatment and taking steps to ensure that the superstores relate better to their environs and neighbors. In Fort Collins, Colorado, the city council had this to say in adopting new regulations for large-scale retail establishments: These standards and guidelines are a response to dis.satisfaction with corporate chain marketing strategy dictating design that is indifferent to local identity and interests. The main goat is to encourage development that contributes to Fort Collins as a unique place by reflecting its physical character and adding to it in appropriate ways. Others also believe that quality begets quality. As John Johnson, planning director in fast-growing Douglas County, Colorado (south suburban Denver), pointed out in defending his jurisdicfion's new big box development standards, ~It wouldn't be wise to snub the rules. It's an investment thar'gives returns. When you maintain a lower image you're not going to be able to bring other quality businesses that will improve the econom?"(Rocky Mountain News, July 10, 1995). While there are indications that the tidal wave of big box retail stores may have peaked in the mid-1990s just as shopping malls did in the 1980s, it is clear that they will continue to pose challenges to communities well into the next century. Much of the growth for some big box chains is coming as a result of forays Site plans f~r large retail stores in Fort Collins must now incorporate patios, seating areas, bus shelters, or other amenities to create an amenable pedestrian environment. .:.- into new markets, and this hunting will continue as retailers search for markets that were overlooked or bypassed or new ones that are emerging because of growth in places like Douglas County, Colorado, one of the fastest growing jurisdictions in the nation. In more mature markets, chains will fight for market share, opening, new stores in hopes of heading off customers before they reach those of their competitors---a phenomenon known as cannibalization. The slowing and consolidation of the big.box market should also strike a cautionary note with ix)ten- How Superstore Sprawl Can Harm Communities and What Citizens Can Do About & Constance Beaumont, National Trust For Historic Preservation (Washington, D.C. 1994). Tree Conservation Ordinances, PAS Report 446, August 1993. Preparing a Landscape Ordinance, PAS Report 431, December 1990. Designing Urban Corridors, PAS Report 418, September 1989. The Aesthetics of Parking, PAS Report 411, November 1988. Aesthetics and Land Use Control~, PAS Report 399, December 1986. rial host co~mmunities. How marketable will a standardized big box shell and parking lot be when the store is dosed. Will it be a long-term eyesore in the neighborhood? This PAS Memo offers tips and advice to the growing number of communities that want to accommodate big box retailers, but in a fashion that is sensitive to community impacts and will help ensure that these superstores remain community assets for years to come. It focuses on the recent experience of Fort Collins, Colorado, which has adopted some of the most comprehensive guidelines and standards to shape the appearance and impact of large-scale retail establishments. Case Study: Fort Collins, Colorado In several important ways, Fort Collins was an ideal proving ground for new guidelines and standards for big box retail stores. It already had on the books derailed regulations addressing signage and landscaping, the typical first line of defense communities employ in dealing with the superstores. Trouble is, experience across the United States has Chris Duerksen is the managing editor of Clarion Associates LLC of Denver. He is the author o/Tree Conservation Ordinances (PAS Report 446) andAesthetics and Land Use Controls (PAS Report 399), among other books and reports. Initial researcher this article was per/brmed by ~rmer Clarion Associates attorney Richard Paik and appeared in an article in Planning Matters, a"publication of the Colorado Chapter of the American Planning Association. The author would abo like to recognize the ~brts of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, planning and legal staff, especially Claudia Benedict, Ted Shepard, Clark Mapes, Tom Vosburg, and Paul Eckman, in shaping the concepu that are discussed here. demonstrated that while controlling signage and requiring tree planting can hdp soften the impact, they are only first steps in an effective program. Thus Fort Collins was ready to move beyond standard approaches. The city also has a very strong economic base and occupies an enviable central position in the regional economy so that elected officials were not drooling over the prospect of adding more superstores at any cost. Couple thisl with stron~ well-educated neighborhood groups (Fort Collins is the home of Colorado State University) and a sophisticated planning stalTwith years of experience with the city's well- known Land Development Guidance System and strong design credenri_als, and the stage was set for some innovadve thinking. Importandy, because it operates under home rule in Colorado, Fort Collins has broad land-use regulatory authority. Facing a continuing influx of large-scale retail stores, Fort Collins adopted a moratorium on superstores to allow the staff to study the community impacts and to formulate clear and enforceable policies to mitigate those impacts. The staff SOUTH ELEVATION AnchorA organized an informal advisory committee composed of neighborhood representatives, real estate professionals, and interested citizens to assist the planning and zoning board in evaluating new approaches. Clarion Associates of Denver was brought in to provide advice on experience in other communities and to assist in drafting new standards. Early in the process, the inquiry focused on the following key issues: · Architectural character of the building. · Color and material of the primary structure. · Relationship to the surrounding community, including civic amenities. · Pedestrian flows. · Parking. Drawing on its own experience with retail design standards and on a survey of innovative measures adopted in other communities such as Bozeman, Montana; Jackson, Wyoming; and Rancho Cucamonga, California, the consultant presented a menu of potential guidelines and regulations to the city. After several months of deliberation, the planning commission and city council unanimously adopted a comprehensive set of standards based on recommendations of the advisory committee and city staff. These regulations apply to new ~large" retail establishments defined to mean a ~rerall establishment or any combination of retail establishments in a single building, occupying more than 25,000 gross square feet of lot area" or an addition to an existing large retail establishment that would increase the gross square feet of floor area by 50 percent. ~,~,sc~, .e ~perstotes ~s rJ~t tho/look like big, w,m 0lank, windowless facades, flat roofs, lack 'architectural detall,~ and minuscule, hard-to-see entries, big boring at best and future eyesores at worst. Fort adopted a range of strong standards to encourage better ~' .a~.?ecn~ des!gn tha~t goes beyond the prototypical off-the. stmrcorporate p~us. I he new regulatiOni: Forbid 'uninterrUpted length of any facade' in excess of 100 horizontal feet. Facades greater than 100 feet in length must incorporate recesse, and projections along at least 20 percent of the length of the facade. Windows, awnings, and arcades must total at least 60 percent of the facade length abutting a public street. · Require that smaller tetail stores that are. part °fa larger principal building have display windows and separate outside entrances. Such smaller stores are encoUraged by the city. refoil shops lo be smdlef in stole lhon Ondine gefoil Shops Co/or andMaur/a/a. Building color and materials, as much as architectural detail, can make or break a big box from an aesthetic perspective. For some big box chains, especially the warehouses and deep-discounters, concrete blocks or ti/t-up concrete panels seem to be the mareri~l of choice, ones that are · more suitable for industrial parks. Others use bold color schemes and neon tubing as attention-getters, so that the buildings become one giant billboard to attract attention. Fort Collins adopted several standards to encourage higher-quality materials that would fit in better with existing commercial development and surrounding residential neighborhoods. · Predominant exterior buiiding materials must be of/high quality. These include brick, wood, sandstone, other native stone, and tinted/textured concrete masomy units. Smooth- faced concrete block, tilt-up concrete panels, or pre- . fabricated steel panels are prohibited as the predominant exterior building materials. different enfronce Irealmems Andlor B n · Encourage greater architectural interest in the main structure by directing the use of a repeating pattern of change in color, texture, and material modules. ~At least one of these elements shall repeat horizontally. All elements shall repeat at intervals of no more than 30 feet, either horizontally or vertically. ~ · Dictate variations in roof lines to reduce the massive scale of these structures and add visual interest. Roofs must have at least two of the following features: parapets concealing flat roofs and rooftop equipment, overhanging eaves, slopes roofs, and three or more roof slope planes. · Require that each principal building have a dearly defined, highly visible Customer entrance with features such as canopies or porticos, arcades, arches, wing walls, and integral planters. Fort Callins now requires big box structures to incorporate awnings, windows, and other architectural featurts (above). "Big faceless boxes (left) are what Fort Collins seeks to avoi~ · Facade colors must be of"low reflectance, subde, neutral or earth tone colon. The use of high intensity colors, metallic colors, black