Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-01 r I I BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FINAL JUNE 1,2005 9:00 A.M., MEETING ROOM 241 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING . 1. Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda., 5. Recognitions: a. Proclamation recognizing June as Homeownership Month. b. Recognition of Crozet Master Plan by the Council on New Urbanism (CNU). 6. Consent Agenda (on next page). 7. 9:15 a.m. - Board to Board Presentation - School Board Chairman 8. 9:30 a.m. - Transportation Matters: a. Update on status of Rural Rustic Roads projects. b. Update on Route 795 (Blenheim Road) Improvements. c. Other Transportation Matters. 9. 10:15 a.m. - Overview of Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Robb. 10. 10:30 a.m. - Update by PEC, Rex Linville. 10:40 a.m. - Recess 11. 10:50 a.m. - Discussion: Remaining FY 2005/06 Budget issues: a. Emergency Medical Services to the Southern Rural Area. b. Outstanding Budget Issues. 12. 11:10 a.m. - Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report. 13. 11 :30 a.m. - Discussion: Community Development Update and Process Improvement. 14. 12:00 noon - Closed Session. 15. Certify Closed Session. 16. Boards and Commissions: a. Vacancies/Appointments. b. Proposed terms of office and term limits. 19. .m. - Public Hearin s: An Ordinance to amend Chapter 2, Administration, of the Albemarle County Code, to amend Section 2-202, Compensation of board of supervisors, to increase the compensation of board of supervisor members by 4.4% effective July 1,2005 from $12,467.00 per annum to $13,016.00 annum. An Ordinance to amend section 15-1400, Enhanced emergency telephone service tax - Levy and rate; effective date; exemptions, of the Albemarle County Code, to increase the monthly Emergency-911 fee from two dollars ($2.00) to three dollars ($3.00) for each access line, as authorized by Virginia Code Section 58.1-3813.1. The ordinance would also specify that amounts coJlected can be used to pay for costs incurred in training dispatchers and direct call- takers, as authorized by Virginia Code Section 58.1-3813.1 (F). Thomas Jefferson Planninq Dist Reqional Hazardous Mitiqation Plan - Request for approval of the Albemarle County portion of the region's Hazard Mitigation Plan, developed by the Thomas Jefferson Planning Dist Commission. The Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies actions to be taken to reduce or eliminate the risk to human life & property from natural disasters. The Plan was prepared w/input from the Charlottesville U.Va. Albemarle Emergency Services Center & Albemarle County staff. Possible mitigation options are cataloged under: Education & Outreach; Policy, Planning & Funding; Information and Data Development; & Structural Improvements. SP-2005-003. Footnotes Dance Studio (Siqns #71 &72). Request to allow private ballet school in accord w/Sec 23.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord which allows for priv schools in the CO Dist. This request would amend SP-96-48, which permitted a priv dance school at this location. TM 61W P 1 B-2, contains .525 acs. Znd CO. Loc on W side of Commonwealth Dr (Rt 1315) at intersec of Commonwealth Dr & Westfield Road (Rt 1452). Rio Dist. SP-2005-005. PetsMart (Siqn #35). Request to allow 2,500 sq ft of a 23,000 sq-ft retail bldg located in Hollymead Town Center for veterinary clinic, grooming facility & periodic pet adoption services in accord w/Sec(s) 25A.2.2-1, 22.2.2-5 & 24.2.2-4 of the Zoning Ord, which allows for e 20. 21. veterinary office & hospital use in a PD-MC, C-1 & HC Dist(s). TM 32 P 43, contains 2,000 sq ft. Znd PD-MC & EC. Loc on W side of US Rt 29 N, approx 1/4 mile S of intersec w/Airport Rd & across from the Forest Lakes Shopping Center. Rio Dist. 22. SP-2004-051. Free Union Church of the Brethren (Siqn #36). Request to allow expansion of existing church, Free Union Church of the Brethren, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2(35) of the Zoning Ord which allows for churches. TM 29, Ps 57, 58, & 59B, contains 2.5 acs. Znd RA. Loc at 4152 Free Union Rd (Rt 601), approx 1,000 ft S of its intersec w/Willington Rd (Rt 665). White Hall Dist. 23. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 24. Adjourn. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 6.1 Approval of Minutes: July 7, 2004; January 5, January 12(A), January 19(A), March 3(A), March 14(A), March 16(A), and March 16(N), 2005. Lake Albemarle Child At Play sign (Westover Drive). Resolution supporting rail service in Virginia. Revisions to Personnel Policies: P-05 "Criminal Convictions/Motor Vehicle Violations". Revisions to Personnel Policies: P-90 "Family and Medical Leave Act". 6.6 Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium Allocation of FY 2005 Funds. 6.7 Deferral Program for real estate taxes. ~ Resolution of Intent to amend Comp Plan and Zoning Ordinance, re: Affordable Housing. 6.9 Set public hearing on an ordinance to amend Chapter 10, Offenses-Miscellaneous, of the Albemarle County Code, to prohibit certain activities on public roadways and medians. FOR INFORMATION: 6.10 Copy of letter dated April 26, 2005 from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, to Agnes Shiflett, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels - Tax Map 56, Parcel 1 and Tax Map 55, Parcel 47 (property of Agnes Shiflett at;ld Chester C. Shiflett) - Section 10.3.1. 6.11 VDOT monthly report for June, 2005. 6.12 Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for April 26 and May 10, 2005. ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meetina of June 1 2005 June 3, 2005 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT 1. Call to Order. · Meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m. by the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Boyd. All BOS members except Mr. Rooker were present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry Davis and Debi Moyers. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. · Gary Grant mentioned the neighbors' concern with the noise issue on Route 29. · Marcia Joseph spoke about Route 795. Concerned that the County should decide which roads to pave in the rural areas and not a private citizen. · Debbie Donley stated she was opposed to the paving of Blenheim Road from the very beginning. Wanted Board to keep an open mind when considering finishing paving of Blenheim Road. · Bill Puso expressed appreciation to the Board regarding the completed work on Allen Road which was paved under the Rural Rustic Roads Program. Speaking on behalf of all the residents who use Allen Road, he stated they are very pleased with the result. · Laura Dollard spoke. Said she lives on Route 795 (the portion of road Mr. Sullivan wants to complete paving). Stated she is against having it paved by a private citizen. · Peter Kleeman said the Board should decline to act on Mr. Sullivan's offer to pave the remaining section of Route 795 until information can be provided to the citizens, and allow them to take part in the discussions. Sa. Proclamation recognizing June as Homeownership (Attachment 1) Month. · Vice-Chairman PRESENTED proclamation to Paul Harper of the Housing Office. 5b. Recognition of Crozet Master Plan by the Council on New Urbanism (CNU). · Vice-Chairman recognized Ken Schwartz of the Renaissance Planning Group, Warren Byrd of Nelson Byrd Woltz Landscape Architects, and Wayne Cilimberg, Department of Community Development for receiving the CNU's 2005 Charter Award. 6.2 Lake Albemarle Child At Play sign (Westover Clerk: Forward signed resolution to Juan Wade Drive). to forward necessary paperwork to VDOT. · ADOPTED the attached resolution. (Attachment 2) · Ms. Thomas asked staff to see why Child At Play signs have disappeared on Owensville Road. · Mr. Wyant asked if the Board can qet feedback and prior notification on these requests. 6.3 Resolution supporting rail service in Virginia. Clerk: Forward resolution to appropriate · ADOPTED the attached resolution. individuals. (Attachment 3) 6.4 Revisions to Personnel Policies: P-05 "Criminal Clerk: Forward signed resolution to Kimberly Convictions/Motor Vehicle Violations". Suyes and copy County Attorney's Office. · ADOPTED the attached resolution. (Attachment 4) 6.5 Revisions to Personnel Policies: P-90 "Family and Clerk: Forward signed resolution to Kimberly Medical Leave Act". Suyes and copy County Attorney's Office. · ADOPTED the attached resolution. (Attachment 5) 6.6 Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium Allocation of Ron White: Proceed as directed. FY 2005 Funds. · APPROVED staff's recommendation to designate AHIP and PHA as sub recipients for the administration of HOME funds with allocations as recommended by staff. 6.7 Deferral Program for real estate taxes. Richard Wiqqans: Information only. · APPROVED staff's recommendation not to adopt locally at this time. 6.8 Resolution of Intent to amend Comp Plan and Clerk: Forward copy of adopted resolutions to Zoning Ordinance, re: Affordable Housing. Planning Department, County Attorney's office, · ADOPTED Resolution of Intents to Amend the and Ron White. Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and (Attachment 6) Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan. 6.9 Set public hearing on an ordinance to amend Clerk: Advertise and schedule on July 6, 2005 Chapter 10, Offenses-Miscellaneous, of the agenda. Albemarle County Code, to prohibit certain activities on public roadways and medians. · SET public hearinq for July 6, 2005. 7. Board to Board Presentation, School Board Clerk: Forward comments to Superintendent Chairman. Castner. · RECEIVED from Gordon Walker. Mr. Dorrier asked about sister school in EI Salvador that Monticello High School has adopted and what the plans are. Mr. Walker said he will provide an update to the Board. 8a. Update on status of Rural Rustic Roads projects. Clerk: Forward comments to VDOT. · Ms. Thomas asked if Heards Mountain Road was next on the Rural Rustic Roads projects. Mr. Utterback stated he has asked VDOT staff to contact the residency in Nelson County to see what their plans are on completing their half of the road. He said Albemarle County is tied to what Nelson County is doing. He will find out where it is scheduled in Nelson County's program. · Mr. Boyd wanted to know if VDOT comes in under budget with Gilbert Station Road which is paved up to Doctors Crossing, could they do another 4/10ths of a mile to take the paving up to Ashlee subdivision. Mr. Utterback said VDOT is doing the job with state forces and Code of Virginia does not allow them to go over $300,000 on a project. He stated this project is close to that budget. He has asked staff to update the estimate and should get feedback by the end of the week. · Mr. Boyd asked if there are any additional funds 2 available this year to accelerate other projects. Mr. Utterback suggested seeing how the first two projects go and then look at the financial position. 8b. Update on Route 795 (Blenheim Road) Clerk: Forward comments to VDOT. Improvements. · Jim Utterback updated the Board on Route 795 improvements. · Mark Graham asked if the Board would like staff to bring back a resolution at next week's meeting to pave the additional 200 yards between Mr. Pleasant Farm and Route 713. CONSENSUS of the Board not to bring back a resolution. · Mr. Wyant brought up erosion control and wanted to know what the County's responsibility and VDOT's responsibility were. He has heard concerns and wants to make sure everyone is in compliance. Mr. Utterback said he has asked the inspector to take a look at. 8c. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda. Clerk: Forward comments to VDOT. Jim Utterback: · Provided an update on the signal at the Route 743/606 intersection. Mr. Bowerman said there has been some concern raised that signalization there will just cause more traffic on Route 743. He asked if the County can recapture any of the money from the temporary situation. Mr. Utterback stated some of the cost would be recovered, but not all of it. Mr. Bowerman wanted to know if equipment can be purchased in mind of being able to reuse it. Mr. Utterback said he will follow-up on that. · Updated Board on state identified County bridge projects. · Summarized County maintenance work. · Traffic Engineering has reviewed the request for "dangerous curve" signage on Buck Mountain Road. They have recommended a change in the sign scheme. They have also recommended a dashed edge line to come around the curve to help guide motorists. · VDOT has completed its review of Old Trail Bridge. · There is a meeting planned next week with the County, developer and VDOT on the Mosby Mountain Bridge to try and get that to resolution. · Regarding Via Lane, VDOT is trying to verify the location of the End of State Maintenance sign. David Wyant: · Mentioned badly deteriorated private sewer line at McCauley Street. Asked County staff to look into to see what can be done. Sally Thomas: · Thanked Mr. Utterback for the ride arounds. Stated they have been valuable. 3 · Tilman Road intersection with Route 250, people are still fearful of intersection, even with blinking light and larger yellow signs. It is still hard to get on Route 250 from Tilman in either direction. She asked if signs could be more official, white instead of advisory yellow. Mr. Utterback said he would follow up with his Traffic Engineer. Ken Boyd: · He has been requested by the Senior Center to install a directional sign on Route 29 and Greenbrier Drive indicating how to get to the Senior Center. The Senior Center has offered to pay for the sign. Mr. Utterback said he will follow-up with outdoor advertising. Will update at next Board meeting. Lindsay Dorrier: · Said he also appreciated the ride around in the Scottsville District. 9. Overview of Sheriffs Department, Sheriff Robb. · PROVIDED update on the Sheriffs office. 10. Update by PEC, Rex Linville. · PROVIDED update on Colesville Rural Historic District, conservation successes in 2004, and emerQinQ State and Federal level issues. . The Board recessed at 10:45 a.m. and reconvened at 10:58 a.m. 11a. Emergency Medical Services to the Southern Rural Dan Eqqleston: Proceed as directed. Area. · APPROVED, by a vote of 5:0, staffs recommendation to place 3 additional fire fighter/ALS first response personnel at Monticello Fire/Rescue station and to change the dispatch protocol policv. 11 b. Outstanding Budget issues. Melvin Breeden: Proceed with budget · APPROVED, by a vote of 5:0, a one time amendment and appropriation request to be funding allocation of $10,000 to Save the scheduled on July, 2005 agenda. Fireworks organization for FY 05/06. · APPROVED, by a vote of 5:0, to forgive the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department loan debt. · APPROVED, by a vote of 5:0, to implement the Public Safety Reclassification study July 1, 2005. 12. Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report. · RECEIVED for information. 13. Discussion: Community Development Update and Mark Graham: Proceed as directed. Process Improvement. · DISCUSSED. CONSENSUS of the Board to have staff bring back further information on mechanism on deferrals, the Planning Commission's involvement in the ministerial reviews, defining the expectations at the start of projects, assuring the County has public involvement in the participation process, and the County's proffer policv. 14. Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. · At 12:37 p.m., the Board went into closed 4 session to consider appointments to boards, committees, and commissions; to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding legal issues concerning an interjurisdictional agreement; and to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding legal issues concerning the collection of taxes. 15. Certified Close Session. · At 2:03 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and certified the closed session. 16a. Appointments. Clerk: Prepare reappointmenUappointment · REAPPOINTED Bryan Elliott to letters, update Boards and Commissions book Charlottesville/Albemarle Convention & Visitors and notify appropriate persons. Bureau Management Board with said term to expire June 30,2007. · REAPPOINTED Madison Cummings to Commission on Children and Families with said term to expire June 30, 2008. · REAPPOINTED Donna Plasket to Piedmont Virginia Community College Board with said term to expire June 30, 2009. · REAPPOINTED Roxanne White to Region Ten Community Services Board with said term to expire June 30, 2008. · REAPPOINTED Paul Sisk to Workforce Investment Board with said term to expire June 30, 2008. · APPOINTED Phil James to Blue Ridge Committee for Shenandoah Park Relations. · APPOINTED Brian Bills as Youth Representative for Commission on Children and Families with said term to expire June 30, 2006. 16b. Proposed Term Limits. · No action. 17. An Ordinance to amend Chapter 2, Administration, Clerk: Forward adopted ordinance to County of the Albemarle County Code, to amend Section 2- Attorney's Office for inclusion in next update of 202, Compensation of board of supervisors, to County Code. Fill out Employee Action increase the compensation of board of supervisor Requests and send to Human Resources and members by 4.4% effective July 1,2005 from copy Payroll. $12,467.00 per annum to $13,016.00 annum. (Attachment 7) · ADOPTED the ordinance, bv a vote of 5:0. 18. An Ordinance to amend section 15-1400, Clerk: Forward adopted ordinance to County Enhanced emergency telephone service tax - Attorney's Office for inclusion in next update of Levy and rate; effective date; exemptions, of the County Code. Copy OMB/Finance. Albemarle County Code, to increase the monthly (Attachment 8) Emergency-911 fee from two dollars ($2.00) to three dollars ($3.00) for each access line, as authorized by Virginia Code Section 58.1- 3813.1. The ordinance would also specify that amounts collected can be used to pay for costs incurred in training dispatchers and direct call- takers, as authorized by Virginia Code Section 58.1-3813.1(F). · ADOPTED the ordinance, bv a vote of 5:0. 19. Thomas Jefferson Planning District Regional Hazardous Mitigation Plan. · Ms. Thomas asked that the addendum 5 submitted May 6,2005 for the Action Item: "Create an Emergency Action Plan for the Upper Ragged Mountain Dam" be eliminated or modify the language. Mr. Tucker asked the Board to give Mr. Wanner/T JPDC's staff flexibility on the proper wording to include in the plan. · HELD public hearing. · APPROVED, by a vote of 5:0, the T JPDC Regional Hazardous Mitigation Plan. 20. SP-2005-003. Footnotes Dance Studio (Signs Clerk: Set out conditions of approval. #71&72). (Attachment 9) · APPROVED SP-2005-003, by a vote of 5:0, subject to the two conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. 21. SP-2005-005. PetsMart (Sign #35). Clerk: Set out conditions of approval. · APPROVED SP-2005-005, by a vote of 5:0, (Attachment 9) subject to the two conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. 22. SP-2004-051. Free Union Church of the Brethren Clerk: Set out conditions of approval. (Sign #36). (Attachment 9) · APPROVED SP-2004-051, by a vote of 5:0, subject to the five conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. 23. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. David Wyant: · Asked about status of water option issues. Ms. Thomas said the Chair, Mayor, County Executive, City Manager, some staff and the consultants for Rivanna have been meeting and are getting something prepared for the pre- application meeting with the regulators. · Said he prefers one day meeting, during the Lori Allshouse: Proceed as directed. week, for the Board of Supervisors retreat rather than a split. The remaining four Board members agreed with Mr. Wyant. Sally Thomas: · Would like an accounting of the grants received OMB: Proceed as directed. for homeland security. · Asked staff to bring a Resolution of Intent to the Mark Graham: Proceed as directed. July 6th Board meeting to consider changing Clerk: Schedule on July 6th agenda contractors office and equipment storage yard from by right use in LI Zoning district to Special Use Permit. · Updated Board on Mountain Overlay District. Working on and agree on 3 issues: strengthening environmental protection for the mountains, making sure that development that does take place in the mountain district will be only in the form of clustering, and preserving the mountain overlay district through voluntary measures and encouraging that in any way they can. · Represented the Board at a seminar that was held by VML and VACO on the potential impacts of the two property tax relief proposals in Virginia put forth by the gubernatorial candidates. Will send an email to Board 6 members when it is on VML's webpage. · Asked that food donation given to Board by Gary Grant be given to Social Services Department to be used for clients as appropriate. Ken Boyd: . Wanted to know if the County was going to participate in the on-line survey system across the state regarding compensation. Mr. Davis stated the County has done this informally for a number of years. Adjourn. · The meetinq was adiourned at 3:05 p.m. Clerk: Notify and forward donation to Social Services Department. 24. /djm Attachment 1 - Proclamation recognizing June as Homeownership Month Attachment 2 - Lake Albemarle Child At Play sign (Westover Drive) Attachment 3 - Resolution supporting rail service in Virginia Attachment 4 - Resolution approving proposed changes to Personnel Policy P-05 Attachment 5 - Resolution approving proposed changes to Personnel Policy P-90 Attachment 6 - Resolution of Intents to Amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan. Attachment 7 - Ordinance to Amend Chapter 2, Administration, of the Albemarle County Code, to amend Section 2-202, Compensation of Board of Supervisors Attachment 8 - Ordinance to Amend Section 15-1400, Enhanced emergency telephone service tax- levy and rate Attachment 9 - Conditions of Approval for Planning Items 7 WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, ATTACHMENT 1 HOMEOWNERSHIP MONTH the month of June has been proclaimed as National Homeownership Month in an effort to focus on benefits of homeownership and to increase homeownership; and the County of Albemarle recognizes homeownership as an important part of strong communities; and owning a home allows people the best opportunity to build wealth through asset appreciation and provide a stable living environment for their families; and the County of Albemarle is supporting homeownership for those working families desiring to purchase their first home by providing homebuyer counseling, supporting HOMEBUYER CLUBS, and providing direct financial homebuyer assistance; and the County's HOMEBUYER CLUBS reached a milestone in 2004 with the 100th family purchasing their first home; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED that I, Kenneth C. Boyd, Vice-Chairman on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim and recognize the significance of June,2005 as HOMEOWNERSHIP MONTH in Albemarle County, Virginia. 8 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO INSTALL CHILD AT PLAY SIGN ON WESTOVER DRIVE WHEREAS, the residents of Westover Drive in the Lake Albemarle subdivision are concerned about traffic in their neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that live and play in the subdivision; and WHEREAS, there are numerous children that live and play on Westover Drive and the residents believe that a "Child at Play" sign would help alleviate some of the concerns. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby supports the community's requests for VDOT to install the necessary "Child at Play" signs on Westover Drive (Route 1701). 9 ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, support the appeals of Virginia citizens, Governor Mark Warner, and his predecessor Governor Jim Gilmore, with overwhelming support from the Virginia General Assembly during the 2005 and 2000 Sessions, respectively, have clearly and decisively placed the Commonwealth of Virginia in a leadership position, with meaningful funding support, in pursuit of a more fully-developed intercity rail network for the movement of both people and goods; and WHEREAS, Virginia and other states, notably neighboring North Carolina, recognize that a national rail network is essential to the ultimate success of rail development to augment and relieve other modes of transportation currently under stress. No single state can do it alone; and WHEREAS, Virginia lacks a Federal partner, without which the intercity rail development hopes and aspirations of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved; and WHEREAS, the current Amtrak restructuring initiative of the Bush Administration, as articulated by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta, represents both an opportunity as well as a serious risk to the interests and long-term objectives of the Commonwealth of Virginia, its business and commercial interests, and our citizens; and WHEREAS, the risk is that much of what we have in place today might be lost in an overly- simplistic approach to the "purging" of Amtrak. The National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak) represents but a very thin veneer concealing much deeper and more fundamental problems that adversely affect the viability and handling capacity of the U.S. rail network - both freight and passenger; and WHEREAS, the deteriorating rail situation in the U.S. has spiraled downward for more than fifty years. It would be unrealistic to expect to correct it overnight. It cannot be fixed without MORE, rather than less, public funding at the Federal level; and WHEREAS, a goal of the United Jefferson Area Mobility Plan (UnJam 2025), which combines the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transportation (CHART) Plan for the Metropolitan Planning Organization area with the Rural Area Transportation Long Range Plan, is to improve regional rail service and support the movement of passenger service where possible; and WHEREAS, the UnJam recommends increased passenger rail service for both local and regional commuter and intra/interstate travel options; and WHERAS, the UnJam recommends improved headways for freight to clear up time for passenger service, regular and consistent time slots for passenger service and improved technology so that freight and people can better coexist on the same railway; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby seek your leadership in formulating a multi-year, phased solution; a solution that is transformative rather than one that is precipitous and punitive. We urge you to protect the passenger rail infrastructure and services that we now have in place in Virginia, and to complement such transitional efforts with a well-conceived Federal program that, like Federal support for highways, ports and aviation, enhances and promotes rail transportation in partnership with the Commonwealth of Virginia and its privately-owned railroads. 10 ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, current provisions in the Personnel Policy Manual addressing the effect of an applicant's or employee's arrest or criminal conviction are outdated and in need of revision to permit Human Resources and other departments to take appropriate action in such cases in the best interests of the County, its employees and citizens; and WHEREAS, the proposed provisions reflect the need of the County to properly consider the effect of an arrest or criminal conviction on an applicant's or employee's continued suitability for County employment. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to adopt these Personnel Policy revisions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby amends the following sections of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual: By Amending: Section P-05 Criminal Convictions/Motor Vehicle Violations Policy Section P-05 Effect of Criminal Conviction or Arrest It is the policy of the Board not to employ or to continue the employment of classified, professional or administrative personnel who may be deemed unsuited for service by reason of arrest and/or criminal conviction. While an arrest or conviction of a crime, in and of itself, may not be an automatic bar to employment if an arrest or conviction relates to suitability of the individual to perform duties in a particular position, such person may be denied employment or may face disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Individuals applying for employment with Albemarle County for any position shall be required to disclose prior convictions of law other than minor traffic violations or juvenile offenses. Information provided by applicants may be verified by work history, personal reference or criminal record inquiries to determine the applicant's acceptability for employment. Where a prior conviction is ascertained, the County will consider the nature of the offense, the date of the offense, and the relationship between the offense and the position for which application is sought. If an applicant makes any misrepresentation or willful omissions of fact regarding prior criminal history, such misrepresentation or omission shall be sufficient cause for disqualification of the applicant or termination of employment. In the event that any employee, whether full-time or part-time, probationary or non probationary, is arrested for a criminal violation of any kind, whether misdemeanor or felony, he is required to report such arrest promptly to the employee's supervisor or department head within one (1) business day unless mitigating circumstances exist. This reporting requirement applies regardless of whether such arrest has occurred on-duty or off-duty. Failure to comply with this reporting requirement shall be grounds for disciplinary action, up to and including termination. In addition, all employees shall have the continuing duty to notify the County of any arrest or criminal conviction that occurs subsequent to being hired by the County. Supervisors or department heads shall contact the Human Resources Director or designee upon receiving notification that an employee has been arrested. The County reserves the right to determine appropriate disciplinary action in such cases, up to and including termination, depending upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest. Applicants for all County positions shall be informed that they will be required, as a condition of employment, to sign a statement authorizing Albemarle County to have both a criminal history background check and a motor vehicle violation investigation performed. As permitted by law, the County is authorized to consider any criminal conviction history or motor vehicle violations in determining whether to make an offer of employment to the applicant, and shall retain sole discretion to determine whether 11 prior criminal history or motor vehicle violations shall disqualify an applicant from further consideration for County employment. The information collected shall be privileged, confidential and used only in determining the candidate's qualifications for employment and assignment. If an applicant for employment with Albemarle County should refuse to permit a criminal history record search, that applicant will be removed from further employment consideration and informed accordingly. Applicants who omit criminal convictions from their application may be denied employment for falsification of the application, and, if hired, may be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including immediate dismissal for withholding such information on the application. A new application may be filed after three (3) calendar years provided the person at that time lists his convictions. An authorization for Albemarle County to conduct a criminal conviction/motor vehicle violation investigation and its satisfactory outcome are conditions of employment. Once the County has reviewed an applicant's criminal history record and has made an administrative determination concerning employment suitability, the record will be retained in a file separate from the official personnel file. If a criminal record is obtained that would prohibit employment under Albemarle County policy, the applicanUemployee will be so informed and his application for employment removed from consideration and/or the employee will be subject to termination. If the response indicates a conviction(s), the Director of Human Resources will review the response. The County shall have the sole discretion to determine whether any convictions or violations are related to the duties of the position for which application is made or whether they affect the fitness of the applicant to work for the County. Except as directed by court order or as otherwise required or permitted by law, conviction information received by Albemarle County as part of the employment process will not be disseminated to any third party not directly involved in the hiring process. Amended: August 4, 1993 Legal Reference: Code of Virqinia. 1950. as amended. Chapter 23. Sec. 19.2-389 (7) 12 ATTACHMENT 5 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that an amendment to Personnel Policy P-90 is necessary to clarify policies relating to paid leave and the Family and Medical Leave; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby amends the following sections of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual: By Amending: Section P-90 Family and Medical Leave Act, Supplemental Leave Section P-90 FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT - Supplemental Leave A. Purpose of Policy This policy is written to assist the Albemarle County Local Government in complying with the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. This policy seeks to balance the needs of the employer with the needs of its employees and their families. B. Definitions Child: Includes biological, adopted, foster, step, or legal ward child for whom the employee acts in a parental role, providing care and financial support. The child must be under age 18, unless he/she is incapable of self-care due to mental or physical disability. Eligible Employee: An eligible employee: 1) Has been employed at least one year; 2) Has worked at least 1250 hours during the 12 months immediately preceding the proposed leave; 3) Has not used all available Family Medical Leave (FML) in the previous rolling year; and 4) Meets the conditions of the FMLA. Family: Family is defined as the employee's spouse, children, and parents. Health Care Provider: Parent: A licensed doctor of medicine or osteopathy or any other person determined by the U.S. Secretary of Labor to be capable of providing health care service. Biological parents as well as any others who have acted in the place of a parent to the employee. Serious Health Condition: A physical or mental illness or an injury requiring inpatient care at a medical facility or continued treatment by a health-care provider that causes the employee to be absent from work on a recurring basis or for more than three full days. Job-Protected: The employee is guaranteed the right to return to his former position or to an equivalent position. Week: A week is defined as the annual authorized regular hours of the employee's position, divided by 52. 13 C. Conditions of Leave 1. General Information The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides up to 12 workweeks of unpaid job-protected leave per year to eligible employees for one or more of the following qualifying events: 1) The birth and first-year care of the employee's newborn child; 2) Placement of a child with the employee for adoption, or by the State for foster care; 3) To care for the employee's spouse, child or parent with a serious health condition (this does not include in-laws); and 4) The employee's own serious health condition. 2. Notification Requirements When the need for leave under FMLA is foreseeable, as in the case of the expected birth, adoption or foster care placement of a child or planned medical treatment for a serious health condition of the employee or a family member, the employee is required to provide at least 30 days advance notice to his supervisor either verbally or in writing. In the event that it is not practicable to give such advance notice, due to a lack of knowledge of approximately when leave will be required to begin, a change in circumstances, or a medical emergency, the employee should give as much advance notice as is practicable, ordinarily within one or two business days of when he learns of the need for the leave. The administrative process will be initiated by the employee submitting an FMLA Request Form, which is available from the Human Resources Department. If the reason for leave involves a serious health condition of either the employee or the employee's family member, the employee will be given a Certification of Health Care Provider form that must be completed by the patient's physician and returned to HR within 15 calendar days. Employees granted leave under FMLA will receive a Notice of Employee Obligations under FMLA outlining conditions governing the leave. If an employee does not notify his supervisor that he requests FML, but the supervisor has reason to believe that a leave request would meet the guidelines covered under the Act, the supervisor should contact Human Resources, which will then provide the employee with information regarding the FMLA. If an employee is eligible for FML, then the leave time will be counted against FML. 3. Both Parents Working for the County In cases where both parents are County employees, they may take a combined total of 12 weeks of FML for birth, adoption, and foster care placement. They may each take 12 weeks for their own illness or that of their spouse, child or parent. 4. Covered Time Period Eligible employees may take up to 12 weeks of leave during a rolling 12-month period. This is defined as the 12-month period measured forward from the date an employee's first FML begins. 5. Intermittent or Reduced Leave While most family and medical leave occurrences will necessitate leave to be taken in a single block of several weeks, the employee may request "intermittent" leave or "reduced leave schedule" to care for a seriously ill family member or for the employee's own serious health condition where the need for leave is foreseeable and based on planned medical treatment. In the case of the need for a reduced leave schedule or intermittent use of leave, a certification of medical necessity is required from the health care provider and an appropriate work schedule should be planned in advance with the supervisor, when possible. An employee may take reduced leave for the birth, adoption or foster care placement of a son or daughter only if the employee and employer agree to such an arrangement. If the employee requests intermittent leave or reduced leave schedule, the County may temporarily 14 transfer the employee to an available alternative position with equivalent pay and benefits, if the employee is qualified for the position and it better accommodates recurring periods of leave than the employee's regular job. D. Medical Certification Requirements When the necessity for FML exists due to the employee's own serious health condition or the serious health condition of a spouse, parent, or child, certification of the condition and a statement of the need for leave are required from the health care provider(s), using the Certification of Health Care Provider form provided by Human Resources. If the employee fails to provide the requested information to the designated HR Specialist within 15 calendar days of receipt of the form, the leave may not be job- protected under the FMLA. The County may require a second opinion by a health care provider of its choice, and at its expense. If the two opinions differ, a third opinion may be requested from a provider selected jointly by the employee and the County. This third opinion, to be paid for by the County, is final and binding. It is the employee's responsibility to maintain up-to-date medical status while on FML. The County may also require periodic reports from the employee as to the employee's status and intent to return to work. E. Substitution of Paid Leave The FMLA provides for a maximum of 12 weeks of unpaid leave. If the FML is due to the employee's own medical condition, the employee will first be compensated using any accrued sick leave and sick bank benefits, as applicable. Time will be charged concurrently against these paid types of leave and FML for a period of up to 12 weeks. If the FML is due to the illness of an employee's spouse, parent, or child, the employee will first be compensated using accrued sick leave. (Employees are not eligible for sick bank benefits in these circumstances.) Time will be charged concurrently against the available accrued sick leave and FML for a period of up to 12 weeks. The remainder, if any, of the leave requested will be charged against accrued annual leave and compensatory leave prior to the employee going on unpaid leave, except that the employee may save one (1) week of annual leave for use at a later time. Employees should check with HR to determine what types of leave will run concurrently with their FML. The type of leave taken must be in compliance with the provisions of the applicable leave policy found in this manual. Time missed during worker's compensation related injuries, which otherwise meet the requirements of the FMLA, may run concurrently with FML. F. Benefits 1. Insurance Continuation Privileges Employees on unpaid leave that is designated as FML will continue to receive their employer portion of the medical and dental insurance benefits up to the maximum 12 workweeks allowed. These benefits will continue on the same basis as an active employee during this 12-week period. Employees must remit the necessary premium for the employee portion to cover themselves and eligible dependents. As in the case of any unpaid leave of absence, the employee must make arrangements to pay applicable medical, dental, and life insurance premiums. 2. Other Employee Benefits In all cases where an employee is using some form of approved, accrued leave such as annual leave, compensatory leave, sick leave, or sick bank, all employee benefits continue as long as the employee remains on the payroll through the use of such leave time. If unpaid leave is taken, employee 15 benefits other than health, dental and life insurance are discontinued for the duration of the unpaid leave status as follows: a) The accrual of annual or sick leave is discontinued after ten (10) days of unpaid leave and for the duration of the unpaid leave status. b) The Virginia Retirement System (VRS) contribution is based on a percent of the employee's income. No contribution is made for periods of unpaid leave. Upon returning to work, the employee may be eligible to purchase the lost service with VRS, if the leave is necessitated by birth or adoption, as defined by VRS policies. G. Returning from FML 1. Medical form An employee returning from FML due to his own serious health condition must submit a statement on the required form to Human Resources, from his attending physician, indicating the employee is physically and mentally capable of returning to work. 2. Restoration to Position When an eligible employee is released to return to work following FML, he will be restored to the position held at the time the leave began or to an equivalent position with equivalent benefits, compensation and other terms and conditions of employment. Any issues regarding equivalency should be reviewed with Human Resources. In order to be guaranteed restoration, the employee must return to work at or before the end of the 12-week family leave period. If an employee would have been laid off had he not been on FML, any right to reinstatement would be whatever it would have been had the employee not been on FML. Certain "key" employees may be denied job restoration. A "key" employee is defined as a salaried FMLA-eligible employee who is among the highest paid 10 percent of all County employees. A key employee will be notified as soon as practicable after receipt of a request for FML that he is considered to be a key employee. Employees on unpaid FML are not eligible for any unemployment benefits. H. Record Keeping and Anti-Retaliation The Director of Human Resources shall maintain records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the Act. The Act requires also that no employee be subject to any penalty for seeking rights under the Act or for testifying for or otherwise helping other employees seek rights under the Act. I. Adoption of Policy This Section P-90 of the Personnel Manual was adopted and is intended to fully implement the Act, subject to the penalties prescribed in the Act. Any variation between this policy and the Family and Medical Leave Act will be determined in favor of the Act. Adopted: September 1, 1993 Legal Ref.: Familv and Medical Leave Act - Public Law 103-3, 1993 16 ATTACHMENT 6 RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, there is a shortage of affordable housing in Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, in order to establish meaningful strategies to address the shortage of affordable housing, the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan (the "Comprehensive Plan") recommends that the existing density bonus program available in the residential zoning districts be examined to determine why the program has not been significantly used; and WHEREAS, a County study found that the existing density bonus program has not been significantly used because few, if any, development proposals seek more residential density than would be allowed by right, a developer seeking the 30% density bonus under the program would have to provide all of the bonus dwelling units as affordable housing, and the current regulations do not preserve the affordability of the units; and WHEREAS, it is desired to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to encourage affordable housing by providing revised density bonuses when affordable housing is proposed, and to make other changes that would encourage developers to participate in the density bonus program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend section 2.4, entitled "Intent of the Bonus Factor Provisions," sections 12.4.3, 13.4.3, 14.4.3, 15.4.3, 16.4.3, 17.4.3 and 18.4.3, each entitled "Low and Moderate Cost Housing," and any other regulations of the Zoning Ordinance deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date. ***** RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, there is a shortage of affordable housing in Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, setting specific targets for the development of affordable dwelling units is one of the strategies identified in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan (the "Comprehensive Plan") to provide affordable housing in Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan currently states that, at a minimum, 15% of all dwelling units developed under a rezoning or a special use permit should be affordable, or a comparable contribution should be made to achieve the County's affordable housing goals; and WHEREAS, it is desired to amend the Comprehensive Plan to establish the basis for calculating the number of affordable dwelling units to be proffered based on the additional dwelling units allowed after the rezoning; and WHEREAS, it is also desired to amend the Comprehensive Plan to establish a formula for calculating the cash or cash-equivalent proffers for a rezoning in lieu of proffering the recommended number of affordable dwelling units. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare, good planning and land use practices and, in particular, to achieve Albemarle County's affordable housing goals, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan as described herein, and to make any other 17 changes to the Comprehensive Plan deemed to be necessary in order to achieve the purposes described herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date. 18 ATTACHMENT 7 ORDINANCE NO. 05-2(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE II, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, Board of Supervisors, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2-202, Compensation of Board of Supervisors, as follows: CHAPTER 2. ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE II. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Sec. 2-202 Compensation of board of supervisors. The salary of the board of supervisors shall be thirteen thousand sixteen dollars ($13,016.00) for each board member effective July 1, 2005. In addition to the regular salary, the vice-chairman shall receive a stipend of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each and every meeting chaired and the chairman shall receive an annual stipend of one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800.00). (6-13-84; 5-8-85; 5-14-86; 7-1-87; 7-6-88; 6-7-89; Ord. of 6-13-90; Ord. of 8-1-90; Ord. of 8-7-91; Ord. of 7-1-92; Ord. No. 95-2(1), 6-14-95; Ord. No. 98-2(1), 6-17-98; Code 1988, § 2-2.1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. No. 99-2(1), 5-5-99; Ord. No. 00-2(1), 6-7-00; Ord. 01-2(2), 6-6-01; Ord. 02-2(2), 5-1-02; Ord. 03- 2(1),6-4-03; Ord. 04-2(1),6-2-04; Ord. 05-2(1),6-1-05) State law reference--Compensation of board of supervisors, Va. Code § 15.2-1414.3. This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2005. 19 ATTACHMENT 8 ORDINANCE NO. 05-15(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE XIV, ENHANCED EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SERVICE T AX--E-911, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 15, Taxation, Article XIV, Enhanced Emergency Telephone Service Tax-E-911, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 15-1400 Enhanced emergency telephone service tax-Levy and rate; effective date; exemptions CHAPTER 15. TAXATION ARTICLE XIV. ENHANCED EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SERVICE TAX--E-911 Sec. 15-1400 Enhanced emergency telephone service tax--Levy and rate; effective date; exemptions. A. Pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-3813.1, there is hereby imposed a special tax on consumers of telephone service in the amount of three dollars ($3.00) per month for each access line. B. Amounts collected from this tax shall be used solely to pay for reasonable, direct recurring and nonrecurring capital costs, and operating expenses incurred by a public safety answering point in designing, upgrading, leasing, purchasing, programming, installing, testing, administering, delivering, or maintaining all necessary data, hardware and software required to receive and process emergency telephone calls through an E-911 system, including salaries and fringe benefits of dispatchers and direct call-takers of an E-911 system and costs incurred in training dispatchers and direct call-takers in receiving and dispatching emergency telephone calls, and the salary and fringe benefits of the public safety answering point director or coordinator so long as such person has no other duties other than the responsibility for the public safety answering point. C. This tax shall not be imposed on federal, state or local government agencies or on consumers of CMRS, as such term is defined in Virginia Code § 56-484.12. D. This tax shall apply to all bills rendered on and after November 1, 2005. (Ord. of 2-6-91; Ord. No. 95-8(1), 7-12-95; Code 1988, § 8-59; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 02-15(2), 4-17- 02; Ord. 05-15(1), 6-1-05) This ordinance shall be effective on and after November 1, 2005. 20 ATTACHMENT 9 SP-200S-003. Footnotes Dance Studio (SiQns #71&72). Request to allow private ballet school in accord w/Sec 23.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord which allows for priv schools in the CO Dist. This request would amend SP-96-48, which permitted a priv dance school at this location. TM 61 W P 1 B-2, contains .525 acs. Znd CO. Loc on W side of Commonwealth Dr (Rt 1315) at intersec of Commonwealth Dr & Westfield Road (Rt 1452). Rio Dist. 1. There shall be no technical or vocational schools which involve outdoor activities, such as construction and automotive repair, without approval of a separate special use permit; and 2. The school shall not operate after 10:00 p.m. SP-200S-005. PetsMart (SiQn #35). Request to allow 2,500 sq ft of a 23,000 sq-ft retail bldg located in Hollymead Town Center for veterinary clinic, grooming facility & periodic pet adoption services in accord w/Sec(s) 25A.2.2-1, 22.2.2-5 & 24.2.2-4 of the Zoning Ord, which allows for veterinary office & hospital use in a PD-MC, C-1 & HC Dist(s). TM 32 P 43, contains 2,000 sq ft. Znd PD-MC & EC. Loc on W side of US Rt 29 N, approx 1/4 mile S of intersec w/Airport Rd & across from the Forest Lakes Shopping Center. Rio Dist. 1. The veterinary services (as shown on the concept plan entitled Major Siteplan Amendment for Hollymead Towncenter, Area B, Rio District, Albemarle County, Virginia prepared by Rivanna Engineering & Surveying, PLC. and dated December 6,2004) located at Outparcel H shall be limited to not more than twenty-five hundred (2,500) square feet; and 2. There shall be no outside runs or kennels. SP-2004-0S1. Free Union Church of the Brethren (SiQn #36). Request to allow expansion of existing church, Free Union Church of the Brethren, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2(35) of the Zoning Ord which allows for churches. TM 29, Ps 57, 58, & 59B, contains 2.5 acs. Znd RA. Loc at 4152 Free Union Rd (Rt 601), approx 1,000 ft S of its intersec w/Willington Rd (Rt 665). White Hall Dist. 1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled "Free Union Church of the Brethren Concept Plan ," revised April 22, 2005, including the note relating to combining the parcels; 2. The area of assembly shall be limited to the existing ninety (90)-seat sanctuary; 3. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit; 4. Construction of the proposed addition shall commence within four (4) years or this special use permit shall expire; and 5. The applicants shall secure a VDOT construction permit for the modified entrance from Route 601. 21 . HOMEOWNERSHIP MONTH WHEREAS, the month of June has been proclaimed as National Homeownership Month in an effort to focus on benefits of homeownership and to increase homeownership; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle recognizes homeownership as an important part of strong communities; and WHEREAS, owning a home allows people the best opportunity to build wealth through asset appreciation and provide a stable living environment for their families; and . WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is supporting homeownership for those working families desiring to purchase their first home by providing homebuyer counseling, supporting HOMEBUYER CLUBS, and providing direct financial homebuyer assistance; and WHEREAS, the County's HOMEBUYER CLUBS reached a milestone in 2004 with the 10(jh family purchasing their first home; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED that I, Kenneth C. Boyd, Vice-Chairman on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim and recognize the significance of June, 2005 as HOMEOWNERSHIP MONTH in Albemarle County, Virginia. Signed and sealed this 1st day of June, 2005. VICE-CHAIRMAN ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS . - COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Lake Albemarle Child At Play Sign Request AGENDA DATE: June 1, 2005 ACTION: INFORMATION: SUBJECT ¡PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of Child At Play Sign Request for residents of Westover Drive CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: 1 LEGAL REVIEW: Yes BACKGROUND: The residents of Westover Drive in the Lake Albemarle subdivision have requested a child-at-play sign (Attachment A). There are approximately 30 homes on Westover Drive with 34 children. Westover Drive is approximately three-quarters of a mile long. VDOT requires a resolution of support from the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors approved the placement of a child at play sign for Lake Albemarle Road in 2004. ~7'VÍt~ .TRATEGIC PLAN: .1 Make the County a Safe and Healthy Community In which citizens feel secure to live, work and play. DISCUSSION: The County has developed criteria for reviewing a "Child at Play" request. The criteria and staff comments are provided below. 1. "Child At Plav" siqns shall onlv be considered on secondary roads. Westover Drive is in the Secondary Road System (Route 1701). 2. The request must come from a Homeowner's Association where applicable. Please find attached a letter from the residents of Westover Drive. 3. There must be child activity attraction nearby for the siqn to be considered. Westover Drive is a cul-de-sac. There is no established tot lot, playground or sidewalk on Westover Drive. Due to these absences, the children that live on this road often have to walk and/or pedal in the street to other homes that may have a swing or court. Due to absence of sidewalks, children have to walk in the street. According to the request letter, 34 children live on this road. Staff believes that "Child at Play" signs will give notice to the traveling public that children may be in the area and using the road to get from one home to another. The average cost to install a sign is approximately $125. 4. The installation of the siqn shall not conflict with any existinq traffic control devices. The proposed location of the signs will not conflict with any existing traffic control devices. This request meets 3 of the 4 criteria. There are no central child activity attraction areas along the road (criteria 3). However, given the number of children in the neighborhood and the lack of sidewalks, it is staffs opinion that this request for a "Child at Play" sign has merit. RECOM M ENDATIONS: .taff recommends the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached (Attachment B) resolution supporting the installation of Child at Play" signs on Westover Drive. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Resolution from residents requestinq a Child at Plav Siqn 05.055 2300 Westover Dr Chartottesville. VA 22901 823-8278 March 24, 2005 Jennifer Kuzjak Juan Wade Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 Mdntire Rd 296-5823, ext 3368 Dear Mr. Juan Wade, Subject: Child at Play Sign This letter is in regards to our phone conveffiation conceming the traffic speed in our neighborhood, and on Westover Drive. am requesting a Child at Play Sign be considered for our street Our street is a dead end, approximately 3/41h of a mile long. There are no sidewalks, and in this small neighborhood, we have approx 34 children. Neighbors and children walk, ride bikes, walk dogs, and play in and around the street, moving from one house to another. It is wonderful, except for the fear of cars speeding. I hope to raise awareness of the posted speed, and children playing, with the posting of this sign. Many neighbors of the children have also expressed concem of speeding cars. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, r/ !CuZ- j J<:.... Jennifer Kuzjak RECEIVED !'J\:~ " " 2C05 :OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT · · · RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, support the appeals of Virginia citizens, Governor Mark Warner, and his predecessor Governor Jim Gilmore, with overwhelming support from the Virginia General Assembly during the 2005 and 2000 Sessions, respectively, have clearly and decisively placed the Commonwealth of Virginia in a leadership position, with meaningful funding support, in pursuit of a more fully-developed intercity rail network for the movement of both people and goods; and WHEREAS, Virginia and other states, notably neighboring North Carolina, recognize that a national rail network is essential to the ultimate success of rail development to augment and relieve other modes of transportation currently under stress. No single state can do it alone; and WHEREAS, Virginia lacks a Federal partner, without which the intercity rail development hopes and aspirations of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved; and WHEREAS, the current Amtrak restructuring initiative of the Bush Administration, as articulated by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta, represents both an opportunity as well as a serious risk to the interests and long-term objectives of the Commonwealth of Virginia, its business and commercial interests, and our citizens; and WHEREAS, the risk is that much of what we have in place today might be lost in an overly-simplistic approach to the "purging" of Amtrak. The National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak) represents but a very thin veneer concealing much deeper and more fundamental problems that adversely affect the viability and handling capacity of the U.S. rail network - both freight and passenger; and WHEREAS, the deteriorating rail situation in the U.S. has spiraled downward for more than fifty years. It would be unrealistic to expect to correct it overnight. It cannot be fixed without MORE, rather than less, public funding at the Federal level; and WHEREAS, a goal of the United Jefferson Area Mobility Plan (UnJam 2025), which combines the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transportation (CHART) Plan for the Metropolitan Planning Organization area with the Rural Area Transportation Long Range Plan, is to improve regional rail service and support the movement of passenger service where possible; and WHEREAS, the UnJam recommends increased passenger rail service for both local and regional commuter and intra/interstate travel options; and WHERAS, the UnJam recommends improved headways for freight to clear up time for passenger service, regular and consistent time slots for passenger service and improved technology so that freight and people can better coexist on the same railway; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby seek your leadership in formulating a multi-year, phased solution; a solution that is transformative rather than one that is precipitous and punitive. We urge you to protect the passenger rail infrastructure and services that we now have in place in Virginia, and to complement such transitional efforts with a well- conceived Federal program that, like Federal support for highways, ports and aviation, enhances and promotes rail transportation in partnership with the Commonwealth of Virginia and its privately-owned railroads. 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 vote of _ to _' as recorded below, at a meeting held on Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Ave Nay Mr. Bowerman Mr. Boyd Mr. Dorrier Mr. Rooker Ms. Thomas Mr. Wyant COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Revision to Personnel Policy AGENDA DATE: June 1, 2005 ACTION: INFORMATION: SU BJECT/PROPOSALlREQUEST: Requesting approval to Personnel Policy P-05, "Criminal Convictions/Motor Vehicle Violations" CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Davis, Trank, Suyes, Roberman ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: LEGAL REVIEW: Yes BACKGROUND: The Human Resources Department, assisted by the County Attorney's Office, has been reviewing the County's Personnel Policy Manual in order to update existing policies in a number of areas. The staff is proposing revisions to the following specific policy: Criminal Convictions/Motor Vehicle Violations (P-05) TRATEGIC PLAN: .1 Provide effective, responsive and courteous service to our customers. DISCUSSION: The proposed policy contains a number of changes. First, the policy adds the requiremenJt®L~L~mRl9-y~e~1JJUSt promptly r~eg for a criminal violation of any kind to their -ªujJervl§qr or dep~.rtment head. Second, the policy clarìfleSlFlat the CountY m~¡sCiplínaiiªª9~r}~J:1~Q~a_r1~-"llPlöi~e-Fias been arrested. Third, the policy clãñrle~_~:Õ{htJgns:-under whICh the coumymaicollect and maintain employee criminal history record background information, and provides that the County may consider a criminal conviction on an employee"'s$Uita6f ]ty for-cõntìrïLí8d County employment. These chan es are d a' r to eliminate ambiguities in the present policy and provide cle r direction to bot em loyees and their supervisors as to necessary or appropriate actlgD§ tQJakJiill--SìKïåtìõns involving the arrest of a County emp oyee.--~--~--------~----------~-~------- - --- RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution, which will approve the proposed changes to personnel policy P-05. ATTACHMENTS A - Resolution to adopt Personnel Policy P-05 amendment . 05.061 Attachment A RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the Board fmds that an amendment to Personnel Policy P-05 is necessary to update and clarify policies relating to an applicant's or employee's arrest, criminal conviction or criminal history; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby amends the following sections of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual: By Amending: Section P-05 Criminal Convictions/Motor Vehicle Violations Policy Section P-05 Criminal Convietions/1\'Iotor Yehiele Violations Polley Effect of Criminal Conviction or Arrest It is the policy of }Jbemarle County to see criminal conviction and Department of Motor '/ ehicle violation infonnation on applicants for all county positions prior to their employment. It is the responsibility of the Department of Human Resources to determine on a case basis whether or not a convicted offender will be employed considering the sensiti','e nature of the affectedjob, the seriousness ofilie offense(s) and the honesty of the applicant in completing the application form. It is the policy of the Board not to employ or to continue the employment of classified, professional or administrative personnel who may be deemed unsuited for service by reason of arrest and/or criminal conviction. While an arrest or cGonviction of a crime, in and of itself, is-flet may not be an automatic bar to employment~~ .where if an arrest or conviction relates to suitability of the individual to perform duties in a particular position, such person may be denied employment or be terminated may face disciulinarv action. UD to and includin2: termination. Individuals applying for County employment in Albemarle County for any position shall be required to disclose prior convictions of law other than minor traffic violations or juvenile offenses. Information provided by applicants may be verified by work history, personal reference or criminal record inquiries to determine the applicant's acceptability for employment. Where a prior conviction is ascertained, the County will consider the nature of the offense, the date of the offense, and the relationship between the offense and the position for which application is sought. If an applicant makes any misrepresentation or willful omissions of fact regarding prior criminal history, such misrepresentation or omission shall be sufficient cause for disqualification of the applicant or termination of employment. In the event that any emulovee. whether full-time or Dart-time. urobationarv or non-urobationarv. is arrested for a criminal violation of any kind. whether misdemeanor or felony he is reauired to reuort such arrest uromDtlv to the emDlovee' s sUDervisor or deDartment head within one (1 ) business day unless miti2:atin2: circumstances exist This reuortin2: reauirement aUDlies re2:ardless of whether such arrest has occurred on-duty or off-duty. Failure to comulv with this reuortin2: reauirement shall be 2:founds for disciulinarv action UD to and includin2: termination. In addition. all emDlovees shall have the continuin2: duty to notify the County of any arrest or criminal conviction that occurs subseauent to bein2: hired bv the County. Uuon reauest. any emulovee shall verify whether he has been arrested or convicted of any criminal char2:es. Suuervisors or deDartment heads shall contact the Human Resources Director or desÜmee uuon receivin2: notification that an emDlovee has been arrested. The County reserves the ri2:ht to determine auurouriate disciulinarv action in such cases. UD to and inc1udin2: termination. devendin2: uuon the facts and circumstances surroundin2: the arrest. Applicants for all County positions, wiH bc advised by a statement on the application form shall be informed that they will be requiTed as a condition of emDlovment. to sign a statement before or at t.he time an 1 . . Attachment A employment off-er is made 'Nhich authorizes authorizimr the Albemarle County to have both a criminal conviction history bachxound check and ª motor vehicle violation investigation performed and that satisfactory outcome of the in'lestigation is a condition of employment. As oennitted bv law. the County is authorized to consider anv criminal conviction history or motor vehicle violations in determinill!l whether to make an offer of emolovment to the aoolicant. and shall retain sole discretion to determine whether orior criminal history or motor vehicle violations shall disQualify an aoolicant from further consideration for County emolovment. The following paragraph will be added to all applications for employment \vith .\lbemarle County: "I hereby authorize the Office of Human Resources to conduct work history, personal reference or police record inquiries, and waive the right to hold liable those persons for pro'liding any requested information. It is understood that such information is to be absolutely privileged, confidential, and used only in detertr:rining my qualifications for employment and assignment. II The information collected shall be orivileged. confidential and used only in determining the candidate's aualifications for emolovment and assimment. If an applicant for County employment v;ith l.lbemarle County should refuse to permit a criminal history record search, that applicant will be removed from further employment consideration and informed accordingly. Applicants who omit criminal convictions from the their application form will IDID; be denied employment for falsification of the application. and. if hired. mav be subiect to disciolinary action. uo to and including immediate dismissal for withholding such information on the aoolication. A new application may be filed after three (3) calendar years provided the person at that time lists #ieff his convictions. GH€e employment candidates have been intcr¡ie·,'."ed, theyv,ill complete t\.vo copies of the attached Criminal History record Requcst. All ·.\Titten offcrs of emplo)mcnt v;ill state that the cxccution of an An authorization for the l.lbemarle County to conduct a criminal conviction/motor vehicle violation investigation and its satisfactory outcome are conditions of employment. Thc Office of Human Rcsources ';"ill dcliver such requcsts to the l.lbemarle County Police Department or Department of Motor Vehicles to conduct the search for any crimillal history record. Once ft the County has reviewed an aDD licant' s criminal ~ record has been re'lÍevfed and has made an administrative determination made concerning employment suitability, the record will be retained in a file separate from the official personnel file. If a criminal record is obtained that would prohibit employment under Albemarle County Boofà policy, the applicantlemolovee will be so informed and his application for employment removed from consideration and/or the emolovee will be subiect to termination. If the response to the request indicates "No Conviction Record," it ·.",ill be filed in the employee's personnel file. If the response indicates a conviction(s), the response '¡lÍll be revie·.yed by the Director of Human Resources will review the resoonse. The County shall have the sole discretion to determine whether anv cGonvictions,L ill violations wlHeh are judged not to be related to the duties of the position for which application is made m: whether they affect the fitness of the aoolicant to work for the County. ·¡.ill not be discussed v.ith the employing department unless such discussion is neccssary to make the decision to employ the applicant. lithe response reveals con'lÍctions/violations which appear to be j ob related, it ',vill be discussed \"ith the employing schooVdepartmcnt to determine ',yhat action v/ould be appropriate. Records of criminal con'lÍction/motor vehicle ';iolation information will not be filed in the individual's personnel file. Exceot as directed bv court order or as otherwise reauired or oermitted bv law cGonviction information received by the l.lbemarle County as Dart of the emolovment orocess will not be disseminated to any third party not directly involved in the hiring process. Amended: August 4, 1993 . Legal Reference: Code ofVirgÍnia. 1950. as amended. Chapter 23. Sec. 19.2-389 (7) 2 Attachment A 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 vote of _ to _ on ,2005. Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Bowennan Mr. Boyd Mr. Domer Mr. Rooker Ms. Thomas Mr. Wyant 3 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Revision to Personnel Policy AGENDA DATE: June 1, 2005 ACTION: INFORMATION: SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST: Requesting approval to modify Personnel Policy P- 90 "Family and Medical Leave Act" CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Davis, Trank, Suyes, Roberman ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ~ ( LEGAL REVIEW: Yes BACKGROUND: The Human Resources Department, assisted by the County Attorney's Office, has been reviewing the County's Personnel Policy Manual in order to update existing policies in a number of areas. At this point, staff is proposing revisions to the following specific policy: Family and Medical Leave Act (P-90). .TRATEGIC PLAN: 4.1 Provide effective, responsive and courteous service to our customers. DISCUSSION: The proposed policy contains a number of changes. First, the definitions section has be~reflect logal-- requirements set forth in the federal Family and MedicaíIeave Act.-seGOrïa,language has been added to clarify eligibility requirements for~emptoyees, including situations where both parents are employed by the County. Third, the policy clarifies that eligible employees may take up to 12 weeks of leave during a 12-month period, that employees may-æ:Kelntermitte;,t leave or work a rEidÚced schedule in order to take FMLA leave to care for a seriously ill family member or for the employee's own serious health condition. Fourth, the policy clarifies the requirements pertaini!29 to medical certification. Fifth, the policy requires the substitution ofãCCrUed paid-Sick and/or annuãlteavé as partof fhe to~ML~e:-otfîer ch-anges to the policy include clarification of the notifi¿atîonreqjjìre-ínent~ffor---' employees who desire to tak8£MtAlec¡ve and requirements pertaining to return to work once FMLA leave is completed. r_ , RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution, which will approve the proposed changes to personnel policy P-90. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Resolution to adopt Personnel Policy P-90 amendment . 05.062 Attachment A RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the Board fmds that an amendment to Personnel Policy P-90 is necessary to clarify policies relating to paid leave and the Family and Medical Leave; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby amends the following sections of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual: By Amending: Section P-90 Family and Medical Leave Act, Supplemental Leave Section P-90 FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT - Supplemental Leave .\ny eli,gible employee is entitled, as a matter onegal right, to up to a combined total of twelve (12) ','lork weeks of paid or unpaid leave per year for the follo',ving leave situations: 1. The birth and first year carc of a child; 2. The adoption or foster placement of a child; 3. The illness of an employee's spouse, parent, or child; and, 4. The employee's OVt'Il illness. Child: Includes those over 18 who are disabled and cannot care for themselves, legal wards, stepchildren and others for ','¡,hom the employee stands in the place of parent. Eligible Employee: .\n employee v¡ho has been employed at least one )'Ø&r and has worked at least 1250 hours during the 12 months immediately preceding the proposed leave. Family: Immediate family is defined as thc cmployee's or spouse's children, parents, siblings, and grandparents. Health Care Provider: .\ licensed doctor of medicine or osteopathy or any other person detorrnined by the U.S. Secretary of Labor to be c&pable of proyiding health care ServIce. ~: Biological parents as ',veIl as any others who have acted in the place of a parent to the employee. Serious Medical Condition: .\ physical or mental illness or an injury requiring inpatient care at a medical facility or continued treatment by a health care provider. Supplemental Leave: Leaye granted under the terms of the Family Medical Lea','e .\ct (FML^~) this is in general, the 12 'Neelcs of leave required by the Act. .\ny such leave shall be tenned Supplemental Leave. 1 · · · To be eligibl :f; service nqtfl ^ lè e or leave u-ndeF tfli: l' Att c .. a emmele Coun ' . on" po iCy, the em 10 ' achment A ommencement ofth I 1; I!ftd .oye "'er! d V )ee ffilist hOFe at I r e eo"e ....th .. œ at Ie I I . eOfi! '''el'' (I I, e" Annual, 8ick oc C . ..lOut voy end the emj>1' œ; 250 ooum during th"': .. ' . 2) _ffi]" 01 empMsatory ), e) o. ffilist hay. exhoost,d an eIi e year precediBg the ParMtal Le."c gIblo compens.ted I.... . .e . Upon request an' l' . canng for a newborn ' J e 19lble emploJee shall b re~ue'tiRg porentallea':. :;:Iy odopted child fer a ;::ted " leave of "b,onee without a ' lJ¡1on roquest, an eligible e ,tt",·,.,de reasœable notice t~ up to twelve (12) w"do; P ; ~ the purpose 01 Al l .yee may have thi I 0 e "pecled birth or d ,per) eor, Employeos E I ' ' eave ext,rn! d a optIOn (30 d mv eyee , 0" 'R III 0.. to a maxiffill 1 '11)" oc ffiO£e) .. Be" OC IIIno" ofE I m 0 ooe (1 )ye... . mp o1'ee's Sf10u . If d' so, Parent, or Chld me "oIly neee I schedule until the am ssar)', medicalleaye "'ith . t d' OURt of! .. efi PI1)' 13 me "al leo"e that' c.ve totols ."eh (I mny e taken 00 an ' , the emplo~e to ::.f7.0S"oI3l. ¡'Mcd "';;I~~d 2) ~'eks, Hewever, il en ..::;,';":"tIent o",,",med leoye .ceœnmodate, ree~; p~dererily te an oItem:'". ';~ ~~-' the Botffd re:~~:::ests intcrnHtteRt no ,01 absene, or a part ti SIlon ,,,th 'quel PI!)' enà'¡, · fight to require Th, m,di",,1 eerffi . me schedule. enefits which bettor date the illness be an I catIon for the employee' or parent, the HlÐd~eo end the ":ojeeted Fe_ to e' s pcrsoool i lines, must ideRli ' provide eafe. At th 1 eert.fical1on ""'"' iBelfide .. ock dote, For 1.0'''' to car. B I) the n""",, of the illness the e empleyer' s disorRlion roc :. ;''''rnote of the omoue! eft .r. ':'Ofioly ill child spo~oo b . ' e. eo!loB' - t·.., · I .' , oognllty of 8¡¡ppl. mil) ¡'e fC<jllired. . mp oyee IS needed te mental Leave '.vith Oth y\ er Leaye Rules and R . ,/henevor ... ' eg>ila!leflS C~unty Policy and t~~:::~te, the rules and regulations r . ~,~'d IT~ill eny ,"mmol Le" der efthe manuel sholl... ,egafdmg leov. c_ed ' .. .tliout Poy greater th a.. "aooue! balenees if 0 1'1'1), ""copt thet (I) eligibl ill all othor ,eciioo, of henefit during any unp': one week (10 .onm) and ~;~d ~ 8 __01 Leo': =1~ye·s IDBY elect to be ~Iltd 8fipp Iem.ntnl Lea~::;'i:1 Supplemootol Leaye, e Tho~ty ,.all .ootinu. eny ;oi:th7s. be Leave OJ oBd the emplo)~e' s ' employed oils te e Oünty mny roeo"or me lCel mGlffenee 12 weeks ( 480 hell'") 0~08':0~ ,\nypoid leav. gœnte~e::" :0 ~¡erk, lJlÙess th~ fui"::'- paid duF,ßg T . PP emcRtal L",,"e oveiloblc ~ e p\1f JOGOS 01 the Act '.011 13'" ,.- '" werk is okmg/8eheduliB< end Med'" · dedueted IT_the leal CertIfication of 8u 8uppl . I'!' lemootal Le",~ b' h . omental Leave ' lrt , adoptIOn or foster ma) be taken intermitte ' '" _oved by fue p' , plocement 010 ehild m t Btl) ~.cn mediealÞ¡ nee .. l'llliJl 301m fiS 13. s h d' eGGOf}' 8 I Boltoe R1 the e"ent 1 £-- --eportment !I.ot! Th e e filed R1 enc eonti -upp-<JR1eIllal LeO"e ¡¡, , . 0 0 ' e emj>l nfiOUfi ' . r mmimize disruptieB el crOGeeable Beed I!ftd make eye. may be roqfiired Ie g' ,: penoà unl.ss otherwise 0'"'1;' ever";oo, a reasonable eff"" to s . d 1.C ot Ie"" 30 day, n'fit! + . eell18 ..en akin~'8eheduliB< aDd M d' e upplemcntal Leove !II , e lcal G ff H o 1 oation ofS I ±h - cmontel b .. , .,,,..ployce ea. e (eootinfied) msurance contrib' s on an appro"cd I . utIOn t ,cayc of aè mamtained durin no to ""ecod twch (1 "GOBce, ...derthis olio, ' fun prcffiillffi for ;:.~cntal '"' illedioall.a~. f~) w~eks ,P,or )~af. LifeP aDd ~' Will ree.i:", the BOafd', hooltB will romaiB iR effcc~ e;:g: pai~ to the divisioo :; '::~!l0~01. time beyond ...:~:Iñz~~ iBsurfR1ee mny be mual sICk leave, during the 17,0) ee, All bonefits present! : eeks por yo..- il the To the extont th t neck pen.d, ; ooffin!3u1cd towar<is a an effifJ1 ' . . 0) ee IS entitlcd to . . oompefi t à sa e kaye u d fi or other Board pol' . 10lCS, the 2 Attachment A employee must take the paid leave fIrst (¡\.rmuabi8iek/Compensatory). Reinstatement - . ,'\.n employee returning to work from8upplemental Leaye shall be reinstated in the fonner position held, or one equivalent in pay, benefIts and terms of employment, unless the employee is (1) among the 10% highest paid of eligible employees, (2) denial of return is necessary to preyent substantial or grievous economic injury and (3) notice of intent not to reinstate is given either before Supplemental Leave begins or together '.vith a reasonable period to return stated if Supplemental Leave has aJready begun. Employees on Supplemental Leave without pay are not eligible for emy unemployment benefIts. Record Keeping and }.nti Retaliation The Director of Human Resources shall maintain records necessary to demonstrate compliance ':lÎth the }.ct. The ,\ct requires also that no employee be subj ect to any penalty for seeking rights under the hJt or for testifying for or otherv;ise helping other emplo)'()es seek rights under the }..ct. f...doption This Section P 90 of the Personnel Manual was adopted and is intended to fully implement the }...et, subject to the penalties prescribed in the Act. ,^.ny \"8.riation bet\veen this policy and the Family and Medieal Leave }...ct vlÎll be determined in favor of the }...ct. A. Purnose of Policy This uolicv is written to assist the Albemarle County Local Government in comulvinll with the federal Familv and Medical Leave Act of 1993. This volicv seeks to balance the needs of the emu lover with the needs of its emulovees and their families. B. Definitions Child: Includes biolollical. adouted. foster. steu. or lellal ward child for whom the emulovee acts in a uarental role. urovidinll care and fInancial suvuort. The child must be under aile 18. unless he/she is incauable of self-care due to mental or uhvsical disability. Elillible Emulovee: An elillible emulovee: 1) Has been emu loved at least one year: 2) Has worked at least 1250 hours durinll the 12 months immediately urecedinl! the urouosed leave: 3) Has not used all available Familv Medical Leave lFML) in the urevious rollinl! year: and 4) Meets the conditions of the FMLA. Familv: Familv is defIned as the emulovee's suouse. children. and uarents. Health Care Provider: A licensed doctor of medicine or osteouathv or any other verson detennined bv the U.S. SecretarY of Labor to be cauable of urovidinl! health care servIce. Parent: Biolol!ical uarents as well as any others who have acted in the dace of a uarent to the emólovee. .. 3 · · · Attachment A Serious Health Condition: A uhvsical or mental illness or an iniurv rea uirin !l inuatient care at a medical facility or continued treatment bv a health-care Drovider that causes the emulovee to be absent from work on a recurrin!l basis or for more than three full days. J ob- Protected: The emulovee is !luaranteed the ri!lht to return to his former uosition or to an eauivalent uosition. Week: A week is defined as the annual authorized re!lular hours of the emulovee's uosition. divided bv 52. C. Conditions of Leave 1. General fuformation The Familv and Medical Leave Act ŒMLA) Drovides uu to 12 workweeks ofunuaid iob-Drotected leave uer.vear to eli!lible emulovees for one or more of the followin!l aualifvin!l events: 1) The birth and first-year care of the emulovee's newborn child' 2) Placement of a child with the emnlovee for adoution. or bv the State for foster care: 3) To care for the emnlovee's SDouse child or Darent with a serious health condition (this does not include in-laws): and 4) The emulovee's own serious health condition 2. Notification Reauirements When the need for leave under FMLA is foreseeable as in the case of the exuected birth. adoution or foster care nlacement of a child or ulanned medical treatment for a serious health condition of the emnlovee or a family member. the emnlovee is reauired to Drovide at least 30 days advance notice to his suuervisor either verbally or in writin!l. fu the event that it is not Dracticable to !live such advance notice. due to a lack ofknowled!le of anDroximatelv when leave will be reauired to be!lin a chan!le in circumstances. or a medical emer!lencv. the emulovee should !live as much advance notice as is nracticable. ordinarily within one or two business days of when he learns of the need for the leave. The administrative nrocess will be initiated bv the emnlovee submittin!l an FMLA Reauest Form. which is available from the Human Resources Deuartment. If the reason for leave involves a serious health condition of either the emulovee or the emulovee's family member. the emDlovee will be !liven a Certification of Health Care Provider form that must be comuleted bv the uatient's Dhvsician and returned to HR within 15 calendar days EmDlovees !!ranted leave under FMLA will receive a Notice ofEmnlovee Obli!lations under FMLA outlinin!l conditions !lovernin!l the leave. If an emulovee does not notify his sunervisor that he reauests FML. but the suuervisor has reason to believe that a leave reauest would meet the !luidelines covered under the Act the sunervisor should contact Human Resources. which will then nrovide the emDlovee with information re!lardin!l the FMLA If an emnlovee is eli!lible for FML. then the leave time will be counted a!lainst FML. 3. Both Parents Workin!l for the County fu cases where both Darents are County emnlovees. they may take a combined total of 12 weeks ofFML for birth. adontion. and foster care nlacement. Thev may each take 12 weeks for their own illness or that of their snouse child or Darent. 4 Attachment A 4. Covered Time Period Elicible emulovees may take uu to 12 weeks ofleave durinf! a rollinf! 12-month ueriod. This is defIned as the 12-month ueriod measured forward from the date an emulovee's fIrst FML bef!ins. 5. Intermittent or Reduced Leave While most family and medical leave occurrences will necessitate leave to be taken in a sinf!le block of several weeks. the emulovee may reQuest "intermittent" leave or "reduced leave schedule" to care for a seriously ill family member or for the emulovee's own serious health condition where the need for leave is foreseeable and based on ulanned medical treatment. In the case of the need for a reduced leave schedule or intermittent use of leave. a certifIcation of medical necessity is reQuired from the health care urovider and an auurouriate work schedule should be ulanned in advance with the suuefVÌsor. when uossible. An emulovee may take reduced leave for the birth. adoution or foster care ulacement of a son or dauf!hter only if the emulovee and emulover alITee to such an arranf!ement. If the emulovee reQuests intermittent leave or reduced leave schedule the County may temuorarilv transfer the emulovee to an available alternative uosition with eQuivalent uay and benefIts. if the emulovee is QualifIed for the oosition and it better accommodates recurrim! oeriods of leave than the emulovee's ref!ular iob. D. Medical Certification Reouirements When the necessity for FML exists due to the emulovee's own serious health condition or the serious health condition of a suouse. uarent. or child. certifIcation of the condition and a statement of the need for leave are reQuired from the health care urovider{s) usinf! the CertifIcation of Health Care Provider form urovided by Human Resources. If the emulovee fails to urovide the reQuested information to the desÍ!mated HR Suecialist within 15 calendar days ofreceiut of the form. the leave may not be iob-urotected under the FMLA. The County may reQuire a second ouinion bv a health care urovider of its choice. and at its exuense. If the two ouinions differ. a third ouinion may be reQuested from a urovider selected iointlv bv the emuloyee and the County. This third ouinion. to be uaid for bv the County. is fInal and bindinf!. It is the emuloyee's resoonsibility to maintain uu-to-date medical status while on FML. The County may also reQuire oeriodic reuocts from the emulovee as to the emulovee's status and intent to return to work. R. Substitution of Paid I,eave The FMLA urovides for a maximum of 12 weeks ofunuaid leave. If the FML is due to the emuloyee's own medical condition. the emuloyee will fIrst be comuensated usinf! any accrued sick leave and sick bank benefIts. as auulicable. Time will be charf!ed concurrently af!ainst these uaid tvoes ofleave and FML for a ueriod of uu to 12 weeks. If the FML is due to the illness of an emolovee's suouse oarent or child the emulovee will fIrst be comuensated usinf! accrued sick leave. (Emulovees are not elif!ible for sick bank benefIts in these circumstances.) Time will be chamed concurrently af!ainst the available accrued sick leave and FML for a ueriod ofuu to 12 weeks. The remainder. if any. of the leave reQuested will be chamed af!ainst accrued annual leave and comuensatorv leave urior to the emulovee f!oinf! on unuaid leave. exceut that the emulovee may save one (1 ) week of annual leave for use at a later time. Emulovees should check with HR to determine what tvoes 5 . . . Attachment A of leave will run concurrentlv with their FML. The tvDe of leave taken must be in comuliance with the urovisions of the auulicable leave uolicv found in this manual. Time missed durinll worker's comuensation related iniuries. which otherwise meet the reauirements of the FMLA. may run concurrently with FML. F. Benefits 1. Insurance Continuation Privilelles Emulovees on unuaid leave that is desÜmated as FML will continue to receive their emu lover uortion of the medical and dental insurance benefits uu to the maximum 12 workweeks allowed. These benefits will continue on the same basis as an active emulovee durinll this 12-week ueriod Emulovees must remit the necessarY uremium for the emulovee uortion to cover themselves and eli!lible deuendents. As in the case of any unuaid leave of absence. the emulovee must make arranllements to uav auulicable medical. dental. and life insurance Dremiums. 2. Other Emulovee Benefits In all cases where an emulovee is usinll some form of aUDroved. accrued leave such as annual leave. comuensatorv leave sick leave. or sick bank. all emulovee benefits continue as lonll as the emulovee remains on the uavroll throullh the use of such leave time. Ifunuaid leave is taken. emulovee benefits other than health. dental and life insurance are discontinued for the duration of the unuaid leave status as follows: a) The accrual of annual or sick leave is discontinued after ten (10) days ofunuaid leave and for the duration of the unuaid leave status. b) The Virllinia Retirement System (VRS) contribution is based on a uercent of the emulovee's income. No contribution is made for ueriods ofunuaid leave. Uuon returninll to work. the emulovee may be elillible to uurchase the lost service with VRS. if the leave is necessitated bv birth or adoution. as defined bv VRS uolicies. G. ReturninQ" from FMT, 1. Medical form An emulovee returninll from FML due to his own serious health condition must submit a statement on the reauired form to Human Resources from his attendinll uhvsician. indicatinll the emulovee is uhvsicallv and mentally cauable of returninll to work. 2. Restoration to Position When an elillible emulovee is released to return to work followinll FML. he will be restored to the uosition held at the time the leave bellan or to an eauivalent uosition with eauivalent benefits. comuensation and other terms and conditions of emulovrnent. Anv issues rellardinll eauivalencv should be reviewed with Human Resources In order to be Iluaranteed restoration. the emulovee must return to work at or before the end of the 12-week family leave ueriod. If an emulovee would have been laid offhad he not been on FML any rillht to reinstatement would be whatever it would have been had the emulovee not been on FML. Certain "kev" enmlovees may be denied job restoration. A "kev" emulovee is defined as a salaried FMLA -elillible emulovee who is amonll the hillhest uaid 10 uercent of all County emulovees. A key 6 Attachment A emulovee will be notified as soon as vracticable after receiut of a reauest for FML that he is considered to be a kevemulovee. Emulovees on Ulluaid FML are not elÜrible for any unemDlovrnent benefits. H. Record KeeDinQ' and Anti-RetaIiation The Director of Human Resources shall maintain records necessary to demonstrate comuliance with the Act. The Act reauires also that no emulovee be subiect to any uenaltv for seekin!! ri!!hts under the Act or for testifvin!! for or otherwise heluin!! other emulovees seek ri!!hts under the Act. I. AdoDtion of PoIicv This Section P-90 of the Personnel Manual was adouted and is intended to fully imulement the Act. subiect to the uenalties vrescribed in the Act. Anv variation between this Dolicv and the Familv and Medical Leave Act will be determined in favor of the Act. Adopted: September 1, 1993 Legal Ref.: Family and Medical Leave Act - Public Law 103-3, 1993 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 vote of _ to _ on ,2005. Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Bowerman Mr. Boyd Mr. Domer Mr. Rooker Ms. Thomas Mr. Wyant 7 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium AGENDA DATE: June 1, 2005 ACTION: INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Allocation of HOME funds - FY2005 CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACnS): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, Mr. Davis, Mr. White ATTACHMENTS: No ~ LEGAL REVIEW: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) annually provides funding under the HOME Investment Partnership Program to units of state and local government through formula allocations. While larger jurisdictions individually receive funding under established formulas, those that do not may form a consortium in order to receive an allocation of HOME funds. Albemarle County has participated as a member of the Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium (six jurisdictions of the elanning District) since 1992 sharing in over $10 million in HOME funds to support affordable housing initiatives in the egion. HUD requires that an Action Plan be developed annually prior to receipt of HOME funds to provide a summary of current year activities and a proposal on how funds will be used for the coming year. A detailed annual performance plan is prepared for HUD after the end of the fiscal year. This report is provided to each jurisdiction represented in the Consortium. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 3.2: Promote a variety of safe, sanitary and affordable housing types. DISCUSSION: Each locality receives an equal annual appropriation estimated this year at $121,114. In addition, HUD has established an additional set-aside for the American Dream Downpayment Assistance Initiative (ADDI) that will bring Albemarle County $6,753 to assist first-time homebuyers. HOME will also provide $5,652 in administrative funds. In prior years, the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) has been designated the subrecipient for the County with the funding allocated for rehabilitation of owner-occupied homes. In 2004-05, AHIP used approximately $117,000 in HOME funds to rehab 7 homes, which AHIP matched with $160,000 from other sources to complete these jobs. Also in 2004-05, Albemarle County allocated $50,000 in HOME funds for homebuyer assistance. These funds were included in an administrative agreement executed with PHA in April 2005 to be administered as part of the County's Homebuyer Assistance Program. Although there have been no loans closed using these funds since the agreement was executed, these funds will be carried over into FY'06, since HUD allows us 3 years to expend the funds For FY06, the proposed allocation of HOME funds to PHA should provide assistance to 12 - 15 first-time homebuyers .ith incomes below 60% of the area median income. Along with Albemarle's annual contribution of $250,000 to the ffordable Housing Fund, this $30,000 in HOME funds to PHA will provide a total of $280,000 to address affordable ousing needs with a down payment assistance program administered by PHA. AGENDA TITLE: Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium June 1, 2005 Page 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends designating AHIP and PHA as subrecipients for the administration of HOME funds with allocations as follows. The rehab allocation is based on past performance by AHIP and available funding. The homebuyer assistance allocation is based on expected activity and available matching funds from the County: AHIP (Rehab of 6 Owner-occupied homes - matching funds approx. $150,000) Housing Rehab $97,867 Admin $ 4,352 PHA (Downpayment assistance to 8 -1 0 families - County match $250,000 leveraging approx. $1.5 million in mortgages) Homebuyer Assistance $30,000 Admin $ 1,300 05.059 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Deferral Program for Real Estate Taxes AGENDA DATE: June 1, 2005 ACTION: INFORMATION: SU BJECT/PROPOSALlREQU EST: Board consideration of a program to defer a portion of real estate tax increases CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Wiggans, Davis ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: ~ I LEGAL REVIEW: YES BACKGROUND: Virginia Code Section 58.1- 3219, enacted by the General Assembly in 1990, enables localities to adopt an ordinance to create a real estate tax deferral program for a taxpayer. It allows the deferral of taxes that exceed 105% of the real estate tax on the property owned by the taxpayer in the previous tax year. Such a program is subject to limitations and requirements set forth in the enabling legislation. The Board asked staff to research this program and provide information regarding it. To date, no locality has adopted this type of tax deferral program. .STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 4.2: Fund County Services in a fair, efficient manner and provide needed public facilities and infrastructure DISCUSSION: A deferral program may defer a portion of the real estate tax if the amount of tax on a property exceeds 105 percent of the tax in the previous year. A program may apply to all property or only property owned and occupied as the sole dwelling of the taxpayer. The enabling authority does not authorize the deferral program to be based on the value of the property or the wealth of the taxpayer. The program can require a higher minimum percentage than 105 percent to qualify for a deferral. Property in the real estate tax relief program for the elderly or disabled or in land use is not eligible for a deferral program. Taxpayers who are delinquent in the payment of taxes on property for which a deferral is sought are not eligible for a deferral. A deferral program must allow taxpayers, at their option, to defer all or any portion of the real estate tax that exceeds 105 percent (or such greater amount as determined in the ordinance) of the real estate tax on such property owned by the taxpayer in the previous tax year. The accumulated amount of taxes deferred and interest must be paid to the locality by the owner upon the sale or transfer of the property, or from the estate of the decedent within one year after the death of the owner. The interest on the deferred tax is computed at the rate established pursuant to § 6621 of the Internal Revenue Code or (effective July 1, 2005) at any lesser rate determined by the locality. The discretion to grant a lower interest rate is the result of the 2005 General Assembly's adoption of Senate Bill 1 087. The IRS interest rate is determined quarterly based on the federal short-term interest rate plus three percentage points. For the quarter beginning April 2005, the interest rate is 6%. However, the interest rate over the last fifteen years has been as high as 11 % and as low as 4%. As recently as calendar year 2000 the rate was 9%. This is a daily compound interest rate. Because interest rates can change quarterly and the deferral can be subject to significant interest charges, it would be difficult for a taxpayer to calculate the effective "savings" of participating in the deferral program. Under the new legislation that allows a locality to set a lower interest rate, .he interest rate difficulties for the taxpayer may be able to be addressed. However, even a locally-set interest rate would eed to be adjusted periodically to fairly reflect market interest rates, adding another layer of administrative complexity. Staff has attempted to analyze who could utilize this program. Because the deferred tax constitutes a lien upon the real estate and a requirement of most mortgages is that taxes must be paid from an escrow account and be paid in full, properties subject to mortgages may not be able to participate in a deferral program. This may significantly limit the AGENDA TITLE: Deferral Program for Real Estate Taxes June 1, 2005 Page 2 ... applicability of the program to a wide segment of taxpayers. Although this program has been enabled since 1990, no localities have established a defefral program. Although the Weldon Cooper Center's 2004 survey of local tax rates reported that Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, and Waynesboro are offering a deferral program and that Loudoun County previously had a deferral program, staff contacts in each of these four jurisdictions indicated that this information was incorrect and that none of them have or had adopted such a program. The Weldon Cooper Center's 2004 survey of local tax rates further reported: "The cities of Alexandria, Falls Church, and Fairfax and the counties of Fairfax and Henrico have considered deferral but have not adopted it. Administrative problems appear to be the major reason deferral has not been adopted. According to Henrico staff, 'The administrative procedures for tracing the properties and recovering the relevant taxes upon either the death of the owner or transfer of the property itself would be both cumbersome and time consuming and could not be accomplished with existing staffing levels or existing computer systems.'" Although the cost of administering a program in Albemarle County has not been fully analyzed, it is believed that the program would be difficult to implement in a fair and cost effective manner. It could make revenue projections more difficult and, if widely utilized, require tax rate increases to generate the same amount of revenue that would be collected without a deferral program. RECOMMENDATIONS: Although staff appreciates the appeal of a general real estate tax deferral program, compounded interest fate costs to the taxpayer, conflicts with mortgage requirements, the administrative burden, and costs to the County appear to outweigh the benefits of a tax deferral program. Staff does not recommend its adoption locally at this time. 05.058 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Affordable Housing Policy Implementation AGENDA DATE: June 1, 2005 SU BJ ECT/PROPOSALlREQUEST: Request to Amend the Zoning Ordinance and Request to Amend Comprehensive Plan ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, Mr. Davis, Mr. Kamptner, Mr. White LEGAL REVIEW: Yes REVIEWED BY: ~ ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: After the adoption (February 2004) of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include an Affordable Housing Policy, an Affordable Housing Policy Advisory Committee was formed to make recommendations for implementation of the policy. The Advisory Committee completed its initial task of identifying priority strategies and recommendations and presented a report to the Board in December 2004. The report was also presented on behalf of the Albemarle County Housing Committee. A number of recommendations were considered feasible to implement as they involved mostly administrative actions using current available resources. These included data collection and reporting, revising homebuyer counseling programs, and _creating a homebuyer assistance program. Other recommendations required more inter-departmental staff work to formulate ctions for implementation which was completed in April and presented to the Board at a work session in May. At the May 4th ork session, the Board instructed staff to proceed with the process for adopting three recommendations, one as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and two as amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 3.2: Promote a variety of safe, sanitary and affordable housing types DISCUSSION: Pursuant to the Board's direction at the May 4th work session, staff has prepared the attached Resolution of Intent to Amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and Resolution of Intent to Amend Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan. Adoption of these resolutions will start the process to · Amend the zoning ordinance to encourage affordable housing by providing revised density bonuses when affordable housing is proposed; · Amend the Comprehensive Plan to establish the basis for calculating the amounUpercentage of affordable units to be proffered based on additional units allowed after the rezoning. · Amend the Comprehensive Plan to provide a formula for calculating cash or cash-equivalent proffers in lieu of proffering the recommended number of affordable dwelling units RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolutions. Staff further recommends that the amendment process begin with a work session with the Planning Commission prior to a public hearing. Although the usual process includes one or more focus groups to review proposed amendments prior to the PC's work session, staff recommends that the work from the Affordable Housing Policy Advisory Committee be considered in lieu of additional focus group meetings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Affordable Housing Policy Advisory Committee's Report of recommended strategies to implement the . Affordable Housing Policy, presented to the Board on May 4, 2005 ttachment B - Resolution of Intent to Amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Attachment C - Resolution of Intent to Amend Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan 05.060 Attachment A STRATEGY: Develop and implement necessary regulatory and administrative functions for establishing affordable housing strategies in all applicable development review applications. · Create a tracking and monitoring system that displays critical affordable housing data in a visual, geographic format o The Office of Housing has tracked some housing data on a regular basis over the past year. The current data collected on sales of new and existing houses and rental properties will be refined and data related to residential projects in development review will be collected and tracked. Data collection will be coordinated with the County's GIS initiative and the Community Development department. Quarterly reports will be presented to the Housing Committee and provided as information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors as well as being posted on the County's website. The Housing Committee and Office of Housing will develop an annual report to the Board that summarizes conditions, current sales data, current development data, and activities that have had an impact on affordable housing. · Reconsider density limits, why they are not being utilized - look for housing opportunities, holes in the current market o The current density bonus provisions have not been beneficial in producing affordable housing. There are likely two main reasons for this. First, few if any proposals come forward requesting more density than allowed by right. Secondly, if a developer requests the thirty percent (30%) bonus, all additional units would have to be affordable. Even if a developer requested and received the bonus, there is nothinG other than sales price and rent limits in the provision that would reGuire the units to be available to low- to moderate-income households. In addition, for sale units would only have to be affordable at time of initial sale and rental units would have restricted rents for no more than five years. Recommended action: The zoning ordinance should be amended to revise the current density bonus to provide increased density of up to 100% of that allowed by zoning district or the upper density limit specified in the Comprehensive Plan, whichever is less with a maximum allowed density not to exceed eiGhteen (18) dwellinG units per acre. EXAMPLE: A ten acre site is zoned R-4 with a Comp Plan Density of three to six dwellinq units per acre. The applicant proposes a density increase to six units per acre or a total of sixty (60) units. The proposed density bonus would allow this increase without rezoninq if the applicant develops 10 of the additional 20 units as affordable. NOTE: If the Comp Plan upper density had been 12 units per acre in this example, the density bonus would have been limited to 8 units per acre or 100% of the zoning district. The request and approval for the increased density would require that one half additional units be affordable and give the County or its designees a gO-day priority marketing period. During this period the sale or rental would be restricted to low- to moderate-income households. By using County funds to provide downpayment assistance, the County or its designee would have first right-of-refusal for a subsequent sale. If the County or its designee does not exercise this option, the downpayment assistance with interest will be repaid at the time of sale. If the designated affordable units are for rent, the owner/manager would be expected to enter into an agreement with the County specifying the maximum rents and eligible household incomes of tenants. The Office of Housing would monitor compliance through annual reports. · Eliminate barriers, provide procedural incentives for those in compliance with the standards o The Department of Community Development is cataloging all requirements and issues related to the development review process. This information will be provided to the Board of Supervisors in May for review, discussion, and guidance on what, if any, of the issues may not be important to the review process or that could be waived if the project has an affordable housing component... STRATEGY: Set specific targets for the development of affordable units for low-and moderate- income families with sufficient flexibility to allow for negotiation based on the development's size, location, timeline, and nature of surrounding area. At a minimum, 15% of all units · developed under rezoning and special use permits should be affordable as defined by the County's Office of Housing and Housing Committee or a comparable contribution should be made to achieve the affordable housing goals of the County · · · Identify specific "proxies" for the 15% target that promote the county's concept of affordable lifestyles o This recommendation is not under consideration at this time as most proxies discussed (limited transportation needs, live close to work, energy-efficiency, and low-maintenance structures) are not controlled or likely to be controlled by the County. · Allow a phased-in approach to the target that allows a close match between affordable housing created and families prepared to purchase o Recommendation: The number of affordable units will be calculated on the additional units provided as a result of the rezoning. Additional units shall be those that exceed units allowed by the zoning district or by-right. Although a development may propose a higher percentage of affordable units, in no case shall more than 15% of the total developed units be expected to be proffered in seeking rezoning. Total additional units 1-3 units 4-11 units 12-20 units 21-35 units 36-50 units >50 units Percent of additional units to be proffered (all fractions rounded up) 0% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% · Establish an "in lieu of' system that is simple and easy for developers to use in their initial planning and financial modeling o Recommendation: The County should develop a proffer system that allows developers to contribute cash or other comparable non-cash contributions to support affordable housing initiatives in lieu of developing affordable units. Until such a system is developed, the amount of $1725 per residential unit proposed for development should be used to determine a cash or cash-equivalent proffer to support affordable housing initiatives. The cash amount is calculated using the 2004 median sales price of new homes sold, $175,000 (the affordable target), 10% representing sharing of developer/builder profit, the number of proposed units, and 15% of the proposed units. The calculation follows: 2004 median sales of new homes sold $290,000 Less $175.000 DIFFERENCE $115,000 Times .1 0 (contribution of profit) Contribution per units $ 11,500 Times 15% of total units Total cash proffer Divided by total units Per unit proffer $103,500 60 $ 1,725 9 (assuming 60 units) NOTE: In this example, the contribution of cash proffers would likely assist six homebuyers with downpayment assistance under the current Homebuyer Assistance Program. · Establish a policy on the minimum size of a project to be subject to affordable housing goals. Should there be a minimum number of units in a development before the policy is activated? o For profferinq units. see previous section. o For cash or cash-equivalent proffers all projects would use the suggested amount in the previous section regardless of size. STRATEGY: Develop strategies and mechanisms including security instruments for the initial sale of affordable units to promote long-term affordability and protect direct monetary investments from public resources. · Create Housing Trust Fund and associated programs with dedicated source(s) of funding (recapture investment and share equity on resale) o The Office of Housing has developed a Homebuyer Assistance Program using general funds appropriated by the Board of Supervisors for fiscal year 2004-05 and federal HOME funds currently available. The program wíll be coordinated with other resources including those available through the Piedmont Housing Allíance. The program provides junior mortgages which are deferred and carry an interest at 6%. The funds including interest wíll be repaid by borrower not later than upon the sale of the property. The appropriated funds and the future repayment wíll be used to begin capitalizing a housing trust fund. o As more funding is available through the Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund, general fund appropriations, and proffers, additional programs may be recommended by the Office of Housing and the Housing Committee for expanding activities in a trust fund.. · Connect the housing trust fund to the cash proffer option o All cash proffers for affordable housing wíll be appropriated to a housing fund overseen by the Office of Housing and Housing Committee. The Office of Housing may execute agreements with other entities for the management of the fund. STRATEGY: Expand existing partnerships/programs and create new alliances with the private sector including nonprofit and for-profit housing providers and lenders. · Promote community development financial institutions o The Office of Housing and Housing Committee wílllook at options for the management of housing fund programs striving to improve the capacity to serve low- to moderate-income households and leveraging available public funds to the greatest extent possible. One option is entering into a management agreement with Piedmont Housing Allíance (PHA), an existing CDFI and helping PHA improve its capacity as a nonprofit lender. o The Office of Housing wíll seek opportunities to use available resources including CDBG, HOME, and the Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund to leverage partnerships with private developers including nonprofit housing organizations. · Review models from other communities o Recommendations included in this document are modifications of two existing programs in the Commonwealth - the Counties of Fairfax and Loudoun. We do, however, see major differences in development activities in these jurisdictions and Albemarle. Albemarle continues to receive requests for developments with densities less than outlined in the Comprehensive Plan compared to the much higher density requests in the Northern Virginia area. STRATEGY: Seek additional resources including those through the state and federal governments for the development and/or financing of affordable housing. · Consider dedication of property tax (1 cent) or some other form of dedicated revenue stream from local funds for Housing Trust Fund to support workforce housing. · The County of Albemarle currently contributes $250,000 annually to the Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund for investment toward affordable housing projects and programs. · The Office of Housing and Housing Committee should prepare a case based on demand supporting an increase in local general funds for affordable housing initiatives in future County budgets. · The County should look for opportunities that involve public/private partnerships, specifically those involving nonprofit organizations that may be eligible for Community Development Block Grant Funding to support development of affordable housing. · The County should continue to support rental projects seeking Low-income Housing Tax Credits particularly those targeted to those populations where there is a documented increase in demand for affordable rental units. . . . Attachment B RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, there is a shortage of affordable housing in Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, in order to establish meaningful strategies to address the shortage of affordable housing, the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan (the "Comprehensive Plan") recommends that the existing density bonus program available in the residential zoning districts be examined to determine why the program has not been significantly used; and WHEREAS, a County study found that the existing density bonus program has not been significantly used because few, if any, development proposals seek more residential density than would be allowed by right, a developer seeking the 30% density bonus under the program would have to provide all of the bonus dwelling units as affordable housing, and the current regulations do not preserve the affordability of the units; and WHEREAS, it is desired to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to encourage affordable housing by providing revised density bonuses when affordable housing is proposed, and to make other changes that would encourage developers to participate in the density bonus program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend section 2.4, entitled "Intent of the Bonus Factor Provisions," sections 12.4.3,13.4.3, 14.4.3, 15.4.3, 16.4.3, 17.4.3 and 18.4.3, each entitled "Low and Moderate Cost Housing," and any other regulations of the Zoning Ordinance deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date. ***** I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _ to _, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Bowerman Mr. Boyd Mr. Domer Mr. Rooker Ms. Thomas Mr. Wyant Attachment C RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, there is a shortage of affordable housing in Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, setting specific targets for the development of affordable dwelling units is one of the strategies identified in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan (the "Comprehensive Plan") to provide affordable housing in Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan currently states that, at a minimum, 15% of all dwelling units developed under a rezoning or a special use pennit should be affordable, or a comparable contribution should be made to achieve the County's affordable housing goals; and WHEREAS, it is desired to amend the Comprehensive Plan to establish the basis for calculating the number of affordable dwelling units to be proffered based on the additional dwelling units allowed after the rezoning; and WHEREAS, it is also desired to amend the Comprehensive Plan to establish a fonnula for calculating the cash or cash-equivalent proffers for a rezoning in lieu of proffering the recommended number of affordable dwelling units. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare, good planning and land use practices and, in particular, to achieve Albemarle County's affordable housing goals, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan as described herein, and to make any other changes to the Comprehensive Plan deemed to be necessary in order to achieve the purposes described herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date. ***** I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on -- Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Bowennan Mr. Boyd Mr. Dorrier Mr. Rooker Ms. Thomas Mr. Wyant COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 10, Offenses- Miscellaneous, to prohibit certain activities on public roadways and medians AGENDA DATE: June 1, 2005 ACTION: INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSALlREQU EST: Request to set public hearing to consider proposed ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 10, Offenses- Miscellaneous, regarding prohibiting certain activities on public roads and medians CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Davis, Miller REVIEWED BY: ~ I LEGAL REVIEW: Yes BACKGROUND: The General Assembly adopted enabling legislation during the 2005 session authorizing Albemarle County to adopt a local ordinance to prohibit solicitations and other related activities on public roadways and medians. The enabling authority is effective July 1, 2005. The ordinance, if adopted, would be codified in the Albemarle County Code. .TRATEGIC PLAN: oal: 3.1 Make the County a safe and healthy community In which citizens feel secure to live, work and play. DISCUSSION: The attached draft ordinance provides that it shall be unlawful for any person while standing on any public roadway or median therein to: (1) distribute handbills, leaflets, bulletins, literature, advertisements or similar material to the occupants of motor vehicles; (2) solicit contributions of any nature from the occupants of motor vehicles; or (3) sell or attempt to sell merchandise to the occupants of motor vehicles. A violation of the ordinance would be punishable as a traffic infraction as required by the state enabling authority. Enforcement would be the responsibility of the Police Department. The Police Department is requesting this ordinance for public safety reasons. The Department has received a growing number of complaints from citizens who have been approached while in their vehicles by solicitors at various times. Due to the ever-increasing amount of traffic in the County, the number of complaints and the potential for injury to drivers and their passengers, as well as the solicitors, the Police Department believes the ability to issue citations and collect fines will help deter this activity. BUDGET IMPACT: The Police Department has determined that there would be no significant budget impacts associated with the adoption of this ordinance. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors set the attached proposed ordinance for public hearing on July 6, 2005. ATTACHMENTS .ttachment A - Draft Ordinance ttachment B - Virginia Code § 46.2-932, effective July 1, 2005 05.063 Attachment A Draft: May 19,2005 ORDINANCE NO. OS-lO( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 10, OFFENSES--MISCELLANEODS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 10, Offenses--Miscellaneous, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Adding: Sec. 10-123 Prohibited Activities on Public Roadways and Medians CHAPTER 10. OFFENSES -- MISCELLANEOUS ***** Sec. 10-123 Prohibited Activities on Public Roadwavs and Medians A. Definitions: Roadwav. As used in this section. the term "roadwav" means that Dortion of a hi2:hwav imoroved. desÌ!med. or ordinarily used for vehicular travel. exclusive of the shoulder. A hi2:hwav may include two or more roadways if divided bv a Dhvsical barrier or barriers or an unDaved area. Center Median. As used in this section. the term "center median" means any area in the middle of any roadway. desÜmed to orovide a barrier to keeD traffic on one side of the road from 2:oin2: to the other side of the road. Sellinf!. offerinf! for sale advertisinf! solicitinf! distributinf! or distribute. As used in this section. "sellin2:. offerin2: for sale. advertisin2:. solicitin2:. distributin2: or distribute" means any such activity which involves the deliverv of any document. Dublication or other item or the intent to deliver any document. Dublication or other item to any OCCUDant of a motor vehicle located on a county roadway or any such activity which involves the receiDt of any money or any item or the intent to receive any money or any item from the OCCUDant of an automobile located on a county roadway. B. It shall be unlawful for any oerson while standin2: on any Dublic roadway or center median to: 1. Distribute handbills. leaflets. bulletins. literature. advertisements or similar material to the OCCUDants of motor vehicles. 2. Solicit contributions of any nature from the OCCUDants of motor vehicles. 3. Sell or attemDt to sell merchandise to the occuDants of motor vehicles. C. Anv Derson violatin2: any orovision of this section shall be 2:uilty of a traffic infraction. Dunishable as orovided under state law. Each seDarate incident may be considered a new violation. State Law References: Authority to enact section Code ofVindnia section 46.2-931. . . . Attachment A Draft: May 19, 2005 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 Aye Nay Mr. Bowerman Mr. Boyd Mr. Dorrier Mr. Rooker Ms. Thomas Mr. Wyant Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Attachment B summary I pdf CHAPTER 541 An Act to amend and reenact § 46.2-931 of the Code of Virginia, relating to distribution of materials to and solicitation of funds from motorists on secondary highways. [H 2249] Approved March 22, 2005 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: 1. That § 46.2-931 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows: § 46.2-931. Certain localities may prohibit or regulate distribution of handbills, etc., solicitation of contributions and sale of merchandise on highways within their boundaries. A. Arlington and Henrico Counties and the Town of Vienna are hereby authorized to adopt ordinances prohibiting or regulating: 1. The distribution of handbills, leaflets, bulletins, literature, advertisements, or similar material to the driyers occupants of motor vehicles or passengers therein on secondary high'.vays located ,-,.'ithin such counties on secondary or urban highways located within their boundaries; 2. The solicitation of contributions of any nature from the drivers occupants of motor vehicles or passengers therein on secondary highways located vlÌthin such counties on secondary and urban highways located within their boundaries; 3. The sale of merchandise or the attempted sale of merchandise to the dri'.'ers occupants of motor vehicles or passengers therein on secondary highways located vlÌthin such counties on secondary and urban highways located within their boundaries. B. Albemarle and Greene Counties are hereby authorized to adopt ordinances regulating: 1. The distribution of handbills, leaflets, bulletins, literature, advertisements, or similar material to the occupants of motor vehicle on public roadways and medians; 2. The solicitation of contributions of any nature from the occupants of motor vehicles on public roadways and medians; and 3. The sale of merchandise or the attempted sale of merchandise to the occupants of motor vehicles on public roadways and medians. C. Ordinances adopted pursuant to this section may provide that any person violating the provisions of such ordinances shall be guilty of a traffic infraction. D. The Virginia Department of Transportation may regulate activities within such streets and highways under its jurisdiction, subject to regulations promulgated by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow any locality to permit activities within any highway under the maintenance and operational jurisdiction of the Virginia Department of Transportation. --...,.,...-------..............,;<=~._----"'=-- Le~!Îslative Information System · · · COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 April 26, 2005 Agnes Shiflett 7620 Mission Home Road Free Union VA 22940 C4-27-J5A~;:J9 RCVD RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax Map 56, Parcel 1 and Tax Map 55, parcel 47 (Property of Agnes Shiflett and Chester C. Shiflett) Section 1 0.3.1 Dear Ms. Shiflett: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that Tax Map 56, Parcel 1 is comprised of three (3) separate parcels of record as shown on the attached plat by Old Albemarle Surveying. The 24.77-acre parcel has five development rights. The 3.83-acre parcel has one (1) development right. The 1.11 acre- parcel has one (1) development right. Tax Map 55, Parcel 47 is a separate parcel of record with one (1) development right. The basis for this determination is summarized as follows: Our records indicate Tax Map 55, Parcel 47 contains 1.28 acres and no dwellings. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent recorded instrument for this property is recorded in Deed Book 218, page 283. Our records indicate Tax Map 56, Parcel 1 contains 30.00 acres and 1 dwelling. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent recorded instrument for this property is recorded in Deed Book 217, page 18. Tax Map 55, Parcel 47 The most recent instrument for this parcel recorded prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, (December 10, 1980) is in Deed Book 218, page 283 and is dated December 29, 1932. This deed conveyed 1.45 acres from Samuel H. Dawson and Kate O. Dawson to A. C. Shiflett. The parcel is described as being the same conveyed to Samuel H. Dawson by John R. Thurston by the deed of record in Deed Book 161, page 179. Reference is made to that deed for a metes and bounds 1:\DEPT\BCZS\Determin of Parcel\2005\55-47 & 56-1 Shiflett.doc . . . Agnes Shiflett April 26, 2005 Page 2 description of said land and a plat of the same therewith recorded. The plat of record in Deed Book 161, page 180 is in the file. On the basis of this deed and plat it is determined that the 1.45-acre parcel, now identified as Tax Map 55, Parcel 47, is a parcel of record with one (1) development right. Tax Map 56. Parcel 1 This analysis begins with Deed Book 105, page 133, dated March 23, 1896. This deed conveyed 36 7/8 acres from Amanda M. Gardner to John R. Thurston. The property is shown on a plat by J. F. E. Simms, County Surveyor. A portion of this property located north of Route 789, containing 1.11 acres according to the plat by Old Albemarle Surveying dated December 31, 2004, is now a portion of Parcel 1. Deed Book 105, page 136, dated March 23, 1896, conveyed 25 % acres from Amanda M. Gardner to Thomas W. Thurston. The property is shown on a plat by J. F. E. Simms, County Surveyor. This deed and plat established the 25.25-acre parcel as a parcel of record. Deed Book 133, page 219, dated October 30, 1903, conveyed 8 acres from Amanda M. Gardner to John R. Thurston and Thos. W. Thurston. The property is shown on a plat by the County Surveyor that is attached to the deed. Deed book 138, page 444, dated October 29, 1908, conveyed 4 acres from John. R. Thurston and Thomas W. Thurston to Thomas W. Thurston and Maggie B. Thurston. The property is described as being a portion of the 8 acres conveyed by the deed of record in Deed Book 133, page 219. The deed contains a plat that divided the 8-acre parcel into two 4-acre lots. This deed and plat established each of the 4-acre parcels as parcels of record. Lot No.2 now contains 3.83 acres according to the plat by Old Albemarle Surveying dated December 31, 2004, and is now a portion of Parcel 1. Deed Book 138, page 438, dated November 14,1908, conveyed 1 acre from John R. Thurston and Ella J. Thurston to R. H. Jones. The property is described as being a portion of the land conveyed to John R. Thurston by the deed of record in Deed Book 105, page 133. It is further described as being bounded on the South by Buck Mountain Road and on the North, East and West by the 25.25-acre tract conveyed by the deed of record in Deed Book 105, page 136.This parcel is depicted as a portion of T.M. 56- P.1, containing 1.11 acres on the survey by Old Albemarle Surveying, dated December 31, 2004. This deed established the 1-acre parcel as a parcel of record Deed Book 138, page 439, dated October 30, 1908, conveyed two tracts of land from Thomas W. Thurston and Maggie B. Thurston to R. H. Jones. The first is described as being the same land containing 25.25 acres and conveyed by the deed of record in 1:\DEPTlBCZS\Determin of Parcel\2005\55-47 & 56-1 Shiflett.doc . . . Agnes Shiflett April 26, 2005 Page 3 Deed Book 105, page 136. The first is described as being the same land containing 4 acres and conveyed by the deed of partition dated October 29, 1908. This deed had no effect on the legal status of these two separate parcels of record. Deed Book 150, page 195, dated September 5,1912, conveyed three tracts from R. H. Jones and Helen M. Jones to S. H. Dawson. The land is described as all those certain tracts or parcels containing about 30 acres and is further described in part, as follows: First: 25. ~ acres shown on a survey by J.T.E Simms. Second: 4 acres conveyed by the deed of record in Deed Book 138, page 439. Third: 1 acre conveyed by the deed of record in Deed Book 138, page 438. This deed had no effect on the legal status of the three separate parcels of record. Deed Book 215, page 36, dated October 19,1931, conveyed 30 ~ acres from H. W. I Walsh and Lyttelton, Trustees to E. H. Copenhaver, Receiver for Bank of Crozet. The land is described as being the same land conveyed to S. H. Dawson by the deed of record in Deed Book 150, page 195. This deed had no effect on the legal status of the three separate parcels of record. The most recent instrument for this parcel recorded prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, (December 10, 1980) is in Deed Book 217, page 18 and is dated July 2, 1932. This deed conveyed 30 ~ acres from E. H. Copenhaver, Special Commissioner and Receiver for the Bank of Crozet to A. C. Shiflett and Theresa A. Shiflet. The deed references the deed recorded in Deed Book 215, page 36 for greater certainty of description. On the basis of this deed the three parcels described above and shown on the attached plat by Old Albemarle Surveying are parcels of record with development rights as follows: The 3.83- acre parcel contains one (1) development right. The 1.11-acre parcel contains one (1) development right. The 24.77-acre parcel contains five (5) development rights. These parcels are entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are thecretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition these tracts may create as many parcels containing a minimum of 21 acres as they have land to create. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. 1:\DEPT\BCZS\Determin of Parcel\2005\55-47 & 56-1 Shiflett.doc . . . Agnes Shiflett April 26, 2005 Page 4 If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, ~ John Shepherd Manager of Zoning Administration Copies: Ella Carey, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Gay Carver, Real Estate Department Reading Files Attached: Old Albemarle Surveying Plat 1:\DEPT\BCZS\Determin of Parcel\2005\55-47 & 56-1 Shiflett.doc . ){ NOTES' I. THIS PLAT IS BASED ON A CURRENT FIELD SURVEY. Z. NO BURIAL SITES FOUND ON THESE .PARCELS. 3. THESE PARCELS DO NOT LIE IN ZONE A (AREA OF]OO YEAR FLOOD) ACCORDING TO FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP, COMMJNITY PANEL NO. ðlOOOS 0180 8. . 4. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED, EASEMENTS AND OTMER ENCUMBRANCES NOT SHOWN MAY EXIST. 100' DATE' DEC. 31,2004 400' \ <>/,' O~/~I ~,.: q~ ,." ..~. / b.\ :;0'; .. ~~/... ,,".... , ' , ' ./t:"",q ....;..... "" , ' ~,'~,' ,,'?',' " 00' 20<1 T. M. 56 - P. I (PORTION) 3.83 ACRES W.B. 97, P. 63 D.B.217,P.18 D.B.138,P. 445 PLAT D. e. 133, P. 219 PLAT T.M.55 - P.4B ROBERT M. SHAW HEIDA E. SONEN 0.8. 2.144, P. 169 0.8. l61,P. 180 PLAT D,B. ¡38,P.445 PLAT D.B.133,P.219 PLAT . T. M. 56 - P. I (PORTION) 24.77 ACRES W.e.S7,p' 63 D.e.217,p'18 D.e. 105,p' 137 PLAT .....55 - P. 46C >SERT M. SHAW ]01 E. SONEN 12144 P. 169 tJ69,P'309PLAT 1. 133. P. 220 PLAT J.J05, P.135 PLAT ,./'" T. M. 56 - P. I (PORTION) I." AC. w.e. 97, p. 63 O.B. 217, P.18 O. B. 138, P. 438 D.B. 105,P' 135 PLAT N 83- 28' 21" Ë "'1'2..~O' T. M. 55 - P.. 49 ERNEST L. THURSTON O.B. 161,P. 293 PLAT o. 8.154, P. 46,47 PLAT O.B.I05,P..135 PLAT . ð.. œ-oe'17· R 11 1075.00' L.171.4ð' C·171.27' ca·S74·0e'lð·W <t g N () ¡:: w z '" « :E T. M. ~6 - P.3 NORMAN S. Ii PHYLLIS H. MCALLISTER D.B. 1!567, P. 393 O. B. 2.35, P. 1544 PLAT O.B. 144, P. 374 PLAT O.B. 144, P. 312. PLAT 0.8.138, P. 171 PLAT D.B. 128, P.12 PLAT .. ,./'" T. M. '6 - P. 3A MELVIN R. MCALLiSTER 0.8. 924,P. 15/6 O.B.318,P'69PLAT ./" -- IRON SET S76-48'4S"W 2.71.90' S~·!57·Z4"W 181.85' CENTERLINE OF 30' PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT ~;:-..... l¡;O ~ '. :or,f.O,.d"",.J.. i%~ :()OJ.~~: ~ Uc.rIo.1798 : \;~~::o"../ ...~~ 518 James S. Utterback, PMP Charlottesville Residency Administrator Virginia Department of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 ~_.~ CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY MONTHLY REpORT MAY 2005 CONSTRUCTIOl\ Route 649 (Airport Road improvement project) 0649-002-158, C501 Original completion date: 9/2/2005 Award amount: $4,820,177 Estimated completion date: 9/2/2005 Est. completion amount: $4,855,598 · Storm drain installation mostly complete. · Base stone placed with concrete curb and gutter placement in progress at east and west ends of project. Route 20 (Carter's Bridge replacement project) 0020-002-126, C501, B608 Original completion date: 5/1/2005 Award amount: $1,488,823 Estimated completion date: 6/30/2005 Est. completion amount: $1,498,346 · Continuing bridge railing and bridge approach grade work to complete project.. Route 53 (Buck Island Creek bridge replacement project) 0053-002-101, C501, B601 Original completion date: 11/1/2005 Award amount: $1,644,187 Estimated completion date: 11/1/2005 Est. completion amount: $1,644,187 · Completed reconstruction of existing road transition to future alignment of Rte. 53 at the north and south ends of proposed new bridge. BP-7 A-05 (District wide bridge painting project) Original completion date: 10/31/2005 Award amount: $1,556,670 Estimated completion date: 10/31/2005 Est. completion amount: $1,556,670 · Continuing work on Rtes. 690 and 691 bridges over 1-64. SS-7B-05 (Surface Treatment) Original completion date: 10/1/2005 Award amount: $838,646.72 Estimated completion date: 7110/05 Est. completion amount: $888,965.52 · Majority of routes in south and west Albemarle are complete. · Schedule is 55% complete. PM-7B-05 (Asphalt pavement overlay) Original completion date: 12/1/2005 Estimated completion date: 1211/2005 · Scheduled overlay on Rte. 606 complete · All scheduled trench widening to Rte. 29 throughout Greene and Albemarle Counties, north and south of Charlottesville, complete. MAINTEl\ANCE WORK COMPLETED Albemarle County · Guardrail installed on Route 708, Dry Bridge Road. · Slide repairs on Route 250 @ Corey Farm are 100% complete. · First cycle mowing operations are 100% complete on Primary and Interstate. · Tree trimming complete at the Meadows Subdivision for sight distance. · Tree trimming completed on Routes 614,664,675 and 857. · Seeded various embankments on Route 250 with wildflowers and grass. · Ditching operations complete on Routes 611, 680 and 684 in Albemarle County. · Route 626 drainage improvements complete. Greene County · Roadside management planted cedars along Route 33 at the junkyard. · Installed "Emily Couric" markers on Route 614. · Sidewalk repairs complete on Route 230. · Constructed a right turn lane at the intersection of Route 633 @ Route 33. Active Constmction Projects Award amount: $3,699,919.31 Est. completion amount: $3,699,919.31 Page 1 of4 Virginia Department o/Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 229/1 PRELIMINARY El\GINEERI;o.IG Albemarle County · Route 22 / 250 Intersection Improvements, 0022-002-104, C501 Field inspection conducted on May 9,2005 On schedule, with ROW acquisition to begin in August 2005. · Route 631 McIntire Road, 0631-002-128, C502, B612, B657 On schedule for a June 2008 Ad Date with ROW acquisition scheduled to begin in December 2005. · Route 691 Jarmans Gap Road, 0691-002-158, C501 On schedule for December 2008 Ad Date. The Public Hearing is scheduled for July 2005. · Route 656 Georgetown Road, 0656-002-254, C501 Residency is developing several design concepts for a meeting with Stakeholders in order to obtain clear guidance and support for the improvements. · Route 606 Dickerson Road, 0606-002-P75, N501 On schedule for a December 2007 Ad Date. The ROW for this gravel road project is only partially available. · Route 640 Gilbert Station Road, 0640-002-P78, N501 Project will be constructed using State Forces with construction beginning in early June 2005. · Route 666 Allen Road, 0666-002-P80, N501 Construction was completed on May 13,2005, using state maintenance forces. Greene County · Route 627 Bacon Hollow Road, 0627-039-195, C501 Project is on schedule for December 2006 Ad Date. · Route 640 Watson Road, 0640-039-137, N501 Construction began on May 16,2005, using state maintenance forces. PLANNING, PERMITS A;o.ID LAND DEVELOPMENT Land Development Items Total This Month S ecial Use Pennits and Rezonin A lication Review Site Plan Reviews for new Subdivisions New Entrance Plan Reviews Total Pennits Processed Utility Pennits Processed Ins ection of new Subdivision Street conducted Inspection of new entrance conducted Miles of Street Accepted in the State System 8 5 6 25 18 12 47 1.86 Total This Fiscal Year 77 81 94 170 139 70 698 5.39 Page 2 0/4 Virginia Department of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Albemarle Planned Route Location Issue Tvpe Received Description Action 29 At Forest Lakes/CVS Signal timing 5/4/2005 Request to review signal timing Request to install red flashing 29NBL Ashwood Flashing light 5/21/2004 light No action Study Fluvanna CL to Boyd 250 Rt. 250 speed study 5/6/2005 Market Question on positioning of 250 At Tilman Light location 2/22/2005 signalized int. No action 250 At Rt. 678 speed study 5/6/2005 Request for speed study Request to review intersection 614 Int. of Sugar Hollow/Garth Intersection 4/6/2005 for safety 631 West Rio/Four Seasons Signal timing 4/21/2005 Signal timing review Signal adjustment 632 off Rt. 29 Signage 4/29/2005 Request for speed limit sign 637 Betwn Rt. 691 & 758 Traffic count 3/29/2005 Traffic count Speed review/posting of gravel 689 Birches Creek Rd speed study 5/19/2005 road 743 At 676 Flashing light 1/24/2005 Flashing light, extend turn lane Marking study for potential bike 743 Old connection at 606 Striping study 4/4/2005 lanes Request to lower speed limit & 746 Speed study/gravel road Speed/Posting 5/13/2005 post Request to lower speed limit & 769 Rocky Hollow Road Speed/Posting 5/11/2005 post Request to lower speed limit & 807 Speed study/gravel road Speed/Posting 5/13/2005 post 810 At Buck Road Safety review 4/12/2005 Safety review at the curve Edge lines planne Request to review the 1315 Int. with Rt. 1456 Safety review 4/6/2005 intersection for safety 1521 Powell Creek Drive Speed 2/16/2005 Request for lower speed limit Greene Planned Route Location Issue Tvpe Received Description Action Traffic backing out onto turn 29NB Turning left WB onto 33 Traffic backup 1 0/20/2004 lane onto Rt. 29 Traffic in a.m. backs up onto Rt. 33EB Turning right onto 29 S Traffic backup 10/20/2004 33 Review requested to upgrade 33 At Rt. 633 Signal review 1/5/2005 signal Signalized int Request from Greene County 615 1335 Evergreen Church Signs/safety 4/22/05 Schools Page 3 of 4 Virginia Department of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 MAINTENANCE BUDGET 20 15 II) c: g 10 :¡¡ 5 - - TOTAL MAINT BUDGET FORECASTED EXPENDITURES 6--- CUMULATIVE ACTUAL - - - -~--~ - ~ -~-_IIIIIIIII!I_-- ~___II~ - - "___!!I!I!!I ~ _~_ __~ - ______________..___m__ o Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Months PLANNED MAINTENANCE WORK - JUNE 05 · Safety Service Patrol for 1-64 scheduled to operate May 2ih and 30th. · Surface treatment operations continue in Albemarle and Greene Counties. · Paving operations on Route 6 in Albemarle County. · Route 33 sidewalk repairs in Greene County over Mitchell Creek. · Paved ditch/drop inlet in Carrsbrook on Monacan Drive. · Patching operations continue on various roadways in preparation for surface treatment and plant mix applications. Page 4 of 4 . . . Albemarle County Planning Commission April 26, 2005 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Rodney Thomas, Marcia Joseph, Vice- Chair, Jo Higgins, Pete Craddock; Calvin Morris and Bill Edgerton, Chairman. Mary Hughes was present for David J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; Francis MacCall, Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development; Judy Wiegand, Planner; Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Edgerton called the regular meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. and established a quorum. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public: Mr. Edgerton invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none, the meeting moved on to the review of the Board of Supervisors Meeting. Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting - April 20, 2005. Mr. Cilimberg summarized the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on April 20, 2005. Consent Agenda: Approval of Plannina Commission Minutes - December 14, 2004; March 1, 2005; and March 15, 2005. Mr. Edgerton asked if any Commissioner would like to pull an item off of the consent agenda for discussion or if there was a motion. Mr. Morris moved to accept the consent agenda as presented. Mr. Craddock seconded the motion. The motion carried with a vote of (7:0). Items Requesting Deferral: ZMA 2004-023 River's Edae Commercial Park Office (Sians #48&55)- Request to rezone 1.818 acres to amend the proffers of ZMA 2001-09 to waive the requirement of a sidewalk on the south side of the access way. The existing zoning is CO, Commercial Office and is proposed to remain CO, Commercial Office. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 58H is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Stony Point Road (Route 20 North) approximately 1/4 mile north of the Route 250/Route 20 intersection. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Regional Service in the Pantops Neighborhood. (Elaine Echols) APPLICANT REQUESTS INDEFINITE DEFERRAL. Mr. Edgerton stated that the applicant had requested indefinite deferral for ZMA-2004-023, River's Edge Commercial Park Office. Mr. Rieley moved to accept the applicant's request for indefinite deferral of ZMA-2004-023, River's Edge Commercial Park Office. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 26, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 3,2005 1 Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of (7:0). Mr. Edgerton stated that ZMA-2004-023, River's Edge Commercial Park Office was indefinitely deferred. Regular Items: SUB 2005-061 Haffner Farm - Request for preliminary plat approval to create 11 lots with a public road on 156.81 acres. The property is zoned RA, Rural Area. The property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 2A is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District on Barracks Road (Route 654) approximately .10 miles from the intersection of Barracks Road and Colthurst Drive (Route 1001). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. (Francis MacCall) Mr. Fritz summarized the staff report. This is a proposal to divide a 156 acre parcel, which is located on Barracks Road essentially across from Colthurst Subdivision. The property essentially runs from Barracks Road to Ivy Creek. The proposal is to divide this property into 11 lots to be served by a new proposed internal public road. All of the lots would access that public road. This parcel is a residue piece of a division from 1991, which was left with the development rights. The site has currently been cited for violation of a provision of the Zoning Ordinance and the Erosion and Sediment Control provisions. The subdivision application has been reviewed by the members of the Site Review Committee for compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance and found to be in compliance with those provisions as they relate to a subdivision. Staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. If there are any questions, he would be happy to try to answer them. There are various staff persons available to answer any questions about the erosion control issues or the zoning violations on the property. Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any questions for staff. Mr. Rieley stated that before they get into any detail about the zoning violations or the erosion control measures he would ask Mr. Kamptner to tell the Commission whether they have any pertinence. Mr. Kamptner stated that this question comes up periodically, but it is usually not with subdivision plats. But, the question is always whether or not the Commission has any authority to deny a subdivision plat if there is an existing violation of the Zoning Ordinance. He reviewed the Subdivision Ordinance once again this afternoon, along with the case law and the Attorney General's opinions, and found there is no authority under the Subdivision Ordinance or under State law for a locality to deny a subdivision plat on the basis of an existing zoning violation. The Subdivision Ordinance repeatedly refers to determining compliance with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, which includes a cross reference to compliance with all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, except those related to lot size and things like that. Ms. Joseph asked if the approval needs certain things to happen, such as the erosion and sedimentation plan approval, in order for the road to be approved. If she had a subdivision to be approved and it has a road shown in a certain location, but went ahead and put the road in without an erosion and sediment plan being approved, would there be any connection between that and the subdivision proposed. Mr. Kamptner stated that the violation stands on its own. He pointed out that the proposed road seemed to satisfy all of the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. In addition, it triggers compliance with the Water Protection Ordinance, and they have to satisfy that as well. Mr. Edgerton stated that he had one question for Mr. MacCal1. In the site review comments the existing driveway is shown on lot 1. There was a very specific suggestion that the property line for lot 1 be adjusted so that there would not be any confusion about whether that would be used for access to any of the lots. He pointed out that there is a note on the plat that says that all lots must access off of the new road. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 26, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 3,2005 2 · · · Mr. MacCall stated that staff suggested that note so that the existing driveway would be on the lot that it would serve, which would be tax map 60, parcel 2. He pointed out that the applicant did not come forward with that on their revisions. Mr. Edgerton stated that would involve an easement across lot 1. Mr. MacCall stated yes, that they would need to plat an easement since it was shared and the property line goes down the middle of the existing gravel driveway. It would probably need to go up to the driveway that veers off to the house. The final plat would then reference all of the lots accessing the new road that are within the subdivision. Some measures could probably be taken to ensure that it was not continued to be used, whether it was by removal of the road that goes beyond that existing driveway into parcel 2 or blocking it off in some way. Mr. Higgins asked if it would need to show that there is an access to another property when this lot is created to show an access easement even on the one-half of the road that is there. Mr. MacCall stated that was correct. Ms. Higgins stated that when a property owner buys the property that they would need to make sure that it is not impacted. Mr. MacCall stated that his suggestion to alleviate that would be to do a boundary line adjustment to put that whole road on parcel 2. Mr. Edgerton stated that suggestion was made to the applicant. He pointed out that what Mr. MacCall is saying is that they chose not to take that suggestion. Mr. Rieley stated that there is no ordinance requirement. Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward and address the Commission. Michael Barnes, of C.W. Hurt Contractors, stated that he did not have anything else to say. He stated that he would be happy to answer any questions that the Commission might have. Mr. Edgerton asked Mr. Barnes to tell the Commission a little bit about the violation because it seems rather extreme. Mr. Barnes stated that he would have to plead a little bit of ignorance on that. Some of this stuff just cropped up and came to his attention during the past couple of weeks. He stated that he had been working on the subdivision aspects of it. Steve Melton has been working with some of the zoning violations. To his understanding the violations fall within three categories. There is some trash and debris that was put on the property and part of that was a shed or a building. He pointed out that he just found out what building they were talking about tonight from the zoning staff. From the aerial photo the building appeared to be small enough to be like a small shed, which was on the back side of the property. He stated that he could not begin to guess the reasons for the actions that were taken out there. Mr. Edgerton stated that there was also a violation on the entrance road. Mr. Barnes stated that the other zoning violation includes the location of 46 trailers on the property. As you all mayor may not know, Dr. Hurt buys a lot of stuff at auction and he has been storing them in tractor trailers. This was previously stored in town until they were told that it had to be moved. He pointed out that he thought this site was where most of them ended up. As far as the erosion and sediment control, the first thing he did was contact Mark Graham to tell him that they were going to cut an entrance off of Barracks Road, which they did. He pointed out that they tried to keep it under the 10,000 square feet for that first bit there. He thought that they got up to 1,500 square feet for the entrance road aspect of it, which was where Dr. Hurt would like to have the entrance to his farm. In many respects this thing is ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 26, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 3,2005 3 being driven for him because it is a place that he wants to have for his personal home and it is his desire just to keep things moving. That is why they did the initial cut onto Barracks Road. They talked with VDOT and worked with some site distance issues and got the necessary VDOT permits. Again, they were trying to keep it under the 10,000 square feet. Obviously, in that first initial one they got up to about 1,500 square feet. As far as the dirt that has been placed back, which has created the violation, he actually did not have anything to do with that. That sort of cropped up on its own. The fill that is there is for a stream crossing that will eventually go in. There is an intermittent stream where this road goes back that he has worked with the Corps of Engineers to get a permit for. They have that permit in hand. That fill is to help create that crossing. As soon as they found out about the violation for that they immediately got an erosion and sediment control plan to the County. That has been at least three or four weeks back now, but they have still not heard what they need to do to abate that violation. With the initial road cut into there they put in silt fences and other measures. He stated that maybe the engineering department can speak to that. With regards to the drainage area that was coming to that point, they have tried to keep it out of the stream by putting in some silt fence. There was a silt fence installed around the stock pile. Again, they were working with the County to do whatever mitigation measures that there need to be done to bring that into an erosion and control plan for that stock pile. They have also submitted another plantor the road crossing or the stream crossing to continue the road up the hill. Mr. Edgerton opened up the public hearing, which he had failed to do earlier. Ms. Higgins stated that she had a question about the point where it shows the pipe as you come in that shows the new 100 foot stream buffer on the right. There is no extension of the 100 foot stream buffer on lot 1 to the left of the drive. It is numbered page 9 on attachment C, but it is actually sheet 3 of 7. Mr. Barnes asked if her question is should that 100 foot buffer continue on the upper side of that road. Ms. Higgins stated that based on the topo there is a defined stream and a 20 foot drainage easement on the right hand side, which she assumed was the outflow side even if there was a 100 foot box out on the other side. If the stream magically starts at the outlet of that pipe, it would go 100 foot back from the outlet of that pipe. Mr. Barnes stated that was a point well taken and that they will correct that on the plan. Mr. Fritz stated that it may not be correct on here because he did not know if there was a determination made about where the stream starts. But, he sees the channel on there and thinks that it probably does go further. Ms. Higgins stated that if it just happened to intersect what you are calling the head stream, it would still be a 100 foot box out on the upstream side. Mr. Barns stated that obviously what they need to do is bring it back to almost where you see the deed book reference underneath the power line, which is about where that stream is coming out. Therefore, that buffer should be extended up through there. Ms. Higgins stated that someone who purchases lot 1 might not recognize that and fill in that area to build something for horses. If the buffer was not there, it may be confusing. Mr. Barnes stated that they would be happy to add that. Mr. Rieley stated that it was a good catch. Ms. Higgins stated that the lot 1 is really close to the existing road as it diverges from the driveway next door serving Tax Map 60, Parcel 2. That existing driveway is running really close to the defined building lot and it would probably make sense that some note be put on the plat that they must use the public road. Just so that, again, someone that gets it does not decide that they can get a back entrance and a front entrance. . ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 26, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 3,2005 4 . . . Mr. Barnes stated that he felt that note was already on the plan. Mr. Edgerton stated that note was already on the plan as note 13. He pointed out that lots were misspelled since it says "all lost." He felt that item needed to be addressed. Mr. Barnes stated that where that building site ends up probably would be more down by the new road anyhow judging by the topography that you actually have on the site. Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any other questions for Mr. Barnes. There being none, he asked if there were anybody from the public that would like to address the Commission regarding this application. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for consideration and action. Mr. Craddock pointed out that he would like to ask a question about why there were no County signs posted on the subject property advertising that there was something going on. He stated that he visited the site last Thursday and did not see any signs. Mr. Fritz stated that the signs are not posted for subdivisions or site plans. The signs are only posted for special use permits and rezonings. He pointed out that notice is given to the adjoining property owners by mail regarding subdivisions and site plans. Mr. Kamptner stated that the posted signs are a requirement of the County Ordinance, but are not required by State law. It is something additional that is provided. Mr. Craddock stated that somebody could go by there everyday and not know that a subdivision is going in until it actually happens. Mr. Kamptner stated that was correct, except for the adjoining owners who would get some written notification at some point in the process. Mr. Craddock stated that the thing about the violations with the subdivision is that it applies to the by right division as well as for other subdivisions. Mr. Kamptner stated yes. Just to give the Commission a broader view, the State law was changed a few years ago giving us the authority to not issue any approvals where the owner has failed to pay property taxes. The Zoning Ordinance was amended to include that authority. But, the General Assembly has not given us the authority to stop processing plats where there are existing violations on the property. Mr. Edgerton stated that no matter how Albemarle County might feel about it that there was nothing that they could do to remedy this situation. Mr. Kamptner stated that it was one of the limitations that they had to deal with under the Dillon Rule. Ms. Higgins stated that zoning still has the enforcement based on the emails that she received that was proceeding. Ms. Joseph stated that maybe so, but here is a method to actually deny something because they have all of these violations on the property and there is no way that the Commission can do anything. It just keeps on. Mr. Edgerton pointed out that Mr. Barnes had stated that they had wanted to keep this going by putting in the entrance, but that was last August. Mr. Morris asked if the issue of affordable housing has been raised in this particular instance as it has in others. Mr. Fritz stated that it was not an issue that they bring up in by right subdivision site plan reviews except ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 26, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 3,2005 5 where they are requesting a density bonus, which they are not eligible for in the rural areas. Ms. Joseph asked for Mr. Graham to come up to answer a question. She asked if he knew what was happening here in terms of the erosion and sediment control. Mark Graham stated that he did. There are two applications that have been made to the County under the Water Protection Ordinance for erosion and sediment control. One has to deal with the waste area to permit a waste area, which is clearly an allowed activity in this zoning district. Staff is proceeding with the review of that plan. The second plan submitted was the second erosion and control plan, which has to deal with putting the road in. It was called a driveway, but it was essentially the road as shown on the preliminary plan. Staff is not reviewing that plan, but has returned that to the applicant as not being accepted for two reasons. One, as Ms. Higgins clearly pointed out and staff has noted to the applicant, there is a stream buffer issue. A stream buffer mitigation plan would have to be reviewed and approved by the County prior to a crossing there. The other is under the erosion and sediment control provisions of the Water Protection Ordinance, Section 204.e, if the owner is required to obtain approval of a site plan or plat, which for the road to serve the subdivision you are, the Program Authority shall not approve a erosion and sediment control plan until that site plan or plat is approved as provided by law. Therefore, staff feels that we cannot approve that plan as it was clearly part of what is being proposed with the subdivision plat. Mr. Rieley stated that he certainly hopes that these violations are aggressively pursued, but clearly the venue for that pursuit is not the subdivision process. Because of that, he moved for approval of SUB- 2005-061, Haffner Farm, with the staffs recommended conditions in addition to the extension of the stream buffer along the lines that Ms. Higgins pointed out. 1. The final plat will be subject to the subdivision requirements of Section 14-206 of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. Health Department approval is needed for soil evaluations for all lots within the subdivision. 3. Approval of a final Tier 3 groundwater plan. 4. Approval of an erosion control plan, narrative and computations. 5. Approval of road plans, pavement design sheets, and drainage computations. 6. Approval of a storm water management plan and computations (a detention waiver is not inferred with this approval and will be considered during review of the storm water management plan). 7. VDOT approval will be required for final subdivision plans and computations. 8. VDOT requires that it be determined if the existing guardrail in the proximity of the entrance and taper will need to be adjusted. 9. An extension of the 100 foot stream buffer on lot 1 to the left of the street shall be noted on the plan. Ms. Higgins seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of (6:1). (Ms. Joseph - No) Mr. Edgerton stated that SUB-2005-061, Haffner Farm, was approved with condition. Worksessions: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Hazard Mitiaation Plan - Worksession to discuss the Albemarle County portion of the region's Hazard Mitigation Plan, developed by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. The Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies actions to be taken to reduce or eliminate the risk to human life and property from natural disasters. The Plan was prepared with input from the Charlottesville U.Va. Albemarle Emergency Services Center and Albemarle County staff. Possible mitigation options are cataloged under: Education and Outreach; Policy, Planning and Funding; Information and Data Development; and Structural Improvements. Mr. Cilimberg introduced Bill Wanner, Senior Regional Planner from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, who can talk to the Commission about the study so that the Commissioners are ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 26, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 3,2005 6 · · · aware of the process that they were envisioning here. Mr. Wanner can provide a few of the details. There has been an effort ongoing for a while to develop a Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. A committee has been working with that. He pointed out that he has been working some with that group, but it is most importantly the emergency providers who have in particular have worked on the details. Tonight they would hear an overview of the results of that work and most particularly how they have applied it to Albemarle County. A public hearing has been scheduled for the Planning Commission. One of the requirements is that this plan be adopted in a similar fashion to a Comprehensive Plan by each of the counties in the Planning District. Therefore, the Commission and Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing on the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan in May and June. He asked Mr. Wanner to explain what it is all about. Bill Wanner stated that he worked with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. He recognized Nicole Gilkeson, who is a second year graduate student in Planning at the University and also a FEMA Community member, for her work with them for an entire year on the mitigation strategy plan. The summary that is included in their agenda is an excellent starting point and he would not belabor some of the things that are there already. But, he just wanted to recognize that not only do they value the importance of identifying, assessing and seeking to reduce the loss of life or property from natural disasters, but they have somewhat of a self serving purpose of doing this as well. The plan is not required to be adopted by localities, but FEMA requirements now necessitate this plan being adopted before any grant applications are made to them. Therefore, both pre- and post- funding through FEMA is contingent upon an adopted plan. So that is our pecuniary reason for preparing and adopting the plan. As Mr. Cilimberg as said, the involvement has been primarily through the Emergency Services Coordinator, Kay Harden. His committee, which is the Emergency Planning Committee, is a large group of citizens and staff that comes together monthly. They have met with them several times with their working committee. Therefore, they have a very close working relationship with Mr. Harden and his group. As Mr. Cilimberg said, he has been involved with their working committee, as has Paul Muhlberger from Public Works, and, of course, Kay Harden. Therefore, they are really just trying to introduce the topic to the Commission tonight and let them recognize that the key part of this plan is really under the mitigation strategies that begin on page 37. The other three major parts of the plan, the Hazard Identification and Analysis, the Vulnerability Assessment and the Capability Assessment are really analytic mechanical measurements of the likelihood of different disasters occurring in this area based on previous history and the estimates of the total losses to life and property based on those. Not surprisingly that ranking list gives floods the top need in our community followed by winter storms, hurricanes, tornados, high wind and drought. With those in mind and recognizing that is really what the thrust of the first part of the plan does, what really is the more subjective or flexible part of the plan is indeed the mitigation actions that are summarized beginning on page 37. Those are broken in to four basic categories being: structural, which is physical projects that they expect will reduce the likelihood of impacts from natural hazards; education and outreach, which speaks pretty much to itself; policy planning and funding, which is how they would put some of these strategies into existing and future plans; and information and data development, which was a matter of developing additional information and data to refine the hazard assessment and mitigation. The project list is really the key to this. The mitigation action projects are really the only thing that Albemarle County will adopt of its own versus by State mandate to be a regional project. They are only asking each locality to adopt the mitigation strategies that are specific to their community. Again, he reinforced that with the Albemarle staff's participation and the Emergency Services Coordinating Committee, he felt that they have understood quite a bit of what is important to the community in general. He stated that he would like to also just mention the implications of what the adoption of this plan are. The intent is not to recognize or intend to do all of them, but one to identify the things that are ongoing so that they have a measure of success when they are completed; and two, to again posture ourselves for the possibility that we may be able to fund some of these projects that are not able to now be funded. FEMA requires that they do an annual report that is basically an evaluation of their progress in meeting these mitigation actions. For those that they are falling short or finding delays that they look at a way to overcome those obstacles. But, the reality is that if funding is not sufficient to do a project that is a clear reason for that obstacle being in the way. Therefore, that is the quick take, but they will be back ón May ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 26, 2005 7 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 3,2005 10 for a public hearing and a consideration of adopting a plan and recommending it to go forward to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Edgerton stated that he had a question on these mitigation actions there is a line item on most of them with an estimated cost and the cost were rather nominal until you get to the back of the packet. There are some substantial numbers of 120 million dollars for implementations and recommendations to the water supply study and another 10 million dollars for phase 2 to upgrade Raggy Mountain and so on. At the same time there is an ongoing public discussion and the Supervisors are trying to sort out the appropriate direction to go as far as dealing with our water issues as a community. He stated that he was wondering what impact, if any, that the adoption of this document on the implementation or whether that would be best on them to address things in this manner. Mr. Wanner stated that certainly he felt that the possible negative would be that if in fact the Board of Supervisors decided not to pursue it in the specific way that it was addressed here, then they recognize that the policy changes have occurred and then they would move this in the direction that is more consistent with the policy recommendations. He pointed out that they would then do that. Mr. Edgerton stated that they would then adjust this to fit with what they are doing. Mr. Wanner stated that was exactly correct. He stated that they would do an annual evaluation where they might recognize this. Then every five years the plan is updated. Therefore, that would be the time to be more comprehensive about that. The up side is that if it is consistent with the policies that the Board adopts, then they have the opportunity to fund this through some of the funding streams that are available for mitigation actions. From that perspective it could be very helpful. Ms. Higgins stated that she looked at this a little bit differently than he did because she thought that it was going to be more of a work session for input. She has always looks at it as fire and flood and all of the other things in between seem to be planned issues. Then there are issues such as water supplies that apply to growth, and there is a process for that with a lot of projections. What really came home to her in the mitigation action lists, which is the first and second ones on page 48, was that the wild fire and the use of recreational trails as fire breaks where it has the estimated cost of none. She questioned that because doing that does cost something, but she was not sure how to measure it. Also, there is one above it that says estimated cost as unknown. Actually, she did not know that clearing a lot of dead wood from forests is actually something from a governmental perspective because it is almost something that property owners need to do. It has been brought home to her by several people. During the last five years there has been the three year drought and then almost two years now of obsessive rainfall. There have actually been twisters out on the west side. She pointed out that her property had been hit with one that twisted a lot of trees. She felt that there is a gap in the education for the people who are putting their property in conservation easement to maintain forestal property in that they have forgotten that it takes maintenance. While riding horses through these areas she has been impressed with the excessive amount of trees that are not piled on them and the forest bottom is gathering debris. It is almost impassable in places where it did not use to be. So she did not know how in these mitigation acts since that particular one seems to be mixed up with a lot of governmental type of analysis. Really that is a function of education to tell each and every property owner that your forest is not self-maintaining. If the wood gathers on the floor of the forest and there is any idea or possible wild fire that the fire would be more dramatic. She asked if this was an instrument that they were going to use. But, that under education or some list they have it lumped together so that you have to read through all of them and she always looked at it as something that you would have to implement. She suggested that there could be a summary of breaking this down. She asked if as part of this report they could make it more applicable by having the mitigation actions in some sort of table and then next to it lists the Virginia Department of Forest. She felt the individual property owners need to be mentioned. Mr. Wanner stated that he agreed with her suggestion. Ms. Higgins stated that was her fire concern. She stated that next was her flood concern. On page 29 under the dam failure section, it is obvious that someone counted the dams that could fail. There are nine and that only five have emergency action plans. One dam does not have a plan and the other three do ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 26, 2005 8 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 3,2005 . not require a plan. She felt that it would be extremely helpful, although it would add length to their report because there is a big gap there, to list the dams. Since they have the data she felt that it would be very useful. She asked if there was an upper Ragged Mountain and a Ragged Mountain. Mr. Wanner stated that there is an upper and lower dam. Ms. Higgins stated that the upper Ragged Mountain dam does not have a plan, but she did not see it mentioned in the mitigation. She asked if it was something that she missed. Mr. Wanner stated that it does not seem that she did because it does not appear that as though they need to be specific on those areas that have a plan where they have the possibility of failure. Ms. Higgins stated that what brought this home to her was that a few years ago Sugar Hollow had a flood. At that time the whole idea of getting people out and how many properties were accessed during the flood was brought up. It has been a number of years ago now and the properties are starting to change over. When dams are affected and with the extreme wet weather that they are having that is possibly one of the most important parts of this report. That one seems to be a lower priority in the report. Ms. Gilkeson pointed out that what the Commission has is a summary of the plan, but the entire plan is on the website and it does have a list of all of the dams. She stated that she would double check that to make sure, but that the first draft did have a list of all of the dams. It is just a summary in relation to Albemarle, but they have a map with all of the dams in the region and their hazard of high, medium and low as they pose a threat. Ms Higgins pointed out that a lot of people are just going to read the summary. When you start mentioning numbers like 9, 5 and 3 you immediately want to know which one whether you would be affected. She pointed out that was what she was looking for. . Mr. Wanner stated that it might be helpful and valuable to cross reference that in the summary. Ms. Higgins stated that if the upper Ragged Mountain dam does not and it does not fall in the category here it does not require it, then it probably should show up under a mitigation action and whose responsibility it is to have a plan. The plan is usually pretty simple and straight forward and has to do with who is affected downstream and that sort of thing. She pointed out that the rest of the plan was very good, but that she had just dwelled on fire and flood. She felt that it boils down to the fact that the emergency responders were predominantly going to respond to fire and flood. She pointed out that they don't run out there is the water supply gets low. Ms. Gilkeson stated that there is an action item that is education and outreach for fire wise workshops on page 40. Ms. Higgins stated that particular item on the clearing of the forest was almost important enough to consider in Albemarle County when they send out the tax bills to put one paragraph on the one sheet of information that goes out. The paragraph could say that if you own forested land and if you are accumulating a lot of debris, be aware that this kind of thing has happens. There are a lot of forested areas on the west side that are becoming prime candidates for something like that to happen. Ms. Joseph stated that there is another way that people look at trees falling in the forest. It also provides food for the woodpeckers, bugs, and bunnies. It also provides shelter and protects the habitat of the forest. Mr. Wanner felt that was why it was important to do an education piece on it. He felt that it was going to have to be a voluntary. . Mr. Thomas asked where the funding was going to come from. Ms. Gilkeson stated that there were a series of different grants available from FEMA. They have also ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 26, 2005 9 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 3, 2005 looked at other sources such as any other federal programs that offer any type of funding. One fund is the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant is relatively new. It comes around once a year and is a competitive grant. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program opens up as soon as a disaster hits in the state of Virginia a percentage of that money, which is between 7 and 15 percent. That money opens up and is available specifically for mitigation money. Then the Virginia Department of Emergency Management will delegate that funding. Because they have projects listed as being appropriate for that they would be eligible for that. Mr. Wanner stated that they would be back before the Planning Commission on May 10. They have already begun the advertising for that public hearing. He suggested that the Commissioners visit their website at wwanner@TJPC.org to get the full unfiltered version of the plan. He asked that they look at number 2 on page 48 at the top mitigation action, which strikes him as more educational than structural. He agreed with Ms. Higgins that it was out of context and that they would provide a summary for the mitigation actions in a more readable form. This is basically a FEMA outline and that they are required to follow this template. They will fill in the dam failures with some specifics and cross the reference the data that they have. They will talk with staff about the possibility of doing some of the public education things through the County newsletter. Ms. Joseph stated that at one point David Hirschman was working on a report that talked about debris flow. She pointed out that she did not see anything about debris flow in this and wondered if it was something that they looked at. She questioned if they should look at that. Mr. Rieley stated that there was a section on landslides and land stability. Mr. Cilimberg stated that would be the same. He asked Mr. Wanner to check to see whether he has a copy of that report that David Hirschman had done a few years ago. It was presented to the Planning Commission during a work session at one point. Ms. Joseph stated that the report was wonderful because it showed certain areas and designated those on a map of Albemarle. She felt it they had already spent that money that it ought to be used. Mr. Cilimberg stated that it would be a document to reference from something like this. He stated that he would provide a copy to Mr. Wanner if he did not have a copy. Ms. Joseph stated that she had a couple of comments that she would email to Mr. Wanner. In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Hazard Mitigation Plan. Bill Wanner discussed the Albemarle County portion of the region's Hazard Mitigation Plan, which was developed by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. He explained that the Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies actions to be taken to reduce or eliminate the risk to human life and property from natural disasters. The Planning Commission made the following suggestions: · Discussion should be held with staff about the possibility of public education regarding this plan. · Mr. Wanner to check through materials and make sure that he has a copy of the debris flow report done by David Hirschman several years ago. · The Commissioners were requested to review the entire plan that was located on the web site under T JPC.org. Any further questions or comments should be emailed to wwanner@TJPC.org. The Commission and Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing on the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan in May and June. Northern Development Areas Master Plan - This work session is to provide a status report on the Master Plan process and discuss representation on a Master Plan Advisory Committee. (Attachment- Executive Summary dated April 26, 2005 for Northern Development Areas Master Plan Project Status Report) Mr. Cilimberg introduced Judy Wiegand who is the project manager for this extensive look at a large area. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 26, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 3,2005 10 . . Ms. Wiegand stated that she would provide an update on two companion projects being the Northern Development Areas Master Plan and also the US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study. The project has a new name: Places 29 Creating and Connecting Communities in Northern Albemarle, which hopefully will help catch the public's attention. That will be the overall title for the Master Plan and a good portion of the transportation study. It is a combined planning process for the two reports. The advantage of that combined process, of course, is that it will enable us to coordinate the land uses along Route 29 with what is .being done for the improvement of the traffic in the corridor. The goal of the Master Plan portion of this is to encourage development and redevelopment in the four development areas while we protect the County's rural areas. They are looking to find out how to provide a quality of community that will make the corridor an attractive place for people to work, live and shop. The participants in this process are County staff, The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, a team of consultants, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and the City of Charlottesville. The Master Plan will cover 4 of the development areas, Numbered 1 and 2, Hollymead and Piney Mountain. The plan covers 4 of the magisterial districts. In Rio it will include development areas 1 and 2 and part of Hollymead. In Rivanna it will include part of Hollymead and Piney Mountain. It will include a small area in Jack Jouett. In White Hall it will include the airport. The transportation study is going to look at Route 29 North from the City of Charlottesville line all the way North to the Green County boundary, which is about 11 miles. This continues the work that has been touched on in 2 previous studies. They were known as the 29H250 Study Phases 1 and 2. Although this study is being called the 29 North Corridor Study, it is not really being considered a phase 3 because it is looking at the whole corridor. The transportation study is going to include transportation model component that will enable us to learn how many vehicle trips go through this corridor every day and when the congestion is at its worst. It will be doing more of a destination study of how many trips are regional, that is when both ends of the trip are outside of that corridor. Also it would include how many are sub-regional, which either begin or end in the corridor but the other end of the trip is somewhere else. Lastly it would include the truly local trips where both ends of the trip are within the corridor. Each of these types of trips is going to want different things. The regional people obviously just want to get through the corridor. The local people are looking for access. They expect that the results of the Master Planning process might be different for the 4 development areas. They might see that the more urban ones 1 and 2 might have one set of recommendations and there may be some differences for the recommendations made for the Hollymead and Piney Mountain area. One of the most important features of the planning process is that they are going to have a very lengthy public participation and information program. This will under the direction of Lee Catlin who is the County's Community Relations Manager. She was going to be here this evening, but was unfortunately ill today. The second major feature would the Citizen's Planning Academy just like they had before the Crozet Master Plan started. It will be held on Thursday evening May 12. The time and place will be announced on the County's website. The first public event in the process will be a Community Visioning Charrette that is going to be held on Wednesday, May 25 at the Sutherland Middle School. The time will be announced on the website. They are also very aware of the regional nature of this project because, of course, Route 29 serves all of central Virginia. Route 29 actually goes from somewhere in Alabama all the way up to Baltimore. Therefore, some of the traffic on Route 29 is regional and it is very important that what they do to help the local traffic will also help the regional traffic. If they try not to do that or if they forget that they are suppose to be doing that, then VDOT has promised to remind us. They are considering, for example, the bypass that has been proposed in the past. It will be included in some of the modeling runs that the transportation consultants do. She asked if there were any questions before she asked the Commission help set up an advisory committee. Ms. Higgins stated that the bypass that she was referring to Alternative 10. She pointed out that her understanding is that it is not in the transportation plan for the area any longer. She asked if that was correct. . Ms. Joseph asked if they were revising it. Ms. Wiegand stated that it was actually not in the UNJAM plan. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 26, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 3,2005 11 Mr. Cilimberg stated that the only thing that was in the TIP any more is paying for the right-of-way acquisition. Ms. Higgins asked why if it was not in the plan then why would they spend time, effort or money modeling for it. Basically they would be taking an action in a staff master planning that recognizes something that potentially maybe should not be recognized. . Mr. Cilimberg stated that he should probably answer this one because it is not an element of the master plan work that they are doing and that we are funding. It is an element of the transportation work associated with Route 29 that the Planning District has funding from VDOT to do. VDOT has insisted that the modeling of the potential traffic be included so that all scenarios are analyzed. Ms. Higgins asked what if they insist that it not be included. Mr. Cilimberg stated that he could not answer that question. Ms. Higgins stated that she was just being consistent with the history behind how it came about today that they are probably based on this information that they are getting may be forward something through to the Board. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Commission was more than welcome to do that. The MPO Policy Board has actually reviewed this and the scope of study has been before them numerous times for the 29 Corridor Study. They have signed off on that scope. That includes two Board of Supervisors members in the voting represented at the MPO, which includes Sally Thomas and Dennis Rooker. He felt that there was some understanding at least on their part of what the study is all about. He stated that this is not about establishing a bypass route. But, the modeling of what that traffic might be has been an element that has to be included as part of the overall work. Ms. Higgins stated that it was her opinion that if you model it and show its effect you have acknowledged it again. She stated that she was not saying this to argue with staff. But maybe the members of the Board of Supervisors that signed off on the scope possibly have a different perspective. She felt that it was still something that if they go down that road in a 29 Study then that analysis could actually go back and support the bypass again. She asked to stress that concern by allowing it to go to the Board and maybe the two supervisors are thinking about it differently. She felt that if they model it that they may end up with a reaction to it. Ms. Joseph agreed that the full Board should know that this is happening because she was shocked. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Board would have this before them next week as well as an update on the process. Mr. Edgerton stated that he would like to go a little further than that to see if there is enough sentiment in the group to pass a resolution asking them to reconsider this. He questioned using the taxpayer's money to study a plan that the community has said they don't want. Mr. Thomas asked if the reason they were using it was because of the money that was provided from the TIP end of it. Mr. Cilimberg stated that he could only say that he was not sure of the answer of that. The TIP has been very strategically addressed by the MPO for several years to specifically to say they are not putting money into building a bypass and they will agree to the monies that are necessary for the commitment of acquisition of right-of-way and that is it. That is the extent of what the TIP calls for. This study very honestly has to recognize not only the local issues but the regional issues as Ms. Wiegand explained. VDOT is a primary funding source here. As with all VDOT studies in transportation they are going to want to look at all possible scenarios. He thought that there is a feeling with the MPO, based on sitting in their meetings and listening to them talk, that this is a study that has the opportunity to show how there can ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 26, 2005 12 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 3,2005 · · · solutions in the corridor that will not necessitate any longer considering a bypass. He thought that they believe that there is the possibility of closing the door altogether on the bypass issue. Mr. Edgerton stated that he thought that they have already done that. Mr. Cilimberg stated that if you listen to the General Assembly of Virginia it is not closed at all. He stated that we cannot sit with our heads in the sand because there are delegates and senators around Virginia that will force it on us. Ms. Higgins pointed out that was because it was regional. Mr. Cilimberg stated that this is an attempt to make sure that they are also addressing the issues that are outside the area that very honestly could be more powerful than what they have here locally. Therefore, he felt that there was a real feeling that this is an attempt to find solutions that close the door on the discussion of the bypass and the consideration of the bypass not just here, which we feel like we have done, but Statewide. Let's remember that VDOT is a State Agency funding a large part of this. Ms. Higgins stated he was right because the analysis of that could go either way. But by always talking about the Bypass that it becomes short sighted that they are not looking for the other alternatives to that. In other words, does the bypass have to be that one in particular? Mr. Cilimberg stated that it was not about Alternative 10. But, this was about what would be necessary if there was going to be an attempt to bypass the study area. Ms. Higgins stated that then being clear about that if you have money in the TIP that you can buy land for a specific alignment and then over here you are studying a way to get around the local area in a regional mode then everybody draws that conclusion. Maybe it would take a lot of reinforcement that it talks about taking regional traffic out of the local corridor, but maybe not on a particular route. It is a shame that they are not looking for other alternatives. Ms. Wiegand stated that she thought that they are. The full scope of work is very clear in the report that they are looking for alternative roads for local traffic so that it will take some of the local traffic off of Route 29. Ms. Higgins stated that she understands all of those levels, but she was just saying when the word bypass comes up it is kind of a hot topic. There are more traffic signals driving to 66 on 29. There are more traffic signals in almost every local community now. The corridor of 29 is slowing down and slowing down. It just is not here. She pointed out that she acknowledged that fact. Mr. Cilimberg stated that one of the problems that they face in the discussions about 29 when they get beyond this area, very honestly because he has been in many of these meetings, is that those folks don't look at it the same way that we do. The County has a road that is trying to serve many masters and it can't be everything that it is trying to be and be good at any of it. If we feel that we have ideas here in this region that are solutions to a regional concern, then we need to identify them and show that they can work or else we will constantly be in this discussion about whether or not Charlottesville should have a bypass. Route 29 has to be complemented by other transportation solutions that can be potentially identified within this study area that don't have to be about a bypass. But when 29 is only getting more and more lanes because you don't have any other way to go north-south through this area they are inviting that criticism from the region beyond us. That is why it is so important that they look at this. He stated that he did not think that there was any interest on our part to be looking at why or why not we should have a bypass. He felt that from our position here in the County that has been conveyed very well. He felt that our interest is as a community is looking at what are the alternatives that we can provide within this community. It is kind of like trying to find the alternative to water supply that we have control over and not the water alternatives that are out of our control, which has been a big topic of discussion here in the last several months regarding our water supply plan. He felt that for us this study is all about looking at solutions that are in our area. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 26, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 3,2005 13 Ms. Wiegand stated that they need solutions that they can pay for that and can be implemented in a fairly short length of time that have a lot of local support. Once you get them on paper you can show them to those other communities out there after, of course, they have gone through the adoption process here. They will then have a very convincing argument that there is another way to do this. Mr. Edgerton stated that he hoped that she was right. He stated that he hoped that rather than relying on the Board reading the minutes and hoping that they get the message that he would like personally to see some statement made by the Commission about their concern about this being the part of the taxpayer's study for Albemarle County. There are two different studies. As he understood it they have the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and the Master Plan Study. From a planning perspective he was delighted that there was going to be coordination. That is good and he did not want to see that abandoned. But at the same time when we start getting into the State perspective it takes on a whole different dimension. From a planning perspective he was concerned that could take all of the energy of this effort and they would not have a solution to what he had lobbied hard to be the next Master Plan. He stated that he did not want to get lost in this because there is many other issues other than the 29 Corridor that need to be addressed. With that in mind he pointed out that he had two questions. He invited other Commissioners to speak to the 29 Study if they so desired. At the bottom of the first page staff mentions that letters will be sent to all property owners in the northern development area. It is mentioned that there are a whole lot more affected parties. This study area is truly our main stream. There are a lot of other people that don't live in this specific outline that are going to be tremendously affected by this. Therefore, he was hoping that there will be a vehicle to get community wide participation by possibly going a little further. The Crozet model is maybe not a fair one because that only affected the folks in the western part of the County on the 250 Corridor. He hoped that they might be able to get creative in trying to figure out a way for some outreach for the greater community of Albemarle County and the City. Ms. Wiegand stated that the City was already involved. Mr. Edgerton stated that he was glad that Mary Hughes was here representing the University. When the study refers to drawing the line at the City/County line he gets concerned when they talk about the University. All three of these entities have to be a part of this study. He asked how that was going to be addressed in this study. He acknowledged that the Commission only represents the County, but asked how they could make this a community plan because it really needs to be that. Ms. Wiegand acknowledged that was very important. Staff has coordinated this with the City and VDOT by attending the meetings and being part of the management team. They are using the information from them in their GIS mapping. They are looking beyond the edge of the study area to see what impacts will be outside of it. As far as the land use map that they prepare, it will only cover the County because it is the only area that they have the authority over. But, it will be done with the support and coordination with the City. As to his earlier question about the other people in the County, yes they do recognize that in those development areas they have a lot of people who are affected who don't necessarily live there or who don't own businesses there. There will be advertisements in the newspapers for all of the public meetings and there will be a website for the plan, which is actually being set up now. There will be a way for people to find out about the meetings and other information. They are identifying stakeholders throughout the area, which could be owners of shopping malls even if they don't have an address in the area, and they will be contacting them as well. Mr. Edgerton asked what participation staff envisions the University playing in this. Ms. Wiegand stated that they have been invited to all of the early meetings to set up the scopes. They have met with the consultants with everyone else and they will continue to work with them to get their advice, input and review of documents. They will be receiving the same internal memorandum that everyone gets from the transportation modeling, for example. They are on the list of stakeholders. Mr. Cilimberg stated that he had an opportunity to talk with Mr. Neuman about actually doing a presentation. He pointed out that he was going to talk with Ms. Wiegand about helping out with a presentation for the PACTECH for their upcoming meeting. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 26,2005 14 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 3,2005 · · · Mr. Thomas asked Ms. Wiegand if on the regional part if the Thomas Jefferson District Commission and Green County be included in this. He pointed out that whatever they do in the 29 Study that it was going to affect Green and Madison County. Ms. Wiegand stated that she had spoken with Harrison Rue the Executive Director who is the project manager for the 29 Corridor Study. They both have agreed that they need to talk to the other counties along the line and the communities like Lynchburg, Culpeper and Danville. At this time she has gone through and started analyzing what is out there and who they might contact. They are waiting until they have a little more information such as the early results back, for example, from the modeling before they actually go out and talk with them. She stated that Green County was on the list. Mr. Thomas stated that if they are going to Master Plan Neighborhoods 1 and 2 that they need to acknowledge that US 29 is the catch all for the 29 Corridor. He stated that he lives out that way and that it is a busy highway. Route 29 is going to continually be a US highway going right through the middle of their commercial district. He suggested that parallel roads could possibly be made off the side to complete that business district. He stated that he was not sure if they need to take the bypass part of it off. He felt that it was going to create a lot of problems, but that is an alternative. That alternative will probably evolve into a better alternative or at least he hoped so. Mr. Cilimberg acknowledged that this really strikes kind of sensitive spot for the County, but he did not want the Commission to feel like this is revisiting the whole process that they went through on the bypass. It is not. Harrison Rue is not here tonight. He is actually involved in another presentation locally. He felt that Mr. Rue could possibly best speak to this. The element that was a part of that study on the Corridor is for the modeling of traffic to include what would occur with and without a bypass in place. That is a part of the long term modeling. If the Commission feels that is opening a door that should not be opened he felt that it is their place and they should be making a recommendation or a statement to the Board of your concern. That is not a problem whatsoever. But, he did not want to over blow this bypass aspect in terms of how it is being incorporated into the overall study process. Ms. Higgins stated that for clarification that she did not have issue with somehow handing regional traffic from the north and to the south end. She just has a problem with the actual location of how that traffic is routed on the west side. It frustrated her to no end that other alternatives that were downed because of environmental issues of a different type and were not drinking water or land sensitivity. She felt that development in transportation corridors need to be planned. It is just that particular alternative due to the drinking water, the reservoir and the sensitivity of the land that it passed through just always had problems. But, she felt that regional traffic is an issue and getting from point A up at the north to point B down south needs to happen, but it just seems that it is being pushed always back to that same route. She stated that maybe it needs to be to the east or that it is not far enough to the north any longer. But, it is too limited. Mr. Rieley stated that he agreed with all of the reservations expressed. Like Ms. Higgins, he did not have a concern about numbers related to through traffic on Route 29 being a part of the transportation analysis, particularly if they are paid for exclusively by VDOT. But, he did have a problem with County resources being utilized to once again revisit the Western Bypass, a matter that they thought that they had put to bed several times in several different venues including CHART and the long term plan. The MPO has never designated any money for construction of the Western Bypass. He felt that it is an issue in which this community has reached closure. He made the following motion: The Planning Commission encourages the Board to not let an analysis of the general through traffic requirements once again open up the issue of the Western Bypass as a feasible alternative. Mr. Craddock seconded the motion. Ms. Higgins stated that there might be some other alternative, but not the Western Bypass version. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 26, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 3,2005 15 The motion carried by a vote of (6:1). (Mr. Thomas - No) Mr. Edgerton stated that the resolution passed by a vote of (6:1) and asked that staff forward it on to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff would like to now discuss the advisory committee. Ms. Wiegand stated that committee's role is to give input and feedback during this process and they are not to be decision makers. For example, they want them to be the first group that represents the County to review material that is going to be used at the charrettes and the public meetings. That will give the County staff and the consultants the opportunity to know if they have missed anything, if there is anything else that they need to consider or if there is a viewpoint that they have not thought of. They would like representatives from both the business community and the neighborhoods in the area. They hope that they can have people who have a positive attitude, who recognize that there are a variety of viewpoints and opinions throughout the four different development areas. They need people who are going to think out of the box with staff and the consultants to help brainstorm ways that they can deal with the various opinions. They need people who are ready to participate in a constructive process. The time commitment is going to be uneven. They are estimating one or two meetings a month, except during the week or so before each of the three public events. One of those meetings is going to be in May, another in October and the other in January. At that time there could be two or three meetings during the week that the committee members would need to attend. They were looking at eleven members on the committee unless the Commission is comfortable with fewer members. They did want two members of the Planning Commission, one member from the Architectural Review Board, four business representatives and four neighborhood representatives. Staffs idea was that each of the four Commissioners who represent a magisterial district that is directly affected by this could appoint one neighborhood and one business representative. But, staff would be happy to do it whichever way the Commission would like. Mr. Cilimberg asked Mr. Thomas, Mr. Edgerton, Ms. Higgins and Mr. Morris to recommend one business representative and one neighborhood representative to serve on this committee from their districts. He asked that these names be submitted to staff prior to next week's meeting so that final action can be taken. That item will be placed under old business on next week's agenda so that the Commission can take appropriate action. Mr. Thomas volunteered to serve on the Advisory Committee. Mr. Morris volunteered to serve on the Advisory Committee, but pointed out that May was virtually out for him due to previous commitments. If that is acceptable, then he would be willing to serve. Ms. Wiegand stated that she would be happy to provide the upcoming meeting schedule to the Commissioners along with the basic information about the committee. In summary, staff requested assistance in setting up the Advisory Committee. Staff suggests two commissioners, one member of the architectural review board, and two representatives from each of the four magisterial districts included in these four development areas (one business representative and one neighborhood representative). The advisory committee would provide feedback to the consultants and County staff during the master planning process. · Two Planning Commissioners, Calvin Morris and Rodney Thomas, volunteered to serve on the Advisory Committee. · Mr. Thomas, Mr. Edgerton, Ms. Higgins and Mr. Morris were asked to recommend one business representative and one neighborhood representative to serve on this committee from their districts. These names shall be submitted to staff prior to next week's meeting so that final action can be taken. · The Commission asked that their resolution be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors by next week. · The Commission asked that staff email the upcoming study schedule along with the basic information about the committee to them. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 26, 2005 16 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 3,2005 · · · Old Business: Mr. Edgerton asked if there was any old business. PlanninQ Commission Retreat Priorities Ms. Higgins made a motion that the list of priorities accurately represents their intent, with the addition of #6 that the rural preservation development needs to be a higher priority, and that the Chairman and staff will work together for implementation. Mr. Rieley seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of (7:0). There being no further old business, the meeting proceeded. New Business: Mr. Edgerton asked if there was any new business. There being none, the meeting proceeded. Adjournment: With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 7:46 p.m. to the May 3,2005 meeting. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 26, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 3, 2005 17 . . . Albemarle County Planning Commission May 10, 2005 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Rodney Thomas, Calvin Morris, Marcia Joseph, Vice-Chair, Jo Higgins, Pete Craddock and Bill Edgerton, Chairman. Absent was David J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia. Mr. Morris arrived at 6:30 p.m. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; Planning; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Edgerton called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public: Mr. Edgerton invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none, the meeting moved on to the review of the Board of Supervisors Meeting. Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting - May 4, 2005 Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting - (including update on Places 29: Northern Development Areas Master Plan). Mr. Cilimberg summarized the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on May 4, 2005, which included an update on Places 29 Northern Development Areas Master Plan. He pointed out the Board had no concern with the Planning Commission functioning in an advisory committee role on the Places 29 Northern Development Areas Master Plan. The consultants will be present on May 24 to provide an update on the project activities. On May 24 staff also wants to go over a couple of items related to their advisory committee role. Public Hearing Items: SP 2004-051 Free Union Church of the Brethren (Sian #36) - Request for a special use permit to allow an expansion of an existing church, Free Union Church of the Brethren, in accordance with Section 10.2.2(35) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for churches. The property, described as Tax Map 29 Parcels 57, 58, and 59B, contains 2.5 acres and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The proposal is located at 4152 Free Union Road (Route 601), approximately 1,000 feet south of its intersection with Willington Road (Route 665) in the Whitehall Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 1. (Scott Clark) Ms. Joseph disqualified herself from this hearing and requested that this fact be recorded in the appropriate public record for a period of five years. She noted that she has represented and provided services to the applicant that is the subject of this transaction. (See Attachment) Mr. Clark summarized the staff report. The applicants plan to add a meeting hall of approximately 1,400 square feet onto the existing Free Union Church of the Brethren. The church is an existing nonconforming use that requires a special use permit in order to expand. Staff is also recommending approval of a waiver of the site plan requirements for this use. The expansion of the building would not lead to an expansion of the intensity of use. It is just a meeting hall for the existing number of members of the church. This gives them more space to meet more conveniently and to spread out a little from the small space that they have now. It is not expected to expand the level of use or to have impact on the neighboring properties. The main concern with this use was the lack of an approvable or even very clear entrance. The concept plan under consideration has been redrawn to shown an entrance that is acceptable to VDOT. It will necessitate the clearing of some land on the opposite side of the road that a neighboring landowner has ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 10, 2005 1 DRAFT MINUTES (SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW ON MAY 24,2005) under a power line easement. So it is expected to be cleared anyway, but staff has a letter from that landowner saying that they give permission for that clearing to maintain sight distance for this use. Between that easement and the redrawing of the entrance, VDOT is okay with this. Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-04-051 with the five conditions. Staff also recommends approval of the site plan waiver. There are only two issues of concern. One is the erosion and sediment control, which can be taken care under the erosion and sediment control plan. The other is that the entrance needs to meet VDOT's design requirements, which will be taken care of through a condition on the special use permit. Staff did not think it was necessary for a use of this small of a scale in this location to have a site plan. Therefore, staff is recommending the waiver with two conditions. One is for the drawing of the erosion and sediment control plan and the other one for VDOT's approval of the installation of the entrance. Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any questions for Mr. Clark. Ms. Higgins asked if staff expected 10,000 square feet to be disturbed. She noted that it did not look any where near that amount of disturbance, which was when the erosion and sediment control plan kicks in. Mr. Clark stated that the parking area was already graveled, but there would be some areas added to that and some areas taken out. Ms. Higgins asked how the parking would be modified. Mr. Clark stated that he did not have a measure of the area, but there were some places where the boundary of the parking area was changing. Ms. Higgins asked how the parking was calculated. Mr. Clark stated that the number of parking spaces was based on the area of assembly and not on the area of the meeting hall. Ms. Higgins asked if that would be 23 parking spaces and Mr. Clark agreed. Ms. Higgins stated that since there were already 30 parking spaces that it appeared that they were not adding any additional spaces. She asked if they are just modifying it so that the entrance works more appropriately up in the front right corner. Mr. Clark stated that the only change to the parking is that it would just be more clearly delineated. Therefore, the area used for occasional parking on the neighboring parcel won't be authorized as part of this. Therefore, all of the parking will have to take place on this parcel. Ms. Higgins stated that it does not look like 10,000 square feet is being disturbed if there is some gravel removal along the edge between the building and then right at the entrance. She felt that it might be beneath it. Mr. Rieley stated that he had the same question because he did not see where 10,000 square feet was being disturbed. Ms. Higgins stated that making it a special condition implies that they have to do a plan almost irregardless of whether it will actually kick in. She felt that they just need to keep it in mind whether it is needed or not. Mr. Edgerton stated that he felt that was in response to the waiver request from the site plan because the two issues could not be addressed with the limited information provided. Ms. Higgins suggested that the condition could say unless there is a statement confirming that it is less than 10,000 square feet. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 10, 2005 2 DRAFT MINUTES (SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW ON MAY 24,2005) . . . Mr. Rieley agreed to Ms. Higgins' suggestion unless there was some reason that is not apparent why in this particular case an erosion and sediment control permit is appropriate even though it is much less than 10,000 square feet. He pointed out that he had a related question around the VDOT permit. It seems that since the entrance is changing and since they are requiring the plan to follow this alignment, which is in a different location than the existing entrance, wouldn't they be required to get an entrance permit from VDOT anyway. Ms. Higgins stated that was correct. Mr. Rieley felt that it was a little redundant. Ms. Higgins suggested the wording of condition 5 to say that the applicant shall secure a VDOT construction permit for the modified entrance. VDOT does not really approve entrances unless they have a mechanism on the site plan. When a site plan is not required, the applicant would still need to get a construction permit from VDOT. Then VDOT would hold it until such time that it is completed, constructed, inspected and released. Therefore, she agreed with Mr. Rieley. Mr. Rieley stated that in the past he had argued against the requirement for a commercial entrance for churches, but in this case he did think it was appropriate because the existing entrance is inadequate. Therefore, it makes sense to require it. But, he did not think going over and above what would otherwise be required is justified. He agreed with Ms. Higgins' rewording. Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any other questions. There being none, he opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward and address the Commission. Robin Joslin, Assistant Board Chairman of Free Union Church of the Brethren, stated that he was present to address their application. The church was originally built in the 1800's and then torn down and rebuilt in 1970. There is currently no place where the entire congregation could assembly without being in the sanctuary. Right now they have a basement below the church that has a small kitchen and a large area that they divide up with temporary partitions every Sunday morning so that the different Sunday school classes for the different age groups can meet. They would love to be able to have a permanent classroom in an area where the children can go and where the people can meet after church if they are going to have a lunch or in the event that there is a funeral. Currently, they have to have assemblies in the basement for food and coffee after the funeral. That is not an area where the elderly people in their church can get to because to get to the basement you have to go down two flights of stairs. It is not a situation that works well for them. He stated that they are proposing a meeting room with 1,400 square feet as the Commission has heard discussed. It is just a large room in the addition where the congregation can assemble at one time without being in the sanctuary. The church is a benefit to the community, and the addition will help serve the community. On an average Sunday they average around 35 to 40 people. They might get up to 60 people on Easter. Normally they only have about 12 to 14 cars, even on the busiest Sundays. Currently, there is a triangle of land next to their land that belongs to Edgar Bronfman that most people come across to enter their parking lot. Mr. Bronfman has never minded the church using his land. But, the church agrees with VDOT that it is not a very clear entrance way. Therefore, they worked with VDOT to establish the 50 foot radius that they are requiring. The problem with that, since the speed limit is above 35 miles per hour, is that VDOT requires a sight distance easement for deceleration. Therefore, they have arranged with the person across the street, Richard Bell, to obtain an easement so that they can keep that area clear so that people coming from Millington Road can see around that little bend in the road if someone is stopped trying to get into the entrance way. They agree with VDOT that it can be made safer by cutting that underbrush down and have no problem complying with the 50 foot radius that VDOT is proposing. He asked the Commission to grant the site plan waiver. They have spent a great deal of money getting to this point in trying to deal with all of the provisions. Their average offering on a given Sunday is only between $500 and $600. He pointed out that hiring an architect to do a site plan would chew up about a ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 10, 2005 3 DRAFT MINUTES (SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW ON MAY 24,2005) year's worth of surplus money. Their goal is to try to get this meeting hall or congregation area built as soon as possible. He thanked Scott Clark for his assistance during the process over the last year and two months. He asked that the Commission approve their request. Mr. Edgerton asked if there was anyone else from the public who would like to address the Commission on this application. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for discussion and possible action. Ms. Higgins stated that there is a statement on the concept plan that says tax map/parcel 29, 57, 58 and 59 as being combined. She asked if it was after they were combined that it was 2.66 acres. Mr. Clark stated that was correct. Ms. Higgins stated that it says that on this concept plan, but it is not a requirement under the special use permit recommendations that they will be combined. Therefore, she was not sure what part that plays since the special use permit would actually apply to the new combined parcel. She asked that they make sure that it is clear what they are approving. Mr. Clark stated that any expansion would require the church to come back to amend the permit. If the parcels are not combined, the expansion ends up being in the required setbacks. So once these parcels are combined there is no longer a problem with the addition intruding in the 35 foot rear setback from their cemetery . Ms. Higgins suggested that combining the parcels should be part of the special use permit conditions. Mr. Cilimberg stated that condition 1 can be taken to cover that because it says that it shall be developed in general accord, which includes the notes. But, if the Commission wants that specified in the conditions, it would be fine. Mr. Scott stated that the church is expressing their intent to combine their properties all into one, which would take care of the problem with the setback. Mr. Rieley suggested changing condition 1 by changing the semi-colon to a comma and add including combining parcels so that there is no setback infringement. Ms. Higgins suggested adding including combining tax parcels 57, 58 and 59B so that the special use permit applies to all of them. Mr. Rieley stated that if one of the parcels is not necessary, then they would be imposing a limitation. Ms. Higgins pointed out that the concept plan says that the total acreage is 2.66. She felt that they have to have the acreage agree with the permit. If a parcel does not need to be combined, it should not be included. But, the total acreage needs to match. Mr. Rieley stated that to simplify it the condition should say, "including the note relating to combining parcels." Ms. Higgins agreed to Mr. Rieley's suggestion. Mr. Rieley stated that he would like to include Ms. Higgins' language relative to VDOT to both the special use permit and the waiver. Ms. Higgins suggested that after the word VDOT that it be worded to say, "VDOT construction permit for the modified entrance from Route 601." She suggested deleting "approval of the" and put "construction permit for the modified entrance." ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 10, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES (SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW ON MAY 24,2005) 4 . Motion on SP-2004-051: Mr. Rieley moved for approval of SP-2004-051, Free Union Church of the Brethren, with the recommended conditions as modified. 1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled "Free Union Church of the Brethren Concept Plan," revised April 22, 2005, including the note relating to combining the parcels; 2. The area of assembly shall be limited to the existing gO-seat sanctuary; 3. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit; 4. Construction of the proposed addition shall commence within 4 years or this special use permit shall expire. 5. The applicants shall secure a VDOT construction permit for the modified entrance from Route 601. Mr. Craddock seconded the motion. Ms. Higgins asked staff to make sure that the concept plan was clear on the total amount of parking spaces required. The motion carried by a vote of (5:0). (Morris - Absent) (Joseph - Abstain) . Mr. Edgerton stated that SP-2004-051, Free Union Church of the Brethren, would go before the Board of Supervisors on June 1 with a recommendation for approval. Motion on Site Plan Waiver. SDP-2005-00041: Ms. Higgins moved for approval of the site plan waiver, SDP-2005-00041, Free Union Church of the Brethren, with the conditions in the staff report as modified. 1. No development shall occur until Erosion and Sediment Control Plan has been approved and any required bonds have been posted or confirmation that less than 10,000 square feet is to be disturbed. 2. No Certificate of Occupancy will be issued for the building until the improvements to be authorized by a VDOT construction permit, which are shown on a plan titled Free Union Church of the Brethren Concept Plan, revised April 22, 2005, are completed. completion of the VDOT construction permit improvements as shown on the plan titled Free Union Church of the Brethren Concept Plan, revised /\pril 22, 2005. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion. Mr. Rieley asked if there was any problem with Ms. Higgins' adjustment. Mr. Kamptner stated that there was a discussion earlier on about combining the parcels and that it was only going to apply if it would be necessary. The motion carried by a vote of (5:0). (Morris - Absent) (Joseph - Abstain) . Mr. Edgerton stated that site plan waiver for SDP-2005-00041 was unanimously approved. Mr. Morris arrived at 6:30 p.m. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 10,2005 DRAFT MINUTES (SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW ON MAY 24,2005) 5 Ms. Joseph returned at 6:30 p.m. Thomas Jefferson Plannina District Commission Hazard Mitigation Plan - Request for approval of the Albemarle County portion of the region's Hazard Mitigation Plan, developed by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (T JPDC). The Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies actions to be taken to reduce or eliminate the risk to human life and property from natural disasters. The Plan was prepared with input from the Charlottesville UVA Albemarle Emergency Services Center and Albemarle County staff. Possible mitigation options are cataloged under: Education and Outreach; Policy, Planning and Funding; Information and Data Development; and Structural Improvements. (Bill Wanner - T JPDC) Bill Wanner, of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, stated that they have before the Commission the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. He stated that he had additional copies of both the addendum items and the plan with the summary of the mitigation actions referencing the full discussion of those. They are seeking a motion of adoption from the Planning Commission to take this to the Board of Supervisors at their June 1 meeting with three really basic elements of purpose for the plan. One is to provide a vehicle for reducing or eliminating the threat to human life and property from natural disasters. The second is to meet regulatory requirements from both the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Virginia Department of Emergency Management. The third is to avail ourselves of both pre- and post-disaster funds that are only available contingent upon an adopted plan. As they talked about last time, the mitigation actions are really the core of the plan as far as they relate to Albemarle County. In the addendum that they prepared for tonight's meeting they have included not only the fact that a list of the mitigation actions is included as a summary document, but that David Hirschman's Study of the Debris Flow Hazard Inventory and Evaluation of the County is referenced in the plan and appended to it. At the Board of Supervisors meeting there was a discussion of the Scottsville Levy. The evacuation or assessment plan for that particular levy is now referenced in the plan and has been reviewed by your Emergency Service Coordinator as well. They changed one of the recommendations to read that property owners would be the responsible ones for the clearing of dead debris from wood land areas and that this was a public education action rather a structural requirement of the County. They also added an additional action to create an emergency action plan for the other Ragged Mountain Reservoir Dam. Those reference all of the comments made by both the Planning Commission at the last meeting and the Board at their May 4 meeting. He asked if there were any questions or comments. Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any questions for Mr. Wanner. Ms. Higgins asked if they inserted the list of the nine dams that you referred to. Mr. Wanner stated that they were in the full study. Mr. Wanner stated that they just excerpted the portions regarding Albemarle County in what they gave them, but that the full plan actually references all nine of those dams. He pointed out that she could see that on their web site if she would like to review that full document. Ms. Joseph stated that on page 54 in the middle of the page there is a reference made to mitigation action. She asked what was being proposed to be used for the shelters. Mr. Wanner stated that in most cases they were the schools. Mr. Edgerton asked if there were other questions. There being none, he opened the public hearing and invited comment from other members of the public. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for action. Mr. Rieley moved to send the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 10,2005 DRAFT MINUTES (SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW ON MAY 24,2005) 6 . Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of (7:0). Mr. Edgerton stated that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Hazard Mitigation Plan would go before the Board of Supervisors on June 1 with a recommendation for approval. Old Business: Mr. Edgerton asked if there was any old business. Mr. Cilimberg stated that there was one item circulated by email concerning the Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission meeting. The proposed agenda will be forwarded to the Commission in advance so that they can see the topics that they will try to cover. From reading the retreat minutes, he found that there were three things that they really were interested in. One was role clarification with the ARB and the Planning Commission. It may just be each talking about what they do. The second is the coordination of the respected reviews. That may also involve staff providing some information about how reviews are conducted in each case, particularly as it involves items that come to the Commission as recommendations from the ARB. He thought that was something in particular for rezonings and how that is handled. Third would be the possibility of cross representation of a Commissioner on the ARB or an ARB member on the Commission. That is certainly something that they can discuss. Ultimately, that would be a Board decision. But, they could include that as well. He asked if that would cover the Commission's bases in terms of their interest for that meeting. He pointed out that the Chair of the ARB was also going to provide any thoughts they have of particular note from their perspective for the discussion. Mr. Edgerton stated that it seemed to cover everything. . Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that staff would work on it and find a date. There being no further old business, the meeting proceeded. New Business: Mr. Edgerton asked if there was any new business. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Commission will not have a meeting next week on May 17. He pointed out that the Commission may need to have a May 31 meeting. It was going to be an off night. Staff has had one applicant, Old Trail, that has asked to come to you in May and that would be the only May meeting available. The other is some changes related to the North Fork Business Park zoning for the northern fire station. It is the new fire station for the County, which was proffered in that development, but needs to be in a somewhat different location than what was anticipated in the proffer. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that right now the Fire Station ZMA amendment is scheduled for June 7. If it is moved up it be will one week earlier. Ms. Higgins stated that she would be unable to attend the meeting on May 31 since it was the day after Memorial Day. She questioned whether there would be a quorum on that night. She pointed out that if there was any delay in any of the package of information that Monday would not be available because the County is closed. She felt that it was a very important item and pointed out that she would really like to be present. Mr. Morris stated that he would not be able to attend that meeting either. . The Commission unanimously agreed not to hold a May 31 Planning Commission meeting. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 10, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES (SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW ON MAY 24,2005) 7 Mr. Cilimberg stated that if the Commission feels uncomfortable with having a meeting on May 31 that he could contact the applicants and tell them that there will be no meeting. Ms. Joseph asked if June 7 would work. Mr. Cilimberg stated that as Mr. Kamptner mentioned, the Fire Station rezoning had been scheduled for June 7 anyway. It would only be one week earlier. He felt that would be fine. He pointed out that he would just tell Old Trails that staff talked with the Commission who felt that it would be better for June 7 on their schedule. Mr. Craddock stated that he would be absent on June 14. Mr. Edgerton noted that there will not be a meeting next week on May 17. Mr. Cilimberg stated that if more than three Commissioners are going to go to Montalto that they need to adjourn to May 12 at that location. He pointed out that the Planning Academy would also be held on May 12 after Montalto at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Edgerton asked if more than three Commissioners go to the Planning Academy if they would need to adjourn there. Mr. Kamptner stated that if at least three Commissioners planned to go to Montalto that it was best to adjourn to there and then from there adjourn to the Planning Academy. There being no further new business, the meeting proceeded. Adjournment: With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 6:48 p.m. to May 12, 2005, on the Grounds of Montalto. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 10,2005 DRAFT MINUTES (SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW ON MAY 24,2005) 8 . . . - .. _I MURCIELAGO, LLC 600 Loring Avenue Salem, MA 01970 Kimberly Atkins Tel: 978-741-0049 Fax: 978-741-8745 kimberlyatkins@hotmail.com May 18,2005 VIA FACSIMILE (Fax No. (434)296-5800) Ken Boyd Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Follow UP to Route 795 Improvements - Connecting the Paved Road Sections Dear Mr. Boyd: Tom and I met with you several times last year regarding improvements to Route 795. Despite the controversy over the project, I am happy to report that the improvements have been completed efficiently, including the very difficult stretchjust past the one lane bridge along the ravine. Residents along the road are very pleased with both with the safer passage and the aesthetic appeal of the roadway. Even Peter Mellen, a resident of Blenheim road who led the opposition against the project, has recently written us a letter, which I have attached, praising us on the improvements and noting that the negative impact residents' were worried about (increased traffic flow, speeding) has not occurred as a result of the change in road condition. The original plans approved by the Board last year proposed leaving unpaved the last approximately 200 hundred yard section between Mt. Pleasant Farm and Route 713. This section begins approximately 500 to 1,000 feet beyond the Mt. Pleasant farm entrance. After speaking with Chuck Proctor and Jim Kesterson at VDOT, we agree that it doesn't seem prudent to leave such a small portion unimproved, especially where the rest of the road is now paved. The section in question is flat can easily be improved within the existing VDOT right of way. However, we do not want to do so without the county's thoughts and approval on the matter. I think now that residents can see that it is not a highway but a tasteful, winding, rural road, their fears have been quelled and it may be easier for the Board to make a decision, for safety's sake, to close the few hundred yard gravel gap between the two paved sections. The transition ITom paved to gravel is always cause for a bit of adj usting when you are driving, but it is particularly startling on this stretch because it now occurs right in the middle of a straightaway and only lasts, in driving time, but a minute before it turns back to paving again. 