or fluorescent colon is prohibited." · Building trim may feature brighter colors, but neon tubing is not allowed as an accent material. Relationship to Surrounding Community/Streets. An often- ignored feature ofsuperstores is how they relate and interact with the surrounding community and public streets. The standard approach at times seems to be co throw up a six-foot high- wooden fence between adjacent residential areas and to use a chain link fence with slats to screen trash loading areas. Neighbors in Fort Collins demanded more. The new regulations require that: · ~All facades ora building that are visible from adjoining properties and/or public streets should contribute to the pleasing scale features of the building and encourage community integration by featuring characteristics similar to a front facade.' This policy is implemented by requiring architectural treatment as discussed above. · "All sides of a principal building that directly face an abutting public street shall feature at least one customer i entrance. Where a principal building direcdy faces more than two abutting public streets, this requirement shall apply only to two sides of the building..." · The minimum setback of any building facade is 35 feet. Where the facade faces adjacent residential uses, an earth berm of ar least six feet in height and planted with evergreen trees at intervals of 20 feet on center, or in dusters is required. · Loading docks, trash collection, outdoor storage and similar facilifie~ and functions "shall be incorpomed into the overall design of the building and the landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets." Use of screening materials "that are different from or inferior to the principal materials of the building and landscape is prohibited.' No delivery, loading, trash removal, or similar operations are permitted between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., except in special circumstances and where steps are taken to reduce noise impacts. · Each retail establishment must "contribute to the establishment or enhancement of the community and public spaces' by providing at least two community amenities such as a patio/seating area, water feature, dock tower, and pedestrian plaza with benches. _Pedesir~an F/ems. Pedestrians are usually the forgotten waifs of big box retailing until the customer actually walks in the store. They are typically expected to dodge cars, wind-blown shopping carts, and other obstacles to find their way into the store. Fort Collins adopted an array of requirements in an attempt to make the superstores more attractive and safer for pedestrians. · Sidewalks "at least 8 feet in width shall be provided along all sides of the lot that abut a public street," and a continuous internal pedestrian walkway must be provided from the perimeter public sidewalk to the principal customer entrance. This internal walkway must feature landscaping, benches, and other such marerials/facilities for no less than 50 percent of its length. · Sidewalks must be provided ~along the full length of the building along any facade featuring a customer entrance and along any facade abutting public parking areas. Such sidewalks shall be located at least six feet from the facade of the building to .provide planting beds for foundation landscaping... · Internal pedestrian walkways must provide a weather protection feature such as an awning within 30 feet of all customer entrances. · The internal pedestrian walkways must be distinguished from driving surfaces through the use of special pavers, bricks, or scored concrete to enhance pedestrian safety and the attractiveness of the walk'ways. Parking Lots. In addition to the requirements regarding walkways through parking lots, Fort Collins grappled with the issue of the size and location of the hundreds and sometimes thousands of parking spaces that typically provide the foreground for big box superstores. The ordinance encourages structures to be located closer to streets and that parking areas be broken up into modules sepamed by landscaping and other features. The primary mandatOry standard is that 'no more than 50 percent of the off-Street parking are~ for the entire property shall be located betwe~a~ the front facade of the principal building and the primary abutting street." Putting tho Now Standards to Work Fort Collins adopted its big box standards early in 1995. The new guidelines and standards are integral parts of the city's Land Devdopment Guidance System, a flexible approach, to development review that allows locational latitude for developments if they mitigate external impacts. The standards are applied by staff in the site plan review process working closely with project design consultants. Since adoption, two major devdopments have begun winding their way through the development review process ~ad the resuits, at least so fas, are positive from the city's perspectiv~ According to staff, the proposals are of much higher quality than before the regulations were enacted. They fed the community's demand for responsive design provides a climate in which competing objectives of community design and large ~. retailing can be addressed by planning professionals as are put together. For the most part, developers and big box retailers are paying attention and are making a good faith effort to meet the desires of the community. For example, the designers ufa Wal-Mart submitted plans that represented a marked improvement over the average company store. However, negotiations have slowed somewhat as national officials have become involved. A second major proposal is even more promising. The developer has proposed an excellent plan that shows a great deal of Creativity in meeting the goals of the big box standards. Each facade of the building has interesting architectural features, parking is spread around the main structures instead of being stacked in front, and loading areas are integrated into the building design and 'tucked discreetly away from view. Time will tell if this plan finds acceptance in the marketplace. Conclusion Fort Collins's bold efforts to accommodate major retail ...~, establishments in a manner that respects community Character -~ and mitigates adverse impacts holds ~reat promise. But as a '~ work in progress, it bears careful watching. Other commumues ~ can benefit from the thinking that went into this effort, but .: i~ must be careful to tailor their approaches to their unique and political realities as well as }ge perceived local imi~acts retail supe. rstores. The P.4S blrem~ Ls a monthly publication for subecfibcrs a ~ubscripzion reae:u~ service of the American Planning As$oci~iofl Executive Director; ~dli~m lC Klein, Director of Research. The PAS Meme i~ produced by Depanmem st~. Mary~ Morris, Editor. Production by Cynthi~ Chedd, A~i~ttnt F. diton Li~ l~rton, Design A~oci~ce. Co ~ ht ~1996 b American Phnnm ~ A~e State ! pyr'g y ' ' gAs.~dation, 122 S. Mich'~n i -, ' Chicago, IL 60605. The American PLanning Associ~tlon hs be~dqu~ters:oRic~ g Ma~achusens Ave., N.~.t'., ~ruhlugtun, DC 200~6. All right~ reserved. No part of'this publication racy be reproduced or utili~gl ia or by ~ny meam, dec. omc or mechamr.~l, mdudta$ photocopying. ~ __ ~ infommtio~ stora~ tnd rt, tfieval system, wichout permission in wfidng from I~ I American Planning Assoc~tion. Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber · and 10% postconsurnet w~ste. IATTACHMENT IX [ CPA-97-05 Brass, Inc. Statement delivered to the Planning March 9, 1999 COmmission We are concerned about changing the designation on this property to regional service for two reasons: 1)' the County needs more information on the impact of this use on the region's economy and traffic; and 2) the County's long-range planning goals would be better served by using some of this property for residential development. We have heard the merits of the applicant's marketing analysis and the Shils report debated in this community. What appears to be lacking is an independent and objective economic analysis of this use on our regional economy, an analysis specifically tailored to Albemarle, Charlottesville and the surrounding counties. We've also heard that this use may divert traffic from Route 29 North. Nothing would make us happier than to see traffic on Route 29 North reduced without building a new road. We wonder, however, whether placing a superstore south of Charlottesville would accomplish that worthy goal. If the proposed superstore is a major discounter other than Walmart, such as Target or K-Mart, customers are likely to travel to both stores to compare prices. If the proposed superstore is Walmart, the store on Route 29 North. may close or convert to another use, which means that customers from northern Albemarle, Greene and Orange will continue to drive down Route 29 to reach this site. The County needs objective, expert analysis of the economic and transportation impacts before acting on a development of this scale. The County should also consider its own long-range planning needs when it reviews amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, rather than limit its review to the land use proposed by the applicant. Your Planning staff has offered an alternative which would include residential development. That makes sense, given the shortage of available land in that category versus the relative surplus of land in the commercial, office and industrial categories. The consultant hired by the County to help improve the design and density of growth areas has suggested that the County consider using some of its commercial and industrial surplus for residential development. Unless the County begins such measures soon, it will have to expand the growth area sometime before 2015. For these reasons, the lack of data to justify a change and the long-range need for more residential capacity in the growth areas, we ask that you recommend denial of CPA-97-05. P.O. I I I I HoSe Hill Drive Statement to the Albemarle County Planning Commission From: Date: Re: Citizens for Albemarle March 9, 1999 CPA-97-05 Brass, Inc. [Willoughby] A land-use designation in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, by definition, closes the door on certain types of uses for a particular area. As a result, there is a tangible relationship between the distribution of various designated uses and the total area required to provide adequate capacity for each type of use. Citizens for Albemarle has strongly advocated that any changes in the total county area designated for intensive development be based on the results of a thorough assessment ef cur capacity to absorb population growth through infill of existing development areas. The results of such an assessment are at hand as the county's Development Areas Initiatives Steering Committee, DISC, nears the end of its collaboration with a county-funded land-use-planning consultant. We finnly supported the county's aim in creating the DISC to study and recommend steps for coping with the land-use pressures arising from our continuing exponential level of population growth. Therefore, we oppose CPA-97-05 at this time and recommend that its consideration be postponed until it can be reviewed in light of the forthcoming recommendations from the DISC. To make a change of this magnitude prior to the DISC report undermines due consideration of this county-sponsored committee's analysis and recommendations. With a piecemeal approach to comprehensive plan amendment, we risk discovering too late that a shortage of one type of land use, for example, residential, forces expansion of the development area, despite the existing area having aa over-supply of lands in other uses. If careful thought is given up front to the distribution of uses within exisitng development areas, their expansion may never be necessary. The promise of this possibly beneficial result for our community clearly warrants that every effort be made now to examine the data and recommendations for the best mix of uses within existing development areas. To commit a significant area to a different use before an informed consideration of Albemarle's total development area wastes a rare and county-supported oppommity for proactive plarming. Furthermore, the regional implications of this proposed amendment call for a deliberate approach on the part of Albemarle County. Our neighb, or within has already expressed serious reservations about the negative potential impacts of this amendment. For our neighbors to the south, anticipating the impact on their ability to maintain and create viable local markets requires a regional market study on the scale of the Planning District Commission's residential buildout analysis. Given the above concerns and opportunities, Citizens for Albemarle opposes CPA-97-05." Mamh 9, 1999 Planning Commission Albemarle County Office Building Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA P'Pg03 Dear Commissioners: RECEIVED Planning Dept. The Ridge Street Neighborhood Association is made up of residents and property ~owners in the area of the city that is bounded on the south by the Willoughby subdivision and Moore's Creek, on the east by Sixth Street SE, on the north by the CSX railroad, and on the west by Ridge Street - Fifth Street Extended. We have met with representatives of Brass, Inc. on two occasions over a period of several months to discuss plans for new development on Bent Creek Road. Being city residents, we greatly appreciate their overtures. The majority of the city's planning commissioners have expressed opposition to Brass Inc.'s proposal for a regional shopping center. However, this conclusion was drawn without an opportunity for input from Charlottesville's public. The neighborhood asso~ation would like to share with you its consensus of opinions and concerns during your public hearing process: The current land use designation should be changed, for-it is inappropriate for the current and future surrounding residential neighborhOods. No nearby neighborhood will welcome the noise and congestion produced by large industrial trucks and tractor trailers; and, traditionally, only cheap housing will be developed near industrial sites. The proposal by county ~ for community service with mixed use is undesirable for both the county and the city. Currently, there is not enough demand for this type of retail to prevent vacant storefronts throughout the county and along the city's downtown and midtown retail corridor. There will have to be Page I of 3 e w substantial growth in the area for this type of shopping center to be successful. Mixed use will. also compete with housing proposed along, the city's retail' corridor. Also, this type of development will not provide the tax revenue needed to cover the costs for additional county school facilities and programs resulting from the new housing. A regional shopping center on the site is a desirable altematfve, however. It will provide a viable option for shoppers who travel to Route 29 North for their main purchases, thereby reducing the pressure for that area to become a mega-shopping area with ever-increasing traffic congestion and road expenditures. Also, it will reduce the pressure for the further development .of Pantops Mountain and the urbanization of the Crozet area. A discount mega-store, as anchor, is welcomed by many low and moderate income residents of both the city and county who mainlymside on the southern end of the city and county. It will provide much-needed revenues for county coffers without placinga heavy burden on county services, particularly schools. it will also help .maintain the county's position as the major shopping area of the region that includes the counties of Rockingham, Augusta, Nelson,' Amherst, Louisa, Fluvanna, Greene and Madison. Any of these counties would probably welcome this type of development. Hopefully, with .greater shopping opportunities, residents of the region will be less likely to shop in the metropolitan areas of Richmond and northern Virginia. The inevitable growth along the Fifth Street SW condor with i~s access to Interstate 64 and to the heart of the city will necessitate road network modifications. Any substantial development on this particular tract will' require alterations to Bent Creek Road and additional subdivisions built along the corridor will require a southern connector between Fifth Street and Avon Street Extended. Page 2 of 3 Because ofits far-ranging implications for the character and economic health of the region, it is a very complex issue, requiring a great deal. of thought. We agree with you that, in the long run, strong,., successful development in the urban ring is of great, interest and benefit to both jurisdictions. It is the. hope of our. association' that you will consider the above points when' making, your recommendation, We thank you for soliciting city input and hope you will do so again. Respectfully, Kenneth A. Martin President, RSNA 222 Lankford AV Charlottesville, VA 22902 cc: Albemarle County Board-of Supervisors Page 3 of 3 RECEIVED Planning Dept. ? - I:IECEIVED April 21, 1999 TO: Albemarle County Planning Commission Planning Dept. RE: Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal by Brass, Inc. (Willoughby site) Dear members of the Albemarle County Planning Commission: I write to voice my very serious concerns about the proposal by Brass Inc. for a big,box commercial development on Fifth street, south of the City. As a long time resident of the County, and someone who teaches urban planning, there are a number of things about this proposal which greatly concern me. Much of my own research and writing over the years has focused on strategies for creating sustainable communities, both here in the U.S. and in Europe. For a variety of reasons this proposal seems to me to move our community and region in precisely the opposite (unsustainable) direction. Let me elaborate a bit about my concerns. First, it seems to me that the proposal, as I understand it, would be of a scale and size inappropriate to the location and site. One can't help but be struck by the excessive amount of commercial space being considered here and its single-use emphasis. I believe it will be difficult to support this building footprint and at the same time ensure (given the grading and site disturbance that would be required) that the site's sensitive environmental conditions will be respected and protected. Furthermore, given its proximity to the City and file urban core of our region, the proposed project has an unfortunate suburban, auto-orientation to it. Its size, location and types of stores envisioned will, as the County staff report accurately predicts, almost ensure that it "perpetuates the emphasis on vehicular traffic." We should be doing everything we can, to the contrary, to get people out of their cars, to rrdnimize the numbers and amount of auto travel, and to encourage walking and bicycling. Perhaps a creatively designed, scaled-down mixed-use project on this site might help to achieve this, but the present development concept will simply reinforce our dispersed car- dependent landscape and lifestyles. I fear that such a large, auto-oriented suburban style development will have sprawl-indUcing effects and serve as a terrible precedent for other development in the area. The location of the Willoughby property, in close proximity to downtown and along an important gateway to the City, suggests the need for special care in designing whatever development occurs here. Ideally, proposals such as the present one should fit within a comprehensive development vision for the 5th Street corridor. As I have not seen such an integrated vision (and the present proposal would not likely fit into any version of such that I could support), I wonder if the development