1 have already had discussions with Juan Wade regarding presenting the matter to the Board of Supervisors for the June 1 meeting. Unfortunately, if this is something the .-.1....<:- ~....n en e T C:::E>I.I . . . .........J county might want we need to know soon because while it is easy to connect the paved portions, it is only cost effective for us to do so if we can utilize the existing crews already working on site to complete the portion by the ravine, and they win be [mished by the middle of June. If the Board is interested in seeing this done and can provide us with approval during their June meetings we believe we can accomplish the task. Ifthere is any additional information I can provide to you please do not hesitate to contact me at 617-283-6177. Sincerely, . \..~:' '.. .,.." í' ' '-- ' ,: ¡: '..í; i; I...'ci:,,(([ft í. ii.rl Kimberly AtkiiIs·J rJ.L.. f""" ~.&... n r"'" n C" T C: ¡:Þo LI . . . ~.,. petermellen Mount Ayr Fann· 6200 Blenheim Road . Scottsville . VA 24590 April 15> 2005 Tom Sullivan Murcielago LLC 121 Loring Avenue, Suite 340 Salem, MA 01970 Dear Tom, Despite the reporting (and misreporting) in the local papers, I do want to say how much I appreciate many of the changes you have made to Blenheim Road. It is a lot safer to drive that stretch of road and I do enjoy the gently curving road with its "parkway feeling" (misquoted as the Jersey Turnpike). I am a lot happier not to drown in other people's dust and I do appreciate all you have done to build fences> plant trees, and improve the landscape. I think: you did an excellent job on the hin> preserving the ravine as much as possible and keeping the board fence along the side of the road. The best news is that the traffic has not increased to any noticeable degree, and for the time being> the bridge appears safe. Yes, the overall character of the road has cbanged, but my feeling is that "what's done is done." A year ago we tried to prevent it :trom happening and failed, so now let's move on. I bear no ill-will towards you Tom, and trust that we can be good neighbors. As Jim B. has told you, our situation has changed and we are now selling the farm. We did this primarily for health reasons and to simplify our lives, but coincidentally we have you to thank for having made such a good sale. I wish you well in all your endeavors and look forward to seeing you when you are in the neighborhood. Sincerely, "C'....y;:? -H--_ ~~~ phone 4342863698 . fax 434 286 2326 . email petermelIen@msn.com ....J.L..'-" "'.Lon rn ""'T CPII ti Road N 0. ., 2Í c " E " ø ., ., 15 ]I iL Road w E s Historic District Conservation Easements (VOF) Va. of Historic Resources Easement mc Owned &. Easements PRF A Easements ACE Easements Shenandoah National Park COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Emergency Medical Services to the Southern Rural Area AGENDA DATE: June 1, 2005 ACTION: X INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSALlREQU EST: Decision on placement of 3 Fire fighter/ALS staff to provide service to the southern rural area of the County CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: REVIEWED BY: ATTACHMENTS: STAFF CONTACnS): Tucker, Foley, Davis, Eggleston LEGAL REVIEW: Yes BACKGROUND: During the FY05/06 budget work sessions, the Board considered a budget request from Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad for 5 additional Fire Fighter/Advanced Life Support (FF/ALS) personnel in order to provide 24/7 coverage out of the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad building. As an alternative to the 5 additional FF/ALS staff for Scottsville Rescue, Fire/Rescue staff presented a proposal for 3 FF/ALS personnel to provide 24/7 advanced life support (ALS) response services out of the Monticello Fire/Rescue station. Staff demonstrated that the new personnel placed at Monticello Fire Rescue station would meet the service needs in the southern rural area of the County. .he Board approved 3 additional FF/ALS positions, but chose to defer the decision on the placement of personnel at either Scottsville Rescue station or Monticello Fire Rescue station. STRATEGIC PLAN: Strategic Direction 3: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Citizens DISCUSSION: Based on actual response data, Fire Rescue staff believes that the combined efforts of the 3 additional personnel placed at the Monticello station, the existing 2 FF/ALS daytime career staff at Scottsville Volunteer Rescue, and the existing . Scottsville Rescue evening and weekend volunteer staff would provide an appropriate level of emergency medical services to the southern rural area of the County. An analysis of the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue response time data (evening and weekends) shows an average of 28:45 minutes between the dispatch of a medical emergency call and the time the ambulance marks en-route to the hospital from the scene. Furthermore, the average response time from the Monticello station to the southern area of the County is 16:36. Therefore, the data shows that in the event a call is dispatched and both units leave their respective stations at the same time, the unit from Monticello will, on average, meet the Scottsville ambulance on scene and be able to provide ALS care en-route to the hospital. In addition to addressing the southern rural area EMS needs, there are additional advantages to placing the FF/ALS first response personnel at the Monticello station rather than at the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue station: . 1. The personnel stationed at the Monticello station would be available if needed in the southern urban planned development area (PDA) as well as the entire County. 2. The resources are placed in a more central location and thus benefit a larger portion of County citizen's verses placing resources in the lower portion of the County near the Fluvanna and Buckingham County lines. 3. The decision to place the resources in the PDA (i.e. - Monticello station) is in line with the Community Facilities section of the Comprehensive plan. AGENDA TITLE: Emergency Medical Services to the Southern Rural Area June 1, 2005 Page 2 In order for the quick response vehicle at the Monticello station to be effective, a change to the existing EMS response policy is also required. The current EMS dispatch policy states that a rescue squad is given 4 minutes from time of dispatch to respond to high priority calls and 6 minutes to respond to mid and lower priority calls. If the squad is unable to respond within the time defined, the next closest response agency is dispatched. Fire Rescue staff proposes a change in the dispatch policy above. The proposed policy would eliminate the wait time based on the actual staffing of the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue building and would immediately send·the first response ALS staff from Monticello, if needed. The proposed policy would require that Scottsville Volunteer Rescue notify the Emergency Communication Center (ECC) of their daily staffing so that the dispatch algorithm could be setup to dispatch the appropriate level of resources. Based on the staffing report, ECC would eliminate the wait time and send the appropriate level of care based on the following criteria: 1) An EMS call is received for Scottsville Volunteer Rescue and the building is not staffed. 2) An advanced level call is received for Scottsville Volunteer Rescue, the building is staffed, but the squad does not have ALS personnel available as noted on the staffing report The policy above will better ensure that assistance is immediately sent to a call and ALS services are sent to high priority calls. RECOMMENDATIONS:. Staff recommends that the Board approve placing the 3 additional fire fighter/ALS first response personnel at Monticello Fire/Rescue station and approve the change in the dispatch protocol. ATTACHMENTS http://boardreports/ESAttachments/Forms/Rural Area EMS Staffinq.ppt 05.065 . . ~ en (]) ~ u ~ -- « è:rn ~ (]) ~ 000:: c: OOQ5 ~£ W5 C/) '+-' c: CI) '+-' c: en -- -- > enen~en c: c: '+-' '+-' OCl)c:õ U N ::J U -- CI) ::: 0 (/) -0 U U -- > CI) CI) O..r::::...r::::. s..... '+-' '+-' c..O~ o '+-' 0 '+-' CI) co CI) s..... CI) - co s..... ..c U co co(/)- c: ....J co ::J « :J en s..... -- CI) E > E CI) :¡::; CI) ,+-,u..r::::. enCl)'+-' ~~ ::J en CI) 0 en CI) -0 CI) ..r::::.C:..r::::. J-co,+-, . CI) - - -- s..... ~ en CI) en:¡::; - -- - - co co U U CI).Q ..r::::. s..... '+-' CI) ~..r::::. O,+-, ~ 0 o c: o -- C'f) CI) c: s..... co co ..r::::. CI) '+-' ::J CI) U s..... en o CI) ~o::: . Q) en c: o - - -- -- I · > en +-' +-' o () en ::J o en C) c: -- ~ ro I · en +-' co c::: o en s.... Q) 0... en ....J « o - - Q) () I I o c: o en -- I- ro a. E o o -- +-' c::: o ~ +-' CO > 0::: a c::: o en ....J « en ro ü ro c: o 0) Ü !.-"'O :J 0) o 0) en c: O)~ !.- 0 CJ) en -' en « 0) en "'0 "'0 !.- c: ro 0) C) CJ) ~ . c: 0) ...c: $ ~ c: o 0) Ü !.- :J o en 0) !.- CJ) -' «"'0 en 0) "'0"'0 c: 0) 0) 0) CJ) c: . ~E § ro o...c: c:üC) ~ c: O)O~ ~ c: Ü :J 0 :J o .- (1) en t: _x O)O\olU !.- c.. ro CJ)C:C: -'!.-c: «O)ro û) > en ro :J 0)0)- +-I...c:u... ro +-I !.- Ü :J ro 000) -'enc: . c: .- 0) !.- üJ2 !.- :J 0) 0- en~ 0):= !.- ro CJ)~E -' \V «~O) +-I en C) en 0) c: ~ +-I .- en ro~ ü ro 0) o E a ~ -en =«0) ro 0 !.- -Þa...0) c: .:: 00) ..ê c +-I 0) . ...c: C'J +-I . ::> "'0 .-:.§ ;::> 0) ~ t:: Ci)' "'0 ~. en W ~ .ê ~_!.-~~~ ro 0) 0) 0) ~~ +-I "'0 "'0 > .E Q) en ro .> :0 15 ~ +-I en 0 ..92 CI) o ._ !.- ro 0....92 c: 0) c.. !.- g 2 en !.- CJ) 0 0.. Cf,) .- 0) -' ~ ~ ~ c:£«~.EO .0 _ ~ ~ ~.8 +-I en . - ;::> ~ C'J ro !.- 0) ...... t:: û) 0) en 0 ~~ 0) +-I EO c: +-I c: "'0 ( ) ~ 0) c: 0 0) üct:s ...c: :J c.. ü .ê > 0 en !.- =:3 »~J2Ë ~ . CJ) -' « ~ o 0) en c: o c.. en 0) !.- 0) +-I ro !.- .- 0) "'0"'0 0) .- E > E e c.. . · Q) ::J Ü CU en - .- E Q. Q) fA ..æ 0 ~ a:: :I:~ CI) OLl) ..t::: C,,) - .. ....... Q)co co _N 0.. Q) ~ .CI) 0 "'Õ ì::I L- a::: -ê5 . -- Q) c: '- LL w co I..... (.) CD ....... ::::s 0 c: ~ Q) 0 C,,) - L.. Q) CD - Q) ..t::: Q) c: ....... Q) c: Q)CD E :1 Q)CD OM e · Ü 00 CJ) .. <.,;;: -- CJ) .. .CD ì::I C .CD c:T'" ~ -- c:T'" 0 ........ ï:::: 0 CD c: CO ì::I CI) CD 0 C) Q) ~ ~ c: CD :::. C1J -- CD ~ "C "C .E CO Q) Q) ..;::: ........ .c: .c: ì::I CO :E 0 0 c: -0 -0 ~ CUo CUo CD Q. .. Q. .. ~ > fAO Q) 0 fAO .- 0 .- 0 CIÕ C C > Q) - Q) a:: - ü - .S: CU CJ) ns c: U -+-J -+-J U ~ -+-J C a 0 CD Ü 0 - ~ C1J CJ) ::::s ....... C,,) C1J C/) ~ C1J CI) --I CD · .E « ¡.::: .¡c &I . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Outstanding FY 05/06 Budget Issues AGENDA DATE: June 1, 2005 ACTION: X INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Consideration of outstanding budget issues CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACTlS): Tucker, Foley, Breeden, Bever LEGAL REVIEW: No REVIEWED BY: ATTACHMENTS: BACKGROUND: During the budget development process for FY 05/06, the following items were identified for further research: · · · . · · · · Funding for Save the Fireworks East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department Loan Repayment Public Safety Compensation Study Sheriff's Department Staff Stony Point Volunteer Fire Department Building Improvements Fire Inspector Position Retiree Health Insurance The first three items on the above list will be addressed in this executive summary. The last four items will be presented to the Board in a July executive summary. STRATEGIC PLAN: 4.2 Fund County services in a fair, efficient manner and provide needed public facilities infrastructure. DISCUSSION: FundinQ for Save the Fireworks In March 2005, the County received a request to provide funding of $1 0,000 to the Save the Fireworks organization. This issue was discussed during the budget development process at which time the Board indicated it would consider some contribution, but requested additional information on the City's funding. The City of Charlottesville does not make a cash contribution to this organization, but estimates an in-kind contribution of $10,500 for services provided by their Police, Parks and Recreation and Transit Departments. We understand that the organization has discussed some cash contribution with the City, but we have not received any indication of the City's decision on this. The organization requested this to be an ongoing annual commitment by the County. East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department Loan Repavment In FY 04/05, the Board approved an appropriation of $41 ,930 to the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department (VFD) for forgiveness of a loan used to purchase a piece of apparatus for the VFD. The amount of $41,930 represented .pproximatelY one-half of the outstanding balance owed on this piece of apparatus. In FY 05/06, the East Rivanna VFD as requested the Board appropriate additional funds to payoff the remaining one-half of this loan, which is $41 ,930. This is the only remaining debt of any volunteer agency in the County due to the Board's policy to forgive the loans associated with the purchase of apparatus for volunteer fire and rescue squads. AGENDA TITLE: Outstanding FY 05/06 Budget Issues June 1, 2005 Page 2 Public Safety Reclassification The Board approved implementation of the pay study for our public safety providers effective January 1, 2006 through adoption of the budget for the coming fiscal year. This approval will implement pay changes that ensure that our public safety staffs in the Police Department, Fire Rescue Department and Emergency Communications Center are paid in line with the market and that there is appropriate equity between the agencies. Police Officers, in particular, have fallen behind the market and this fact has been a concern regarding recruitment efforts. Implementation of the study will greatly improve both our competitiveness and our internal equity. As the study has shown. the pay for a number of positions is currently behind the market. Staff would like to propose that the Board approve the use of one-time projected year end savings from FY05 to implement the pay study effective July 1, 2005 rather than waiting until January 1, 2006. Because of the difficulty the public safety departments have had in filling vacancies, enough funding is currently available from projected year end savings in those departments to fund the additional six months of expense. Because this change had already been planned beginning in January, the increased cost would only be a one-time expense. Staff feels that this change in timing is appropriate given the final results of the study and would also be a significant benefit to both our recruitment efforts and the morale of our employees. BUDGET IMPACT: Fundinq for Save the Fireworks The Board will need to decide if this will become an ongoing or a one-time contribution and the amount of that funding. Funding can be provided from the Board reserve or from year-end fund balance. East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department Loan Repavment One-time funding in the amount of $41 ,930 will be needed for the loan repayment. Funding can be provided from the Board reserve or from year-end fund balance. Public Safety Reclassification Due to vacancies in the public safety departments over the past year, staff anticipates a year end savings of approximately $270,000. The one-time cost to implement the results of the pay study in July rather than January is estimated at $220,000. The budget impact of changes in pay for the Emergency Communication Center is estimated at approximately $7,000 and will be covered through regional funding currently available. Therefore, no additional funding will be needed for the ECC. RECOMMENDATIONS: · Fundinq for Save the Fireworks: County Executive staff has no recommendation regarding funding for Save the Fireworks at this time. · East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department Loan Repavment: Staff recommends the Board approve funding to the East Rivanna VFD to pay the balance of the loan for apparatus based on previous Board policy. · Public Safety Reclassification: Staff recommends funding for early implementation of the public safety salary study effective July 1, 2005. The necessary budget amendment and appropriation request will be submitted to the Board in July, 2005. 05.066 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Strategic Plan Progress Report AGENDA DATE: June 1, 2005 ACTION: INFORMATION: X SU BJ ECT/PROPOSALlREQUEST: Review Strategic Plan quarterly progress report, provide guidance CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: REVIEWED BY: STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Ms. White, Ms. Allshouse ATTACHMENTS: Yes LEGAL REVIEW: Yes BACKGROUND: The Board initiated the County's FY 2003/04 - FY 2005/06 strategic plan in April, 2002. The initial plan included four strategic directions and seven goals. At their 2003 strategic planning retreat, the Board added a goal that addresses the County's growth and urbanization. In April 2004, the Board approved the addition of four Life Long Learning Goals. At their October 2004 strategic planning retreat, the Board reviewed the results of the 2004 citizen survey and other data and added a goal to address the County's growing transportation concerns. -he current strategic plan will end June 06. (Attachment A) A new strategic plan will be established for FY 06/07 - FY ~0/11. STRATEGIC PLAN: Quarterly Report for January - March 2005 time period DISCUSSION: January - March 05 Proqress: Following are highlights of strategic plan progress during the January - March 05 time period: 1. Transportation: The Transportation Funding Options Work Group, appointed by the MPO Policy Board, has been meeting over the past several months and has identified priority projects. During the recently completed budget process, the Board recognized transportation funding will be needed at both the local and regional level and increased the funding in the CIP to address transportation projects by $1.5 million. Additional details are included in Attachment B. 2. Water Supply: The current focus for the County of Albemarle, after several different meetings, has been to coordinate a joint strategy with the City of Charlottesville, the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority by developing common water supply alternatives/plan for submittal in a Pre-Application Proposal for review and consideration by Federal and State Regulators. 3. Affordable Housinq: Albemarle County introduced a new Homebuyer Assistance Program to promote first-time homeownership opportunities for low- to moderate-income families who meet program eligibility requirements. The program will be administered in partnership with the Piedmont Housing Alliance. Program details are available on the .bemarle County website. Per the Board's instruction, the Housing Division will move forward with three additional commendations which will include amendments to zoning ordinances and the comprehensive plan. Additional details regarding this are provided to the Board in a separate June 1 report. 4. Strateqic Plan Outcome Manaqement System: The County's leadership will begin managing the strategic plan with an outcome-oriented management system. While the Leadership Council will still monitor the progress related to the AGENDA TITLE: Strategic Plan Progress Report June 1, 2005 Page 2 County's on-going activities, staff will also monitor outcome measures that will inform them whether these activities are achieving the results outlined in the strategic plan, and whether adjustments need to be made. This outcome measurement system will be in place for the last year of the current strategic plan and will be utilized in the next strategic planning cycle. . Attachment C includes outcome measures that have been identified for 8 of the County's strategic goals. 5. Proqress on specific Strateqic Plan Objectives: A report providing additional details outlining staff's efforts to achieve specific objectives by stated timelines is attached. As of March 05, 7 objectives have been completed. Attachment B provides details for the remaining objectives that are currently underway. BUDGET IMPACT: Eleven strategic initiatives were approved in the FY 05/06 operating budget at $1.8 million. $1.5 million in CIP. These initiatives include: Safe and Healthv Community Sheriff Deputy & Office Associate 3 Police Officers Police Civilian Patrol Support Assistant 2 Captains and 1 Firefighter ALS for EMS Response in the Southern Rural Area Qualitv of Life Increased local funding for Family Support increased funding for Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled Trail Development Maintenance & Supplies Protect and Preserve Natural Resources Stormwater Management Program Efficient and Effective Government Director of General Services Retiree Health Insurance Custodians for COB-South Transportation Additional $1.5 million in CIP funding RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the Board review this quarterly strategic plan progress report and continue to provide direction for the County's Strategic Plan. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Strateqic Plan Framework Attachment B: Strateqic Obiectives/Timeline Proqress Report Attachment C: Strateqic Plan Outcome Measures 05.064 . . . FY 03/04 - FY 05/06 Strategic Plan Attachment A VISION To maintain Albemarle County's stature as a quality community by promoting the values of education and lifelong learning, historic and scenic preservation, safety, affordability, cultural diversity, citizen participation and economic opportunity that make the County a desirable place in which to grow up, raise a family and grow old while preserving our natural resources, rural character and visual beautv for future aenerations. MISSION To Enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public service consistent with the prudent use of public funds I. Provide High Quality Educational Opportunities for Albemar/e County Citizens of al/ ages GOALS 1.1 Create accessible opportunities for everyone in the community to learn, ensuring all educational services rneet the needs of the changing demographics within the community 1.2 Meet the teaching and learning needs of all citizens along an appropriate continuum of ages and stages of development 1.3 Ensure the education system meets the workforce preparation needs of current and future employees and employers. 1.4 Position the County as a recognized leader in educational excellence STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS Protect the County's atural, Scenic and istoric Resources GOALS 2.1 Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character 2.2 Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources 2.3 Provide for environmentally sensitive government operations at the local and regional level 3. Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Citizens GOALS 3.1 Make the County a safe and healthy community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play 3.2 Promote a variety of safe, sanitary & affordable housing types 3.3 Develop and implement policies that address the county's growth and urbanization while continuing to enhance the factors that contribute to the quality of life in the county. 3.4 Develop and implement policies, including financial, that address the County's growing transportation needs. Integrity - Stewardship - Innovation - Learning 4. Provide Effective and Efficient County services to the public in a courteous and equitable manner GOALS 4.1 Provide effective, responsive and courteous service to our customers 4.2 Fund County services in a fair, efficient manner and provide needed public facilities and infrastructure STRATEGIC PLAN Quarterly Progress Report Priority Objectives January through March 2005 · · · STRATEGIC PLAN Quarterly Progress Report Priority Objectives January through March 2005 The Action Plan, including 4 goals and 18 objectives, is underway HIGHLIGHTS The Life Long Learning Implementation Team, which includes representatives from the Albemarle County Schools, PVCC, MAACA, CATEC, the Library system, the Senior Center, JABA and the Extension Service, has been meeting to address these goals since September. Activities during the last quarter include: · To address Goal 1.4 - Position the County as a recognized leader in educational excellence" the Team is developing a self assessment tool that agencies could use to help improve their learning organizations. The Team believes that this tool could also be used by the County to recognize educational (life long learning) excellence in the community. · As team members work on Goal 1.1 : "Make sure that County creates accessible opportunities for everyone in the community to learn, ensuring educational services meet the needs of the changing demographics within the community," they have been studying the County's changing demographics using GIS maps and other data. FUTURE ACTIONS · The Team will continue to move forward on the Life Long Learning action plan and will finalize their recommendation for the County regarding promoting and recognizing educational excellence on a an community-wide (agency/organization)basis. 2 ~?o::õFør:j\"~¡6~ð.~M~e""'~~'~{'..;.4...W'l1::o~'R~~;e~;g;ih~s:::U~::'a'~Œmlalm:-e· ·7~.¡¡1(.~~ ~Ellt.l:f_ª'ifJif,fIA~~~1Rë_.Jii'»':-&'H-----;fi) j"/~~\- ,,_;.\__.._:Sd~l,'~_ilifu 2.1.2 Rural Area Policies HIGHLIGHTS · The Board of Supervisors began review of the Planning Commission's recommended Rural Area Plan on September 1 and held subsequent work sessions on October 6, November 3 and December 1. · Planning drafted recommendations on implementation measures to accompany the Rural Area Plan, distributed these to staff in other departments responsible for working on these measures and held a review meeting with this staff on November 30. · On February 9,2005, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the Rural Area Plan. · On March 2, 2005, the Board adopted the Rural Area Plan and reviewed its associated implementation strategies and their recommended timing. The Board agreed to the strategies, but requested that staff provide information on additional resources that would be necessary to accelerate timing. FUTURE ACTIONS · Staff will be providing information on additional resources that would be necessary to accelerate the timing of undertaking the implementation strategies at the Board's June 1 meeting. It is anticipated that the Board will make its final decisions on implementation of the Rural Area Plan at this meeting. 3 · · · 2.2.1 Integrated Water Resource Plan HIGHLIGHTS · The current focus for the County of Albemarle, after several different meetings, has been to coordinate a joint strategy with the City of Charlottesville, the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority by developing common water supply alternatives/plan for submittal in a Pre-Application Proposal for review and consideration by Federal and State Regulators · Staff reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and identified those objectives that should be considered during the current water supply planning process. FUTURE ACTIONS County staff will initiate the development of an Integrated Water Resource Plan to ensure that water and natural resource-related Comprehensive Plan elements are inclusive and consistent with the long term objectives of the Board. · Staff will review the Comprehensive Plan, alert the Board to those objectives that should be considered during the current water supply planning process and will identify any gaps. · Staff will develop recommendations to reconcile any inconsistencies and gaps, and will develop a work plan and necessary committee structure to put an Integrated Water Resource Plan into place. Completion anticipated in December 2005. · As the water supply plan and other initiatives are presented to the Board, staff will review for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the Integrated Water Resource Plan. 4 3.3.1 Promoting Visibility and Viability of Urban Areas HIGHLIGHTS · The urban marketing plan has been reviewed and endorsed by the Leadership Council and the Board of Supervisors · Certain elements of the plan are being implemented as part of the overall communication/community outreach program for Places 29, the northern urban area master planning project FUTURE ACTIONS · Strategies from the marketing plan will continue to be implemented in coordination with the Places 29 project · A detailed action plan is being developed for all strategies 5 . . . 3.3.2. Organization of County government to provide appropriate support to the Urban areas HIGHLIGHTS · A team has interviewed staff from several departments and is developing an overview of service delivery impacts due to the County's future urbanization. Consideration of potential changes will be evaluated in five year increments to ensure a realistic approach over time. FUTURE ACTIONS · The team addressing this objective will report back to the County's leadership in May. · Any necessary recommendations on significant policy issues will be brought forward to the Board. · Staff will begin work on other identified actions in this area that do not require policy or organizational changes. 3.3.3 Complete objectives and strategies that address urban needs. HIGHLIGHTS · The staff team assigned to assess the County's urban infrastructure challenges has completed its work and received direction from the Board. The direction given by the Board will be critical in shaping the County's future urban area and new neighborhoods. FUTURE ACTIONS · Staff will hold a work session in the near future to wrap-up any outstanding infrastructure questions and address transportation issues in the County's urban areas. Much of this discussion will depend on the conclusions and recommendations from the regional group studying transportation alternatives. 6 HIGHLIGHTS · The Transportation Funding Options Work Group, a regional group appointed by the MPO Policy Board, has been meeting over the past several months on recommendations regarding the identification of priority regional projects and alternative methods of funding those projects. The working group has id entified the following projects as priorities: 0 A List 0 Hillsdale Drive Connector 0 Meadow Creek Parkway Interchange 0 Transit Improvements 0 Southern Parkway 0 Eastern Connector Study 0 Park and Ride Lots 0 29H25o Study Improvements 0 B List o Implementing Eastern Connector Study o Implementing Area B Study · During the recently completed budget process, the Board of Supervisors discussed both regional and local transportation projects and their future funding. With a recognition that funding will be needed at both the local and regional level, the Board added $1.5 million to the CIP to address transportation improvement projects. FUTURE ACTIONS · The regional working group is currently developing final recommendations regarding funding alternatives and is scheduled to make recommendations to the MPO Policy Board in July · The Board of Supervisors will be giving further consideration to the use of transportation improvement funds in the CIP over the next several months through a Board work session. This will include consideration of the level of funding for both regional and local projects. 7 · ~"". , ãi4Jr~"Fe-'~''''''a--~m'-'''' "''ß'~''''PP_-''''~'''tP~'''''S'Cìl''Wli!liI:''!K'*_~''0''P'''''k''''_'''~.." .. .. "'Gi išÐ'~ ;; šfAm l -, 'Q; . .L. ¿~M:~".~r'ìj¡\1Je;e ,e.e MØ;~~_.e.$P.~itn,S1Me.~itrl.~§Ag.l_~O"a:""}Sg~tCgS·Q~n~ç,' .s_'IIII~ ,...;z"%",."",*~"=...",~'O,>,!<"'¡¡~,'(:,;,,,,,,,,¡;,.,.,=.. ,._ _~_.____. _ !m!M;!m~~,-"""\.>",,~,,*,,,,_^O " _ -___ _. ___~"""-~»> w~_.. __ , " ~ 4.1.2 Quality Place of Employment HIGHLIGHTS As part of our continuing effort to expand and develop the organization's talent, the Human Resources Department has and will continue to offer the following: · · Leadership Foundations - offered to supervisors and managers · "Wise-Up" Workshops - various topics offered to all employees monthly · Executive Leadership Course - offered to Leadership Council members through Darden Business School Many departments have completed the development of their department's recognition criteria for the Total Rewards Program. The Human Resources Department has completed an assessment of organizational classification/compensation for Community Development and Public Safety. This will be reviewed with the County Executive Office. The County has completed the 360 degree feedback process for Leadership Council. FUTURE ACTIONS The Human Development Department will: · · · · · · Continue the 3 year action plan to complete the assessment of the organization's classification/compensation. Review proposed policy changes for Board approval (absences and sick leave). Conduct 360 degree feedback process for the Management Group Identify through 360 process summary of Leadership Council's strengths and opportunities to assist with further growth. Complete a second employee (climate) survey to assess progress regarding this objective. The climate survey is scheduled to be conducted in November 2005. 8 Goal Outcome 1. Life Long Learning goals: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 1.0utcomes and measures to be developed 2.1.1. Decrease the absolute number of new 2.1. Protect and/or preserve the County's rural residential permits approved in rural areas. (C) character 2.1.2. Increase the amount of rural land in permanent easement.(C) 2.1.3. Expenditures for public facilities in the development areas will exceed expenditures for public facilities in the rural areas. (F) 2.2. Protect and/or preserve the County's natural 2.2.1.Reduce Loss of wooded areas in rural areas. resources (B) 2.2.2 Public waters are safe for fishing and swimminq. (B) 2.3. Provide for environmentally sensitive 2.3.1. Exceed standard or im prove performance government operations at the local and regional against environmental regulations.(B) level 3.1.1. Citizens report feeling safe in both residential 3.1. Make the County a safe and healthy community and business areas of the County. (C) in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play 3.1.2. Reduce the number of children living at 150% poverty level.(F) 3.2. Promote a variety of safe, sanitary and 3.2.1. Reduce housing units ranked in Substandard to Poor condition. (C) affordable housing types 3.2.2. Increase supply of affordable housing. (C) 3.3. Develop and implement policies that address 3.3 Outcomes and measures to be developed the County's growing transporation needs 3.3.1. Citizens support the County's approach to balancing preservation and urbanization. (C) 3.3. Develop and implement policies that address 3.3.2. Citizens report that quality of life is not the County's growth and urbanization while adversely impacted by the County's urbanization. continuing to enhance the factors that contribute to (C) the quality of life in the County. 3.3.3. Citizens report the implementation of the County vision and goals meet their expectations. (C) 4.1.1. Citizens report an increase in County 4.1. Provide effective, responsive and courteous performance in the following areas: Timely service to our customers response, helpfulness, ranking for overall satisfaction. (L) 4.2.1. Citizens report that services, facilities and infrastructure are adequate to maintain a high quality of life. (C) 4.2. Fund County services in a fair, efficient manner 4.2.2. Projects are on time and on budget. (F) and prvide needed public facilities and 4.2.3. Meet or exceed targeted Return on infrastructure Investment (ROI) for selected projects.(F) 4.2.4.Citizens report their financial burden for government is fair, by showing satisfaction with value for tax value. (F) FY 03/04 - FY 05/06 Strategic Plan Outcome Measures Attachment C Key (C) - Customer perspective (F) - Financial perspective (I) - Internal Business perspective (L) -Learning and Innovation perspective June 1, 2005 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Update and Process Improvement Worksession AGENDA DATE: June 1, 2005 ACTION: x INFORMATION: SUBJECT ¡PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Consider strategies for improvement of development review processes in Community Development. CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACnS): Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham LEGAL REVIEW: Yes REVIEWED BY: ATTACHMENTS: BACKGROUND: The purpose of this report is to update the Board on completion of the transition to the Community Development Department and to seek direction on development review process improvement strategies. In June of 2003, staff presented a proposal to the Board for the consolidation of the three development departments . (Building Inspection and Zoning Services, the engineering staff of Engineering and Public Works, and Planning and Community Development) into a single department called Community Development. This reorganization was proposed to provide customers a single point of contact for all development related activities and to improve review processes. The department was reorganized by July of 2004 and has been operating consistent with the 2003 proposal. The major emphasis of this reorganization has been focused on business process improvements and improvements in the development review process. The Board has recently emphasized the need to expedite the development review process. In carrying out this goal, staff seeks direction on process improvement strategies the Board would like to see implemented. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 3.3: Develop and implement policies that address the County's growth and urbanization while continuing to enhance the factors that contribute to the quality of life in the County. Goal 4.1: Protect effective, responsive and courteous service to our customers. DISCUSSION: Department Operations: The Department now provides a single point of contact for all development related issues with the County. The County's and Department's Vision Statements are provided in Attachment A and a Department organizational chart is provided as Attachment B. The primary function of each division shown on the organizational chart is as follows: . · Central Operations provides customer reception, records management, application processing, inspection scheduling, and administrative support for the department. · Current Development and Zoning manages ministerial reviews under the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, special use permits associated with those reviews, and all zoning functions, including support for the Board of Zoning Appeals. 1 . Inspections manages the building permit processes and all construction related activities. This includes building inspections, inspection of subdivision improvements, and water resource inspections (e.g. erosion and sediment control). . Planning manages the Comprehensive Plan and legislative review processes (e.g. rezonings and special use permits). They also support the Architectural Review Board, ACE, and numerous County Board appointed committees (e.g. DISC II, Mountain Overlay) involved in developing County Policy. The area master plan efforts and recently approved Rural Area Plan are examples of their work related to the Comprehensive Plan. Development Processes: To assist the Board in understanding County development review processes, staff has compared Albemarle to other localities regarding the normal tasks involved in development review. That data is shared in Attachment C. Two points should be explained with this data. First, "VAZO" refers to the Virginia Association of Zoning Officials survey of plan review processes in localities across Virginia. The complete VAZO survey can be found on the Internet at http://www.vazo.orq/documents/survev results200503.pdf (please note that this data does not provide for a standardized measurement for reporting). Second, staff typically monitors project review times based on "90% reviews", which is the time it takes for 90% of the plans to be acted upon. Most other localities use average or median review times. Staff uses the 90% review times because the average or median review time does not represent a time that applicants can count on in scheduling their projects, given that % of the applicants would experience longer times. For example, the median review time might be 1 0 days, but the 90% review time could be 20 days. That difference illustrates the variation in review times. For this discussion, staff is presenting the process in four groups, using the most common processes to illustrate the County's performance in each area. Building Permits and Inspections: These functions are related to the issuance of building permits and the associated inspections. Those processes are purely administrative. Staff reviews and approves building permits, then performs the related inspections. This is, by far, the largest number of applications received by the department. On a typical work day, roughly 1 00 building inspections are requested and 1 0-15 building permits or associated "sub permits" are issued. The attached data show that the County is providing similar times to other jurisdictions when median times are compared. In examining the data further, staff found that while the median time for issuance of a permit is 10 days, the time for 90% of the applications was 31 days. The difference in review times was found to be permits in the rural area that require Health Department approval for septic systems. Excluding those building permits that require Health Department approval, County review times are similar to those of comparable localities. While staff could report the review times without Health Department approval, as most localities do, it does not really represent the time it is taking the builder from application to permit. In looking at this process, staff believes the review times are comparable to others and efforts in this area should be focused on providing the customer better tracking information for permit applications and clearly defining requirements for permit applications. With the former, the database used for tracking applications, CityView, has the ability to provide access over the Internet and this upgrade to our current software was approved with the FY 05-06 budget. Staffwill begin efforts at implementation of this access in the second half of the year and plan to have it operational by early 2006. With the latter, staff is working to reduce problems and uncertainties experienced by applicants. In this regard, staff collects customer service input on a continual basis to find where applicants feel improvements are needed. Ministerial Reviews: Ministerial reviews are those associated with "by right" development, such as site plans and subdivision plats. Ministerial reviews are different from legislative reviews as there is no discretion in approval. As long as the plan or plat satisfies the ordinance requirements, it must be approved. Those plans are typically reviewed by staff, but plans and plats are subject to being reviewed by the Planning Commission. As shown in Attachment C, the County's approval times tend to be longer than many other localities, but that is comparing median times to 90% review times. Further, in examining the data, County review times, the time from submission to receiving comments, were found to be comparable or lower than most localities. With process improvements over the last year, staff has reduced these review times from almost 4 weeks to 2 weeks for 90% of the submissions. The longer completion times are generally a result of a plan needing to be resubmitted with corrections before it can be approved. In considering strategies for reducing approval times, staff has noted several factors to consider. . The County has a more complex ordinance than many localities. For example, when formatted the same, Albemarle County's subdivision ordinance is 62 pages compared to Augusta County's subdivision ordinance at 25 2 · · · pages. Albemarle County's subdivision ordinance is a reflection of this community's concern with the quality of development and the urbanizing nature of the Development Areas, resulting in a more complex ordinance. Length and complexity of requirements results in a longer checklist for staff review and often results in uncertainty on the part of applicants, which in turn necessitates the need for plan changes to gain approval. Staff is working at reducing this uncertainty by making detailed checklists available to applicants so they can see precisely what is required for approval, but that does not alter the number of issues that must be considered. · VDOT review is taking longer than staff review. While staff may review a plan in 2 weeks, VDOT is typically taking 3-4 weeks. Put bluntly, VDOT resources are stretched. Until VDOT receives better funding or prioritizes plan reviews over other functions, it does not appear possible to improve their review times. · Planning Commission reviews require additional staff resources that could be spent on speeding up reviews of other plans. It should be noted that Albemarle County is the only locality in Attachment C that provides Planning Commission review for both site plans and subdivision plats. Most localities appear to keep Planning Commission involvement limited to larger projects. Plats and plans are called up for Planning Commission review by Planning Commission members, concerned neighbors, and with requests for waivers or modification of ordinance requirements (e.g. critical slopes waivers). Each time a plan or plat is called before the Planning Commission, staff must prepare a detailed report for the meeting and present this report to the Planning Commission. That additional work can roughly double the staff time spent on the review of a project. It is also important to recognize that staffs interpretation of the ordinance is not always the same as the Planning Commission, including some recent well publicized projects. The same can be said of interpretations of the County Board versus the Planning Commission, with some Planning Commission decisions reversed. Recognizing this fact, some ordinance waiver provisions are routine administrative decisions handled with minimal delay, while others require Planning Commission action. Reducing the number of plans and waivers subject to Planning Commission review would significantly reduce the approval time for many plans. In considering such a change, it should be recognized there can be circumstances where staffs interpretation of the ordinance will be different than the Planning Commission's. By reducing or eliminating plan and waiver review by the Planning Commission, it will provide the Planning Commission additional time for long-range planning issues and allow them to expedite major project review. · Notifications to adjoining property owners are not required by State law but are extensively used by the County to assure neighbors are aware of development occurring around them. While keeping the public informed is a benefit to the community, this does require significant time and resources. Additionally, it can add steps to the review process. As a result of this notification, plans are often called before the Planning Commission. While the Planning Commission meeting provides the opportunity to address concerns, neighbors are often dismayed to find that the Planning Commission must approve a plan if it meets the ordinance requirements regardless of their concerns. Effectively, the notification process can create a false hope that a neighbor's concerns can influence the decision while the reality is plans that satisfy the ordinance requirements must be approved. Anecdotally, staff often sees neighbors leave Planning Commission meetings angry and confused, feeling that neither staff nor the Planning Commission seriously considered their concerns. As noted above, staff is currently working on preparing detailed checklists for applicants that should reduce the uncertainty with the process. Staff believes this will provide some improvement in review times and the number of submittals required to reach approval. Staff believes the County would need to consider reducing requirements and/or consider eliminating Planning Commission review for many ministerial reviews to further reduce times. Staff also believes that by expediting the ministerial reviews, the development community will be more prone to develop in the development areas and embrace the neighborhood model strategies and further reduce the pressure on the rural areas. Legislative Reviews: Legislative reviews, rezonings (ZMAs) and special use permits (SPs), are discretionary matters that can only be approved by the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission and staff provide recommendations to the Board for those decisions. Referring to Attachment C, the data shows that County approval times for rezonings are similar to Loudoun and Fauquier, but those times are considerably longer than many other localities. Albemarle's SP review times were similar to most other localities. In considering strategies for reducing action times with rezonings, staff has noted several factors to consider. · Complexity of review. Attachment 0 provides an example of typical factors considered in a rezoning. That review is based on expectations the Planning Commission has expressed in reviewing applications. To illustrate, it is doubtful the application plans approved with the Peter Jefferson or North Fork ~ezonings would be considered acceptable if submitted today. Attachment 0 shows a possible 15 reviewers considering 102 different issues before the plan is brought to the Planning Commission. With this number of issues and reviewers, it is inevitable there will be conflicting objectives. For example, one reviewer could seek a street connection across a small 3 stream valley while another reviewer sought less disturbance of the stream buffer. Typically, those conflicts are addressed through an iterative review process that seeks to find the optimal solution. · Level of detail. This is anecdotal as no good measure for the level of detail was established. Some localities, such as Albemarle, Loudoun, and Fauquier, have placed considerable importance on the details in rezoning while others appear to only consider the conceptual aspects and assume the details can be worked out at the site plan stage. For example, a "bubble" layout only shows proposed land use categories for area. That might have been acceptable in the past, but the same type of plan today is expected to show structures, roads, driveways, landscaping, and grading. The review of that plan would consider historic resources, groundwater, trails, greeways/blueways, and other issues as shown in Attachment D. All of these are issues that the Planning Commission has expressed interest in seeing with the plans. Additionally, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) will considers the architectural appearance of buildings, signs, and landscaping. While this attention to detail assures the County is getting the type of development it expects, it also results in delays for applicants and additional resources required by the County for reviews. Furthermore, there can be a continuing effort to improve on the level of detail. The ARB provides a good case study in this conflict between quality of development and expediting reviews. The ARB is often heralded as a success story and few would argue it has made a noticeable difference in the development along the County's Entrance Corridors. That program started in 1990 with part-time staff support and was basically limited to review of site plans along certain roads. Since that time, the number of roads has expanded, signs have been included in the reviews, certain building permits are included in the reviews, there is an expanded role in the review of rezonings and special use permits, and staff support now requires two full time employees to keep up with the workload. The point is not to criticize the value of the ARB, but to note that the price for that value includes additional staff resources and more expansive reviews which add to the complexity (and time) of reviews. · Sensitivity to review time versus high quality plans. Based on guidance from the Planning Commission, staff seeks to have the applicant's plan be as close to an ideal as considered reasonably possible. While that process emphasizes high quality plans, it also places less emphasis on the time spent in reaching that point. When pushed by deadlines, deferrals are commonly used to avoid bringing forward an application that may be considered as substandard. To illustrate this point, all of the public hearing items scheduled for the May 11th Board meeting were deferred to work on issues. · Lack of established proffer policy. Many urbanized localities have established proffer policies that allow applicants to go into the process with an understanding of what will be expected with the proffers. Albemarle County does not have this type of proffer policy. Instead, each rezoning is individually considered and individual proffer recommendations are developed. Effectively, the applicant enters the rezoning process with little understanding of what proffers will be considered adequate. To summarize, staff believes the special use permit process appears to work similarly to other localities and process improvement should focus on better checklists. The County's rezoning process appears to work similar to Fauquier and Loudoun County, but takes considerably more time and effort than many other localities. To date, the emphasis in the rezoning process has been on seeking the best possible plan with little or no emphasis on the time it takes to gain the best possible plan. For the County to appreciably reduce the time spent on rezonings, staff would recommend considering a policy on deferrals. Such a policy would effectively force staff, the applicant, and Planning Commission into limiting the time that could be spent in working on a plan before bringing it to the Board. Once the rezoning application was before the Board, the Board could consider whether additional time with the Planning Commission would yield an appreciably better plan. If the Board felt this time was worth the delay, the plan could be allowed to return to the Planning Commission for further refinement. If the Board felt the delay would not result in appreciable improvement, an action would be taken. In considering such a strategy, staff believes the Board should weigh the likelihood that this change could simply transfer the review complexities to the Board. Staff suspects this strategy could increase the number of split decisions by the Board on land use decisions. Finally, staff believes an established proffer policy would reduce the uncertainty for applicants and reduce the time required to resolve proffer concerns. That said, staff also believes developing a proffer policy could require an extensive effort by both staff and the Board. That effort would compete with resources that might otherwise be used on efforts such as the Rural Area Plan implementation, Northern Area Master Plan, and ordinance amendments currently in process. An estimate of resources required for this effort and priority would need to be developed if the Board was interested in pursuing a proffer policy. Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance Amendments: As shown on Attachment E, the last year has seen a significant number of these policy issues completed. While staff is proud of the volume completed in the last year, it should be noted some of these were complex efforts started several years 4 ago. Other issues generated little public concern and the public process was relatively simple. Some issues were brought forward with unresolved public concerns, which complicated the considerations of the County Board. As such, the volume completed last year reflects a combination of coincidental timing and staff trying to expedite the process whenever possible. . Also, it should be noted that no staff is solely dedicated to these efforts. With each issue, staff balances their time spent on the issue against the need for timely completion of legislative and ministerial reviews. In that regard, recognizing that other reviews often have legal deadlines for completion, these issues are often forced to take a lower priority. While some Comprehensive Plan and ordinance amendments are initiated by applicants, the major efforts are typically initiated by the County itself. Staff found little comparison data from other localities on the time spent with these efforts. Similar to Albemarle County, controversial proposals in other localities usually require a lengthy public process. A review of County projects shows considerable variation in both the time and resources required for these projects. For example, recent County efforts on the Crozet Master Plan, Rural Area Plan, Sign Ordinance, and Subdivision Text Amendment (ST A) demonstrate that considerable time and resources can be required for discussions and worksessions. Additionally, Board appointed committees can require extended periods of time to form recommendations for these policy issues. That is understandable given those committees members seldom share a common and detailed understanding of the issue before them and it is difficult for committee members to commit large blocks of time to this work. Thus, a large part of their work can be spent on reaching common understanding, only to struggle with the recognition that solutions often require compromise. That becomes even more complicated when the committee desires consensus with its recommendations. Staff also notes it is difficult to accurately predict the time and resources required for the public process with controversial proposals. The recently approved Subdivision Text Amendment process and the current Mountain Overlay District work are examples of how difficult it can be to schedule resources when working on controversial issues. The ST A process required resources that would otherwise have worked on completing the Neighborhood Model Zoning Ordinance amendments. Similarly, the Mountain Overlay work will be competing for the same staff resources that might otherwise be dedicated to work on Rural Area Plan implementation. In considering strategies for improving the process, staff believes the emphasis should be on better defining Board expectations prior to the start of the work. Using the recently completed Rural Area Plan as a case study, it is noted that worksessions were used at the start of this process to define expectations with the hope this would minimize time spent with the Planning Commission and Board at the end of the process. Staff believes that we did, in fact, reduce the time and . effort required by the Planning Commission and Board. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff requests the Board provide guidance as to process improvement strategies they wish to explore. Staff will then schedule a work session for discussion of how the strategies could be implemented and the issues where Board direction is needed. With regard to building permit applications and inspections, staff has noted the County's processes are similar to others and little opportunity exists for additional improvement without increasing staff resources. Staff will continue to work on improving quality control to reduce errors and implementing CityView for customers to check on review status over the Internet. With regard to ministerial reviews, staff has noted process improvements being developed in the form of detailed checklists and streamlining administrative processes. If further improvements in the process are desired, staff suggested consideration of limiting Planning Commission review of site plans and/or subdivision plats to larger, more complex plans as was the practice in other localities. Similarly, staff can work on reviewing current ordinances for possible opportunities to reduce requirements. If the Board is interested in considering a reduction in the current requirements, staffwill develop a list of potential changes and bring this to the Board for consideration. With regard to legislative reviews, staff believes improvement can best be gained in reducing the use of deferrals and establishing a proffer policy. The change in accepting deferrals would be a Board policy and relatively easy to implement. The proffer policy would need to be adopted into the Comprehensive Plan and would require a detailed analysis to support the policy. A proffer policy is anticipated to require considerable staff resources and could be controversial, depending on the guidelines in the policy. If the Board is interested in considering either of these options, staff will develop proposals for . the Board's consideration. With regard to Comprehensive Plan and ordinance changes, staff believes improvement can best be gained through improvement in the public process, primarily by defining expectations at the start of the process, and by setting hard deadlines for completion of work. The later measures would require those involved to set a schedule for completion of tasks and shift focus more towards completion deadlines at the risk of not fully vetting some issues. 5 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A - Department Vision Statement ATTACHMENT B - Department Orqanizational Chart ATTACHMENT C - Survey Results ATTACHMENT 0- Typical SP & Rezoninq Review Issues ATTACHMENT E - Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Ordinance Amendment completed in the last year 05.054 6 A TT ACHMENT A - Community Development Process Improvement W orksession · Our County Values: We believe in excellence in public service through: INTEGRITY. We value our customers and co-workers by always providing honest and fair treatment. INNOVATION. We embrace creativity and positive change. STEWARDSHIP. · We honor our role as stewards of the public trust by managing our natural, human and financial resources respectfully and responsibly. LEARNING. We encourage and support lifelong learning and personal and professional growth. · ATTACHMENT A - Community Development Process hnprovement Worksession ALBMARLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT We help make Albemarle County a great place to be. We recognize that we alone cannot make Albemarle County a great place. We actively engage others in the community while remaining committed to the vision the County Board of Supervisors has established. We must have the trust and respect of many diverging interests to succeed. We acquire this trust and respect by holding true to the County's values and being directed by the policies of the County Board of Supervisors. We are the County's stewards for our natural resources and built environment. To carry out this duty, we help the Board of Supervisor's communicate their vision for the County's natural resources and built environment. we support land use policies necessary to carry out their vision, and we assure the land use policies of the Board of Supervisors are implemented. We succeed when there is consistency between the Board of Supervisor's vision for the community and what our community becomes. KEYS TO SUCCESS The Comprehensive Plan, as envisioned by the County Board of Supervisors, provides our goals. Every action we perform should reflect our values and goals. . Acting as the County's stewards, we assure changes to natural resources and the built environment are consistent with County ordinances and policies. Ordinance enforcement is what the County Board of Supervisors expects as a minimum. This is our foundation and vital to assuring we are succeeding, but assuring compliance with ordinances alone will not satisfy our mission. . We assure the County Board of Supervisors' vision for natural resources and the built environment is implemented. Establishing this vision in our community is ultimately the Board's responsibility. Our goal is to continually look at the tools we have been given for carrying out this vision and assess where changes are needed. Where change is needed, we initiate that change. This includes changes to the Comprehensive Plan, ordinances, policies, and other means provided to the County for carrying out this purpose. . We communicate the County Board of Supervisors' vision and policies for natural resources and the built environment to the community. We cannot succeed without the support of the community. We must continually strive to better inform the community on these policies and the Board of Supervisors' vision for our community. · ¡ ( f~ oc. ¡:..9:: lIt' ., œ . c ".Q ~u oc~ ~ III.... C ._ 00 , m;: L'II E .: : ~o "a,- tII ~~g~ "0 »= c . 0 .~œ ~ c ~ o o o ] ~ ~ .i! ~ ~ u · ) (/ (/ , c' '" 05 . < x c ti: . c 0;: 0 f- '" "0 0; ~.<: u · ¡.... 'UJ · 0 ~~ 0 ~ u Z i ¡¡; c ""Z ;¡. "'~ ë " ~-< ë ;;.<: ...1; · · . ~UJ <~ E · ¡:.,...¡ E 0 <ü c 0 O¡:., . . e " c. -c 0 ...¡Z .2E 11." '5 · · . c · ""0 .. . œ 5 '" UJ a: >..... 0>.<: ""¡"" ~." ë c u gað ë 'C Q-< .i! 0 ;>N .:~~ · :.c .. c_~ .. .!!~ I ¡........ : " · I!. ¡ ....Z P Z -< <t ¡:.œ ;:¡c.;¡ E ~ '" §~ ¡ . : ~~ 0 E" ë (J . EO ~O c " ~~ : - . · E ~. .~ C c, I:~ ii: 0 u w'"' ..<: (J , ,,~ ~(J) · ;¡ E < · -0 " c. o~ .!! " ë · 0 ;0. · ( 0 E c : ~ ~ " 0 :; 0 ., ~ ) a: · to 0 0 0. . C " ¡: ë · E ~ ~ 0 ~ '5 · · a: 0 :> ¥ · 0 '" ê " : - 0 - E :" " o . < N 3 at cðü.!: ~ ~ ; a.! N ....¡If e ~ ~ · - ~ c c , < ~ .Q .Q U ~ o. · ! c:: · ;; · "r:.~ '- · . ~ ~.~ o c ~ NË ~ .ìi .~ " c õ <: ;; ~ø N ~ c c "2~ ¡ 0 N ATTACHMENT C BUILDING PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS COMPLETION TIMES FOR RESIDENTIAL (SF DETACHED) BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS Time 10 days Comments AI bemarle Count 10 days Median time, primarily in development areas (31 days completion time for 90% of permits and this longer time is due to permits that require State Health De artment a roval in the rural areas. HOW LONG FROM BUILDING INSPECTION REQUEST TO INSPECTION? Localit James City Cou nt Loudoun Count Hanover Count Fauquier Count Au usta Count Time Next day Comments Currentl a week behind due to an Inspector leavin Albemarle Count Next day Requests made by 4 PM completed by 4 PM next da Currentl · · · ATTACHMENT C MINISTERIAL REVIEWS COMPLETION TIME FOR PRELIMINARY SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISION PLATS Localit James City Cou nt Hanover Count Fauquier County Time 30 days Comments 30 - 60 da s 45 days* 30 da s for lans; 60 da s for plats If deferred, each subsequent submission has a 30 day review. * This is review time rather than approval time. It usually takes a preliminary plat around 48 months for a roval. 46 ma'or & 78 minor each ear (11 major each year) Augusta County 5 days to 2 weeks 9 months Loudoun County VAZO surve 1 - 180 da s Albemarle County 91 days Completion time for 90% of plans or plats, Schedule calls for completion in 60 days. Staff comments t icall within 2 weeks of submission COMPLETION TIME FOR FINAL SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISION PLATS Locality Time Comments James City 4-5 weeks County Hanover 2 - 8 weeks 10-15 days for plans; 3-8 weeks for plats County Fauquier 1.5 - 2 Final construction plans have a 45 day review time for the Cou nty years 1 sl submission & 35 day review for each subsequent submission. Augusta 1 - 2 weeks County Albemarle 8 weeks Completion time for 90% of plans or plats, County Staff comments typically within 2 weeks of submission ATTACHMENT C MINISTERIAL REVIEWS (cont.) Localit James City Cou nt Hanover Count Fauquier County DO MOST STAY ON SCHEDULE OR DO MOST GET DEFERRED? Comments Stay on schedule with 1-2 resubmittals prior to final approval Au usta Count Some ublic road relimina lats et deferred b the PC The PC has a 90 day deferral policy. Almost all, if not all, projects get deferred at the PC once. It is very rare that an application is a rovable on the 1st submission. Most sta on schedule Albemarle County Most get deferred based on fact that schedule is for 60 days with a limited time for applicants to respond to comments. A licants often need more time to res ond to comments DOES YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW SITE PLANS & SUBDIVISIONS? Localit Comments James City Yes - some If greater than 50 lots or 30,000 sq ft, reviewed by Count sub-committee of the PC Hanover County Yes - some Minor plan amendments and public road preliminary lats Yes - some Not site lans Yes - some Onl subdivision lats Albemarle Cou nt Yes - both When neighboring property owners or PC members call u DO YOU PROVIDE NOTICE TO NEIGHBORS OF BY-RIGHT SITE PLANS & SUBDIVISIONS? Locality Comments James City Only for site County plans Hanover County Only for site Signs are posted on properties plans Fauquier County Only for subdivision plats AUQusta County No Albemarle Yes - both Letters to neighbors, not sign posting County · · · ATTACHMENT C APPROVAL TIMES FOR REZONINGS Locality Time Comments James City 3 months Cou nty Loudoun 12-18 100 day timeline, most take 12-18 mths County months Hanover 4-6 County months Fauquier 1 - 2 years Sometimes it takes considerably longer (10 each year) County Augusta 1 .5 months (23 each year) Cou nty V AZO survey 1-4 months Albemarle 4 months 20 applications in 2004, County - 4 years 6 of them approved within 6 months APPROVAL TIMES FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS Localitv Time Comments James City 3 months County Loudoun 4-6 90 day timeline, most take 4-6 months County months Hanover 4-6 County months Fauquier 6-8 (83 each year) County months Augusta 1 - 1.5 (85 each year) Cou nty months V AZO survey 1-4 1 -2 months typical for rural counties, months Albemarle 4 months Deferrals common when associated with rezoning, County most others proceed without delay A TT ACHMENT D - Community Development Process Improvement W orksession TYPICAL ISSUES & QUESTIONS REVIEWS OF ZMA'S AND SP'S 11/03/04 In addition to the questions below, please identify areas where additional information is needed for your review, where the concept shown is unlikely to be able to meet requirements for site plans or subdivision plats, any alternatives you believe might or should be explored to help meet stated County goals, and what issues can be put off until site plan or subdivision phase. Questions for Zonin2:: 1. Property Issues a. Are there any property issues such as a lack of correlation between properties shown on an application plan/concept plan and the properties included on the application? If so, what is needed to correct this? b. Can you see potential problems related to meeting zoning requirements that would affect adjoining properties? 2. Conformity with Zoning Ordinance a. Does the proposal meet application requirements (such as items required for a planned district) b. Does the concept plan shows items that clearly do not conform to the zoning ordinance? If so, are waivers available? c. Are there areas where the plan may not be able to conform to the zoning ordinance? d. What parking issues does the proposal raise? Does parking that is shown conform ? e. Are there procedural issues, such as the need to submit a subdivision plat, necessary to implement the request? If so, please identify. 3. Zoning history relevant to the request a. Is this an owner's attempt to rectify a zoning violation? b. Does the reviewer know of any history that the planner should research? 4. Conditions a. In addition to the standard conditions, are there other conditions that you believe are important for the use? If so, please provide specific language you would like used. 5. Proffers a. Are there items for which you believe commitments are needed to ensure that a plan is implemented the way it is shown? b. Are proposed proffers acceptable for zoning enforcement? If not, provide recommended language. Questions for Current Plannin2: 1. Potential conformity with site plan and subdivision regulations a. Are there potential issues related with the ability of this plan to conform with site plan and subdivision regulations? If so, please identify and suggest solutions. ATTACHMENT D - Community Development Process Improvement Worksession . b. What future actions are needed in order to implement the plan, such as a resubdivision, boundary line adjustment, site plan, or site plan amendment? c. What items need to be tied down at the "concept plan" phase and what can be put off until site plan or plat stage? 2. Conflicts or relationships with site plans and plats under review/recently approved a. Are there other projects under review or recently approved that are near this parcel that would affect or be affected by this project? Questions for Eneineerine . 1. Water Protection a. Is the stormwater management shown on the plan generally (or specifically) acceptable? Please look for water quality and quantity. b. Are stream buffers disturbed? If so, what is the nature ofthe disturbance? Is it generally acceptable? Is proposed mitigation acceptable? c. Are floodplains impacted? If so, is an SP request included? Are impacts generally acceptable? 2. Traffic/Transportation - Internal and External Circulation a. Is a traffic study needed? If provided, do you agree with the conclusions? (to be coordinated with VDOT and Transportation Planner) b. Is access provided from existing public streets adequate? Are connections made to neighboring properties sufficient? c. Is the internal and external circulation system for streets generally in conformity with County and VDOT regulations or the County's TND streets table? If not, what is needed? (include comments on private street issues) d. Are parking lots shown or parking lots proposed generally able to meet engineering standards? Ifnot, what needs to be changed? 3. Grading and Disturbance a. What are the impacts of the grading proposed to the neighbors and environmentally sensitive areas?? Are there problems that could reasonably be anticipated from the proposed grading? b. For the Rural Areas, does the volume of fill require an SP? b. Are there swaths of steep slopes or retaining walls that need further attention? c. Are there areas of potential conflict between things such as utilities future landscaping or sewer lines shown in areas to be protected rrom disturbance? d. Conditions and Proffers a. For special use permits, are there conditions you would recommend relative to engineering needs or commitments? b. For rezonings, are there areas for which commitments are needed (proffers) in order to ensure that the plan proposed can be implemented? c. Are conditions or proffers you are reviewing workable? Could you implement them as written? How should they be rewritten? (Look at Greg's info in the Land Use Law Handbook and Amelia's info sheet) . Questions for Housine 2 A TT ACHMENT D - Community Development Process Improvement W orksession 1. If this proposal includes residential uses, how well does the proposal meet the County's affordable housing goals should provision be made for providing affordable housing? 2. What programmatic aspects would you suggest for achieving affordable housing? 3. What proffers or conditions do you suggest? (please include specific language) 4. Are proffers or conditions provided by the applicant appropriate and enforceable? What suggestions for changes do you have? Questions for Parks and Recreation 1. Impacts on provision of service a. Do Community Facilities Plan standards indicate a deficiency of parks and recreational facilities in this general area? b. How will the project impact Parks and Recreation's provision of service to the community? 2. Conformity with adopted plans and studies a. Does the proposal conform to adopted plans and studies for parks and recreational facilities? 3. Open space and amenities a. Are there existing or proposed trails near this property to which a trail on this property could tie to develop an interconnected system of trails? b. If project is not residential in nature, what advice do you have for open space on this proj ect c. If the project contains residential units, do the additional units generate a need for parks on this property? Are improvements to nearby parks a reasonable alternative to providing parks and recreational uses on the site? d. If the project is residential in nature, is the level of recreational amenity appropriate for the number and types of units being proposed? e. If open space and amenities are provided, should they be public? Questions for Health Department? 1. If there is an existing septic system for the proposed use a. Is it functioning or failing? b. Is it suitable for the proposed use? 2. Have sufficient tests been done on the property to assure that a septic system can function properly at this location? Questions for Buildine: Inspector 1. If use of existing buildings is proposed, what issues should the applicant be aware of in order use the building as proposed? 2. If new buildings are proposed, are there potential building code issues which should be addressed at the SP/ZMA stage rather than at the site plan/plat stage? If so, what are they? Questions for ACSA 3 ATTACHMENT D - Community Development Process Improvement Worksession · 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Is water and sewer service generally available to serve this property? Will grinder pumps be needed? Are there water pressure issues which may affect the proposed use as shown on a plan? Are there major upgrades needed to the water distribution or sewer collection system of which the applicant and staff should be aware? Which issues should be resolved at the SP/ZMA stage and which issues can be resolved at the site plan/plat stage? If the project is a large water user, what long-tenn impacts or implications do you foresee? Questions for Fire Official 1. Are there water pressure issues which may affect the proposed use? 2. Would the proposed layout or design have a negative impact on provision of fire service? 3. Can you suggest changes to the plan or proposed setbacks to better enable fire service to be provided? Questions for Police · 1. Do you need to review a plan for the development? 2. Are there aspects of this use that you believe will cause problems in providing police protection to the area? 3. Are there site design issues which may affect overall site security? Questions for Desie:n Planner (ARB) 1. Will this project need to be reviewed by the ARB? 2. If the plan is reviewed by the ARB and resubmitted, has the applicant addressed all ARB concerns? 3. Are there outstanding Entrance Corridor issues related to the plan or proposal which should be addressed prior to a Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors action? Questions for VDOT · 1. Is a traffic study needed for this project? 2. What types of improvements along existing public streets are necessitated by this proposal? Does the proposal address these needs? 3. Where public streets are involved, does internal circulation appear to meet VDOT requirements and guidelines? 4. What additional interconnections can you recommend? 5. What other changes are required or recommended in order to meet future VDOT approval? Can these be addressed at the site plan/plat stage or should they be addressed at the SP/ZMA stage? 4 A TT ACHMENT D - Community Development Process Improvement W orksession Questions for Historic Preservation Planner 1. Are there historic resources on the property which may/will be impacted by the proposal? 2. Are any of these resources National Register eligible? 3. What, if any, additional studies or assessments are needed? 4. Are there National Register properties or other historic properties which may/will be impacted by the proposal? 5. What suggestions would you offer the staff or applicant for preservation of any historic resources related to this proposal? 5 Attachment E · Community Development FY '04-05 Significant Accomplishments 1. Completion of transition to Community Development Department on schedule 2. Completion of CityView implementation on schedule 3. Completion of Comprehensive Plan amendments adoption of Crozet Master Plan adoption of Rural Area Plan adoption of Stormwater Management Plan adoption of Biodiversity Plan adoption of Community Facilities Plan amendment adoption of Airport Overlay District Plan amendment · 4. Completion of ordinance amendments adoption of subdivision amendment adoption of sign amendments to ZO adoption of wireless amendments to ZO adoption of groundwater ordinance adoption of groundwater quality ordinance adoption of flood hazard overlay district amendment adoption of cluster provisions for rural area adoption of transmission line special use permits in ZO adoption of new civil fines for zoning violations Historic Center & Community Center (Board hearing on June 8th) Rural Area Special Events (Board hearing on June 8th) 5. Program Improvements seamless implementation of groundwater programs completed 2nd year work on VPDES storm sewer permit per schedule review times for site plans and subdivision plats decreased from 4 weeks to 2 weeks (90% of plans reviewed in this time or less) established and met goal of 99% accuracy in scheduling and completion of building inspections, established and implemented review tracking standards for department which are used for internal tracking, · . . . TO: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM Members of the Board of Supervisors FROM: Debi Moyers, Senior Deputy Clerk DATE: May 26, 2005 RE: Vacancies on Boards and Commissions Attached please find an updated listing of vacancies on boards and commissions through November 30, 2005 provided for informational purposes only. The following reappointments 'equire action by the Board: C'ville/Albemarle Convention & Visitors Bureau Mamt. Board Bryan Elliott wishes to be reappointed. Commission on Children and Families Madison Cummings wishes to be reappointed. Piedmont Virainia Community Colleae Board Donna Plasket wishes to be reappointed. See letter from Mr. Friedman. Reaion Ten Community Services Board Roxanne White wishes to be reappointed. Workforce Investment Board Paul Sisk wishes to be reappointed. (Continued on next page) · The following attached applications with the closing date of May 26. 2005, have been received for appointments or interviews: CHART Advisory Committee-(1) Application Received. (3) Vacancies Stanley Binsted Commission on Children and Families-(4) Applications Received. (1) Vacancy Jason Daniel David Bynes Wendy Carroll Sara Dansey Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee-(2) Applications Received. (1) Vacancy (Note: Joint City/County appointment). Christian Schoenewald Carl Moje · · Q) Q) E E ï=ï= .~ .~ ...J ~.!::.!::¡ LL....z~f-1 - ~ w @)'@) bffi~-ol-o -~'-Q)'Q) a: t/) Z .!:::.!::: I' ~-õ::J::J ~C)Q.gg' s:: e oCt: Q. 0:::'0::: 01 :::æ:.... -o-o:¡:: ""',§ § Q) Q) ~ 1 f¿ ¡ f¿ .~.~:: 1 '''''I "" ~ ~ Q. «« »Q. ¡0,01 ,-o-ooCt: 1 Z¡ z¡-t«, <::L.... . ('0. 'I ¡ e ' ! I w I ' o I ~ ~wz a: -, ~ ~I~~ - Q. .01.0 3:'- .- oCt: I~!~I ~I.!.JI~ :::æ: a:t/)OCIOCI wWoo ~a:oo >ii:~~ > x""'''''' ww,ã3ã3 _z_~ t/)ILO 1.0 :::æ:~oo a: _I~ ~ wQ.---- ~x~~ WOClOCl . w m . a: I¡"": wI 'C¡ ~ I :i 1.[1 w c $1' :::æ:cU) « " " c ~ co Q) Q) 1= ...J co,(.) ~~I~ . Z o Cñ ~ :::æ: :::æ: o () a: o e a: oCt: o m ww ~~ ,OCI OCI 100 00 NN -- -- ('1')('1') -- -- ~~ If-if- f- 'ZIZ Z ««« UUU ««« »> www www ......... ~~... iii :E:E:E 000 uuo ~~~ 000 o tIHn »> ~~~ ii~ :I::I::I: ouu °1 '1&' C' 21 (.) ~ c. Q) 0::: 'E IE U01 ¡ en ~I Q) E en .- 0- --c 'I'~ 0 ~ .!::,..... .- +-"! c: - _1'- c. eo I +of a. -0 c co Q)¡Q) ..... .....¡en 0-0 (I) 'S ILL ""': Q) s:: O"'U C .!::: .2 Q) U .- ::J -..... E 0", ~ c.c-o&1 ._ .Q :; co ã.t5oo§ Q.I co. >- 0 .- oCt:o.....i3t5 ~~ :zl.E en..« ¡ , , I : ,~ >- Q) Q) :0:0 :Q> :Q> LiJLiJ õõ zz OCI I <.D , 0,01 00 NN -- -- 00 ('1')('1') -- -- <.D<.D 1.01.0 010 00 ,~~ :00 ('1')('1') -- -- <.D<.D o c ~ a:J ~ 0>- I§ :5 èi3 0 - >-, U) -¡ :::E c" ~ I ~ ~ C Q) B~ o co O:::S - g UJ e ~ o m ...: :E C) :E m > ~ () W ...J ~ :E w m ~ w ...J ...J > o 00 ww ::::¡::::¡ ~~ LLLL O/SO/S ZZ ww 0::0:: ee ...J...J :C:C uu zz 00 zz 00 ëñëñ ~~ :E:E :E:E 00 ou -0-0 Q) Q) I··~ .~ - - I '- I '- ~I~¡ -0 '-0 I co co, Q) Q) .0 .0' o 0: f-~ (I) ( ) >- ~I~ .0 .0 :Q>':Q>I LiJILiJ õõ zz OCI o o ~ o ('I') -- <.D r--r-- 00 00 I~~ OCIiOCl 't::: It::: , , , I I 1.01.0 00 00 NN -- -- OCIOCI -- -- r--r-- 1.0 o o ~ o ('I') -- <.D C o .~ -0 co ~ 0::: I ~o..: en ~ ~I rn == i .!::= US ....: ""') en 0> .~i E E ::J U . - .=; '(D ¿E .-: co O>:~ - (.) o co 0::: ""'): t/) W ¿ ~ LL O/S Z w 0:: e ...J :c u Z o z o ëñ ~ :E :E o u ww ww 1:1: ii :E:E 00 uu ~~ 00 00 » ~~ ...... ~u Q.~ ~i§ ;i!;i! uu 00 ü:ü: 0..:1 C I.!::o· : I ""').1 en Q) ro E ,co I.!:: JU¡ Q)IQ) Q) Q) .§ i~ .ê I·ê .-.- f-,f- Ë Ë ËIË, f-f- f-f-I I@)@) @)@) -01-0, ~~ ·~!·~I .!:::.!::: ~I~ i::J::J 0" 0": 1 0" 0" &&1 &1& C c: ICCI o 0 00 ~ ~~I~ [0 0 0 0 ,~Z___ Z Z , , , I Q) E ï= en ~I ~I Q)' .!::: ::J 0" Q) 0::: C o I~I' ,0 [z Q) :0 :Q>I' iLiJ ~- , i OCI ' o o ~ <.D -- OCI Q) Q) ;9;9 .Q>.Q> j fü LiJ 1881 '~~i 00, ('I') ('1')1 -- -- 0)0) 1.0 ' 181 ~ <.D -- OCI 1.01.0 00 00 N,N ÕIÕ £21£2 0)0) I i o 0> . Q)O::: 'õ'-o C 1 0....., co' I I~ ::J '_,' ""')- ",u1 Q) " -0 en, co >0' stfi > ... æ o :I: ... ~ ...J ët ~ ee ~~ mm ...... zz ~~ ~~ I I ' , I ' I~~I :91:9 0> 0>, '-"-1 LiJ_LLi¡ <.D<.D 00 'I§,§ ('1')('1') !~ižð 1.01.0 001' 00 NN -- -- ('1')('1') ..... ..... -- -- OCIOCI Q) co .~ en- o 0 0::: ro I - U C " o ..... enlo 1-0 >-1 ::J1co If-, ZZ 00 ~~ 00 Q.Q. a: 0:: 00 UU ...... ZZ ww :E:E Q.Q. 00 ...J...J WW » ww ee ~~ ee 0::0:: 00 ~~ Q) Q)IQ) .ê .ê.êl f-f-f- en en en :ë:ëE f-If- f- @), @)I @) , ' I -0-0-0 Q) Q)Q) .!:::I·!:::I'·!:::. ::J ::J ::J, 0" 0" 0'" Q) Q) Q)I 0:::0:::0::: C C C 000 I' t5 t5 t5 ««« 010 0 ~'1Z; 'I 1 , Q) Q) :0 :0 I'Õ) en 'Õ) "=1 Q) = UJ >-,UJ ¡-.[- , r-- I r-- , r-- 'I 01010 0,0 OJ N N N, :;:: :;::::;:::1 Õ5 Õ5Õ5 i 11.0 1.0 1.0 0'0 0 010 0 'I·N N'I,N --.......... -- ..... ..... ..... 1-- -- .........1 0)0)0) S '-0 ·1 Q) ~ ....., : LL I Q) C 1 ".- ~:.!::;iI§1 I~ ¿cñ~1 Q) ,(5..~ ai, 'I~ ::JQ)" en CO :ë Ci5 ,~ J~ U) a.. _a.. C ~ m w C) W ...J ...J o u :E :E o u oCt: Z c; 0:: > ~ z o :E e w ö: cee ~~~ mmm »> 0::0::0:: 000 000 »> ~~~ gg~ www 000 ::;)::;)::;) eee ~~~ ...J...J::J ..... $ :§ Q) ~ ¿ .co ~E ~ ·!:::I~'I· ..... ::J .- ::J ~I~'I: ~ gE, 12 (.) 0(,) -~: ~~-- « ~ _J~ 0) OCI o 0 o 0 ~I ~ ('I') ,('I') èD, lèD t-+ 1.0. I 11.0 o , ¡a ~ I~ -- -- o 0 ('I') ('I') -- -- <.D <.D + ¡ co C C o o 1 Q) 'c C co x o 0::: ai IË ....Js e ~ o m o w u ~ w o > ~ Z ::;) :E :E o o <:) .... Z o C; w 0:: ( )I en ¿ E ¿I . c: 0'- 0' 0 ._ I- ._ I :; . ro I/) ro I-! 1-0 '- -0 -J .~: 1 c: ..c: c: u.. « Z ( ) I- ( ) l-æW Q.I 'E @) E ()W:::!: c.., E-oIE, -1-1- « o ( ) 0, O:::enz ('II u '- u -- ( ) 'S'( )-o I--Õ ( ) enc>c. ( ) L... 0-1 L.. ! Q) ¡ 5«c. 'E CD ( ) CD(=I -0::'- :J :::!:« '(5 s: c: s: I g¡ 0. 0.. g>g g>o:: 1 « I ,~ u :.;:; c: ....,: '.- « .- 0 c: . I~ o ~ ~ 'Õl -'1 «Z«« --+ j.- W ('0" 1 ' I rn 0 . , W 0 I l- I- W Z J: 0::: Õ en c. ~ C. en « 0 CI) z> :::!: en r-- 0::: 0 W W 0 I- 0::: ~ ;= Q: ..- X I§I W W z en -r~! -.::tLOLOLO :::!: W '0 0000 0::: N 00,00 0::: Q: -- N NIN N W ..- ÕÕÕ Õ . l- X ('I') ('I') ('1'),('1') ('I') -- W N _~ CD ltò ' CD ..- - >- 0::: I ã3 '- I ..c c: W -' co ( ) rn .!::: ()~ :::!: co ..c: C:() W ~ co _ :::!: 1/)- :J=-S l- I- C/) ....: co I~ Z -C:el. «~co .. () () ._ c: ~ ~ ~I~ :f Æ W W I- Z !:: :::!: 0000 0 ::E ~~~~ (j) 0 ~ () 000 :::!: ~ rnrnmm :::!: 1-1-1-1- 0 0 zzzz () en WWWW 0::: > ::E::E::E::E 1-1-1-1- 0 ~ V> en en en 0 WWWW 0::: en »» z ~~~~ It) . « 0 0 W WWWW (þ N rn ¡:: ()()(,)() £:! 0::0::0::0:: It) ë3 0000 0 . u..u.u.u. 't:J ~ ~~~~ CI) 0::0::0:::0:: en 0000 "S; en CI) 0:: 3:3:3:3: 0::: . . . PIEDMONT VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE Office of the President May 6, 2005 Mr. Dennis Rooker, Chair Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Chaïlottesviile, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Rooker: Our records indicate that Donna Plasket's term on the Piedmont Virginia Community College Board expires June 30, 2005. Dr. Plasket is eligible for reappointment to a four- year term having been appointed in 2003 to serve an unexpired term. I respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors consider Dr. Plasket's reappointment to a four-year term. She brings a wealth of knowledge on numerous topics, serving the college and the residents of Charlottesville in an exemplary manner. As you know, our college board provides a vital link between the college and the community. We appreciate the supervisors' assistance in assuring that we always have outstanding individuals on our board. Let me know if the supervisors need additional information. Sincerely, - ~J~ Frank Friedman President c: Dr. Fred Copeland, College Board Chair Dr. Donna Plasket Mr. Robert Tucker n¡:- 'J 1 "'- .~. j - J ,-J ') t 1 1 : ?;:;. j:',~ Ii r¡ ,- '.> ,'- I.,. " L.. 501 COLLëGE DRIVE' CHARLOTTESVILLE' VIRGINIA 22902-7589 PHONE 434-977-1620 . FAX 434-296-8395 . ffriedman@pvCc.vccs.edu · v bfj ro ¡:l.., · · >-1 . I "":¡I Zi 01 f21 -~: t-< >-: ~ II u 01 ~' ~ ....:¡ ~ <: ¡:l.., E-< ~ :> t-< ~ .9 ;<2 Z ~ ...... " ~ 0 ~ ~ <{ .l! V V ::r: " § U - ~ u " "'d -~ ....... r:" 0 0 Q) C'J Z u ¡:l.., u Q) "" ~~I ...., " ...... p.. ......... ...., !: U) 'M Z "Ë ro N ~ .....:¡ ~~,:' 0 E ... ...... 0 " t-<Î i .. ... "' :: ,.- , <r:;" , iZJ -- U 0 -1"'" '0 ~ iZJ Ol·....,tj iZJ <n - >- " c¡¡ ...... Ç j L- ~ N T ~ 0 0 " ~æll~ 0 "= U') ,~ N ~ 0-1 ~ .:; ~ ....:¡'w,tj ......... ""CJ 0 <n ~ <{ v O<r:;~ , 0-1 ...... U ......... c ro ~U <n 0 ...... ......... - :¡:¡ iZJ ~ ¡:: ;:J ro "'0 0 01 1: OJ 0 - ~ 'M U) ~ ~ 0.. c: > 0 U') <) c IX) ¡:q 'M ro :2 ...... ....... e:: L- v Z p.. f- <: v :>-. < ~ Iü < I-< ...... Ç j :<¡; ...... 'M 0 V U ...... c S <: iZJ ~ 4-< e:: .2 ~ 0 U 0'1 ro > .- Q) Z ..:: v '0 ~ ~ ....... ::: '<: ro ro ...... '" ~ .- m '-'- 0 Q) I-< iZJ ~ L- ~ <{ 0 '-' " Q) " E-< -¡: ro ,.- "'0 Z E 00 co Q) 0 0 ..0 0:: ...... <C ã) ..... t-< OJ ~ A! ("") c: - <r:; U) " OJ OJ .::; u ":; c¡¡ OJ U U) ...... U') :::::J OJ .....:¡ Q) OJ 0 - ...., >- ..... - ¡:l.., ...., ~ © 0 0 CJ -.::: ~ -¡: c: c: co ro co "<t ("") .J:: i'i5 ("") co ,.- .L:: - U "<t m ("") U 'ð 'ð 4-< ¡:: V V I-< 'M ;> ....... 0 v v 0 v 0 0 ¡:: S 'M V ....... 'M V m ¡:: m "'d {j ro 0 ......... ....... t:: "'d U) ....... V 4-< m ¡:: .~ v m ~ U) 'M ·s 0 ·S ·S ~ m m Èd S ::a ....... ....... S v c.8 U) p.. v ....... v ....... v 0 S S U) v Èd S S :..=:: < 0 ¡:: .~ I-< '"5 I-< ro ~ ~ 0 "'d "'d ¡:q 0 0 v 0 0 0 ....... v ...c: S "'d µ., "'d 0 ~ U U ~ ¡:: ¡:q U U ¡:: ...t::: ~ ~ ¡:l.., ~ <r:; .~ --< ....... <n o o 0-1 ......... <n 0-1 ......... <n ¡:: .9 ....... ro. bfj .;; . ro Z v, ro ¡:l.., v, S:C/j d§ . ~.. .gl ¡g¡ ......; ¡:: ¡:: 0 ~I:~ ; t5 6 " ~I --<I --<I ~I. "'dl "'dl "'dl ~Èd: Èdl Èd¡· Vi; 01010 Oi' c:Qi c:Q c:Q m "'d I-< ro o ..0 II P.. §- c¿ m o ..0 II ....... ¡:: V S 't ro p.. V "'d C'--- p.. m ro .g ..0 V ~ ......... bfj I-< o .Q) ~ S V ..0 <;; m: V· <) U) -;; U) -v;:>J. I-< V .2: ....... ~ V ~ ...... 'S ro iZJ V¡::~~ ~ ¿J;J"'d U) ~;.;;-~ 6 ¡::? S,¿;o>;; e¿ro M o "'d U ~ § m 13! ~ t) ~ ...... PI VI U V g ~ :9 .~ ¡::, ¡:: <) (") ;-::: ....... I-< m "'d""" ~I ~ \P - ¡:: ....... :::::J 8 01 0 4-< g 2 0 2 ~ c:Q <r:; U U 0 0-1 p... U p... 0 II ~ m I-< O"'d--< .;!.1 ro > ;> 0 å:5 P:: vn (") p.. V :::::: 'Ì" ~ I-<'M 00 iZJ·.¡j ~ <n 4-<¡::V -0 0'0t:: 0'1 "'d~..s0-1~ I-< I-< 0 'Ì" ro,......roO'l(") ~~Õ~~ r ' r \ U \wi ......... ¡:Qc:Q ;.. Õ ml .0 4-< "'d ~i.... ~ ..... OJ''' 0 ~ C/} ~....... cd U) --1-:;:: ífJJ'- l::J ....... ("", :::' <) "'d ¡::¡¡ ~:.~ Èd 6, ¿,¡i Õi o 01 ~I OJ. c:Q UI >i <I ~ ~ ~ =::; p.. ....... ....... ...c: . <1) bI) ro ¡::l., . . .Q cr: "'0 <1) ...... ro u ..9 <ZJ .- <1) u ~ <1) :'9 <ZJ <1) I-< <1) S o ,..¡:: I-< ;;j o ;>-. ,..¡:: u :E ~ ~ .- ...... u .¡:: ...... <ZJ Q - ro .¡:: <1) ...... <ZJ .- bI) ro ~ ~ o el ~ ~I O\ff' ~Q "'T <1) ~-s ~gl' µ,,µ:¡ '0 CD >- o a. E w >- ';:õ c CD .... .... :J U c o (f) cð CD CD ....J W cr: <ZJ ;;j ~ ...... CIJ ... '" '" 1!1 H~ I-< ¡¡ ~-s- o ;: - ... p.,~ s ~ ¡:L¡" ~~~ 1:;;:"" ~' E ~ š. .¡: ~ i ¡::l.,':¡ 1]' ...... ~ <1) ~ ..9 S p::¡ ~ ,..- N C") C") r--- CJ') ..q- C") ..q- " " -,; (ü:; ~ ~ ~ ~ O·~ .~ ,..¡:: ¡;. :'::- ¡::l., ~ ¡; "" ~ <: :?- .. :?- <: .<;: "" ". ~ '0 (1J o cr: .5:1 :J (1J .... '0 >- :r: ,.... ,..- 00 N ... " ~ 6- ]- " -':> ., " I.: " '. ... '" '" " '" ~ <ZJ ¡¡ U'1 ~. ~ ¡¡ ~~ "'0" ~~ ~ " gs ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ëñ.~ ~ ;;j :;. ~ "",;: :.:., ~ - ~ ...... <1) <1) I-< ...... CIJ ~ ~ ~ <1) '"0 o U p., Ñ <.D o CJ') N N <1) ...... ro ...... CIJ <.: > ;>-. ...... Û CD .;;: <ZJ ~ - o "'C (1J .c Ü "" :;: è ~ -"' ...;:; ::::. r--- 00 CJ') ,..- --- ë CD :2 (f) CD .... 0.... "- CD .D o Ü o ... " ~ ¡;. ! ~~. ~ ~ E:::,. ~~ o È; .- " êa~ 5"~' <.) .~ u " O~ ... " '" ~ ~. ß'š. ~~ o È -... p.,ì; S 1: µ:¡~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ¡;. 0:"" ~' } B] ~ ~ roª,~ ~ Q ~ ~ CD E (1J ..., <1) S ro Z <ZJ <1) <ZJ ;;j o p., CIJ ~ E o N ~ .- ...... ~ <1) "'0 .- <ZJ <1) ~ <ZJ I-< ro <1) :>-< ~ ~ E ,..- '-H o I-< ~ <1) <1) ..D I-< S~ ;;j"'¡:: Zu » ...... ~ ;;j o U <1) ~ S <1) ..D :< "'" .. ~g 8~~ ~ §- ~ <1) .... .... "'0 g¡> ~ "cñ S ~ <1) "'- "" ~ tê Cf.) ~ .s ;;j ;.§ ~' o ",:: 'S; È ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~~ < < ¡--. 0\ rl ~ ::J tJ1 ~ ..- H OJ OJ ~ ..- tJ1 ~ ¡i rl ..- ~ .r! U OJ U ~ OJ ..- U CJ) lH o H o rl OJ ..c:: U <U CO "'0 ~ ro .~ U) ~~; <1) ,,:<; e ^~ .g æf~~~ o ~ ~ ~ '-'02,1: ~ 9- o ~ t ,:;: '.;j .:9 ~ ~ ro ~ ,:; g ;;j ~ § - "'0 '¿; <; '-' ro.... ,~ µ:¡ I-< §. 'iii .~ C) <2. ~ l{') o o N --- l{') ~ l{') <ZJ~ ~ <ZJ ._ <1) <ZJ ~ p., . U; .- ;;j ~¡:q I-< <1) _~ ..D ro S S <1) <1) ~~ .~ ~ <ZJ "'0 I-< ro o ..D II P.. ê' 08 <ZJ o ..D II ...... ~ <1) S ~ Po< <1) "'0 C"-. Po< <ZJ ro ..D "'0 ..D <1) ~ bI) I-< o ai - I-< ro S <1) ..D "'@ ~ ~ ~ Po< ...... 1:: . I ) ö1) c<:! ¡:¡.. . . Po. > -w u .,-j H -w UJ .,-j D -w ~ o E 'Ö Q) .,-j Po. UJ H o -w u f11 H -w ..Q ~ ~ o rl U U rl >-. f11 H H .w Q) ~ ~ ~ Q) ~ 0 c.'J u U H 'Ö ~ ~ Q) ~ 0 -WU.w m Öl .,-j .w ~ u UJ .,-j o .,-j E UJ H H UJ~m ~U", ~g Cd ,=:r:; ·ü ~-§ a ~~ ~ ~~ o " ~' ~ ~§. ~ ã·:: c<:! :¡¡:: .. ~ ". ~ Å~~ ~ ;j t; ~ ;j 0 S 8 ..c: $-; ~¡; u o~~ -- <; < o o (\] ~ o Q) .,-j rl.w rl m .,-j 'Ö > ~ UJ ~ Q) 0 .w'" .w rl o UJ .,-j rlUJH HQ)o. m ~ ~ ~'Ö U 0 s:: o .,-j 0.c.'J .,-j UJ ~ tJ1 m UJ ~ E H .,-j .w Q) 'Ö UJ 'Ö rl .,-j m .,-j H Q) ~ ~ ",:¡cou $-; o --- "d ¡:: "d c<:! $-; § 8 ~ .~ s·~ ..-< 0';> u I )'~ .;¿~ ~ ~ - ...... ~..-< $-; ;j ~] ¡:¡..,.¡::...... ~ uo :§~ '" '- ~-<> ~~ ::::.. .~ ~' ~ ~~ ... ~ ~ ¡: ~,..., 5.~ '" co ~Æ:: [5 ~ ,g ~ ~8 ~ ::::..":::. ~ ~'~ H Q) ~ Q) .,-j H m .w UJ UUJQ) >-. Q) ~ .w HUJ .,-j Q) Q) UJ ~ Q).w .,-j ~ -w ~ E .w .,-j E .,-j o ~ E u .,-j E o u H o rl ~ m ~ ~ o 0 ~ Q) .,-j u UJ .,-j ~ H.w 'ÖQ)OQ)m Q) .,-j .w o..,-j > H U rlQ)Q)~Q) Oo.U.wH :> ~ ~ .,-j 0. s:: Q) Q) :;: 0. .,-j .,-j m ~H'Ö >-. H Q) Q) UJ rlOo.~Q) .,-j :;: ~ .,-j 'Ö > Q) ..Q .,-j .,-j 'Ö E > .w~Q)oo um'ÖUH m .,-j 0. 'Ö>.w Q) ~ 0 ~ ~ H ~ H Q) 0 o 0 0. E .,-j E H o..w tJ1S::om Q)~mrl> E U U Q) H om> Q) U..Q~Q)UJ Q) O'ÖQ) ..Q rl .,-j H m-woo. o~m.w .wOH U .,-j 0 'Ö .,-j Q).wo.Q)H HmUJ.wO .,-j U ~ m .w UJ~mrlUJ Q) 'Ö H Q) .,-j DIïI.wH~ ö1) I ) ¡:: ___ I ) . ;::: "'d t::..::: i; ~ ~ .'I""""I.:::~ r:n c<:! S ,,;<:: > 0 S~~ ;ÇQo~~ S r:n u~:;; r.¡::¡:.s ¡: "" ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ¡:: 0 t3ê ¡:: o'Uj ~ ~ o ~.~.:: '" ~ $-; S ~ s (1) (1) S ~ 8 ~ (/) 0 ~:: .): .8 u ;ð. ~ - .... ~..... 8 0 ~ = ~ ~ ..c: ~ ..... 0 o~ ..... ~..... - = ¡;: ~ ~ 8 ..c: = ..... ~ ..c: 0 ~~ t: è' ~ ~ ~..... ~ = ~ ~ ~ 8 ~~ ;;.:.. . p..- .....= p..-; ~ = = 87J1= = = ~ ~ 0 8 0·.... ....... ~ ~.... >, ~ .. ~-..... Q.) ~~..... ..... p.. = E ~ ~ 8 u ~ ~---~ -~- p..- p.. p..~ ~ ~....:E .~ .. = ¡;: = 0 0·... .... ;;..,~ ~ ;S~:C .... p.. = ~ p.. ~ ..i ~ Q) ';i ~ ;S 8 :E = ~ .......- C ...... ¡.. ~ ·Š ~ .~ .c p.. = = p.. ~ ~ ~ ~ = ;;.., 00- ..... ;;..,-; ~ ~ ]ga~ ~08 ~ ç.., 0 ....~ ..... Ü~; t3 ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ Eo-. ~ ~ < ~ Eo-. Ç,,) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 00 ...: '-'1 ~ ... .... ~ ~ 10... ... ... ~ e. .... ~ '- - ..:;:¡ :::: ~ ~ ..:::: ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 10... ~ ..:;:¡ ::::: .~ =:: ~ ...... ..... ~ ~ '- - ~ ~ .~ ~ =:: ~ ~ ~ ';:;:: ~ 10... ~ =:: ~ ..... ..... ~ ~ 10... ~ =:: '- ~ ~ E--;; Vì o o 01 --- Vì 01 --- Vì o ...... ...... = ~ ~ >, - - ~ ~ .... ...... ~ 8 o ...... = ~ ~ .c j .Þ =: = o ;;.., u.... ~ = 01 = ~ 0 ..u ~ ~ 0- ~ ; ~ E .. ~ ~.c ü< en "d $-; c<:! o ~ II P. ª" ~ r:n o ..0 II "E I ) S t:: c<:! 0.. I ) "d C'-. 0.. r:n c<:! ..0 "d ..0 I ) ~ bìJ $-; o .u ~ S I ) ::9 c<:! ~ ::;::; 0.. ...... ...... ..c: - - .~ = o .... ...... ~ E .. ,£ = .... ~ :E Eo-; · · · RESUME Stanley E. Binsted 313 Gloucester Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 EDUCATION: Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering, 1974 University of Virginia PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: Associated General Contractors EXPERIENCE SUMMARY: PERSONAL: President/Senior Vice President / Vice President / Senior Project Manager R. E. Lee & Son, Inc., General Contractor Charlottesville, Virginia 1987 to Present Promoted toP resident in 2003, previously as Senior Vice President since 2001 and Vice President from 1998 until 2001 with responsibilities for overall management of the construction 0 perations. A s a Senior Project Manager from 1987 through 1998 handled multiple commercial building construction projects ranging in size up to $10 million. Responsible for project scheduling, coordination, subcontract management, equipment and manpower planning, methods of construction a nd interface with 0 wners a nd Architects. 0 ver 25 major projects successfully completed since 1987. Project Manager/Assistant Project Manager/Office Engineer George A Fuller Company, General Contractors New York, New York 1976 to 1986 Extensive experience in international building construction programs of multi- million dollar scope with specialization in construction management. Worked on projects in Egypt and Saudi Arabia ranging in size from $100 million to $400 million. Civil Engineer Howard Needles, Tammen and Bergendoff Alexandria, Virginia 1974 to 1976 Civil Engineer involved in planning, design and implementation of several major transportation projects. Responsibilities included design detailing, land use studies, environmental impact analysis, quantity and cost estimating and technical reports to clients. Born in Washington, D.C., 1950. Married, one child. · · · Debi Moyers Page 1 of2 From: jdaniel@ddig.com Sent: Monday, May 23,200510:45 PM To: Ella Carey Cc: Debi Moyers Subject: Board/Commission/Committee Application Application Information Date of this OS/23/2005 Application: Board/Commission! Committee Applied for: Commission on Children and Families Magisterial District: Rio Applicant Name: Address: Home Telephone: Email Address: Jason Daniel 1010 Still Meadow Crossing Charlottesville, VA 22901 (434) 970-7825 jdaniel@ddig.com Employer: Business Address: Work Telephone: Occupationffitle: Date of Employment: Dominion Digital 210 Ridge-McIntire Rd Suite 200 Charlottesville, VA 22901 (434) 984-1112 Managing Consultant 07/2000 Years Resident in Albemarle County: Previous Residence: Spouse: Number of Children: 08 Charlottesville City (5 years) Brenda Doremus-Daniel 02 Education: BA Psychology, University of Virginia, 1996 Memberships: Interests: 5/24/2005 Member of St. Mark Lutheran Church Volunteer/Judge for Piedmont Va Science Fair Pro Bono creation of web site for Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA) (http://www . sexualassaultresources. org) Page 2 of2 Pro Bono creation of web site for Virginia Association of Licensed Child Placing Agencies (V ALCP A) (http://www.valcpa.org) Software developer/tech advisor for PALS (phonological Awareness and Literacy Screening) (http://www.pals.virginia.edu) Created a class management system for Explore Learning (www.explorelearning.com) In high school and college, volunteered 400+ hours at an elementary school in Florida Worked as a substitute elementary school teacher (Summer 1994) Father of two amazing children Reason to Serve: Through my involvement with V ALCP A and SARA, Ive seen the effects that abusive and neglectful parents can have on families. I see this committee as a vehicle for benefiting children and families in the region, and would like the opportunity to lend my skills and passion to its cause. SIGNATURE REQUIRED: Jason Daniel DATE SIGNED: 5/24/2005 · · Debi Moyers From: daviddb@virginia.edu Sent: Monday, May 16, 20051 :29 PM To: Ella Carey Cc: Debi Moyers Subject: Board/Commission/Committee Application Application Information Date of this 05/16/2005 Application: Board/Commission! Committee Applied for: Commission on Children and Families Magisterial District: Rio Applicant Name: Address: Home Telephone: Email Address: David Bynes 1019 Carrington Place Charlottesville, VA 22901 (434) 974-6309 daviddb@virginia.edu Employer: Business Address: Work Telephone: Occupationffitle: Date of Employment: University of Virginia P.O. Box 400177 170 Rugby Road Charlottesville, VA 22904 (434) 924-7430 Assistant Dean of Students 07/2004 Years Resident in Albemarle County: Previous Residence: Spouse: Number of Children: 1 I have lived in Albemarle for 10 months and my previous residence was Gainesville, Florida where I was employeed by the University of Florida. April Johnson-Bynes o Education: · Memberships: 5/16/2005 Bachelor of Arts - Elon College (University) - 1997 Teacher Certification Classes - Nova Southeastern - 1998 Master of Education - NC State University - 2001 Mt. Zion First African Baptist Church Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. Masonic Order - AbiffLodge #88 - Hollywood, FL (have affiliated with a lodge in VA yet) Page 2 of2 Interests: Albemarle-Charlottesville NAACP - 2nd VP Interest in City/County politics Interest in Leadership Charlottesville Regular attendance at CCS school board meetings Reason to Serve: As a former middle school teacher, I have a great interest in the future of children. I believe serving on this commision will allow me to exert a great passion for seeing that children are attend to in the most proper manner possible. I also believe that being somewhat new to the area but not new to working with civic and/or local government agencies will allow me to bring fresh ideas to the table. I am committed to the general welfare of children within the community in which I live and certainly the community where I was reared. Lastly, I would say that I am interested in the commission as a way to begin networking with in the Albemarle/Charlottesville social and political arenas. SIGNATURE REQUIRED: David Bynes DATE SIGNED: 5/16/2005 · David D. Bynes 1019 Carrington Place Charlottesville, VA 22901 434.974.6309 (H) 434.924.7381 (0) daviddb@virginia.edu · Education Master of Education in Higher Education Administration North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina Bachelor of Arts in Communications Elon College (University) Elon, North Carolina Professional Experience University of Virginia 2004- Present Assistant Dean of Students, Office of the Dean of StudentslFraternity & Sorority Life · Serve as primary liaison to the Inter-Fraternity Council and its 32 fraternity chapters · Enforce Fraternal Organization Agreement requirements among the 32 Inter-Fraternity Council chapters · Support student self-governance on the chapter and governing council levels · Provide training, education, development:, and programming for the 32 IFC chapters · Assist in advising the Inter-Greek Committee · Organize effective educational programming for fraternity and sorority chapters · Assist in organizing the Greek Awards Banquet, GOALS, and Greek Week · Serve as primary liaison to the Fraternity Alumni Council · Provide leadership for the development of a leadership course · General responsibilities in program development and student and parent advising · Serve on the University's Dean on-call rotation and crisis management response team · Serve on the Office of the Dean of Students' (ODOS) assessment teaIll, · Serve on the ODOS professional development, diversity, and leadership committees · Serve on the University judicial review board May 2001 May 1997 · University of Florida 2001-2004 Assistant Director of Greek Life · Primary advisor to Interfraternity Council (24 chapters) and National Pan-Hellenic Council (9 chapters) · Assisted in advising Panhellenic Council (16 chapters) and Multicultural Greek:: Council (8 chapters) · Co-Advisor for Order of Omega and Gamma Sigma Alpha · Advised the Greek Judicial Board during fraternity and sorority hearings · Assisted all chapters and councils in making sound and justifiable decisions pertaining to organizational development · Coordinated chapter development programs in the area of leadership and education · Responsible for supervision of graduate student staff · Advised the planning and implementation of the annual Greek Awards and Installation Banquet · Advised the planning and implementation of the Emerging Greek Leaders retreat · Coordinated and implemented the annual Presidents retreat · Managed and maintained accurate records for an operations and programming budget of more than $20,000 · Assisted each Council in maintaining accurate budget records and practices · Promoted safety and risk management practices · Worked with house directors and house corporation boards to create and maintain an appropriate Greek living experience · Assisted Environmental, Health and Safety in enforcing fire safety and inspection policies · Worked with Recreational Sports to implement successful intramural fraternity and sorority league sports · Served as a liaison between national fraternity/sorority alumni/national headquarters and the university · Enforced university and national headquarter policies · Ensured that chapters are in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws · Served on the University Trauma Response Team · Serve on the Dean of Students Office Emergency Response Team Bynes, D. D 2 North Carolina State University 1999-2001 Residence Director · Managed and supervised the operation of a 12-floor residential facility · Provided leadership for student life in a coeducational, residential building comprised of twelve floors and 500 students · Provided, promoted, and scheduled use of common areas within the residential facility · Selected, trained, and supervised a staff of eleven Resident Advisors · Supervised and managed the operation of the 24-hour help desk · Developed and supervised the implementation of policies and procedures conducive to effective facilities management · Coordinated and adjudicated student discipline cases in conjunction with the Residence Life Coordinator and Office of Student Conduct · Assisted with emergency response system for Central Campus, containing 7 residence halls · Provided counseling and referrals during crisis management situations · Developed and implemented crisis management procedures in conjWlction with university Health Services · Managed training, programming, and office supply budgets · Developed and supervised the implementation of a programming model based on the needs assessment of residents · Coordinated and implemented the monthly Residence Director Programming Series · Conducted weekly staff meetings directed towards team building, staff development, and the dissemination of infonnation to student personnel · Coordinated community service projects for staff members and resident volWlteers · Developed and maintained partnerships with other student affairs departments · Provided leadership development opportunities to residents and residential staff · Advised Residence Hall COWlcil · Advised Central Campus Housing Judicial Board North Carolina State University 1999-2001 Greek Life Graduate Internship, IFC Co-Advisor · Assisted Associate Director of Greek Life in providing professional advising, education, and support to 23 IFC affiliate chapters · Planed, prepared, and presented educational programs and training sessions on leadership, risk management, motivation, chapter involvement, recruitment, and organizational structure · Worked collaboratively with the NPHC and Panhellenic Association advisors to provide resources and services to the Greek community · Served as a liaison between the Greek community and the university · Assisted IFC and Panhellenic Association executive officer with rush policies and procedures · Assisted NPHC organizations with membership intake policies and procedures · Assisted IFC executive officers in establishing an annual recognition and transition banquet · Assisted in coordinating semester Greek leadership retreat and workshop · Attended weekly departmental meetings conducted by the Director of Greek Life · Attended weekly IFC executive and general assembly meetings · Attended monthly Greek court renter's board meeting · Attended professional development conferences, workshops, and seminars · Served as advisor, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., Eta Omicron/Sigma Delta chapter North Carolina State University Summer 2000 Conference Services Residence Director · Supervised and managed the operation of four residence hall facilities used to house 20 summer conferences · Established and maintained partnerships with various campus departments and community businesses · Established a system of effective communication with sponsors of summer conference groups · Coordinated campus services and housing arrangements for contracted conference groups · Maintained and published accurate group files and billing statements · Developed and facilitated room assignment process for all sununer conference participants · Provided leadership for residential, operational, and volunteer staff · Coordinated selection, training, and evaluation of all summer conference staff · Conducted weekly staff meetings directed towards team building, staff development, and the dissemination of infonnation to student personnel · Utilized computer programs and applications in the administration of summer conference operations · · · Bynes, D. D 3 1997-1999 New River Middle School of Marine Science Academic Instructor/Ath1etic Coach · Educated and motivated students in the social science discipline · Provided leadership development and community involvement oppornmities to students · Provided counseling and crisis management intervention · Conducted disciplinary and motivational workshops for Saturday School participants · Motivated and coached students participating in basketball and track programs · Initiated, coordinated and advised Young Men of Distinction mentor program · Initiated and coordinated after school youth basketball league · Served as acting Assistant Principal · Served as Academic Department Team Leader · Served on School Improvement Team · Advised Student Government Association · Served as assistant Athletic Director · Assisted in coordinating the annual Martin Luther King, Jr. orntorical contest Committee Involvement · African American Heritage Month steering committee · Black Leadership Institute Committee · Community Service Coordinator, UF Dean of Students Office · University Alcohol Policy Committee · Florida Invitational Step Show, Advisor · Assistant Director of Student Judicial Affairs Search Committee, Chair · Preview (Orientation) Committee · University Welcome Week Committee 2005 2005 2001-2004 2002-2004 2002-2004 2003 2003 2003 Instructor Experience · Co-Instructor, EDLF 400 Leadership course · Instructor, ED A 4930 Emerging Greek Leaders course · Instructor, EDA 4930 Panhellenic Recruitment Counselor course · Instructor, First Year Florida, Introductory First year student seminar course · Co-Instructor, MDS 101 D & !02D (Intro. To University Education) African American Adjustment course · Co-Instructor, ECD 220 Topics in College Student Development · Co-Instructor, COM 110 Public Speaking Presentations · "Moving Beyond the Fire: Continuing the Education About NPHC Organizations," Association of Fraternity Advisors Annual Meeting, Hollywood, California, December 2004 · "History and Development of Greek Letter Organizations," Recruitment Counselor Development, University of Florida, February 2004 · "25 Years Later: Is the Animal House Returning to Campus," SEIFC, Atlanta, Georgia, February 2004 · "Black Greek Life: Divided by Ignorance and United by the Common Practice of Apathy...Troe or False?," Consultant Visit, Elon University, November 2003 · "Building Bridges: The Challenges and Necessities of Creating A Homogeneous Community," G.o.A.L.S. Retreat, Florida Atlantic University, September 2003 · "The Black Gender Gap: Are Sistah's Stepping Up and Leaving the Brother's Behind?," African American Student Leadership Conference, University of Florida, March 2003 · "America 2003: Does Race Still Matter?," African American Student Leadership Conference, University of Florida, March 2003 · "Courage Under Fire: Utilizing Student Development Theory to Effectively Advise NPHC Organizations on Predominantly White Campuses," SEIFC, Atlanta, Georgia, February 2003; SEPC, Atlanta, Georgia, March 2003; AF A Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, December 2003 · "Living Your Ritual through Engagement with the Community," SEIFC, Atlanta, Georgia, February 2003 · "Leadership and Ethics in the New Age," Leadership Development Series, North Carolina State University, October 2000 · "Creating One Greek Community,"Greek Leadership Workshop, North Orrolina State University, Fall 2000 Bynes, D. D 4 · "Ethics in Student Affairs," NASP A Region Ill, Orlando, Florida, June 2000 · "Good Practices in Student Affairs," North Carolina State University, Division of Student Affairs, March 2000 · "Practice Makes Peñect: The Ethics of Being a Resident Assistant," Elon College, Road Ru1es 2000 Conference, February 2000 · "America 2000: Does Race Matter," North Carolina State University, Southeastern African American Student Leadership Conference, February 2000 · "Historically Black Greek Lettered Organizations" Redefining Our Roles on College Campuses," North Carolina State University, Southeastern African American Student Leadership Conference, February 2000 · "Improving Our Community Service," North Carolina State University, Greek Leadership Development Conference, March 1999 · "To be Greek or Not to be Greek: An Individual Choice," Elon College, North Carolina African American Student Leadership Conference, February 1996 Professional & Community Affiliations · Association of Fraternity Advisors, Member · National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Member · National Order of Omega, Member · Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Incorpornted, Member · National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Member · Interftateroity Institute, Graduate · Campuspeak, Facilitator/Consultant · Undergraduate Interftateroity Institute, Facilitator · National Pan-Hellenic Council, Inc., Past 1st Assistant Southern Region Director · Past Florida Federation of Alpbamen, State Director of Education · Order of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons, Member Computer Proficiencies · Word * Excel * PowerPoint * FileMaker Pro * Outlook Express * Internet Research . . . Bynes, D. D 5 References Dr. F. Aaron Laushway Associate Dean of Students University of Virginia 170 Rugby Road P.O. Box 400177 Charlottesville, Virginia 22904-4177 (434) 924-7430 laushwavraivin!inia.edu Dr. Tracy 1. Ballas Former Associate Dean of Students (recently left the University of Florida) 250 East 31st Street, #3A New York, NY 10016 (212) 213-4414 tiballasrainvc.rr.com Paula D. Drummond Director of Residence Life Coastal Carolina University 129 Waccamaw Hall Conway, South Carolina 29528 (843) 349-6405 DrummondraicoastaI.edu Dr. Michael V. Bowie Executive Director, Florida Fund for Minority Teachers University of Florida P.O. Box 117045 Gainesville, FL 32611-7045 (352) 392-9196, extension 21 mbowieraicoe.ufl.edu Michael D. Scales Director of Residential Living Drexel University 101 North 34th Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215) 895-6155 mds3Sraidrexel.edu · · Debi Moyers Page 1 ot 'L From: piedmontcounseling@verizon.net Sent: Sunday, May 15, 200510:56 PM To: Ella Carey Cc: Deb; Moyers Subject: Board/Commission/Committee Application Application Information Date of this 05/15/2005 Application: Board/Commission/ Committee Applied for: Commission on Children and Families Magisterial District: Rivanna Applicant Name: Address: Home Telephone: Email Address: Wendy Carroll 4764 Helios Path Barboursville, VA 22923 (434) 978-3901 piedmontcounseling@verizonnet Employer: Business Address: Work Telephone:. Occupationrritle: Date of Employment: self-employed 40 Commerce Lane, Suite C Rochelle, VA 22738 (540) 948-4500 Family Therapist 10/2004 Years Resident in Albemarle County: Previous Residence: Spouse: Number of Children: 17 65 Lumber Lane Barboursville, Va (Greene County 9yrs Education: Memberships: · Interests: 5/16/2005 BA, Psychology 1972 MS, Guidance and Counseling 1976 Post-graduate courses in Counseling (for licensure) 1980s Virginia Association of Clinical Counselors Board Member and Treasurer American Mental Health Counselors Association Region 10 Community Service Board Local Human Rights Committee Sit on the Madison County Community Policy and Management Team which oversees programs and services for children and families Page 2 of2 Reason to Serve: I am interested in becoming involved in my community. I have always worked with children and families, and been interested in services for them. I would like to be part of a group that works to develop/evaluate/improve programs for children and families. SIGNATURE REQUIRED: Wendy Carroll DATE SIGNED: 5/16/2005 . . . Debi Moyers Page 1 of2 From: sdansey@gsvsc.org Sent: Thursday, May 12,20051 :45 PM To: Ella Carey Cc: Debi Moyers Subject: Board/Commission/Committee Application Application Information Date of this 05/12/2005 Application: Board/Commission/ Committee Applied for: Commission on Children and Families Magisterial District: Scottsville Applicant Name: Address: Home Telephone: Emaü Address: Sara Dansey 1615 Stoney Creek Drive Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434) 244-8472 sdansey@gsvsc.org Employer: Business Address: Work Telephone: Occupationffitle: Date of Employment: Girl Scouts of VA Skyline Council 380 Greenbrier Drive Suite D Charlottesville, VA 22901 (434) 296-5156 Director of Membership Services 06/2000 Years Resident in Albemarle County: Previous Residence: Spouse: Number of Children: 7 4860 Rolling Road Scottsville, VA 24590 George 3 Education: Mem berships: Interests: 5/12/2005 BF A VA Commonwealth University 1980 1 year graduate studies (MFA) 1984-85 VCU Lifetime member Girl Scouts of the USA Leadership Charlottesville Alumni Association Cville/ Alb Chamber of Commerce Program coordinator Girl Scouts Beyond Bars @ Fluvanna Correctional Center for W omen Volunteer @ Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center Page 2 of2 Reason to Serve: I am person who enjoys serving the community, particularly where children are concerned. I have spent most of my adult life working to enrich the lives of children and youth. I have a "can do" attitude, lots of experience and expertise and I am very positive and friendly to work with. SIGNATURE REQUIRED: Sara Dansey DATE SIGNED: 5/12/2005 · · · Debi Moyers Page 1 0 2 From: Christian@SchoenewaldVA.com Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 1 :47 PM To: Ella Carey Cc: DebiMoye~ Subject: Board/Commission/Committee Application Application Information Date of this 04/28/2005 Application: Board/Commission! Committee Applied for: Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee Magisterial District: Jack Jouett Applicant Name: Address: Home Telephone: Email Address: Christian Schoenewald 2400 Bennington Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22901 (434) 295-9149 Christian@SchoenewaldVA.com Employer: Business Address: Work Telephone: Occupationrritle: Date of Employment: Self-Employed 2400 Bennington Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22901 (434) 295-9149 Communication Consultant 07/2004 Years Resident in Albemarle County: Previous Residence: Spouse: Number of Children: 02 Loudoun county VA Rachel Schoenewald 00 Education: Memberships: Interests: 4/28/2005 American University 1998 B.A. Interdisciplinary Studies (Communication, Legal Institutions, Economics, and Government) Albemarle County Republican Committee, Member and Webmaster Local State and national politics/government History Page 2 of2 Music Technology Reason to Serve: I want to serve on the committee so that I can use my skills and education to make sure that the voice of the citizens can be heard. I also want to help shape the future of Albemarle county, and dealing with and planning for the waste needs of Albemarle is integral to the future of the county. SIGNATURE REQUIRED: Christian Schoenewald DATE SIGNED: 4/2812005 . . . Debi Moyers Page 1 of2 From: cdmoje@msn.com Sent: Friday, May 20, 200512:13 PM To: Ella Carey Cc: Debi Moyers Subject: Board/Commission/Committee Application Application Information Date of this OS/20/2005 Application: Board/Commission/ Committee Applied for: Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Applicant Name: Address: Home Telephone: Email Address: Carl Moje 1615 Far Hills Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 (434) 244-4090 cdmoje@msn.com Employer: Business Address: Work Telephone: Occupationrritle: Date of Employment: Commonwealth of Virginia 110 South Seventh Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 371-5573 lIT Sr Engineer 02/2002 Years Resident in Albemarle County: Previous Residence: Spouse: Number of Children: 05 Dallas, Texas Althea Tina 03 Education: 60 College Credits Graduated Technical School Memberships: Interests: 5/20/2005 Thomas Jefferson Memorial Church President of Far Hills Owners Association Member of the Sierra Club and about one half dozen other environmental groups Coordinator for Charlottesville Democratic Meetup Member of Democracy for America Meetup Volunteer in the Charlottesville - Albemarle County SPCA Page 2 of2 Reason to Serve: I feel that I have a responsibilitiy to take an active role in my community. Since I am still employed, this position may provide this opportunity to serve. SIGNATURE REQUIRED: Carl Moje DATE SIGNED: 5/20/2005 · COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors FROM: Debi Moyers, Senior Deputy Clerk DATE: May 26, 2005 RE: Proposed Terms and Term Limits Per the Board's request from April 6, 2005, on April 19, 2005, the Clerk's Office sent out a letter to chairpersons on committees with County representatives only requesting their comments or questions regarding the proposed term or term limit for their particular committee. · We received back the following four (4) comments. From Juan Wade, Route 250 Task Force: The Task Force supports the term limits recommended by the BOS clerk, which is a three year term for two consecutive terms. Additionally, the Task Force requested for the BOS to consider the institutional knowledge of the three original members, Bonnie Samuel, Diana Strickler and David Carr. There departure should be staggered. Example- one of these members shall leave in 2005, 2006, and 2007. From Ches Goodall, ACE Committee and Appraisal Review Committee: I don 't see anything wrong with the proposed term limits for both the ACE Committee and Appraisal Review Committee. As with any term limit, there are pros and cons. For outstanding members of the Committees, it might be nice to have longer term limits for consistency sake and the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of having served a long time. On the other hand, it works the opposite way when you have members who contribute little or nothing. · · · · From Jay Schlothauer, Board of Building Code Appeals: The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code leaves terms and term limits for members of the local Board of Building Code Appeals up to the locale. The proposal for five year terms, and two consecutive terms, is fine. From Joan McDowell, Mountain Overlay District Committee: The committee expects to have completed their deliberations within the next three months, in order to give Greg Kamptner the task of drafting their language into an ordinance. Once they are satisfied with the ordinance language, they will forward the ordinance onto the Board and their charge will be completed. Therefore, imposing term limits for this ad hoc committee may not be necessary. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Committees with County re resentatives onl ACE Committee (Acquisition of Conservation Easements Committee ACE A raisal Review Committee Development Areas Initiatives Steering Committee II Historic Preservation Committee Mountain Overla District Committee Route 250 West Task Force Architectural Review Board Board of Buildin Code A eals Fire Prevention Code of Appeals Jordan Develo ment Cor oration Land Use Tax Adviso Board Public Recreational Facilities Authorit Term Proposed Term Limit Three year terms Two consecutive terms One ear terms Four year terms Six consecutive terms Two consecutive terms Four ear terms Four ear terms Three ear terms Four ear terms Five ear terms Five year terms One ear terms Two ear terms Three ear terms Two consecutive terms Two consecutive terms Two consecutive terms Two consecutive terms Two consecutive terms Two consecutive terms Six consecutive terms Three consecutive terms Two consecutive terms . . . Draft: April 11, 2005 ORDINANCE NO. 05-2( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE II, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, Board of Supervisors, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2-202, Compensation of Board of Supervisors, as follows: CHAPTER 2. ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE II. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Sec. 2-202 Compensation of board of supervisors. The salary of the board of supervisors shall be tv;ehT thousand four huadred sixty seven dollars and no cents ($12,467.00) thirteen thousand sixteen dollars ($13.016.00) for each board member effective July 1,-1004 2005. In addition to the regular salary, the vice-chairman shall receive a stipend of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each and every meeting chaired and the chairman shall receive an annual stipend of one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800.00). (6-13-84; 5-8-85; 5-14-86; 7-1-87; 7-6-88; 6-7-89; Ord. of 6-13-90; Ord. of 8-1-90; Ord. of 8-7-91; Ord. of 7-1-92; Ord. No. 95-2(1), 6-14-95; Ord. No. 98-2(1), 6-17-98; Code 1988, § 2-2.1; Ord. 98- A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. No. 99-2(1), 5-5-99; Ord. No. 00-2(1), 6-7-00; Ord. 01-2(2), 6-6-01; Ord. 02-2(2), 5-1-02; Ord. 03-2(1), 6-4-03; Ord. 04-2(1), 6-2-04; Ord. 05-2(1), 6-1-05) State law reference--Compensation of board of supervisors, Va. Code § 15.2- I 4 14.3. This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2005. 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 Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Bowerman Mr. Boyd Mr. Domer Mr. Rooker Ms. Thomas Mr. Wyant ("'7 0 \& , Þr b\ ~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 15, Taxation, Article XIV, Enhanced Emergency Telephone Service Tax - E-911 AGENDA DATE: June 1, 2005 ACTION: X INFORMATION: SUBJ ECT ¡PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing to consider proposed ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 15, Taxation, increasing the E-911 fee from $2 to $3 per month for each access line CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF CONT ACreS): Tucker, Wiggans, Breeden, Davis, Herrick, Walters REVIEWED BY: r LEGAL REVIEW: Yes BACKGROUND: At a budget work session, the Board of Supervisors requested that staff prepare an ordinance that would increase the monthly Emergency-911 fee from two dollars ($2) to three dollars ($3) for each access line. Virginia Code § 58.1-3813.1 authorizes localities to impose a fee on telephone service to pay for an Emergency-911 system and caps this monthly fee at three dollars ($3.00) for each access line. Albemarle County currently imposes a tax of two dollars ($2.00) per month. eTRATEGIC PLAN: . 4.2. Fund County Services in a fair, efficient manner and provide needed public facilities and infrastructure DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance would increase the Emergency-911 fee to three dollars ($3.00) for each access line. The increased rate would become effective 120 day:, 8¡ftE7-: the suþject telephone companies are given written notice of the new rate. ~t~ ~~ ~ l{\l.v\-t-l(..... The County Budget office projects $1,688,265.48 in E-911 eligible expenses during Fiscal Year 2006. That amount is likely to approach $1,900,000 during Fiscal Year 2007 as the 800 MHz system becomes fully operational. By comparison, E-911 revenues for Fiscal Year 2006 are projected to be $1,147,000.00, using the current $2 monthly rate. At the proposed $3 monthly rate, over the course of a full year, projected annual E-911 revenues would rise to $1,720,500.00. By the time a higher rate could be collected over a full Fiscal Year (2007), that projected revenue would still not fully cover projected expenses, taking into account the new 800 MHz system. The draft ordinance also includes an amendment to Section 15-1400(B) to make this section consistent with Virginia Code § 58.1-3813.1 (F) so that it authorizes the County to use the fee to pay for all allowable expenses. Currently the ordinance does not specify the fee can be used to pay for costs incurred in training dispatchers and direct call-takers. RECOMMENDATIONS: If the Board determines that the Emergency-911 fee should be increased to three dollars ($3.00), staff recommends that it adopt the attached proposed ordinance after public hearing. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Proposed draft ordinance . 05.056 Attachment A Draft: April 20, 2005 ORDINANCE NO. 05-15( ) Á1~ ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE XIV, ENHANCED EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SERVICE TAX--E-911, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 15, Taxation, Article XIV, Enhanced Emergency Telephone Service Tax-E-911, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 15-1400 Enhanced emergency telephone service tax-Levy and rate; effective date; exemptions CHAPTER 15. TAXATION ARTICLE XIV. ENHANCED EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SERVICE TAX--E-911 Sec. 15-1400 Enhanced emergency telephone service tax--Levy and rate; effective date; exemptions. A. Pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-3813.1, there is hereby imposed a special tax on consumers of telephone service in the amount oft\'<:o dollars ($2.00) three dollars ($3.00) per month for each access line. B. Amounts collected from this tax shall be used solely to pay for reasonable, direct recurring and nonrecurring capital costs, and operating expenses incurred by a public safety answering point in designing, upgrading, leasing, purchasing, programming, installing, testing, administering, delivering, or maintaining all necessary data, hardware and software required to receive and process emergency telephone calls through an E-911 system, including salaries and fringe benefits of dispatchers and direct call-takers of an E-911 svstem and costs incurred in traininQ disvatchers and direct call-takers in receiving and dispatching emergency telephone calls, and the salary and fringe benefits of the public safety answering point director or coordinator so long as such person has no other duties other than the responsibility for the public safety answering point. C. This tax shall not be imposed on federal, state or local government agencies or on consumers of CMRS, as such term is defined in Virginia Code § 56-484.12. D. This tax shall apply to all bills rendered on and after September 1,2002 November 1. 2005. (Ord. of2-6-91; Ord. No. 95-8(1), 7-12-95; Code 1988, § 8-59; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 02-15(2),4-17-02; Ord. 05-15(1),6-1-05) This ordinance shall be effective on and after November 1, 2005. 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 Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Bowerman Mr. Boyd Mr. Dorrier Mr. Rooker Ms. Thomas Mr. Wyant · · · Phone (434) 296-5832 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: COUNTYOFALBE~E Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Fax (434) 972-4012 MEMORANDUM Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive V. Wayne Cilimberg May 23, 2005 Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Hazard Mitigation Plan The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 10, 2005, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of the above-noted item to the Board of Supervisors. The Board is scheduled to hold a public hearing on this item at its June 1, 2005 meeting. An updated staff report will be provided in the near future. VWC/aer ~~4IJ cflwIII a,{, ~ ofr/jfq';JO)l Planning District Commission eeg¡onal planning linking transportation, land use. economy & environment City of Charlottesville Cheri Lewis Kevin Lynch, Vice-Chair Albemarle County Sally H. Thomas David Wyant TO: Members, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Bill Wanner, Senior Regional Planner 0[r-.r~ FROM: Fluvanna County Norma Hutner Grant Tate DATE: May 24, 2005 SUBJ: June 1 Public Hearing: Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Greene County Jeri Allen. Chair Philip Anns In follow-up to the April 26, 2005 discussion of the Mitigation Plan with the Albemarle Planning Commission and the May 4, 2005 discussion with the Board, we have amended the draft Plan as shown on the enclosed "Addendum to the Albemarle County Hazard Mitigation Plan," dated May 6, 2005. These amendments have been incorporated into the Mitigation Actions section of the Plan, also enclosed. Louisa County .avid B. Morgan, M.D. ric Purcell Nelson County Fred Boger Connie Brennan At the May 10, 2005 public hearing and subsequent discussion held by the Planning Commission, the Commission accepted the Plan and endorsed its going before the Board of Supervisors for consideration at the June 1, 2005 meeting. Executive Director Harrison B. Rue Enclosure: Addendum Sheet and Revised Plan for Albemarle County . 300 East Main Street, P.O. Box 1505, Charlottesville, VA 22902-1505 Telephone (434) 979-7310 Fax (434) 979-1597 Virginia Relay Users: 711 (TOO) email: info@tjpdc.org / web site: www.tjpdcorg . Addendum to Albemarle Hazard Mitigation Plan May 6, 2005 The following amendments to the plan were made following the April 26 Planning Commission and May 4 Board of Supervisors meeting: · A list of mitigation actions, to act as a summary, has been included in the plan (attached) · The Debris Flow Hazard Inventory and Evaluation of Albemarle County, Virginia was cited to the plan and added to the appendix · Scottsville levee is referenced on pages 4 and 5. The Scottsville plan has been evaluated by the County Emergency Coordinator (See TJPDC website for full plan) · Regional Projects are listed on pages 57-58. · Mitigation Action # AME5 on page 48 was changed to read: Encourage property owners to clear out dead wood from forests, and was changed to an education and outreach item . · Mitigation Action # AMPl on page 40 was created: . · Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan Summary DRAFT for Albemarle County May 24, 2005 · · Prepared by: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission - tj pdc.org Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Summary (The full HIRA is available at http://www.tjpdc.org/environment/hazard.asp) County of Albemarle The purpose of this Plan is: 1. To protect life, safety and property by reducing the potential for future damages and economic losses that result from natural hazards; 2. To meet the requirements ofthe Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, and therefore qualify for additional grant funding in both the pre-disaster and post-disaster environment; 3. To speed recovery and redevelopment following future disaster events; 4. To demonstrate a finn local commitment to hazard mitigation principles; and 5. To comply with both state and federal legislative requirements for local hazard mitigation plans. Mitigation: Sustained Action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-tenn risk to human life and property from natural hazards and their effects. Note that this emphasis on long-tenn risk distinguishes mitigation from actions geared primarily to emergency preparedness and short- tenn recovery. Costs from natural disasters are growing nationwide, and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District is no exception, especially with the City of Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson experiencing tremendous growth. Mitigation is intended to reduce the impact of known hazards through proper planning and by implementing policy and projects identified in this plan. The plan is divided into seven parts: 1. The Planning Process section describes the process by which this plan was developed including a description of the planning team, and overall stakeholder involvement. 2. The Community Profile includes narrative descriptions of community characteristics, such as the region's geographical, economic and demographic profiles, and discusses future development trends and implications for hazard vulnerability. 3. The Hazard Identification and Analysis section describes natural hazards in the order in which they pose the greatest threat to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. It includes a description of the hazard as well as analysis based upon historical data. 4. The Vulnerability Assessment provides an inventory of existing population and buildings, describes development trends, and offers estimates of potential loss based upon historic events as well as local, state, and national data. 5. The Capabilities Assessment provides an examination of the region's capacity to implement meaningful mitigation actions, and identify existing opportunities for program enhancement. Capabilities addressed in this section include staff and organizational . . . capability, technical capability, policy and program capability, fiscal capability, legal authority and political willpower. The purpose of this assessment is to identify any existing gaps that may hinder mitigation efforts, and to identify those activities that can facilitate risk reduction efforts. 6. The Mitigation Strategy fonns the basis for action - identifying broad policy goal statements, more specific policy objectives and specific action-oriented hazard mitigation actions. Hazard mitigation actions include both policies and projects designed to reduce the impacts of hazardous events. 7. The Plan Maintenance Procedures section describes how the Plan will be implemented, and procedures for monitoring, evaluating, reporting, and updating the Plan. Planning Process: Meetings of the Regional Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee were held on February 26, 2004, May 4, 2004, and December 8, 2004. The group is made up ofTJPDC staff, staff from localities including planners, administrators, and emergency managers, University of Virginia representatives, and representatives from Virginia Department of Transportation, Virginia Power, Virginia Department of Forestry, the Red Cross, and others. These meetings were open and press releases and fliers were distributed prior to each meeting. The Regional Hazard Mitigation Working group met monthly and included planners, emergency managers; and county administrators from each locality. Meetings were held at least twice in each locality, usually at the Local Emergency Planning Committee meetings to discuss the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment as well as possible mitigation actions. The public was encouraged to come to all open meetings of the Regional Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee and were also encouraged to fill out an on-line survey, posted on the TJPDC website, as well as locality websites. Community Profile: Albemarle County has defined development areas around the City of Charlottesville and north of the City along the Route 29 corridor, in the area of Crozet to the west of Charlottesville and along Route 250 to the east of Charlottesville. The western side of the County is bounded by the Blue Ridge Mountains and Shenandoah National Park. Outside the development areas, the remainder of the County is rolling Piedmont landscape dotted with a mix of residential, agricultural and minor commercial uses. Residential growth has been occurring both inside and outside of the development areas, but in recent years the balance has tipped to the development areas. The major commercial corridors are Route 29, particularly north of Charlottesville, and Route 250. New commercial development is continuing to take place rapidly in those areas. The Town of Scottsville is located in the southeastern comer of Albemarle on the James River. Commercial and residential growth is occurring around the periphery of Charlottesville. 2 Apartments, strip malls, suburban retail, and car dealerships are being built on quickly developed open space and unused lots, especially around the Rivanna River along Route 29 and on Pantops Mountain along Route 250. Presidential Disaster Declarations in Virginia Since 1969 Auq. 1969 Hurricane Camille (floodinq); 27 jurisdictions declared, All localities in PDC June 1972 Hurricane Aqnes (floodinq); 106 jurisdictions declared, All localities in PDC Sept. 1972 Storm/Flood; Hampton, Newport News, & Virqinia Beach declared, None in PDC Oct. 1972 Flood; Western, Central, Southeastern Virqinia; 31 jurisdictions declared, April 1977 Flash Flood; Southwestern Virqinia; 16 jurisdictions declared, None in the PDC Nov. 1977 Flood; Southwestern Virginia; 8 iurisdictions declared, None in the PDC July 1979 Flood; Buchanan County declared Sept. 1979 Flood; Patrick County declared May 1984 Flood; Buchanan, Dickenson & Washinqton Counties declared Nov. 1985 Flood; Western, Central Virqinia; 52 iurisdictions declared Oct. 1989 Flood; Buchanan County declared April 1992 Flood; Western Virginia; 24 jurisdictions declared, None in the PDC March 1993 Snowstorm; 43 jurisdictions declared Auq. 1993 Tornado; Petersburq declared Feb. 1994 Ice Storm; Central, Western Virqinia; 71 jurisdictions declared, None in the PDC March 1994 Ice Storm; Central, Western Virqinia; 29 jurisdictions declared, None in the PDC June 1995 Flood; Central & Western Virqinia; 24 jurisdictions declared Jan. 1996 Blizzard; All counties and cities in state declared, All localities in PDC declared Jan. 1996 Flood; 27 jurisdictions declared Sept. 1996 Hurricane Fran (floodinq); 88 jurisdictions declared Auq. 1998 Hurricane Bonnie (floodinq); 5 jurisdictions declared, None in the PDC Sept. 1999 Hurricane Dennis; Hampton declared, None in the PDC Sept. 1999 Hurricane Floyd (floodinq); 48 jurisdictions declared, None in the PDC Feb. 2000 Winter Storms; 107 jurisdictions declared, All except Charlottesville and Nelson were declared July 2001 Flood; Southwestern Virginia; 10 jurisdictions declared, None in the PDC Sept. 2001 Pentaaon Attack; 1 jurisdiction declared, None in the PDC March 2002 Flood; Southwestern Virginia; 10 jurisdictions declared, None in the PDC April/May 2002 Flood; Southwestern Virqinia; 9 jurisdictions declared, None in the PDC Feb. 2003 Winter Storms/Flooding; 39 jurisdictions declared, None in the PDC Sept. 2003 Hurricane Isabel (winds, flooding); 100 jurisdictions declared, All localities in the PDC were declared Nov. 2003 Flood; Southwestern Virqinia; 6 jurisdictions declared, None in the PDC May 2004 Flood; Southwestern Virqinia; 3 jurisdictions declared Sept 2004 Flood; Central Virainia; 12 jurisdictions declared, None in the PDC October 2004 Severe Storms and Flooding from the remnants of Hurricane Jeanne, None in the PDC declared Source: FEMA, VDEM 3 . . . Hazard Identification: HAZARDS ASSESSMENT TOOL HUMAN PROPERTY BUSINESS RISK EVENT PROBABILITY IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT Likelihood Possibility Physical Interruption of death or losses and Relative threat* this will occur injury damages of services 0= N/A 1 = Low o = N/A o = N/A o = N/A SCORE 2 = Low-Mod 1 = Low 1 = Low 1 = Low 0- 100% 3 = Moderate 2 = Mod 2 = Mod 2 = Mod 4= Hi-Mod 3 = High 3 = High 3 = High 5=High Floodinq 5 3 3 2 ¡th¡69~i¡1r{¡{¡!jj¡¡ Blizzards/lcestormslWinter Storms 5 2 1 2 56% Hurricanes 3 2 2 2 40% ornadoes 2 2 2 2 27% High Wind I Windstorms 3 2 1 1 27% Drought 3 0 2 2 27% Landslides 3 1 1 1 20% Earthquake 3 1 1 1 20% Wildfire 2 1 2 1 18% Dam Failure 1 3 3 2 18% Extreme Heat 2 2 0 1 13% Lightninq 4 0 1 0 9% Extreme Cold 1 2 0 1 7% AVERAGE SCORE 2.64 1.50 1.36 1.29 RISK - PROBABILITY * SEVERITY ;A¡~ 0.24 0.53 0.46 The James River floods in some manner nearly every year. The areas most prone to flooding in Albemarle County are the James River corridors and tributaries, and the steep slopes of the Blue Ridge Mountains along the western edge of the county. Scottsville, Howardsville and Sugar Hollow have experienced frequent flooding. A levee was built in 1989 and effectively protects the Town ofScottsville from further flood damage. A flood in 1913 resulted in water depths of 25 feet. 4 Markings show the height of past floods Before the levee was built in Scottsville Summary of Floods Flood Record 1993 - 2003 Localitv # Deaths Iniuries ProDertv Loss Crop Damaae Albemarle/Cville 28 1 0 $336,000 $900,000 Fluvanna 5 0 0 $10,000 0 Greene 25 4 1 $17,141,000 $361,000 Louisa 8 0 0 $71,000 0 Nelson 25 0 0 $1,296,000 $50,000 Source: National Climate Data Center Notable Flood Events in the Planning District (1993-2003) Event Location Damage Date ....... Flash Flood Albemarle Southern Julv 3, 2003 Flood Albemarle $100,000 property damaoe Feb 22, 2003 Flash Flood Albemarle Julv 23, 2002 Flash Flood Albemarle Northern June 18, 2002 Flash Flood Albemarle Southern Mav 27, 2002 Flash Flood Albemarle Northwest Seot3,2000 Flash Flood Albemarle June 27,2000 Flash Flood Albemarle Free Sept 29, 1999 Union Flash Flood Albemarle Seot 9, 1999 Flash Flood Albemarle Seot5,1999 Flood Albemarle Western March 20, 1998 5 . . . Flood Albemarle Feb 4, 1998 Flood Albemarle Northern Jan 28, 1998 Flash Flood Albemarle Western Jan 8, 1998 Flash flood Albemarle, Greene, $78,700,000 property Sept 6, 1996 (Hurricane Fran) Nelson damage $26,800,000 crop damaç¡e Flash Flood Albemarle Southwest $10,000 property damaç¡e June 19, 1996 Flash Flood Albemarle 1 death Jan 19, 1996 Flash Flood Albemarle Eastern Nov 11, 1995 Flash Flood Albemarle July 6, 1995 Flood/flash flood Rt. 614 Alb. Co. $1,900,000 property damage June 27, 1995 (Sugar Hollow). $250,000 crop damage problems with wells & septic tanks Flash Flood Albemarle Northeast June 25, 1995 Flood Albemarle $1,000 property damaqe June 25, 1994 Flood Albemarle $5,000 property damaqe Aug 17, 1993 Charlottesville Flash Flood Charlottesville July 28, 2000 Flash Flood Charlottesville Sept 5, 1999 Flash Flood Charlottesville June 23, 1998 Flood Charlottesville May 8, 1998 Source NOAA, NCDC, Historical Society (newspapers) Summary of Winter Storms Winter Storm Record from 1993-2003 Locality # Deaths Injuries Property Loss Crop Damage Albemarle/Cville 41 2 51 $9,385,000 $1,200,000 Fluvanna 33 0 2 $20,565,000 $15,000 Greene 42 4 52 $9,436,000 $1,275,000 Louisa 34 0 2 $20,565,000 $15,000 Nelson 34 1 1 $9,385,000 $1,200,000 Source: National Climate Data Center Notable Winter Storms in the Planning District Event Damage Winter Storm Ice Storm Ice Storm Ice Storm Heav Snow Blizzard Presidential Disaster Area Date Feb 14,2003 Jan 30, 2000 Feb 4, 1998 Dee 12, 1998 Jan 12, 1996 Jan 6, 1996 6 Source: NCDC Summary of Hurricanes Hurricane Record (1954 - 2003) Localitv # Deaths Injuries Property Loss CroD Damage Albemarle/Cville 0 0 0 0 0 Fluvanna (reported with Louisa) 1 3 0 $45,070,000 $7,140,000 Greene 0 0 0 0 0 Louisa (reported with Fluvanna) 1 3 0 $45,070,000 $7,140,000 Nelson 0 0 0 0 0 Source: National Climate Data Center Notable Hurricanes in the Planning District Hurricane Specific Area Damage Year Category Isabel Preliminary estimate of over Sept 18, 5 $4 billion in damages/costs; 2003 at least 40 deaths Floyd Flooding rains and high Sept 14-18, 4 winds. 4 deaths; over 1999 280,000 customers without electricity, 5,000 homes damaqed. Fran Northwest Greene Co. $5.8 billion damage; 37 Sept 5, 1996 3 was hardest hit. deaths, loss of electricity (state-wide) Agnes Scottsville (34 feet), More than 210,000 people June 19-24, 1 Howardsville and were forced to flee for their 1972 Columbia lives and 122 were killed. Camille Worst affected 114 deaths in Nelson Co August 1969 5 communities Massie alone. Flooding & Mill, Davis Creek, landslides. Scottsville, $1.42 billion (unadjusted). Howardsville, Schuyler, Columbia, Piney River Hazel Flooding, barns leveled, roofs Oct 14-15, 4 pulled off. 1954 Source: National Weather Service, Albemarle County Historical Society 7 · g, ~ ¡= r m ~)~ ) \ ~ /~~r ~ ~J ,,/ (II o~ ~ --¡<--1-'f ~ 4,~ Co:! '() Co:! -----.// 1-0 ~~ ~4f, ~ð 1-0 ~~ ~4f, ~ð Summary of Tornadoes Tornado Record 1959-June 2004 Localitv # Deaths Iniuries Property Loss CroD Damage Albemarle/Cville 7 11 4 $250,000 0 Fluvanna 4 0 0 $260,000 0 Greene 4 1 9 $302,000 0 Louisa 7 0 0 $783,000 0 Nelson 1 0 0 $8,000 0 Source: National Climate Data Center Notable Tornadoes in the Planning District Class Damage F1 F1 F3 F1 F2 Ivy/Mechum River Iv Date May 13, 2000 Ma 5,1989 Jul 25, 1985 October 13,1983 Au ust 9, 1962 1959 Leveled trees, tore off roofs, smashed buildin s 1922 Source: NCDC, Albemarle Historical Society archived newspapers 9 ~ . 1ft . Summary of Thunderstorms and High Wind Thunderstorms and High Wind Record from 1956-2003 Localitv # Deaths Iniuries Property Loss Crop DamaQe Albemarle/Cville 91 0 77 19,164,000 19,501,000 Fluvanna 34 1 0 338,000 0 Greene 39 0 75 18,636,000 19,501,000 Louisa 64 0 0 0 295,000 Nelson 41 0 75 18,577,000 19,501,000 Source: National Climate Data Center Notable windstorms and thunderstorms in the Planning District Storm type Damage Date Hi h wind Thunderstorm/Hail Gust winds High wind Hurricane Hi h wind Source: NCDC, Albemarle Historical Society archived newspaper Se t2003 Jul 13,2000 Ma 13, 2000 March 31, 1997 September 6, 1996 Dec 5, 1993 Summary of Droughts Drought Record 1995-1999 Locality # Deaths Injuries Property Loss Crop Damaae Albemarle/Cville 9 2 0 0 $129,660,000 Fluvanna 3 0 0 0 $58,800,000 Greene 9 2 0 0 $129,660,000 Louisa 0 0 0 0 0 Nelson 9 2 0 0 $129,660,000 Source: National Climate Data Center Notable droughts in the Planning District Damage Date Fluvanna, Greene, Nelson, Louisa declared disaster areas. Thousands of dry 2002 wells, businesses closed, extensive water restrictions on businesses and households $129.7M crop damage July- Aug 1999 11 . . . . . $58.8M crop damage Oct- Nov 1998 1931 1607 Nationwide - widespread damaqe Jamestown colony lands in an extended drouqht, not many survive. Source: NCDC, Albemarle Historical Society archived newspapers Summary of landslides The western edges of Greene and Albemarle County and much of Nelson County are most at risk of landslide in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. When torrential rains hit the slopes of mountains, unstable earth can become loose and can be washed downhill. Earthquakes may also trigger rock and landslides, but this is rare in the Planning District. During Hurricane Camille, extensive damage was done by landslides and flooding in Massies Mill, Woods Mill, Roseland, Tyro, Lovingston, Norwood, Schuyler, and along Davis and Muddy Creeks. There were an estimated 286 houses and outbuildings damaged or destroyed, 2 fraternal lodges, 1 warehouse, 2 churches, 17 trailers, 175 cars and trucks, 1 school, 2 pieces of construction equipment, 2 post offices, 11 pieces offann machinery, 5 industrial plants of which one was a water system and about 18,500 acres of pasture and cropland. 12 u'~. ~(,. I';'~·" ""II1II · Summary of Earthquakes · · Although earthquakes do not pose a significant risk to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, there have been several recoded earthquake events. Virginia has had over 160 earthquakes since 1977 of which 16% were felt. This equates to an average of one earthquake occurring every month with two felt each year. The central Virginia seismic zone is an area of the Virginia Piedmont that has long been recognized as an area of frequent seismic activity in the central Appalachians. The earthquakes occur at depths from near surface to approximately 20 km. Notable earthquakes in the Planning District Location Damage Date Shadwell The focal depth was within a few kilometers of the surface, and this Sept 22, (Albemarle) produced a strong acoustic signal that local officials attributed to an 2001 aircraft in transonic flight. Magnitude 3.2 Scottsville It was felt from Washington, DC to the North Carolina border, and Aug 17, from Staunton, VA to Norfolk. Maqnitude 4.0 1984 Charlottesville A moderate tremor at Charlottesville shook bricks from chimneys in Dec 26, some places. Also felt in other parts of Albemarle County. 1929 Arvonia Chimneys were cracked at Ashby, about 20 km southeast of Arvonia, Feb 11, (Buckingham) and a window was broken at a store at Buckingham. A "terrific" shock 1907 sent people rushing outdoors at Arvonia and displaced furniture. Felt strongly from Powhatan to Albemarle County. Giles County, Va. Largest in intensity and extent in Virginia in historical times. The May 31, earthquake had a maximum Modified Mercalli Intensity of VIII, based 1897 on "many downed chimneys" and "changes in the flow of springs." Felt from Georgia to Pennsylvania and from the Atlantic Coast westward to Indiana and Kentucky. Aftershocks continued through June 6,1897. Magnitude 5.8 Mfa Central Va. The highest intensities from this earthquake occurred mainly at towns Dec 23, near the James River waterfront in Goochland and Powhatan 1875 Counties, and in Louisa County. Maqnitude 4.5 Central Va. Chimney damage occurred at Buckingham. This earthquake was Nov 2, reported to be "quite strong" at Fredericksburg, Richmond, and 1852 Scottsville. At Scottsville, where every house in the village was shaken, water in the canal was "troubled," and boats were tossed to and fro. Magnitude 4.3 Wytheville A severe earthquake that was observed over a large area threw Apr. 29, down a chimney near Wytheville, in southwest Virginia, and shook 1852 down tops of chimneys at Buckingham Courthouse,. Houses were shaken violently at Staunton. Maqnitude 4.9 Central Va. A rather strong shock agitated walls of buildings at Lynchburg and Aug 27, rattled windows violently. Fences along the road were shaken near 1833 the Louisa County Courthouse. It was described as "severe" at Charlottesville. Two miners were killed in a panic caused by the tremor at a mine near Richmond. Magnitude 4.5 FEMA uses the indicator of Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) (%g) to show the probability of earthquakes in the u.s. The national map of Peak Ground Acceleration (%g) indicates that parts 14 of the Planning District have a PGA rate of 3-4%g, while others (see map below) have a 4-5% PGA. Summary of Wildfires Wildfires are common in the Planning District, but are usually small and quickly controlled, creating little danger or loss. Most fires occur in the western part of the region, in sparsely populated mountainous areas, but fires have occurred in each locality. Lightning is the most common cause of fire, followed closely by cigarettes, campfires, and motor vehicle incidents. They are more prevalent in periods after heavy winter storms due to dropped branches and debris being readily available as fuel, and also tend to follow summers with droughts. Property losses due to wildfires have been minimal in the Planning District, and there have been few injuries or fatalities due to fire in the region. Crop damage is the most common loss, ranging from a few thousand to tens of thousand of dollars. More people moving into the countryside and using parks, fields and forests for recreation creates a higher potential for people to be put at risk during wildfire events. Wildfire Events 1995-2001 Locality Acreaae Damaae Albemarle 887.8 $495,906 Fluvanna 127.6 $156,110 Greene 68.8 $44,385 Louisa 435.4 $102,555 Nelson 2,808 $965,445 TJPD 4,327.6 $1,764,401 Source: VA Department of Forestry Notable Wildfires in the Planning District Event Damage Date NE Greene No damaQe November 16, 1999 Nelson (Afton) $2,000 property damage I $5,000 crop damage (after a April 2, 1999 series of winter storms) Nelson $15,000 Crop damage (after summer/fall drought) November 24, 1998 (Lovinaston) Nelson $6,000 crop damage (after summer drought) October 31, 1998 (Lovinqston) Nelson $38,000 Crop damaae (-2 months after winter storm) April 25, 1996 Nelson No damage (-2 months after winter storm) April 4, 1995 18V AZ036 Source: National Climate Data Center 15 D . ~[;, ....... ~' a1i i~ø t;i\ ~. }. . Dam Failure Hazard Potential Loss of Human Life Economic, Environmental, Lifeline Classification Losses Low None expected Low and aenerallv limited to owner Sianificant None expected Yes High Probable: One or more expected lYes (but not necessary for this classification) Of 158 dams in the TJPDC, 9 are classified as high hazard, 17 are of significant risk, 98 are low risk, and 28 have not been classified. Although there has not been a significant history of dam failure in the region, the threat to property and life is possible with the failure of any of the Class I dams. The Lake Louisa dam failed during Hurricane Camille in 1969. It is considered a rare event because of the severity of the storm and the age of the dam. Most dams in the TJPDC are relatively undeveloped at the base of the dam, with most development occurring behind the dams near the lakes. The Ragged Mountain Dam has the potential for generating the most property damage, injury, and loss oflife if it fails due to its proximity to the City of Charlottesville, the densest population center in the region. As Sugar Hollow and Crozet develop further as is projected, the dam at Sugar Hollow may become a larger threat. The South Fork Rivanna Dam would also threaten the urban Albemarle and Charlottesville landscape should it fail. Restrictions on development in the floodplains have limited the risk of dam failure losses, but older structures may be at risk. 17 · .. Hazards which pose little or no significant risk to the region and will not be analyzed in the risk assessment are: Lightning, hailstorms, erosion, expansive soils, land subsidence, tsunami, volcano, and avalanche. Risk Assessment The risk assessment estimates the expected amount of loss that will occur on property, infrastructure, and critical facilities. Estimates were also conducted of people living in hazardous areas. High Water Roads-Albemarle, Charlottesville, UV A 21 Curves Road (Old Garth Road) 21 Curves Road at pond 29 North at Camelot Airport Road at new post office (2 Times - doesn't close road - about to rebuild anyway) Albemarle Lake Road at Garth Road Alderman Road at Twyman Avon Street at Bridge Ballards Mill Road 1¡4 mile to 4024 (2 Times) Route 680 - Browns Gap Road at 240 (2 Times) Carters Bridge Route 20 South Cherry A venue 500-700 block Cherry Avenue at Johnson School to Cleveland Clark Road just off 810 Earlysville 700 East High Street 1500 block) (2 Times - doesn't close road) East Market Street 1100 (3 Times) Esmont Road (old railroad trestle) (2 Times) Falconer Drive at Railroad Bridge (2 Times) Free Union Road (4933-4920) (2 Times) Gilbert Station Road at 640 at bridge Ivy Depot Road / Route 786 at 250 (2 Times) Route 726 - James River Road at Totier Creek (2 Times) Jarmans Gap / Carter Street (2 Times - road to be rebuilt soon) Jefferson Park 1700 at Woodrow Kingston Drive at West Leigh Drive (2 Times) Meade Avenue 200 Meade at Fairway over the bridge Milton Road 2100 at Milton Hills North Berkshire 2300 Old Ballard Road (2 spots) Old Ivy Road at Garth Road Old Ivy Road at underpass and exit ramp (2 Times) Old Lynchburg Road 1200 Polo Grounds Road east of Route 29 North Proffit Road at North Fork Rivanna 19 . . . Stoney Point Road 700 at Key West University A venue east of Emmet Route 795 past route 622 Route 20 south at 708 Route 240 at 680 Route 240 Browns Gap Turnpike Route 250 west at UPD (clears quickly after rain) Route 250 bypass at Locust (clears quickly after rain) Route 29 north At Camelot Route 29 l¡4 mile south of Red Hill (2 Times) Route 53 ].4 mile past Monticello exit Route 53 at Jefferson Vineyard (2 Times) Route 53 at Monticello Route 6 at Scotland Fann Route 600 l¡4 mile from Route 22 Route 600 at Route 20 (2 Times) Route 600 Watts Passage Railroad bridge Route 60 I at 810 (2 Times) Route 601 at Barracks Road Route 602 and 722 Route 614 I sl low spot from Whitehall to Sugar Hollow Route 620 1/8 mile south of County Line Route 620 at Buck Island Creek Route 622 1 Y2 mile from 795 (closed) Route 622 Route 773 Route 761 Route 622 at Hardware River Route 626 Loan Oak Fann (2 Times) Route 627 at Albemarle Fann Route 627 at View Mount Fann (3 Times) Route 631 and 706 at bridge Route 631 at Dudley Mountain Road Route 631 at Gentry Lane (2 Times) Route 640 at Route 20 (2 Times) Route 641 Advance Mills Road (little bridge - 4 Times) Route 667 (2 Times) Route 672 (2 Times) Route 674 - Slam Gate/ Heart break Road (2 Times) Route 680 - Brown's Gap from 240 to 802 (3 Times) Route 683 - Shelton's Mill (closed) Route 687 (2 Times) Route 704 between Route 715 and dead end Route 706 Y2 mile off 631 (2 Times) Route 708 at KOA (2 Times) Route 708 at Nutmeg Fann (2 Times) 20 Route 708 between 627 and 795 Route 712 at 713 Route 712 between 627 and 717 Route 712 between 719 and 631 Route 712 between Route 713 and 795 Route 713 from 20 to dead end (3 Times) Route 715 between 20 South and 627 Route 715 between 719 and Route 6 Route 723 south of Route 6 Route 726 - James River Road - at Totier Creek (closed) Route 729 near Route 53 (2 Times) Route 736 between 635 and 636 (2 Times) Route 737 between 726 and route 6 (3 Times) Route 747 Route 723 south of route 6 (closed) Route 761 between 622 and 620 Route 776 off Route 667 (5 Times) Route 786 at 250 Ivy Depot Road Route 795 at 638 (Hardware River) Route 795 at Ash lawn Route 795 between 713 and 708 (3 Times) Route 795 between Route 620 and Route 708 (washed out under pavement - fixed) Route 795 north of Ash Lawn Route 810 Mont Fair (2 Times) Route 810 North 601 Route 810 near Crozet Rescue Squad (stream to Beaver Creek) Route 810 north route 687 Route 810 Nortonsville Route 628 (2 Times) Route 810 1 sl bridge north Garrisons Sharon Road 1/10 mile to 6 (Route 622) Sharon Road at the bridge (3 Times) Totier Road North of Route 626 Watts Passage Road between bridge and railroad track West Leigh Drivel Lee Way (2 Times) (Has been fixed, but it didn't work) West Leigh Drive at 250 (2 Times - rare and due to poor ditches 21 · The following table shows the number and value of emergency facilities in the Planning District. Emer2encv Facilities: Estimated Buildin2 Value (thousands of dollars) Emergency Operations Police and Rescue Fire Center Locality Number Value Number Value Number Value Albemarle 5 $6,510 9 $5,022 0 $0 Charlottesville 4 $5,208 3 $1,674 1 $930 Fluvanna 4 $5,208 4 $2,232 1 $930 Greene 2 $2,604 3 $1,674 1 $930 Nelson 5 $9,114 8 $3,906 1 $0 Louisa 7 $9,114 7 $3,906 1 $930 Total 29 $37,758 33 $18,414 4 $3,720 Hospitals Schools Shelters Locality Number Value Number Value Number Value Albemarle 0 $0 34 $15,810 19 $8,835 Charlottesville 2 $13,020 25 $11,625 11 $5,115 Fluvanna 0 $0 9 $4,185 5 $2,325 Greene 0 $0 11 $5,115 2 $930 Nelson 3 $0 7 $2,790 14 $2,790 Louisa 0 $0 11 $5,115 1 $465 Total 2 $13,020 96 $44,640 44 $20,460 · Source: HAZUS-MH data was used to provide estimated building values, in thousandç. National Flood Insurance Policy: All localities within the Planning District participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Infonnation, by locality is provided below: National Flood Insurance Program Statistics Current Entry into Effective #of Insurance Insurance Total Locality NFIP FIRM Policies Whole Premium Losses Payments Albemarle 1980 2004 112 $21,855,700 $67,070 33 $262,056.84 Charlottesville 1979 2004 41 $7,005,000 $26,133 33 $22,177.20 Fluvanna 1978 1978 17 $2,822,400 $6,390 12 $199,602.96 Greene 1984 1984 21 $3,095,200 $5,569 13 $36,760.98 Louisa 1989 1997 16 $2,396,800 $5,424 0 $0.00 Nelson 1978 1978 82 $11,697,500 $5,868 25 $134,715.00 · There are 325 residential and 72 non-residential structures within the floodplain in Albemarle County, for a total value of almost $136 million. Approximately 793 residents live in the floodplain. 2005 FEMA DFIRM floodplains were overlaid on building footprint and tax data to detennine which structures were at risk. The North Garden Fire Department is the only emergency facility in the hazard area. It is valued at $514,] 00 but has been elevated on fill and is therefore not at risk. Sewage and water treatment plants located within the floodplain are the Scottsville Sewage Treatment Plant (STP), the Keswick STP, the Glenmore STP, the Rivanna Authority STP in Camelot, the Keswick STP, the 22 Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority STP, and the South Fork Rivanna Water Treatment Facility. Southwood Mobile Homes Estates has an onsite treatment facility which is also located within the floodplain. The map on the following page identifies structures in the floodplain. 23 , .. , .. . .. I , , . . . . . · . . . . ... . . .. . .. . . . . .. ... . . .\ · .. . . . 'It . . . ,. · * At Risk Properties .." Total Value & .. : /,1,.""" ",f,#-"", Planning District Commission Severe Winter Storms Although winter storms do pose a significant risk to the region, storm events are not confined to specific parts of the Planning District. In general, the western part of the Planning District at higher elevations experience greater snow fall. Remote housing clusters in the more mountainous areas of Planning District are at a greater risk of being isolated as roads become impassable. The previous Hazard Analysis section contains a description of notable historic winter storm events and a summary of damage from winter storms. From historical data, it can be projected that over the next ten years the region will be hit by 30-40 winter storms causing several deaths and dozens of injuries. Property loss will most likely be greater than $9 million. As the population grows and more structures are built that number will increase. Hurricanes The following estimate is drawn from HAZUS-MH, a modeling software that attempts to estimate loss following a hurricane. HAZUS-MH loss estimation models were run for three historic storms: Hazel in 1954, Fran in 1996, and Isabel in 2003. Although dollar values are not adjusted to accommodate for inflation, an average expected loss can be determined by averaging the impacts of these three storm events. The table shown below represents data collected from HAZUS-MH. 7 Hazèl(19s4) l$abel(2003) Storm ... Fran (1996)'\' Buildinç¡ Damaç¡e (Count) 1013 1 80 Buildings Destroved 88 0 0 Debris (tons) 4,752,178 1,304,795 6,570,219 Households Displaced 109 0 0 People Needina Shelter 27 0 0 Direct Property Loss $84,343,330 $255,990 $36,543,350 Indirect Economic Loss $10,117,990 $1,220 $681,910 Total Loss $94,461,320 $257,210 $37,225,260 Note: Hurricane Isabel was not technically defined as a hurricane when it came through the Planning District. In order to run the model in HAZUS-MH, 1 Omph was added to the maximum sustained winds. A verages of each storm suggest that a minimum of $44 million dollars worth of damage and over $4 million tons of debris can be expected over a 50-year period. Tornadoes 25 · Because it cannot be predicted where a tornado may touch down, all buildings and facilities are considered to be exposed to this hazard and could potentially be impacted. It is also not possible to estimate the number of residential, commercial, and other buildings or facilities that may experience losses. The location and magnitude of past tornado events within the Planning District are shown on the map on the following page. Based upon historical data, the region will experience several tornadoes (1-7) in the next fifty years, causing II deaths and four to nine injuries. Property loss will likely total $250 to $700 million. As the population and number of building structures increase in the area, the number of deaths and injuries, as well as property damage, are likely to rIse. High WindlWindstorms The past is the best predictor of future damage from windstonns. There may be up to 100 high wind events in the Planning District over the next fifty years. These windstonns will most likely cause injuries, but very few deaths. Property loss and crop damage may reach $20 million each. Most of the costliest wind events in the past have been associated with hurricanes. Drought · Estimated potential losses due to drought are somewhat difficult to calculate because drought causes little damage to the built environment, mostly affecting crops and fannland. Based upon droughts over the past five years, the region will most likely be affected by several droughts over the next five to ten years, causing few deaths and injuries and little property loss. However, future droughts are expected to cause extensive damage ($50 - $100 million) to crops in the reglOn. Earthquake · Models run using HAZUS-MH software estimates that an earthquake occurring at the same epicenter as a December 9 earthquake in Columbia, Virginia (Fluvanna County) with a magnitude of 5.0 (the December 9 quake measured 4.5 but the minimum user input by HAZUS is 5.0) and at the same depth would create very minimal damage. 226 buildings would be slightly damaged, 56 moderately, and 5 extensively. The majority of buildings expected to be damaged are constructed with unreinforced masonry (126), manufactured housing (52), and wood (47). Critical facilities, transportation systems, and utility systems would all remain completely operational and sustain no structural losses. Two potable water leaks, one wastewater leak, and one natural gas leak were estimated to occur. No fire or debris are expected to be generated as a result of the quake, and only one injury seeking medical attention but not hospitalization is projected. Property loss is estimated at $3.19 million, 4% is related to the business interruption of the region. 88% of total loss is sustained by residential structures. Railways are estimated to sustain $1000 in loss, and airport facilities $2.1 million. Utility systems are expected to sustain $4.49 million in damages collectively. In comparison to the actual damage of the earthquake, HAZUS has greatly overestimated the possible damage. Only 26 slight damage was reported near the earthquake in Fluvanna County at Bremo Bluff and Kents Store. Earthquakes greater than a 5.0 magnitude do have a small chance of occurrence; however, many of the historical earthquakes noted in the area have recorded magnitudes of3.2 - 5.8. Because earthquakes can occur anywhere within the region, it is impossible to project which areas are most vulnerable outside ofHAZUS loss estimated methodology. All future buildings, including critical facilities, must adhere to the statewide building code, which may make these buildings less susceptible than some of the older building stock in the region. Wildfire As stated in the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, the TJPDC is subdivided by areas of high, medium, and low risk for wildfires according to the Virginia Department of Forestry. Woodland Home Communities are clusters of homes located along forested areas at the wildland-urban interface that could possible be damaged during a nearby wildfire incident. Potential losses to these structures were estimated by determining the average price of houses classified as being part of a Woodland Home Community and projecting potential losses in each locality. Results are shown in the following tables. Approximately two billion dollars of residential property is at risk to wildfire. There are 6106 houses in these communities, which is about 10% of the total housing stock in the counties; also approximately 10% of the counties' residential population is at risk of wildfires. Hazard: Wildfire nven ory sse s: emar e Number of Structures Value of Structures Number of People Type of Structure #in %in %in #in %in (Occupancy #in Hazard Hazard $ in Hazard Hazard #in Hazard Hazard Class) Localitv Area Area $ in Localitv Area Are Localitv Area Area Residential 29687 2418 8.14% $5,008,352,000 $407,928.690 8.14% 84186 5900 7.01% tAt Alb 27 At Risk Homes Total Value L~ "~_._, Dam Failure Nine dams in the TJPDC could cause loss oflife if they were to fail. Of these nine, five have emergency action plans, the Upper Ragged Mountain dam does not have a plan, and the other three do not require them. Dams of significant risk to the area are not required to have emergency action plans; however, 12 dams do have these plans. According to the Virginia State Hazard Mitigation Plan, "hazard potential is not related to the structural integrity of a dam but strictly to the potential for adverse downstream effects if the dam were to fail. Frequency of dam inspection is dependent on how the dam is classified." Further information can be referenced in each localities' Emergency Operations Plan. At this time, no data are available as to how much life or property loss would be likely to occur in the event that any of these dams were to fail. In addition to the work of the Hazard Mitigation staff team of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, this plan was developed with the input and assistance of many dedicated people, representing a variety of localities and agencies and the general public. They include members of the Hazard Mitigation Working Group, the Advisory Committee, staff of participating localities, Local Emergency Planning Committees, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, students ofPLAC 513, a University of Virginia graduate planning class led by Dr. David Phillips, and private citizens who attended the meetings and responded to an online survey. This plan also benefited from the work of other localities - basing much of the format on hazard mitigation plans developed by the New River Valley Planning District Commission, the City of Chesapeake, Virginia, and the State of Delaware. 29 · Capability Assessment A capability assessment has two components: an inventory of agencies' missions, programs, and policies, and an analysis of their capacities to carry them out. A capability assessment is an integral part of the planning process in that it helps identify, review, and analyze current mitigation activities as well as the ability of each jurisdiction to implement future mitigation projects. Conducting the Capability Assessment Communities have the power to put basic tools in place to prevent unwanted situations that put people and property at risk of damage from future hazards. The comprehensive planning process provides a platform for determining how to develop a community without adding to risks. Zoning and development codes can be written to promote intelligent development and site designs that also allow proper emergency access. Localities can provide the proper staff and resources to review and inspect new construction and older structures for any potential problems before they become an emergency. This plan will recommend options for strengthening local capabilities to mitigate hazards. Localities lacking certain plans or policies may consider adopting them. Localities with plans and policies in place may wish to update them, drawing in language from neighboring localities as needed. · To help identify local capabilities which may need improvement, TJPDC staff created a simple table listing all of the types of plans, programs, and policies relevant to hazard mitigation planning. Three categories of capability are used for simplicity, Limited, Moderate, and High. T JPDC Hazard Mitigation Capability Assessment by Locality HMP DRP CP FMP SMP EOP COOP REP SARA TRAN CIP REG HPP ZO so FDPO CRS Be ESCO CharlottesviJ/e x x x x x x x x x x x x Albemarle County x x x x x x x x x x x x x Fluvanna County x x x x x x x x x x Greene County x x x x x x x x Louisa County x x x x x x x x x x Nelson County x x x x x x x x Town of Columbia x x x x Town of Mineral x x Town of Louisa x x Town of ScottsviJ/e x x x x x Town of StanardsviJ/e x x x x · HMP - Hazard Mitigation Plan DRP - Disaster Recovery Plan CP - Comprehensive Plan FMP - Floodplain Management Plan / Flood Mitigation Plan SMP - Stormwater Management Plan EOP - Emergency Operations Plan COOP - Continuity of Operations Plan REP - Radiological Emergency Plan SARA - SARA Title III Emergency Response Plan TRAN - Transportation Plan 30 CIP - Capital Improvements Plan (that regulates infrastructure in hazard areas) REG - Regional Planning HPP - Historic Preservation Plan ZO - Zoning Ordinance SO - Subdivision Ordinance FDPO - Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance CRS - Community Rating System BC - Building Codes ESCO - Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance An assessment serving to quantify the capabilities of Albemarle County follows. This assessment was based on the above infonnation and the results of a questionnaire submitted to the planners and emergency managers in each locality. Out of a potential 46 points, Albemarle County received 25. The range for points is: 0-1= limited overall capability, 15-29= moderate overall capability, and 30-46= high overall capability. 31 . Yes = 3 No = 0 Albemarle HMP Radiological Emergency Plan SARA Title III/Hazardous Mat'l ERP CRS Community BCEGS Grade of 1-5 TOTAL: Yes = 3 No = 02 EOP Comp Plan addressing hazards DRC COP Regional Planning Stormwater Mgt Plan NFIP Community Floodplain Mgt Plan BCEGS Grade 6-9 TOTAL: Yes = 1 No = 0 Comp Plan (no natural hazards addressed) Transportation Plan Capital Improvement Plan Historic Preservation Plan Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Ordinance Adopted Building Code TOTAL: High=2, Mod=1, Low=O Technical Capability Fiscal Capability Administrative Capability Political Capability TOTAL: TOTAL: . 3 o o o o 3 2 o o o 2 2 2 2 o 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 2 5 2 . Other factors which determine a community's capability to respond to and mitigate hazards are emergency facilities, shelters, emergency generators, and evacuation routes, which are discussed in the hazard identification and risk assessment. 32 Mitigation Action Plan 201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. 201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. 201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c )(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs. 201.6(c)(3)(iv): For multi-jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit of the plan. Introduction The purpose of the Mitigation Action Plan is to provide the tools necessary to reduce the impact of natural hazards in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. In order to guide the actions of those charged with implementation, the Plan follows a traditional planning approach, beginning with a mission statement that provides the overall guiding principle. Goals are intended to meet the intent of the mission statement. Next, mitigation actions serve to provide clear, measurable tasks, which may include policies or projects designed to reduce the impacts of future hazard events. Mission Statement: To protect local residents, property, businesses, and the natural environment from damage by implementing long-tenn goals to reduce the impacts of natural hazards Goals: 1. Implement long-tenn projects 2. Implement policy 3. Educate the public 4. Support emergency manangement Methodology: . In formulating the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Mitigation Action Plan, a wide range of activities were considered in order to achieve the goals of participating jurisdictions. All actions chosen fell into one of the four broad categories listened below: 1. Information and Data Development 2. Outreach and Education 3. Structural 4. Policy, Planning, and Funding These categories are identical to those in the Virginia State Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Virginia Department of Emergency Management identified the categories in the following manner: Goal 1 : Structural Mitigation Projects Identify and implement physical projects that will directly reduce impacts from hazards . 