of such a corridor-wide, gateway plan should not occur first. In any event, the corridor should be viewed in its entirety. I strongly support the County' s efforts at promoting infill development. Indeed, nationally there is growing consensus about the need to build new development and accommodate future growth within already urbanized areas first, before committing greenfield and peripheral sites. But, this simply doesn't mean that any form ofinfill is appropriate or acceptable~ I concur, with others who have queSfionedthe extent to which this proposal represents the best we can expect from this site. Infill development is a necessary and worthy goal, but what is being proposed falls, far short in my mind. Every new development of this sort ought to include a creative mixing of housing, office and commercial. This is one of the clear lessons from the Europeans: integrate housing and other uses and you substantially cut down on the automobile dependence ad create walkable and enjoyable places and spaces. Many positive exampleS of such mixed-use projects from Europe and around the U.S. can be cited and used as inspiration for what could be designed and built here. We need to set our sights higher. And, while it may be a number of years before transit becomes a real option for the county (and region), it requires us to think ahead and make land use decisions that contribute to the density and compactness essential for making transit work over the long haul. We need to begin contributing to land use and density patterns that will at least not foreclose these creative transit options in the future (e.g. light-rail, highspeed buses). · The potential economic impacts on other existing businesses are also of concern. What impacts the project right have on the economic viability of the Charlottesville downtown is, of course, uncertain, but I am especially concerned that it may serve to siphon-off energy and activity from downtown. The city's downtown, and the downtown mall in particular, represent unique and special resources o,f importance to all of us here in the region andI believe that every future development project should be judged by the extent to which it serves to strengthen or reinforce the City's downtown, downtown mall and surrounding businesses. As an aside, I can tell you that in visiting a variety of pedestrianized spaces in numerous European reties, our downtown mall can hold it own against almost any of them. There are few urban spaces like it and we should do all we can to appreciate and strengthen it. We should do everything we can to avoid drawing energy and activity away from it. I fear this will be the unfortunate result of the proposal before you. It is difficult not to imagine how such a project will shift the economic landscape, mostly in negative ways, I fear, and in many ways we probably don't currently understand. To be sure, residents in this part of the County deserve access to adequate retail. The retail demands of residents of this part of the county could, however, clearly be accommodated through a number of smaller establishments and there are apparently a number of other commercially-zoned parcels that might serve this need. Emphasizing the neighborhood-oriented commercial aspects, rather than creating an additional regional commercial magnet would seem to be a more sensible way to go. Many communities around the country have taken a similar approach: planning for and distributing smaller-scale commercial centers that provide opportunities for daily shopping and services are available within a short distance of housing and residential neighborhoods, but guiding regional commercial and business activity into one or a few regional centers. 'County residents south of the City should have access to neighborhood shopping, but I believe strengthening our existing regional centers (including the downtown) should be emphasized over creating new ones. I have recently read Prof. Edward Shils' (of the Wharton School) report documenting the impacts of big-box commercial, and his findings (as well as those of others) are troubling, to say the least.. Such superstores have been shown to undermine the economic viability of smaller retailers, and many of the purported benefits of such stores (lower product prices and additional employment) have proven to be illusory. While it may be unwise to generalize about the impacts of big-box in any specific case, the possibilities are alarming. The economic impacts of such big-box development are certainly worthy of additional study. If this is our idea of economic development, we need some fundamentally re-thinking. It will generate few jobs, will likely undermine existing businesses and economic activity, and in the long run make our community less attractive and livable--the latter representing perhaps the most important factors in supporting healthy local and regional economies. My own preference would be much greater attention given to smaller, locally- oriented businesses and economic endeavors. There are a variety of creative economic development strategies which could and should be emphasized (e.g. small business incubators, waste-based industries, efforts at import-substitution). Re-circulating local income, rather than sending it out of the community, is in the long run a more successful strategy, t I find, by the way, many of the arguments made about the potential of the project to reduce auto traffic to 29-North to be unsupportable and improbable. For better or worse, the businesses on the 29 North corridor will remain important trip destinations. My hunch is that people will continue to travel to the great many stores and businesses there (including the Wal-mart, Lowes, Fashion Square Mall...); there are simply too many commercial, entertainment, and other establishments there already. Finally, I might note that there are in fact many American communities that l~ave faced similar development challenges and from which the Charlottesville/Albemarle community might learn. Cities like Davis, California, for example, with similar population size, and presence of a university community, represent models of community planning innovation that would be helpful to analyze and understand. (This community has implemented an impressive land use strategy, emphasizing a strong primary retail core in the city-center and a series of smaller neighborhood shopping centers throughout the city). The town of Chapel Hill (NC), home to another major university, and experiencing substantial growth and development pressures there, did an interesting thing this past fall. They invited representatives from four similar communities from around the country (Davis, CA; Burlington VT; Boulder, CO; and Annapolis, MD) to a.public forum. The representatives were asked to describe what their communities were doing to address growth pressures and what innovative ideas ~nd practices seemed to be working successfully there to :create sustainable, livable communities. I attended this forum and though t to myself~that a similar meeting might have a useful energizing function here. Much can be learned about the potential here ~at'home by understanding how other places have creatively dealt with and confronted change there,' Perhaps a similar forum might be considered here. It seems tO me that we need as a community and region to set our sights much higher; to envision and imagine a cityscape much more fundamentally uplifting, forWard-looking and inspirational in nature, and to accept such significant development changes only when they further these goals. What we want, I think and hope, is a built environment equal to the phenomenal natural environment we have been blessed with here: compact, green, walkable and bikable, and where environmentally sustainable landscapes and lifestyles are taken seriously. So, for all of the reasons cited above I would strongly encourage you to vote against changing the Comprehensive Plan designation from Industrial Service to Regional Service. Should some plan designation change be inevitable, I agree with the County staff report recommendations: change to Community Service, and push for mixed-use, with a mandatory residential element. I thank you for your consideration and would be happy to elaborate on any of these points should this be helpful. Thanks for your consideration, Tim Beatley ~ 133 Oak Forest Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 804-973-7346 tb6d @virginia.edu cc: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Ap~--27--99 ~4107 P~ The ~a i I~ pro$~ess ~04 9?8 7217 P.02 To the AJl~m~'lc County Pla~lng Commission: As a ten year resident orthe Willoughby subdivision, I welcome the idea ofm~or shopplnS center u proposed by Brass, Inc., Thc benefits ofsuch a center are enormous not only to my neighborhood, but to the surroundin8 areas and communities. One ofthc lxrge.~ complaints ! hear ~om my neighbors is having to travel to the other side of town to shop for 8rocer~es, clothin8 ~nd other necessities. Having to do this also adds congestion to roads and hishways aJrc~dy con~estccl to the maximum. Proip'ess is a natural occu~crlcc as our community continues to grow. Our population is expanding rapidly ~ the nccd to service this growth is srow~ng w~th it. it is s~id that thc new shopping center would have a negative impact on the Downto',vn Mall. I disa~ee. Thc mai] is made up of'boutiques, specialty shop a~d a bu'ge numb~ oFrcstaurants that are all aimed to ~tract a particular clientele. Th~ shops b~vc already shown that they can prosper as competMv~ retailers and m~chants as they vie for business asainst such iu*cas ,s Ban~cks Road, Albemarle Square and Fashion Tonight you wil! hoar f-rom people opposed to the shoppLq8 center. That is their opinions are respected. But remember, they are a y.~ The hundreds of* siSn~turcs 8~thered on pe~fion$ represents thc ~ of'the people in Favor of*thc same shopping center. Their signatures on those petitions speak as loudly and clearly as anyone ~n attendance at this meetins. [ urge you to approve th~s project, tonight, as proposed by Brass, Inc. g26 Harris Road 84/27/1999 16:82 8849693608 NEW AGE BUILDERS INO r~= 81 ~ Thonms Albemade Planning Commission April Z7,1999 Please receive this letter concerning the proposed zoning change of the Will0ug~hby property owned by Brass incorporated. Many of us living south of Charlottesville would greatly ben~-xt by having a superstore on the southside. This would relieve us from having to drive 29 north in order to access this type of facility, thereby reducing citT traffic and reducing automobile air pollution. This proposed site use would also remove the posmq~lity of industrial pollution within the area. We also understand that a commercial property would include a sponsfield and environmental improves to Morris Creek. Therefore, we are requesting thgt this property be rezoned to allow for commercial retail development. Thank you for your consideration. May 10, 1999 Alexis Zeigler 1125 Little High St. Charlottesville VA 22902 804-245-8759 lexus51 ~juno.com Dear Commissioners, Regarding the Brass Inc. proposal for the development of land off of Fifth Street, I would like to make a very brief comment regarding the new Community Service language drafted by Mr. Rooker and Mr. Rieley. I spoke to Ms. Thomas and remain somewhat uncertain regarding the exact meaning of the square footage limitations of the new language. If my understanding is correct, a single retailer could occupy 160,000 square feet provided their superstore did not have the appearance of a "big box," and some advance consideration is given to future subdividing of such a large space. Although I have not had time to consult with our coalition leaders, I think I speak for them when I say that what is desired is mixed use, not mixed aesthetic. A retailer of 160,000 square feet is still a superstore, and will draw an enormous amount of traffic that will in turn spur sprawl throughout the area. .. The point of mixed use, as I understand it, is for people to be able to shop, recreate, and otherwise conduct their business in a local area that has the services they desire -- thus reducing the amount of driving necessary to conduct daily activities. A 160,000 square foot big box is clearly not intended to encourage local pedestrian or community activity, but rather would be a regional trip attractor. ~ If we are not willing to pursue the higher ideals of new urbanism and mixed use here and now, then when will we7 Sincerely, Alexis Zeigler Department of planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Rd,, Room 218 Charlottesville VA 22902 May 18, 1999 To the Planning Committee, The compromise plan for the proposed '"oig box" development of the Brass property on Fifth Street is a sham. Giving it the politically benign designation of "Community Service" development while applying a maximum square footage for retail development of 160,000 can only be interpreted as a political slight of hand. 160,000 square feet is larger than anything on 29 North (except for Lowes, at 165,000 sq. ft.)'; this ceiling does nothing to prevent the tYPe of ,mega mall the community so articulately opposes. By adopting the community service designation the Planning Commission is tacitly admitting that big box development is politically unpopular and inappropriate to the site. "Lim~ iting" the ceiling to 160,000 square feet is being deceptive--but please do not deceive yourselves into believing the community will not notice or remember on election day. Co.mmissioners, you have the opportunity to do' something brave and definitive. This is not just a decision about a shopping mall--it is an indication of the future of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Sincerely, Karen Peabody O'Brien Resident of Albemarle County 1682 Colle Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 RECEIVED HAY 2 0 1999 PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTY OF ALBEMARI,E MEMORANDUM TO: Susan Thomas, Senior Planner FROM: Steven P~ Allshouse, Fiscal Impact Planner DATE: April 12, 1999 RE: CPA 97-05 (Brass,/nc.) I ran three separate scenarios for Brass, Inc. The first scenario involved the development that could take place under the existing comprehensive plan. As per your instructions, I assumed a one-year build-out Of 215,000 square feet of industrial space. Below is the CKIM average cost model's projected net annual fiscal impact from this development: Fiscal Impact (Current Comp. Plan) Property Taxes Other Revenues $146,000 539,000 Total Revenues $685,000 School Expenditures ($586,000) County Govt. Expenditures ($197,000) . Total Expenditures ($783,000) Net Annual Fiscal Impact ($98,000) This scenario indicates that development under thepresent Comprehensive Plan would result in a net cash ott0'low from the County. Keep in mind that industrial development sometimes does not pay for itself. This situation can arise when a project brings in new residents to fill factory jobs. The increase in new households translates into increased school enrollments. Since school-related expenditures represent such a large portion the County's costs, increases in enrollments typically lead to negative fiscal impact numbers. In the present ease, CRIM estimated that an industrial site of 215,000 square feet would bring in 55 new students, of whom 28 would be in elementary school, 13 in middle school CPA 9%05 April 12, 1999 Page Two and 14 in high SChool. In terms of the County'S Capital Improvement Program (CIP), CRIM estimated that, after build-out, the industrial development of the property under the current Comprehensive Plan would have the net annual impact shown below. CIP Impact (Current Comp. Plan) Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go ($0) Schools CF Debt Service ($217,000) Total Schools CIP Impact ($217,000) County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service ($o) ,($o) Total County CIP Impact ($o) Net Annual CIP Impact ($217,000) This negative $217,000 net annual CIP impact figure accounts for a significant portion of the $783,000 annual public expenditures related to the development of the BrasS, Inc. property under the current Comprehensive Plan. The second scenario I ran involved the proposed development of the Brass, Inc. property. your instructions, I assumed a one-year build-out of 300,000 square feet of retail space. estimated the following annual net fiscal impact, after build-out, for this project. Fiscal Impact (Proposed Project) Property Taxes Other Revenues Total Revenues School Expenditures County Govt. Expenditures Total Expenditures Net Annual Fiscal Impact $159,000 987,000 $1,145,000 ($211,000) ($S9,000) ($300,000) $845,000 CPA 97-05 April 12, 1999 Page Three The proposed development of .the Brass, Inc. property, in contrast to the development that could take place under the current Comprehensive Plan, would result in a net cash inflow to the County. Note that even though CRIM estimated that the proposed development would result in an additional 20 students in the Albemarle public schools (10 at the elementary level, 5 at the middle school level, and 5 at the high school level) the additional revenue generated fi.om this project would more than make up for the additional school-related expenses. In terms of the County's CIP, CRIM estimated that, after build-out, the proposed development of the Brass, Inc. property would have the net annual impact shown below. CIP Impact (Proposed Dev.) Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go Schools CF Debt Service Total Schools CIP Impact County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service Total County CIP Impact Net Annual CIP Impact ($o) ($78,000) ($78,000) ($o) ($o) ($78,000) ($7s,ooo) Note that the net annual CIP impact of the proposed development is significantly ($139,000) less than that associated with the devdopment that could occur under the current Comprehensive Plan. This difference stems largely from the smaller number of students who, theoretically, would enroll in the County's schools under the proposed development than under the development that could take place currently. Fewer students translates into less pressure for capital projects. A comparison of the development that could occur on the Brass, Inc. property under the present Comprehensive Plan and that which would happen under the proposed development gives an idea of the differential impact of approving CPA 97-05. Underpresent zoning, the net annual fiscal impact would be a negative $98,000 while, under the proposed amendment, the impact would be apositive $845,000. According to CRIM's estimates, the approval of CPA 97-05 would lead to a differential net annual fiscal impact of $943,000. From a fiscal impact perspective, the approval of this proposed CPA makes sense. Note, however, that this positive differential fiscal impact does not necessarily mean that CPA 97-05 should be approved. The County can and should consider other factors associated with the development of this property (e.g., potentially increased CPA 97-05 April 12, 1999 Page Four traffic congestion, potential environmenlal degradation, etc.) as it decides whether or not to apprOve this CPA. As you and David Benish mentioned to me recently, a third, viable, scenario might exist · for the development of this property. Under this alternate development scenario, there would be a one-year build-out of 100 mulfifamily dwelling units, 150,000 square feet of retail space, and 100,000 square feet of taxable office space, I ran this scenario through CRIM and obtained the following reSUlts. Fiscal Impact (Alternate Dev.) Property Taxes Other Revenues $255,000 1,036,000 Total Revenues $1,291,000 School Expenditures County Govt. Expend. ($864,000) ($277,000) Total Expenditures ($1,141,000) Net Annual Fiscal Imi~act $150,000 Under this alternate development scenario, the County would benefit, as it did under the proposed development scenario, ~om a net cash inflow. The size of the inflow under the alternate scenario, however, would be substantially less than that under the proposed scenario ($150,000 vs. $845,000, or a difference of $695,000). A large portion of the difference in the fiscal impact of these two scenarios has to do with the higher number of students who, theoretically, would enroll under the alternate development of the Brass, Inc. property than who would enroll as a result of the proposed development of the land. Under the alternate scenario, the County's schools would have an additional 81 students (44 in elementary school, 18 in middle school, and 19 in high school). In terms of the County's CIP, CRIM estimated a net annual impact of negative $322,000. The breakdown of this figure appears on the next page. Recall that the net annual CIP impact of the proposed development was negative $78,000. The differential CIP impact between the alternate and the proposed scenarios, then, is $244,000. The relatively favorable numbers associated with the proposed project do not necessarily mean that the development of 300,000 square feet of retail space is better than the type of hypothetical project that you and David devised. As mentioned previously, the County of Albemarle can and should consider a number of different factors as it decides whether or not to approve CPA 97-05. CPA 97-05 April 12, 1999 Page Five Impact (Alternate Dev.) - Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go Schools CF Debt Service Total Schools CIP Impact County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service Total County CIP Impact Net Annual CI~ Impact (so) (s322,ooo) ($322,000) (so) (so) (so) (~22,0oo) The following table summarizes the fiscal impacts of the three different development scenarios involving the Brass, Inc. property. Scenario Net Annual Fiscal Inlpact Net Annual CIP Impact Current ($98,000) ($217,000) Proposed $845,000 ($78,000) Alternate $150,000 ($322,000) SAMsaa I ATTACHMENT XI I MEMORANDUM TO: CC: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Planning Commission Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Charlottesville City Council Brass, Inc. Charlottesville Planning Commissio~ February 5, 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Requests by Brass, Inc. Thank you for your conlinued interest in a full consideration of issues surrounding the proposal to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan on the southern boundary of the City by Brass, Inc. Several members of the City Planning Commission and staff attended your December 15 work session, and we have been able to consider additional data and feedback from the public since that time. On August 14, 1998, the Charlottesville Planning Commission sent a memorandum outlining our position regarding the amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan requested by Brass, Inc. We have attached a copy of this memorandum for your review. Since writing that memorandum, additional evidence has come to our attention. We are motivated to write this new memorandum in light of further consideration of the impact and implications that this significant change in the Comprehensive Plan will have on the City and County. As you will see in the following comments, the B, rass, Inc. proposal has serious negative implications for the County and the City, and in our estimation these factors ar~te strongly for the denial of the applicant's request. Economic Impacts Projections offered by the applicant suggest that this development will be a great economic benefit to the County in the form of increased tax revenues. This is not necessarily true. A recent study by Professor Edward B. Shils of the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania (entitled "Measuring the Economic and Sociological Impact of the Mega-Retail Discount Chains on Small Enterprise in Urban, Suburban, and Rural Communities, February, 1997) reveals the full range of economic issues involving deep discount stores. The study demonstrates that historically, the introduction of a mega-retail discount store in a small city surrounded by a suburban and rural community can actually reduce the tax base of not only the city, but also the suburban/rural government entity surrounding the city. Professor Shils' exhaustive research and analysis shows that the predatory pricing strategies utilized by mega- retail discount chains to grab market share can lead to a reduction in overall tax revenues generated by localities, and to a reduction in the number and size of smaller business, as well as employment opportunities for citizens of the communitv. While we are deeply concerned about the economic impact that a 300,000 square foot mega-retail discount chain would have on the City of Charlottesvilte's economy, the Shils report demonstrates that the construction of this development will lead to same kind of "disinventment' and erosion of existing retail businesses in the County as well. The strategy used by mega-retail discount chains that Professor Shils identifies in his report follows a consistent pattern throughout the United States. Mega-retail discount chains lower prices on well-known items until they are at or below cost. The smaller stores in the area cannot compete with the prices and consumers flock to the mega-retail discount store. Smaller retailers shut down, move out of the area or reduce staff and inventory in order to survive on reduced sales, thus causing a large scale "realignment" of job opportunities for citizens who own and work in small and mid-sized retail businesses. After the mega-retail discotmf store has established dominant market share, it increases prices to make up for past lost revenue. The end result is near monopoly status for the mega-discotmt retail store and many empty storefronts in what were once thriving shopping centers. The prospect of empty stores in Albemarle Square, Fashion Square, Seminole Square, Shoppers World, Pantops, and Barracks Road Shopping Center to name only a few, should be enough to chill your interest in approving this project. Empty storefronts mean reduced shopping traffic, rundown stores, reduced tax revenues, and increased crime and vagrancy. Traffic Impacts In the first joint work session that we attended, the applicant's private traffic consultant disagreed with the VDOT assessment of serious traffic problems that would be produced by this Comprehensive Plan amendment. Since that time, the private consultant has reviewed the data, and he now agrees with VDOT that the dramatic change in traffic load produced by art extremely large regional shopping center in such close proximity to limited capacity roads in the City will cause a serious downgrading in service levels throughout the area. Therefore they suggest that the only way to "resolve" these problems (problems that are the direct result of this possible development) involves widening Fifth Street and Bent Creek Road. It is important to reiterate that the City of Charlottesville has no plans to widen eit2xer Fifth Street or Bent Creek Road. The City Cotmcil and City Planning Commission have stated repeatedly that such widening projects of Fifth Street Extended, Bent Creek Road, as well as of historic Ridge Street will not be supported. As a matter of prudent planning, and in the interest ofprotecting public welfare and safety of the Ridge Street and Fifth Street neighborhoods, we have and will continue to consistently ensure that neither Ridge Street, Fifth Street nor Bent Creek Road are widened. Shopping Opportunities The developers state that the Southern residents of the city and county desperately need this shopping center. We agree that city and county residents south of downtown Charlottesville need to have places to buy groceries, flowers and pharmaceuticals, get a hair cut, and be seen by a doctor or dentist. We do not agree, however, that a mega-retail discount store like a Super Walmart or Target on Fifth Street is the best way to provide these services to the residents of the City and County. The lower neighborhood scale of development at Southpointe should go a long way toward providing the retail shopping needed by residents of this area. In addition, with proper planning new businesses could be located in the City on Fifth Street, downtowr~, Cherry Avenue and on West Main Street to further augment the current and planned retail available to residents who live on the south side of Charlottesville. 2 Commercial Areas and the Comprehensive Plan A Comprehensive Plato change allowing a regional shopping center on Frith Street is opening the door to the development of a southern "29 North," loaded with "big boxes," fast food chains, uncrossable eight-lane highways and unused sidewalks. Both the City and County are struggling to counteract zoning policies of the past that resulted in exclusively automobile oriented shopping, (i.e. sprawl). For example, the County is promoting "ivf~ll development", restricting development to designated growth areas, developing out parcels, building sidewalks and investing in landscaping. However, by approving Brass, Inc.'s application, the County would be taking a step that flies in the face of all of the above examples. You would encourage commerdal development outside the current area of designated commercial growth. The argument can and has been made that additional acreage for commercial development is needed. However the County's build-out analysis shows that there are nearly 1000 acres currently available under the County's Comprehensive Plan for commercial developments. Therefore, additional acreage for commercial development is not needed in the near or distant future: Amending the County's Comprehensive Plan to generate additional acreage would be bad planning and bad policy because it would generate sprawl. Such sprawl in the southern part of the County should be resisted. The best way to protect against additional sprawl in this case is to retain the current designation of this property within the Comprehensive Plan. Brass, Inc. has attempted to avoid having the sprawl label attached to its development. They have offered a few graphic renderings somehow suggesting a "town center" or as they put it a "main street" type development. The reality is quite different. First, they are not bound by any drawings presented to you at this stage. Second the size of the development is approximately equal to two Lowes, two K-Marts, three Sam's Clubs or three Walmarts. Third, the proposed parking lot is the size of nine or ten football fields. No architect, no matter how experienced in so-called "new-urbanism,." can make a retail facility this huge and a parking lot this expansive into a town center. Instead, they will produce one of the most powerful engines for automobile oriented suburban sprawl in the Charlottesville region. This is direct threat to the care that the County has exercised in managing its growth and will impact the beauty of the southern part of Albemarle County. Although the applicant has made superficial reference to "new urbanism", there is no way of getting around the fact that the County's approval of th_is amendment would open the door to essentially more of the same problems that are currently contributing to sprawl within our community. Smaller Scale Development and Mixed-Use If a change in the current designation of this property under the County's Comprehensive Plan is in the public interest, this change should not allow the large scale, mega-retail, regional shopping that is requested by the applicant. A smaller scale and intensity of use would allow for greater sensitivity to the environmental issues of this site with its extensive border on Moore's Creek. In addition, smaller scale would encourage a "mixing" of uses, including commercial, retail and residential. The combination of these uses would serve to soften the extreme impact of purely big box commercial use. The applicant has brought forward the concept of "new urbanism" for this site. Notwithstanding their lofty claims, absent the careful and integrated design of housing with the retail functions, the vision of "main street" that they imagine will only be a cartoon. Conclusion "-'" As we indicated at the beginning of our August 14 memorandum, Comprehensive Plan Amendments should not be driven by an individual property owner's desire to upgrade the value or marketability of his or her property. Rather, it is the purpose of a comprehensive plan to ensure that the use of a parcel of land is in line with the overallpublic interest. The. adverse economic impact that this proposed development will have on existing retailers in the City and County, the probability that no mega-retail discount chain will buy into the project because of the lack of sufficient access, and the nearly unanimOus sense throughout our community that more sprawl is not wanted, lead to the conclusion that this proposed change to the County's Comprehensive Plan should be denied. We silncerely appreciate the serious care that you are exercising in this critically important community-wide issue, and we look forward to Continued collaboration and consultation on this matter. 4 SEPTEMBER CLOSED SESSION MOTION I MOVE THAT the BOARD GO iNtO ClOSed SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2. I -344(A) OF THE CODE OF VirgiNia UNDER SUBSECTION ( I ) TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS; UNDER SUBSECTION (3) TO CONSIDER THE ACOUISlTION OF PROPERTIES FOR SCHOOL SITES AND PARKLAND; AND UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION RELATING TO THE IVY LANDFILL AND THE TRANSITION OF THE CITY Of CHARLOTTESVILLE TO TOWN STATUS AND REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MATTERS RELATING TO AN INTERJU RISDICTIONAL AGREEMENT. SEPTEMBER I, 1999 CLOSED SESSION MOTION I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2. I -344(A) of THE CODE Of VIRGINIA UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AN D STAFF .... - --: :-' - , ..... ,.,, TI I E .... AR,...,,,,.,.., ;-;'-;.,;F__..,;;.4,G LiTi,,~,.:.,i ;.u;'.; '-"=' "' ,',:'::..;I -- ....... ,,~r ,,.-L ,..-.,t4D R.""C.,A,~D,::,"C ,.0,""'-'"'11-;C '- ..... i,,iA~ t,-,:~S RELATING TO AN INTERdURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENT. David P. Bowca'man Ch~otte Y. Humphfis Fon~'t R. Marsh~ii, Jr. CouKrY OF A~ REMARI F_ Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-58OO Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally Il. Thomas September 7, 1999 Mr. ~[ohn Hood 36 Randolph Ct. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Hood: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on September 1, 1999, you were reappointed to the Board of Code Appeals and the Fire Prevention Code of Appeals, with said terms to begin on November 22, 1999 and to expire on November 21, 2004. I have enclosed both updated rosters for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/lbh EncloSure cc: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis Jay Schlothauer Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Board of Supervisors Laurie Hall, Senior Depu~ Clerk ~ August 25, 1999 Vacancies on Boards and Commissions ,., I have attached the updated list of vacancies on boards and commissions through November 30, 1999. Unless you indicate that you would either like to reappoint the same person, if eligible, or select your own magisterial appointment without advertising, these vacancies will be advertised in the Daily Progress on September 12 and 19. Applications for new vacancies, which will then be due no later than October 19, will be forwarded to you at the Board meeting on November 3, 1999. cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis Ch'ville Regional Chamber of Commerce WISH TO BE MAGISTERIAL NEW TERM RE- APPOINTMENT? BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER TERM EXPIRES EXPIRES APPOINTED? John Hood 11/21/99 11/21/04 Yes John Hood 11/21/99 11/21/04 Yes Summa.~. of Meetin~ peac0ckH, ,i, il water Situation June 4,, 1999 A meeting was held in the Albemarle County Office Building to discuss the current situation with the Peacock Hill water system and efforts that are underway. The meeting was attended by the following: Jim Moore & Carl Christiansen: Virginia Department of Health, Office of Water Bill Brent: Albemarle County Service Authority Harold Morris, Dave Noble, and Bill Hodsen: Peacock Hill Homeowners' Association David Benish: Albemarle County Planning Department David Hirschman: Albemarle County Engineering Department Nick Evans: Division of Mineral Resources The topics discussed at the meeting were as follows: Bill Hodson explained to work of the homeowners' subcommittee looking into the water situation, and distributed a draft outline of the jurisdictional area request application. He also distributed a draft list of alternative solutions to finding water, with advantages and disadvantage listed for each solution. David Benish gave a brief overview of planning and policy issues. In order for the jurisdictional area to be extended, a clear emergency need and health and safety justification would need to be provided based on the criteria in the comprehensive plan. Clear documentation would have to demonstrate that there are no other feasible options to extending a public water line. A few past cases were referred to. Jim Moore described the current configuration of the Peacock Hill water system- 5 wells. He explained that the system is limited based on the source (rather than storage or pump capacity). Based on the 48-hour drawdown test, the system was rated at 54,000 gallons per day, although current yield was estimated to be closer to 22,000. David Noble outFmed in some detail the history and operation of the system. The developer originally drilled 12 wells in 7 locations. Ofthese, only 2 were used for the supply. By 1990, these two were having trouble, so a 3rd was brought on-line. The homeowners' bought the comtmny in 1991. More supply trouble was encountered in 1993. They looked back at the original 12 sites to see where additional wells might be drilled. In 1994, they brought the 4 well on-line at 9 gallons per minute (gpm). In 1995, they pursued additional supply by contracting with Tom Gathright. Tom recommended several other drill sites. They drilled a well up near the storage tanks, 690 feet deep, at 15 gpm. Tom G. looked for 6 and 7 well sites. Of these, one was drilled, and results of the 48 hour test are pending. The 7~ site is the last one identified by Tom G. Currently, their storage is a combined total of 48,100 gallons, so storage does not limit the yield- in fact, they are having trouble keeping the tanks filled. Additional well sites within the community are limited by terrain and existing (or future) septic drainfields (setbacks are needed between dminfields and any well location). At present, Peacock Hill has 148 lots built on out of a total of t 80. Bill Brent inquired if a dowser has ever been used to find well sites. The answer was no, and there was some discussion about dowsers and geologists, and some reference to Bob Humphries, who is also on the Service Authority board. David Noble and the other residents explained efforts to approach an adjacem landowner (Gillenwater). If adjacent land is used, existing wells couldn't be used due to standards and the need to have a dedicated sotirce, so new wells would have to be drille& Nick Evans described his work of rehting geology to groundwater availability. He explained that availability is related to t}actures and the mount of storage above the fractures within the saprolite layer. Generally, they look at fractures, topography, and the nature of the saprolite layer (overlying material). He explained that for the Peacock Hill situation, the best thing would be to look for the best opportunities within some proximity to the community. Dave Hirschman suggested the options of doing a broader well, location study (not just within the subdivision) and/or looking at using some of the remaining lots for water supply development. David Benish discussed with the residems the timing of turning in the jurisdictional area application. Basically, the timing doesn't matter that much, since a study would have to be done either before or after the application is turned in. David said that the application fee could be refunded if it tums out that they find water and not much staff time is expended reviewing, the request. It was decided that the application would be turned in the near term while other work to find nearby water is ongoing, Bill Brent explained that, even if the request if approved, it would take 18 months to 2 years before a pipeline could be completed, so some contingency supply would be needed anyway. It was also discussed that the existing distribution system may have to be upgraded, and that would be a high cost item. Jim Moore did a quick calculation and estimated that 45 gpm is needed to meet current demand, based on the assumption of 0.Sgpm of yield per equivalent residential connection. At this point, there is a 15-20 gpm deficit in order to obtain a reliable water supply. Existing water conservation and demand management strategies were discussed. David Noble explained changes to the rate schedule to discourage excessive use. The residents felt that the community was using water very prudently in light of their current problems. David Hirschman asked if there might be some opportunities to replace some water uses, such as yard irrigation, with non-potable sources, such as the pond. David Noble explained the current system whereby different groups of wells are activated on a rotating system to fill the tanks. Based on hi.q description, it appears that a more efficient automated system may be able to help supply somewhat. Nick Evans explained that other automated options were available. Jim Moore raised the question of whether is was prudent to keep adding connections (building on the remaining lots) if they are having trouble serving the existing demand. This was discussed in some detail as a land use implication to this situation. Bill Brent asked if the remaining lots could be developed with individual wells. It seems, based on lot sizes, that this may be limited. DavidBenish commented that, in the past, extension of lines into the RA zone was stipulated for existing users on!y, raising an issue of what would happen with the currently undeveloped lots. There was additional discussion about who would be available to assist the community with a broader well site study. Nick Evans suggested that he could help, and would also try to enlist Tom Gathright. David Hirschman summarized the meeting by suggesting that the homeowners look at the following issues as part of the process of requesting public water: 1. Additional well sites in the vicinity (not necessarily within the subdivision) - Nick Evans and possibly Tom Gathright may be of assistance. 2. Additional demand reduction strategies, such as using other sources for irrigation. 3. Optimizing the automated system where different wells are tapped on a rotating basis. 4. Suggestions for future land use with regard to the undeveloped lots. David Benish and David Hirschman will have to work with the homeowners on this. ELLA: FYI, THIS IS WHAT I RECEIVED FROM WAYNE THAT WILL EVENTUALLY BE BEFORE THE BOARD. THANKS, BOB ROBERT W. TUCKER, JR. COUNTY EXECUTIVE BTUCKER~,ALBEMARLE.ORG To: Subject: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 3:26 PM Bob Tucker FW: Peacock Hill This is the e-mail I spoke about in my voice mail message to you. Subject: ,:~ · Tuesday, August 17, 1999 3:14 PM Wayne Cilimberg FW: Peacock Hill sthomas2~albemarle.org Susan Thomas, Senior Planner AIbemorle County Deportment of Planning and Community Development 401 McTntire Rood Chorlot-tesville, VA 22902-4596 phone (804) 296-5823 ex? 32§3 fax (804) 972-4035 ---Original Messago From: David Hirschman Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 11:48AM To: Sally Thomas; David Benish; Larry Davis Cc: Charlotte Humphris; Susan Thomas; Bill Mawyer, Jack Kelsey Subject: RE: Peacock Hill Sally, I spoke with Bill Hodson last week, and am glad to hear that they are proceeding with the geological study. We have been trying to discuss with them the need to have this type of information available as a precursor to the BOS being able to make any decisions (or staff to evaluate it). Our objective is to have them make a reasonable effort to seek out groundwater in the vicinity before concluding that adequate supplies do not exist. Some effort may have to be made to look off-site, and that would involve negotiations with landowners, easements, etc. When I spoke with Bill, one suggestion I made is that perhaps we could have a work session on this instead of simply proceeding with the usual process. The reason is due to the complexity and gravity of this decision, and for the homeowners to hear from the BOS before proceeding with any further serious and expensive studies. I will leave it to you and Planning to determine whether this is a good idea. Below are the notes from the meeting we had with the Peacock Hill representatives, Bill Brent, Nick Evans, et al. Summary of Meeting.doc dhirschC'c~_.albemarle.or.q David 3, Hirschman, Water ResOurces Manager Albemarle County Department: of Engineering & Public Works q01 McInt~re Road Chadottesvilte~ VA 22902-4596 (804)296-586! FAX (80,~)972-~1035 ---~riginal Massage - From: Sally Thomas Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 10:33 PM To: David Benish; David Hirschman; Larry Davis Cc: Charlotte Humphris Subject: Peacock Hill Any advice? Any update? Are you three plus Bill Brant the ones I should be addressing? Sally ~Original Massage- From: DDI41MAGEC~_,aol.com [SMTP: DDI41.MAGECEJ. aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 7:54 PM To: STHOMASL~.exch. co. albem arle.va, us cc: CatesJoshC~,a01,com; MCPERFATER@aoI.com Subject: (no subject) Saily: You haven't heard from me for a while because I took the month of July off for family, friends and some travel. I saw from the newspaper accounts that your hosting the visitors from our sister city was a huge success. I was particularly proud that you were one of the hosts, even though I was not able to deliver Peacock Hill's application more formally and in more detail. The Application to amend the Service Authority Jurisdictional Areas which ! presented you was also given to David Benish on July 1, 1999. He requested three copies, one for his department, one for Dave Hirshman, and one for Bill Brent. Two addendum to follow are reports from the Geologist and Dowser. I have been ask by the Peacock Hill Board to continue the task of coordination for this project and look fomrard to the opportunity. After nearly a month of respite, i am now ready to support the review process and want to make sure that you are kept informed as developments arise. First, the Dowser was given the go ahead to proceed yesterday. Secondly, Tom Gathright, Geologist, has promised me his report by August 18, 1999. Tom was selected by Nick EVans, Ph.D., Senior Geologist for the Sate of Virginia. The so(th well has been drilled and tested, but is not on line. We awarded a contract to a driller to put a pipe under a road, but have difficulty in getting him to perform. We estimate that it will be on line within two weeks. The well produces 12.5 gallons per minute and has been approved by the Health Department. We continue to import potable water at an average of 3500 gallons daily or 24,500 gallons per week. The sixth well may only provide enough water to enable us to stop the importation and will do little to solve our short fall I would welcome any guidance from you about the application and our next step in the process. Thanks for your assistance, Bill Hodson Member, Peacock Hill Board CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE CHARL 0 TTES VILLE-ALBEMARL E PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE Rauzelle J. Smith, Chair 804 979-4806 (Home) 804 924-4469 (Work) Bruce G. Carveth 804 295-3289 (Home) 804 979-7310 (Work) Ishmail Conway 804 977-9674 (Home) 804 924-7923 (Work) Grace Tinsley 804 293-2795 (Home) August 17, 1999 The Honorable Charles Martin, Chairman Board of Supervisors County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Martin: The Charlottesville-Albemarle Citizens Advisory Committee was deeply saddened to receive the resignation of Elizabeth Isley. During her tenure, she worked diligently and supported the cOmmittee in its efforts to define our goals and objectives. Her knowledge and experience will be difficult to replace and will be sorely missed bY the committee. She was a true advocate for those less fortunate. We request that the Board of Supervisors, at its earliest convenience appoint a replacement to complete the unexpired term. Until this appOintment is made, the committee will be operating without the valuable input from the County. If we may be of assistance, you may contact any member of the committee. Thank you, and the members of the Board of Supervisors for their assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Chairman g OARD OF SUPERVISORS 89:18 .F~OM TO 2965800 ~4!t~ C,asoad~ Df, v~ Fr~ U~o~ VA 22940 Smp~b~ 1,1999 P,O1 P.1 Dear Mr. Perki~: would like ~o r~iuesl a "Chil&en ax Pla? si~ to ~ ~t~ on S~ocd ~ M F~ U~o~ ~ere ~ c~6y foune~ ~1~ as~ 12 y~ ~d ~er ~ ~s ~ ~ · ~e j~ b~f~ ~s ~ on Sp~~ ~ ~ it is ~c~t for ~v~s ~o up ~d ~ off ~e el~~ school c~ Thank you for ~a~g ~: 1ime to look iuto tt~i~ mal~er, :Si~cerely, . Kar~ A Pen-lo TOTAL P.01