1. Continue implementation of warning and detection systems to notify the Commonwealth of impending hazards. 2. Elevate, retrofit and relocate existing structures and facilities in vulnerable locations. 3. Construct hazard-resistant buildings and infrastructure. 4. Modify sites near structures to reduce exposure to hazards; better select sites for new state facilities. 5. Require emergency utility systems and redundant communication systems for functionally critical facilities. 6. Implement "in place" contracts to provide mitigative measures for functionally critical facilities. 7. Maintain Continuity of Operations of critical facilities through reduction of hazard impacts on communication networks and information infrastructure. Goal 2: Policy, Planning and Funding Incorporate mitigation 1. Identify current policies, plans, regulations concepts and objectives and laws that require or should require into existing and future mitigation intervention. policies, plans, 2. Add hazard assessment to new, regulations and laws in remodeled and relocated state facilities. the Commonwealth 3. Incorporate mitigation planning concepts into Continuity of Operations Plans (COOP) for state agencies. . 34 4. Standardize the critical facility definition across the state. 5. Incorporate mitigation planning concepts into state legislation and zoning. 6. Promote coordination between federal, state and local organizations. 7. Perform a hazard mitigation analysis on all current and potential Commonwealth leased properties. 8. Identify appropriate funding sources. Goal 3: Information and Data Development Build capacity with 1. Identify data needs and sources. information and data 2. Identify data analysis needs. development to refine 3. Develop strategies to convert data to hazard identification and information for decision-making. assessment, mitigation 4. Identify mitigation analysis strategies. targeting and funding 5. Gather information on mitigation identification effectiveness. 6. Develop a common system for information storage. 7. Develop data distribution standards for the mitigation database to address data security, sharing and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) issues. Goal 4: Education and Outreach Activities Through education and 1. Evaluate impacts of on-going educational training, increase efforts to determine unmet needs. awareness of hazards 2. Identify target audiences in the general and potential mitigation public and state agencies for hazards strategies. awareness education and training. 3. Identify and develop resources to provide training and education to targeted audiences. 4. Provide hazard awareness, preparedness and mitigation information through various communication channels. 5. Create connection between "Secure Virginia" efforts with existing agency functions. Source: Virginia Standard Mitigation Plan p 4-2 Process: 35 . The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission employed a variety of methods to compile an exhaustive list of mitigation options, which was distributed to each locality for further consideration. First, mitigation strategies were compiled from the results of the web survey, ideas generated from meetings and staff, and other plans. Sample mitigation strategies were presented at the December 8, 2004 Advisory Committee meeting(see notes in Appendix). Then, a short list of examples were presented at each locality's Local Emergency Planning Committee and brainstonning sessions were held following each presentation (notes included in Appendix). Finally, a list was compiled of all potential mitigation strategies, which was then distributed to the Working Group (emergency managers, county administrators and planners from each locality). The Working Group was asked to identify mitigation strategies for their localities to be included in the plan. The TJPDC then prepared cost estimates, agency, and funding infonnation for each action. TJPDC staff worked with each locality to detennine the priority (high, moderate, or low) of each potential mitigation action. The Mitigation Action Worksheet template follows: Miti ation Action . Hazard s: Identify the local agency, department, or organization that is best suited t accom lish the action. Estimated Cost: Funding Method: (General Revenue, ontingency/Bonds, External Sources, tc. If applicable, indicate the cost to accomplish the mitigation action. This amount should be estimated until a final dollar amount can be determined. 1m lementation Schedule: If a licable, indicate how the cost to com lete the action will be funded. Indicate when the action will begin, and when the action is expected to be com leted. Indicate whether the action is a high-priority, moderate-priority, or low- riorit based on et to be determined characteristics. Priori . 36 AHE1* AHE2 AHE3 AHE4 AHE5 AHI1 AHI2 AHI3 AHP1 AHP2 AHP3 AHP4 AHP5 AHP6 AHS1 AHS2 AHS3 AME1 AME2 AME3 AME4 AME5 AMI1 AMI2 AMP1 AMP2 AMP3 AMP4 AMS1 Provide a telephone number or website that gives useful information following a disaster Place hazard mitigation plan in local libraries and on locality websites Create educational campaign about the benefits of open space protection Provide educational information about the burn permit process Add emergency preparedness and response information in local phone books Conduct stud of resistance of critical facilities to natural hazards Complete water suppl study Coordinate with Fluvanna County on emergency plan for failure of South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Dam Provide training for building inspectors and code officials on miti ation techniques and hazard-resistant building Incorporate hazard mitigation plan into communit plans Conduct Community Emergenc Response Team (CERT) classes Increase number of trained emer ency responders Support tree maintenance pro ram Implement recommendations of water supply study Ensure that all shelters and public buildings have a battery-powered emer enc radio and flashli ht Conduct phase I improvement to Ragged Mountain Reservoir Dam- Add larger spillway and additional concrete reinforcement to spillway Conduct structural evaluations of all current and proposed shelters Encourage water conservation Create a public education pro ram on disaster preparedness Create Emergency Action Plan for Upper Ra ged Mountain Dam Continue to pursue conservation easements in sensitive areas Develop cooperative agreement between all agencies involved in emergency management and provide methods of communication between agencies responsible for being present at Emergency Communication Center following disaster and conduct joint emergency exercises Hire fire code official Install backup generators in shelters and critical facilities Page 37 1-2 ears Upon plan approval On oin Ongoin 1-2 years 1-3 ears 1 year 1 year 1-3 ears 1-2 years On oing As increase population warrants Ongoin 50 ears ear 1-5 years 1-3 years Ongoing Ongoing 2-5 ears 2-5 years Ongoing On oin On oin 1-3 years Ongoing 2-5 years 2-5 ears As new shelters and critical facilities are built 38 39 41 43 40 41 51 53 38 42 42 43 44 51 47 50 54 37 37 39 40 48 53 54 40 41 42 43 44 . . . When new bridges are AMS2 Build or repair bridges so as to not impede floodwaters built or repaired 45 AMS3 Upgrade all area bridaes to support emergency vehicles As repairs are made 46 Complete phase II improvements to Ragged Mountain Reservoir AMS4 which includes upgrading the Sugar Hollow pipeline 3-5 years 52 Initiate phase II upgrades to Ragged Mountain Reservoir which AMS5 includes upgrading the pump stations 3-5 years 52 Encourage residents and agencies to clear storm drain inlets, ALE1 ditches, and channels Onqoing 37 Establish a "Hazard Awareness Week" with local media to educate ALE2 public about natural hazards 3-5 years 38 Provide lectures about mitigation to homeowner groups, Ruritan ALE3 clubs, and other organizations 3-5 years 39 ALP1 Use recreational trails as fire breaks and access lines Ongoing 48 ALP2 Acquire riparian easements in sensitive and/or flood prone areas 3+ years 51 ALS1 Improve the maintenance of stormwater conveyance systems. Onqoinq 44 ALS2 Increase capacity of drainaqe systems and ponds where needed 5+ years 45 Clear creek beds or dredge creeks to remove debris where flooding ALS3 has increased 5+ years 45 ALS4 Reduce pollution discharae via stormwater systems Onqoinq 46 ALS5 Retrofit stormwater management basins Onqoinq 46 ALS6 Ensure evacuation routes meet proper standards 5+ years 47 ALS7 Encourage fire breaks in tree farms Ongoing 47 ALS8 Install more dry hydrants in high wildfire risk areas 3-5 years 48 ALS9 Clear ditches of flammable debris Ongoing 49 Create defensible spaces between Woodland Home Communities ALS 10 and areas of high wildfire risk 5+ years 49 Move shrubs and landscaping away from homes, public buildings, and businesses, and clear dead brush and grass from properties in ALS 11 high wildfire risk areas Ongoing 50 Maintain and add more fire rings in camping areas for controlled ALS12 fires 5+ years 53 ALS13 Bury utilities underground in town of Scottsville 1-5 years 54 'XYZ#, where X denotes locality, Y denotes priority, and Z denotes type of mitigation action # is to provide easy reference to the mitigation action A Albemarle C Charlottesville F Fluvanna G Greene L Louisa N Nelson Priority H High M Moderate L Low Mitigation Action Type E Education and Outreach I Information and Data Development P Planning, Policy, and Funding S Structural Page 38 ation Action.# AME1 N/A On oin Moderate ation Action #ALE1 Ibemarle Education and Outreach Encourage residents and agencies to clear storm drain inlets, ditches, and channels. Multi Ie Department of Community Development= Water Resources/County Executive's Office - Communit Relations None N/A On oin Low iti··· ationAction# AME2 Ibemarle Education and Outreach Create a ublic education ro ram on disaster re aredness. Multi Ie Emergency Services Coordinator, T JPDC, County Executive's Office - Communit Relations $2,000 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, FEMA Community Assistance Performance Grants (SSE), Emergency Mana ement Performance Grants On oin Moderate 39 . . onsible: . Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation, General Revenue 1-2 ears Hi h Ibemarle Education and Outreach Establish a "Hazard Awareness Week" with local media to educate public about natural hazards. Multi Ie Emer enc Services Coordinator $5,000 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation, FEMA Community Assistance Performance Grants (SSE), Emergency Mana ement Performance Grants 3-5 ears Low ation Grant Pro ram, General Revenue Hi h 40 N/A 3-5 ears Low onsible: ationAction #AHE2 ation Action #AME1 ation actions for use at ublic events. N/A 2-5 ears Moderate websites. 41 Ibemarle Education and Outreach dd emergency preparedness and response information in local phone books. Multi Ie onsible: Emer enc Services Coordinator Staff time and resources . . Priorit Ibemarle Polic ,Plannin ,and Fundin Create an Emer enc Action Plan for the U Dam Failure Emer enc Services Coordinator $20,000 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant, Flood Control Works/Emergency Rehabilitation Grant, National Dam Safety Program, River Basin Program (Dept. of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Services), Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention De t. of A riculture, National Resources Conservation Services 1-3 ears Moderate N/A 1-2 ears Hi h . Services Coordinator ir inia FireWise Grant, General Revenue 2-5 ears Moderate 42 General Revenue. Other external sources On oin Moderate itiätio" Actiorl#tAHE3 Ibemarle Outreach and Education Create educational campaign about the benefits of open space rotection. Multi Ie Department of Community Development - Planning, County Executive's Office - Communit Relations $2000 ation Grant Pro ram, Pre-Disaster Miti ation Grant Estimated Cost: Funding Method: (General Revenue, ontingency/Bonds, External Sources, tc. 1m lementation Schedule: Priori ·'¡mon Actión #AHI1 Ibemarle Information and Data Develo ment Conduct stud of resistance of critical facilities to natural hazards Multi Ie Department of Community Development - Building Code and Ins ections, Emer enc Services Coordinator Staff time and resources; Red Cross provides technical assistance and desi n criteria N/A 1-3 ears Hi h 43 . . onsible: Ibemarle Polic . Plannin ,and Fundin Develop cooperative agreement between all agencies involved in emergency management and provide methods of communication between agencies responsible for being present at Emergency Communication Center following disaster and conduct joint emergency exercises. Multi Ie Services Coordinator N/A 2-5 ears Moderate lans N/A 1-2 ears Hi h . Services Coordinator ation Grant Pro ram 44 Services Coordinator Services Coordinator, Board of Su ervisors Ibemarle Education and Outreach Provide educational information about the burn Multi Ie Department of Forestry, Department of Public Works, County Executive's Office - Communit Relations Staff time and resources; additional costs ossible 45 . . ram Ibemarle Structural Install backu enerators in shelters and critical facilities Multi Ie Emer enc Services Coordinator $15,OOO/unit Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, All Hazards Emergency Operations Planning, Emergency Management Performance Grants s new shelters and critical facilities are built Moderate . 46 on Action #AL..S2 Ibemarle Structural Increase ca Flood onsible: De artment of Public Works Unknown; based on need n Action # AMS Stormwater Mana 5+ ears Low Ibemarle Structural Clear creek beds or dredge creeks to remove debris where flooding has increased Flood onsible: De artment of Public Works, De artment of Forest Unknown; based on need General Revenue 5+ ears Low 47 . . Ibemarle Structural Reduce ollution dischar e via stormwater s stems Flood on sible: De artment of Public Works Unknown; based on need General Revenue, Stormwater Mana On oin Low Ibemarle Structural Retrofit stormwater mana ement basins Flood onsible: De artment of Public Works Unknown; based on individual ro'ects . 48 Ibemarle Structural Ensure all shelters and public buildings have a battery-powered emer enc radio and flashli ht Multi Ie Emer enc Services Coordinator $40/location General Revenue 1 ear Hi h Ibemarle Structural Ensure evacuation routes meet ro er standards onsible: Hurricane Local Grant Program, 406 Public A~istance Program, Hazard Miti ation Grant Pro ram 5+ ears Low Services Coordinator General Revenue On oin Low 49 . Ibemarle Education and Outreach Educate as to the benefits of clearin out dead wood from forests. Wildfire Emer enc Services Coordinator to education ro ert owners $500 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Assistance to Firefighters Grant, General Revenue, volunteer services On oin Moderate . N/A On oin Low . 50 General Revenue On oin Low ir inia FireWise Grant, Hazard Miti ation Grant Pro ram 5+ ears Low 51 . . . . . Estimated Cost: Funding Method: (General Revenue, ontingency/Bonds, External Sources, tc. 1m lementation Schedule: Priori onsible: Funding Method: (General Revenue, ontingency/Bonds, External Sources, tc. 1m lementation Schedule: Priori Ibemarle Structural Move shrubs and landscaping away from homes, public buildings, and businesses, and clear dead brush and grass from properties in high ildfire risk areas. Wildfire Department of Public Works, Emergency Services Coordinator, Private Pro ert Owners Staff time and resources; free educational information available from Red Cross, FEMA, and Forest De artment N/A On oin Low Ibemarle Structural Conduct phase I improvement to Ragged Mountain Reservoir Dam-Add lar er s illwa and additional concrete reinforcement to s illwa Dam Failure Emer enc Services Coordinator, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authorit $5,250,000 Flood Control Works/Emergency Rehabilitation Grant, National Dam Safety Program, River Basin Program (Dept of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Services), Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention (Dept of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Services), Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program 1-5 ears Hi h 52 ation Action # AHP4 ation Action # ALP2 rone areas 53 . & . Ibemarle Structural Complete phase II upgrades to Ragged Mountain Reservoir which includes u radin the Su ar Hollow i eline Dam Failure Department of Community Development - Water Resources, Rivanna ater and Sewer Authorit $10,000,000 General Revenue, Flood Control Works/Emergency Rehabilitation Grant, National Dam Safety Program, River Basin Program (Dept of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Services), Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention (Dept of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Services), Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program 3-5 ears Moderate . Funding Method: (General Revenue, ontingency/Bonds, External Sources, tc. 1m lementation Schedule: Priori Ibemarle Structural Initiate phase II upgrades to Ragged Mountain Reservoir which includes u radin the um stations. Dam Failure Department of Community Development - Water Resources, Rivanna ater and Sewer Authorit $10,000,000 General Revenue, Flood Control Works/Emergency Rehabilitation Grant, National Dam Safety Program, River Basin Program (Dept of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Services), Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention (Dept of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Services), Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Miti ation Grant Pro ram 3-5 ears Moderate . 54 ationAction# AHI3 Ibemarle Information and Data Develo ment Coordinate with Fluvanna County on emergency plan for failure of South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Dam Dam Failure Department of Community Development - Water Resources, Rivanna ater and Sewer Authori None N/A On oin Moderate areas for controlled fires. General Revenue, Hazard Miti ation Grant Pro ram 5+ ears Low 55 . onsible: . e Ibemarle Structural Conduct structural evaluations_of all current and ro osed shelters Multi Ie Emergency Services Coordinator, Department of Community Develo ment - Buildin Code and Ins ections Staff time and resources; Red Cross provides technical assistance and desi n criteria N/A 1-3 ears Hi h -" round in town of Scottsville artment of Public Works General Revenue, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Miti ation Grant 1-5 ears Low 56 FEMA Hazard Miti ation Grant Pro ram, Pre Disaster Miti ation Grant 1-3 ears Hi h 57 . . . onsible: 58 Plan Maintenance 201.6(c)(4)(i): The plan maintenance process shall include a section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five year cycle. This section describes the process for participating jurisdictions to implement the mitigation strategies and for evaluating and enhancing the overall hazard mitigation plan over time. This section also describes continued public involvement in the hazard mitigation planning process. The long-tenn success of the TJPDC hazard mitigation plan depends in large part upon routine monitoring, evaluating, and updating of the plan so that it will remain a valid tool for the community. The Hazard Mitigation Working Group, supported by TJPDC staff, will implement plan maintenance activities. The Working Group has guided the planning process through initial plan development and consists of at least one planner from each locality and the emergency manager or county administrator from each locality. The Working Group will monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of the mitigation strategies and will make recommendations for additional improvements. The evaluation will address whether: 1. goals and objectives address current and expected conditions; 2. the nature, magnitude, or type of hazard affecting the region has changed; 3. current resources are appropriate for implementing the plan 4. important problems such as technical, political, legal, or coordination issues with other agencies have occurred; 5. agencies and other partners are participating as originally proposed. The Working Group will meet annually in May to review the year's local hazard events and impacts, community actions that may help or hinder mitigation capabilities, and the progress of mitigation activities. Each locality will submit an annual report to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, one month prior to the Annual Meeting of the Working Group. The local report will include an analysis of progress on the mitigation strategies identified in the Plan, as well as any other projects or activities that contribute to progress toward the goals in the plan. The Working Group, supported by TJPDC staff, will compile infonnation from the local annual reports and the analysis of hazard events, impacts, community actions, and infonnation on the latest legislative requirements and/or changes into an Annual Report, which will be made available to each jurisdiction's Board of Supervisors or City Council, the Virginia Department of Emergency Management, the Advisory Committee and the public.. Implementation 59 . . . Each jurisdiction participating in this Plan is responsible for implementing specific mitigation actions as prescribed in their locally adopted Mitigation Action Plan. In the Mitigation Action Plan, each proposed action is assigned to a specific local department or agency in order to increase accountability and likelihood of implementation. This approach enables individual jurisdictions to update their unique mitigation strategy as needed without altering the broader focus of the TJPDC plan elements. The separate adoption oflocally specific actions also ensures that each jurisdiction is not held responsible for the actions of every other jurisdiction involved in the planning process. In addition to the specific local department or agency, an implementation time period or a specific implementation date has been assigned in order to assess whether actions are being implemented in a timely fashion. The TJPDC and its jurisdictions will seek outside funding sources to implement mitigation projects in both the pre- disaster and post-disaster environments. Whenever possible, a funding source has been identified for proposed actions listed in the Mitigation Action Plan. Each participating jurisdiction has the responsibility to determine additional implementation procedures beyond their Mitigation Action Plan. This includes integrating the requirements of the Hazard Mitigation Plan into other planning documents, processes, or other mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. Evaluation and Enhancement Periodic revisions and updates of the Hazard Mitigation Plan are required to ensure that the goals and objectives of the Plan are kept current, taking into account potential changes in hazard vulnerability and mitigation priorities. In addition, revisions may be necessary to ensure that the Plan is in full compliance with applicable Federal regulations or State Statutes. Periodic evaluation of the Plan will also ensure that specific mitigation actions are being reviewed and carried out according to each jurisdiction's individual mitigation strategy. Five Year Plan Review The Plan will undergo a comprehensive review and evaluation process every 5 years by the Working Group and the TJPDC under the authority of the Board of Supervisors or City Council of each locality to determine whether there have been any significant changes necessitating changes in the type of mitigation actions proposed. Factors that may affect the content of the Plan include, but are not limited to: new development in identified hazard areas, an increased exposure to hazards, the increase or decrease in capability to address hazards, and changes to federal or state legislation. The first update will be due for review and re-approval by the state and FEMA on or before August 1,2010. This review also provides community officials with an opportunity to evaluate those actions that have been successful and to explore the possibility of documenting potential losses avoided due to the implementation of specific mitigation measures. In addition to the FEMA-required 5-year review, the Advisory Committee and TJPDC will continue to meet annually and after major events occur. This will ensure that the plan is continuously updated to reflect changing conditions within the jurisdiction. 60 Disaster Declaration Following a disaster, the Plan may need to be revised to reflect lessons learned, or to address specific circumstances arising from the event. Reporting Procedures The Working Group will issue an Annual Report, including an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Plan and any required or recommendation changes or amendments. The report will also include an evaluation of implementation progress for each of the proposed mitigation actions, identifying reasons for delays or obstacles to their completion along with recommended strategies to overcome them. Changes to the Plan will be assigned to appropriate local officials with pre-determined timelines for completion. If changes are required to individual Mitigation Action Plans, the appropriate local designee will assign responsibility for the completion of the task. Plan Amendment Process Upon the initiation of the amendment process, the TJPDC and all localities will forward information on the proposed changes to all interested parties including, but not limited to, all affected county and City departments, residents, and businesses and the Advisory Committee. Information will also be forwarded to VDEM. This information will be disseminated in order to seek input on the proposed amendments for not less than a 45-day review and comment period. At least one public hearing will be scheduled with the Advisory Committee and the public within the pubic comment period. If no comments are received from the reviewing parties within the specified review period, such will be noted accordingly. At the end of the 45-day review and comment period, the proposed amendment and all comments will be forwarded to the Working Group for consideration. The Working Group will review the proposed amendment along with the comments received at the public hearing or from other parties, and submit a recommendation to the Boards of Supervisors within 60 days. In determining whether to recommend approval or denial of a Plan amendment request, the following factors will be considered: · There were errors or omissions made in the identification of issues or needs during the preparation of the Plan; · New issues or needs have been identified which were not adequately addressed in the Plan; · There has been a change in information, data, or assumptions from those on which the Plan was based. Upon receiving the recommendation of the designee, the Boards of Supervisors and City Council will hold a public hearing. The Board of Supervisors will review the recommendation (including the factors listed above) and any oral or written comments received at the public hearing. Following that review, the Board of Supervisors will take one of the following actions: · Adopt the proposed amendment as presented · Adopt the proposed amendment with modifications 61 . . . . · Refer the amendment request back to the designee for further consideration; or · Defer the amendment request for further consideration and/or hearing. Continued Public Involvement Public input was an integral part of the completion of this Plan and will continue to be essential as this Plan changes over time. As is the case with any officially adopted plan or ordinance, significant changes to this Plan shall require a public hearing. Other efforts to involve the public in the maintenance, evaluation, and revision process will be made as necessary. These efforts may include: · Utilizing local media to update the public of any maintenance and/or periodic review activities taking place; · Utilizing TJPDC and City and County web sites to advertise any maintenance and/or periodic review activities taking place and to post the Annual Report · Keeping copies of the plan and Annual Reports in public libraries; and · Convening an annual meeting of the Advisory Committee to present the Annual Report. 62 . . . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012 May 12,2005 Melissa Digrazio 28 South Bearwood Drive Palmyra, VA 22963 RE: SP 2005-00003 Footnotes Dance Studio Amendment: Tax Map 6lW, Parcell B-2 Dear Ms. Digrazio: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 3, 2005, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following modified conditions: 1. There shall be no technical or vocational schools which involve outdoor activities, such as cons1ruction and automotive repair, without approval of a separate special use permit. 2. The school's hours of operation shall be between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on June 1, 2005. Any new or additional infonnation regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832, ext. 3252. Sincerely, t1a¡¡¿ t f» Elaine K. Echols Principal Planner - Development Areas Planning Division EKE/aer Cc: Woodard, Keith 0 304 14th Street NW Charlottesville, VA 22903 SP 2005-003 Footnotes Dance Studio Page 2 May 12,2005 Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP-2005-03 Footnotes Dance Studio (Signs #71 & 72) SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST: Request for a special use permit to allow a private ballet school in accordance with Section 23.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for schools of special instruction in the CO Commercial Zoning District. This request would amend SP 96-48, which permitted a private dance school at this location. The property, described as Tax Map 61W Parcel 1 B-2, contains .525 acres, and is zoned CO Commercial Office. The proposal is located on the west side of Commonwealth Drive (Route 1315) at the intersection of Commonwealth Drive and Westfield Road (1452) in the Rio Magisterial ¡strict. The Comprehensive Plan esignates this property as Community Service in Neighborhood One. (See Attachment A.) STAFF CONTACT{S): Echols AGENDA DATE: Planning Commission Public Hearing -- May 3,2005 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing - June 1 , 2005 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: YES REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: This request is to amend the conditions of Special Use Permit 96-48 which established the Terry Dean Dance Studio at 2363 Commonwealth Drive. The Special Use Permit was approved in December 1996. A copy of the staff report is included as Attachment B. The approved conditions are in Attachment C. No significant issues were raised with the initial review for the dance studio at this location. The only conditions were limitations on the hours of operation. The hours of operation were limited to 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., Monday through Friday. The applicant is requesting a slight change in the hours of operation. Requested operating hours are 9:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Monday - Friday and 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Saturdays. DISCUSSION: The initial special use permit application was for ballroom and social dance lessons for adults. _he clientele was expected to be people of middle age to retirement age. The expected hours of Wse were weekday afternoons and evenings. Over the last ten years, however, the use of the building has changed several times. In January of this year, Footnotes applied for a zoning clearance to use the building for Kindermusik, group dance classes, keyboard lessons, private 1 dance lessons, birthday parties, and home school programs. When they received their zoning clearance, they became aware of the time limitations. Zoning determined that the proposed school use conforms to the special use permit; however, if Saturday hours were desired, the special use permit conditions would need to be amended. Staff has analyzed the request primarily for impacts on adjacent properties and conformity with the Land Use Plan. No change has occurred in the zoning ordinance and no change in the Comprehensive Plan has occurred which would affect this request. Staff is not aware of any complaints or problems with the use, traffic, or the parking. Because the property is located in a CO Commercial Office district and because there are many by-right uses which could be operated more intensely than this school use, staff wondered if any conditions were necessary for the use. (See Attachment 0 for list of by-right uses.) In its analysis, staff reviewed the definition of private school to see if there were any types of private schools that would not be appropriate at the proposed location. The definition of private school is provided below: Private School: An institution of instruction not established and maintained at public expense, including colleges and universities, and those institutions providing art, culinary, cultural, drama, music, technical or vocational education or training. The uses identified in this chapter as "school of special instruction" and "technical and trade school" are private schools, except that in any zoning district where a private school is permitted by right, and a technical and trade school is permitted only by special use permit, those uses shall be separate. (Amended 10-3-01) Staff believes that the only possible problems that could occur would be if a different type of private school, such as a school for auto mechanics or construction where activities might occur outside of the building. Staff believes that this situation could be dealt with by excluding technical or vocational education or training from the list of uses allowed at the site. Regarding hours of operation, staff believes that the only time problems might occur would be with occasional late night dances. For this reason, staff does not believe restricting hours of operation is essential to the special use permit. The staff recognizes that the Commission and Board may believe that hours of operation are appropriate and as a result, staff has included hours of operation as a possible condition. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following condition(s): 1. There shall be no technical or vocational schools which involve outdoor activities, such as construction and automotive repair, without approval of a separate special use permit. (if needed) 2. The school shall not operate after 10 p.m. ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A: Location Map ATTACHMENT B: Staff Report dated December 10 1996 ATTACHMENT C: Special Use Permit approval letter dated December 19, 1996 ATTACHMENT D: By-right uses in CO District as of 4/26/05 2 Attachment A Scale Note: This map is ford/splay pUrpOSBS only and shows parcels as of12/31/2003. See Map Book Jntrodudian for additionsl detail!:. "'. ,."'" Albemarle County Tax Map: 061W 'l, -" ATIACHMENT B STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: MARY JOY SCALA DECEMBER 10, 1996 DECEMBER 11,1996 SP 96-48 TERRY DEAN'S DANCE STUDIO Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to establish a school of special instruction (baiiroom dance studio), in the former Life of Georgia office building. (See applicant's proposal - Attachment A). Petition: Petition to establish a school of special instruction on approximately 0.525 acres zoned CO, Commercial Office. Property, described as Tax Map 61 W, Section 1, Block B, Lot 2, is located on the west side of Commonwealth Drive at Westfield Road in the Rio Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood One. (See maps- Attachment B). Character of the Area: The area is developed in office and residential uses. Single family detached dwellings (zoned R-4) are adjacent to the west. Townhouses (zoned R-6) are adjacent to the south. The Division of Motor Vehicles and other office buildings (zoned C-1) are located across Commonwealth Drive to the east. An office (zoned CO) is located across Westfield Road to the north. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval. Plannine and Zonin~ History: None available. Comprehensive Plan: This site is designated for Community Service in Neighborhood One. The Open Space Plan recommends a buffer between the Community Service uses along Commonwealth Drive and the Neighborhood Density Residential uses to the west. A buffer of mature white pines and deciduous trees has been established in this area. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Su ervi rs hereb reserves unto itself the ri ht to issue all s ecial use ermits ermitted hereunder. S ecial use ermits for uses as rovided in this ordinance ma be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adj acent property, No alterations are planned to the exterior ofthe site. There are dwellings located west and south 1 ·1 . . ATTACHMENT B of the proposed dance studio. A buffer of mature white pines and deciduous trees has been established along these property lines. Four letters in support of the application have been received, including one letter from an adjacent owner on Minor Ridge Road. (See letters- Attachment C). There are two possible impacts of the proposed use which distinguish it from an office use, hours of operation (during which time cars will be entering and exiting the parking lot) and possible noise. Staff opinion is that neither impact is a concern. Proposed hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 1 p.m. to 10 p.m. and Saturday, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Between 1-6 p.m. weekdays; a maximum of four parking spaces would be needed. Between 6-9 p.m. weekdays, six spaces would be needed. After 9 p.m. weekdays, only three-four spaces would be needed. On Saturday, a maximum of eight-ten spaces would be needed. Special events requiring more parking have been held in Alumni Hall. Regarding a possible noise impact, the applicant states, "Our sound systems are the same types as one would have for home use. The sound level must be low enough to teach over. Therefore, the music would not be discernable outside of the facility." The Virginia Department of Transportation notes that there are currently two existing commercial entrances, and the proposed use is not a major impact. The Department of Building Code and Zoning Services notes that there is no specific parking schedule for this use; Zoning will have to approve the number of parking spaces based on a floor layout and class schedule. that the character ofthe district will not be changed thereby, Staff opinion is that the proposed use would be very similar in character to the adjacent office uses. and that such use will be in harmony with the pw:pose and intent of this ordinance, Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, relation to the environment, and relation to Comprehensive Plan as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6, and has found this application to be in harmony with these sections. Specifically, this request facilitates the provision of school and recreational requirements within the Urban Area. with the uses permitted by right in the district, This use is similar in character to an office use. . with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, 2 t; ATTACHMENT B There are no supplementary regulations for schools of special instruction. and with the public health. safety and general welfare. The proposed use may promote public health and welfare, and will not affect public safety. SUMMARY: Staff opinion is that this request is in compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. No negative impacts have been identified that are not addressed by operational characteristics or conditions of approval. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Hours of operation: 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 2. Zoning Administrator approval of parking prior to issuance of zoning clearance. -------------- ATTACHMENTS: A - Applicant's proposal B - Maps C- Letters A:\SP9648.RPT 3 10 . . . ATTACHMENT B , q'errg tJJean s Dance Studio 3420 Seminoú rrrøil ;ruu-lottuf.1ilIe ~ 22901 Jo. r2t~~ ~ y~x (!~ 4~ . -.J~ ~~~~ 'L: - ~~~ -.j ~ ¡[)~ ~ ~7~ d~ . -g~ vzJß-- aAL- /LR--l~ ~ ~ ~ ~~tú cI~ ~ ~ k ~j} d c::<$I, 3- ~µJ~~(J~~ ¿{~ j ~~~ ~~LJ' (1vu N¿~.~ ~ :h?J¡y- --=- u du dJ ¡:iHJ.P/1? 5 /O.·{)d!'i1V ~~. /IFc17)7/rh ;t; s-.p¡)~m. ~ ~ " A .5. ~w.J ~ 1- fo tL '1'J!4.<¡~ .t>-JJ~. ~ ~~~ II _ '-7d.. tJ /.1. ~ ¿.. ~ fJ ff) .A.-<.-rL<LA, ðV -1/11 ATTACHMENT B ~ ~ ~ k ~L/ t<¡1L.-<.J ~ ~ ..j,¡f ~~L G-~ ~ ~~/ ~ . /JJ ';/r¡~ 3 r!-/D ~ ~~~~..~~? !kuu ~ ~ ~ hv á... ,f4..L, ;G ~ tfL1J ~ ~ .::cLe./LLJ ~ ~ ~. 0~ /;1;; I¡'~~~ d~~· ~~~~~::zL; ~ ~~~cL~ J~~~.~~~ ~ t..e.- ~ ~~ Æ.~ h.vv .~~ ~~~£ ~~ ~Î:zL (f~. µ),L- ~:zid ~ ~,~ ~~ ~- 71uddLu .. . tl.A-L h I ¿jI < t4¡--;t ~ d-?!- / jU1~ ~ ~~)~£.~hJ ~ 1;; xLv ~. 'ATTACHMENT BI . . ..ç I -- ALBEMARLE COUNTY I I :J r 62 .~ , i' ...---,...... -.--¡--- -\,~ ---. --- n. 0"_____ .... n______ ~-.- ..--------. ------ q - SP-96-48 Terry Dean's Dance Studio ______ ._____n --- ._--- - _.- - -.-- ¡ATTACHMENT BI ALBEMARLE COUNTY '"" 6 '¡ I 5A \ 4 I \ ~ DRiVE 9 10 " 12 I '~ .~ \ Of\'''' , 3 I ...,.... 0 ,..1'\ ~..,,~ ,.~ ~ ~ 2.&1 \ 2 , ZAZ \ ® Ð 3 DP.\~E.- . ~PEYTON , \ .. I \ ,,\ " I j~ \ i:Ti .! ~~;C". ~)" n ~¡ / .. I , I I I ! 1 . N I I. ~ 18 19 '" '" !!! 19A :! -; . .: ~ a .c U 1t8 Of ~ .. SP-96-48 Terry Dean's Dance Studio .M - SCALE Uf 'UT - - - , CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICT SECTION 61-W tD . . . ATTACHMENT 8 Jerry & Dianne Ratcliffe 400 Minor Ridgè Road Charlottesville, Virginia November 11, 1996 Mr. David A. Tice Albemarle County Planning commission C/O Albemarle County Planning Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virignia 22902 Reference: SP96-48-Terry Dean's Dance Studio Dear Mr. Tice: Hal Brownfield has explained that Terry Dean has applied for a special use permit for his dance studio. Our back yard connects with the proposed Dance Studio's back lot and we would be the neighbor most affected. We do not foresee any problems with this. J. ~L. a· lffe Dianne C. Ratcliffe II ~TTACHMENT 8 Montebello Property and Investment Co. 235 Terrell Rd. West Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 October 22, 1996 Mr. William Nitchman, Chairman Albemarle County Planning Commission 4û ì Mcintire Rd. Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Special Use Permit Present Use-Life of Georgia Building 2363 Commonwealth Dr. Charlottesville, Va. The purpose of this letter is to request that a special use permit be granted so that a ballroom dance studio may conduct business trom this location. I have known the owner and operator ofTeny Dean's Dance Studio for a number of years and have been a customer. They conduct a very classy ballroom dance studio. Noise will not be a factor to persons inside or outside in the parking lot because when music is played verbal instructions are also being given simultaneously. Parking needs will not be excessive nor will there be requirements beyond the existing parking area. A vast amount of the time they have no more than one or two customers per session. When otherwise, which would be the exception, only 10 cars; but certainly no more than the Life of Georgia would have for a sales meeting. Teny Dean's Dance Studio has a number of customers that are senior citizens, as I am. There business is actually instructing local citizens who want to learn ballroom/social dancing, waltzes, foxtrots, swing and latin dances. Ballroom dancing is regaining interest trom the public nationwide and Teny Dean's Studio is helping make that possible in the Albemarle County area. I am including 2 pages of pictures trom the recent issue ofU S. Amateur Ballroom Dancer's Association Magazine. These pictures will give you some idea of what results trom their instructions. I ask that you approve this request for a special use permit so that they can continue to provide this service to local citizens in a nice environment. Thank you. Sincerely, R~~ ~ ~ \2 . . . A IT ACHMENT 8 ItJ~ ?3>- ~þ ~ iO)¡ ct-p1 rI '/J-?7' ..¿' t77¿' -&r "Y!: - 7¡¿~ tv )'/,J-) 7 re/4''r¡)):!' fk /:P'ýYj/ .Þ~ð'?/S 2/<?' ~ê.e 5 -fucfJI'D.' y. )14tJe ß-P¡v,~ &? J/fl-yJ-/ ~ -/J¡:)Jrß -ffl. ~-e led! ')¿frW q-o/J +)//~ -l-k41 -lty cP?-eycr-k ;l-~~y- Þ!/.5iV~G> JtJ 12' l/e-rj r~P75'/tí)?t11 ~A-.e tØl7YøSð')he, ~pl ~t9f ð?? f f'/~e ~6"'/{/d4 Þ9Sðr1~, ¿v! t7/s0 ç Jb¿1'// fJ '>"~(f ë /'SS-p.i !-4 Y?j7./7 /117/1/ J?fþ.py ~ -/-wo ~ ç/x: ð r .5-RÒèYl f}L .p / y- c ),r'J'l!-> .> -é' ~ jY1 h þ-e 7?7~S / !J/?d/£ ~ C?1f? >tPrf- ¿Þ Y' ðf JJt'~ I ·'7tÞlY'.t~5, .p>'?/?//~h~, t'th/ s /(1/-c2 f1k; ~#5'))?R $S' ðZØ>?To/'~ .t? /:?/'??;?¿? J7}T/~s. t1':J top)! £/l's ð?~Jør 'LVí-/// -t?'cC-C1(/JI')~ ðCCVV:&¡"/~.£, li-/6 t¡} /Jr/""4'yk rQ' r-e -I H7>'>? -I- J.o ?U /{J -I- zv". » IN's. l Y.J rJo f"'k- -e /jY)-J ;' oS , -::r'f Z(ß¿'};¡/Í/¡J 5c:o 7?? ..JJtð'J -J--b '¿ÚS JY?t?Ss; -!)ð I ..¡- ~ -k? ~;; ~e / h,. -k.ø t k JY?! b t1? ) / 7' ð-ð-7?1 # ¿fI »C;> J1l- !-u()zJ:/-eP -t!'~~.p)?1 ;J-h s~rrðzly/f})'n/ t?ypo/ ~ J hØ ph- ~ðZI' ~ 13 l ATTACHMENT 8 Virginia Heritage Brass Fashion Square Mall 1566 East Rio Road Charlottesville VA 22901 804-973-7173 October 25, 1996 To whom it may concern.: I am writing this on behalf ofTerrv Dean's Dance Studio. I am a local small business owner in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. I have been a customer of Terry Dean's for the past 19 months here in the area. I know him and his associates to be very professional and of high regard as professional ballroom dance instructors, providing high quality instructions to local clientele. I have participated as a private student and with group dance lesson, usually two or three times each week. All of the activities that I have been involved with have been well structured, organized and conducted with competence, and have met or exceeded my expectations. I believe that continued business presence and growth of the Terrv Dean's Dance Studio would be a fine asset to this community. l ~ ?~.f1 Frances A Huffin.a.tí 14 . . . Attachment C COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 December 19, 1996 JoAnne Holland 3420 Seminole Trail Charlottesville, VA 22911 RE: SP-96-48 Terry Deane Dance Studio Tax Map 61W, Section 1, Block B, Lot 2 Dear Ms. Holland: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 10, 1996, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition. The Board of Supervisors, at its December 11, 1996 meeting unanimously approved the above-noted request to establish a school of special instruction on approximately 0.525 acres. Please note that this approval is subject to the following condition: 1. Hours of operation: 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, VWC/jcf cc: Terrell F. Dean Amelia McCulley Life of Georgia Jo Higgins lt6 Sections: 23.1 23.2 23.2.1 23.2.2 23.3 Attachment D ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 23 COMMERCIAL OFFICE - CO INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 23.1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED CO districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map to permit development of administrative, business and professional offices and supporting accessory uses and facilities. This district is intended as a transition between residential districts and other more intensive commercial and industrial districts. 23.2 PERMITTED USES 23.2.1 BY RIGHT The following uses shall be permitted in any CO district, subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations: 1. Administrative and business offices. 2. Professional offices, including medical, dental and optical. 3. Financial institutions. 4. Churches, cemeteries. 5. Libraries, museums. 6. Accessory uses and structures incidental to the principal uses provided herein. Such uses in combination shall not occupy more that twenty (20) percent of the floor area of buildings on the site. The following accessory uses shall be permitted: -Eating establishments; -Newsstands; -Establishments for the sale of office supplies and service of office equipment; -Data processing services; -Central reproduction and mailing services and the like; 18-23-1 Zoning Supplement #30, 10-13-04 110 Attachment 0 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE . -Ethical pharmacies, laboratories and estabishments for the production, fitting and/or sale of optical or prosthetic appliances on sites containing medical, dental or optical offices; -(Repealed 3-17-82) -Sale/service of goods associated with the principal use such as, but not limited to: musical instruments, musical scores, text books, artist's supplies and dancing shoes and apparel. (Added 12-3-86) 7. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93) 8. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.I.l2). (Amended 11-1-89) 9. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.I.l8). 10. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21). (Added 3-17-82) . 11. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86) 12. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). (Added 9-9-92) 13. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat. (Added 10-9-01) 14. Tier 1 and Tier 11 personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04) (§ 20-23.2.1, 12-10-80; 3-17-82; 3-5-86; 12-3-86; Il-I-89; 9-9-92; 5-12-93; Ord. 01-18(6),10-9-01 ; Ord. 04-18(2),10-13-04) 23.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved kby the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 1. Hospitals. 2. Funeral homes. 3. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro- wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances. 4. Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12,5.1.41). (Added 11-7-84; Amended 2-5-03) . 5. Commercial uses otherwise permitted having drive-in windows (Added 11-7-84) 18-23-2 Zoning Supplement #30, 10-13-04 II Attachment D ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 6. School of special instruction. (Added 1-1-87) 7. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2). (Added 1-1-87) 8. Uses pennitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding four hundred (400) gaIlons per site acre per day. Uses pennitted by right, not served by public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added 6-14-89) 9. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section 18.0, residential R-15. in compliance with regulations set forth therein and such conditions as may be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4. (Added 6-19-91) 10. Hotels, motels and inns (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19-91) 11. Supporting commercial uses (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19-91) 12. Research and development activities including experimental testing. (Added 6-19-91) 13. Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical. (Added 6-10-92) 14. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93) 15. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04) (§ 20-23.2.2, 12-10-80; 11-7-84; 1-1-87; 6-14-89; 6-19-91; 6-10-92; 9-15-93; Ord. 03-18(1),2-5-03; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04) 23.3 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS In addition to the requirements contained herein, the requirements of section 21.0, commercial districts, generaIly, shaIl apply within all CO districts. 18-23-3 Zoning Supplement #30, ] 0-13-04 Iß . Albemarle County Planning Commission Minutes for May 3, 2005 SP-2005-005 PetsMart and SP-2005-003 Footnotes Dance Studio The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Rodney Thomas, Calvin Morris, Marcia Joseph, Vice-Chair, Jo Higgins, Pete Craddock and Bill Edgerton, Chairman. Absent was David J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia. Mr. Craddock arrived at 6:10 p.m. Ms. Joseph left the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Development Process Manager; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Stephen Waller, Senior Planner; Harrison B. Rue, Executive Director of Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and Charlottesville- Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization; Lee Catlin, Community Relations Manager; and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Public Hearings: . SP 2005-003 Footnotes Dance Studio (Signs #71 & 72) - Request for a special use permit to allow a private ballet school in accordance with Section 23.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for private schools in the CO Commercial Zoning District. This request would amend SP 96-48, which permitted a private dance school at this location. The property, described as Tax Map 61W Parcel 1 B-2, contains .525 acres, and is zoned CO Commercial Office. The proposal is located on the west side of Commonwealth Drive (Route 1315) at the intersection of Commonwealth Drive and Westfield Road (1452) in the Rio Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Community Service in Neighborhood One. (Elaine Echols) Ms. Echols summarized the staff report. This is a request to amend the conditions for an existing special use permit for an existing building and use. Staff provided the staff report for the previous special use permit so that the Commission can see what happened originally. Then they can just augment it as necessary. Basically, there is an existing use in an existing building that has had a number of uses over the years. It had a special use permit approved for a dance studio, the Terry Deane Dance Studio, back in 1996. The use has changed over time and now they have a ballet studio that does other things that has been noted in the staff report. The applicant would like to have different hours of operation than the ones that were restricted originally. Therefore, they have requested an amendment to the hours of operation. Staff went through this and wondered what the Commission would really want to restrict in this particular case. Staff questioned what the schools of special instruction or private schools were that could be problematic to a neighborhood or even this particular neighborhood. The property is zoned CO and backs up to some residentially zoned property that is in an area where there are other businesses. What staff came up with was that if there was a private school there that had outdoor activities that they consider whether that use would be problematic to the neighborhood potentially. Therefore, staff is recommending that the conditions be amended to include a restriction on a particular school's outdoor activity. Staff phrased the condition that there shall be no technical or vocational schools which involve outdoor activities such as construction and automotive repair without approval of a separate special use permit. Staff looked at the hours of operation and just did not see any big issues. Staff does not feel that it is necessary to restrict the hours of operation. But, if the Commission feels it is necessary, staff's recommendation is that you put an end time on it rather than a begin time and days of the week. Staff suggests that there just be a cut off period. . Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any questions for Ms. Echols. There being none, he opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Dave Waller, with Footnotes Dance Studio, stated that he would answer any questions that the Commission had about changing the hours of operation. He stated that they did not want to be opened after 10 p.m. Currently, they were going from 9:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and on Saturday from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. He felt that actually the only changes were opening one-half hour earlier during the week and opening on Saturday. Mr. Edgerton asked if there was anybody from the public that would like to comment on this application. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for action. Mr. Morris moved for approval of SP-2005-003, Footnotes Dance Studio, with the conditions recommended by staff as modified leaving out (if needed). 1 . There shall be no technical or vocational schools which involve outdoor activities, such as construction and automotive repair, without approval of a separate special use permit. (if Aseses) 2. The school shall not operate after 10 p.m. Mr. Rieley seconded the motion. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that staff has been concerned in the past with conditions such as the school shall not operate after 10 p.m. with how long does that period extend of non-operation. Therefore, they would probably want to have a starting time. He suggested that condition 2 read that the school shall not operate between 10 p.m. and whatever time in the morning. Ms. Higgins stated that 9:30 a.m. would cover that concern. Ms. Echols stated that zoning did look at these conditions and did not have a problem with it. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that there has been an ambiguity in the past. Ms. Echols suggested that condition 2 read that the school hours should be from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. Mr. Benish pointed out that they were only concerned about the late hours. Mr. Morris amended the motion for approval of SP-2005-003, Footnotes Dance Studio, with the second condition as modified. 1. There shall be no technical or vocational schools which involve outdoor activities, such as construction and automotive repair, without approval of a separate special use permit. 2. The school's hours of operation shall be between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m. Mr. Rieley seconded the amendment to the motion. The motion carried by a vote of (6:0). (Joseph - Absent) Mr. Edgerton stated that SP-2005-003, Footnotes Dance Studio, would go to the Board of Supervisors on June 1 with a recommendation for approval. . . . f COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012 May 12, 2005 Tara Boyd LeClair Ryan 123 E. Main Street, 8th Floor Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP 2005-00005 PetsMart; Tax Map 32 Parcel 43 Dear Ms. Boyd: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 3, 2005, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The veterinary services shall be limited to not more than 2,500 square feet; and 2. There shall be no outside runs or kennels. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on June 1, 2005. Any new or additional infonnation regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832, ext. 3250. Sincerely, f!I~j)/ Claudette Grant Senior Planner Planning Division CG/aer Cc: River Heights Associates Limited Partnership POBox 5548 Charlottesville, VA 22905 SP 2005-005 PetsMart Page 2 May 12, 2005 Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP-2005-005. PetsMart (Sign #35) SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST: Request for special use permit to allow up to 2,500 square feet of a 23,000 square- foot retail building located in the Hollymead Town Center for a veterinary clinic, grooming facility and periodic pet adoption services in accordance with Sections 25A.2.2-1, 22.2.2-5 & 24.2.2-4 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for veterinary office and hospital use. The property, described as Tax Map 32 Parcel 43 will contain up to 2,500 square feet and is zoned PO-MC, Planned Oevelopment- Mixed Commercial. STAFF CONTACnS): Cilimberg, Benish, Echols, Grant LEGAL REVIEW: No AGENDA DATE: June 1, 2005 ACTION: X INFORMA TION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: YES REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On May 3, 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed the request by PetsMart to be able to allow for a veterinary office and hospital use in a PO-MC, Planned Development Mixed Commercial district. The veterinary clinic would occupy up to 2,500 square feet of a 23,000 square foot PetsMart store. Staff recommended no conditions. The Planning Commission, however, asked staff to provide conditions to reflect the maximum square footage for the use and the specific buildings the special use permit applies to, and to make sure no outside runs or kennels occurred. Staff has developed the following conditions based on the Planning Commissions recommendation: 1. The veterinary services (as shown on the concept plan entitled Major Site plan Amendment for Hollymead Towncenter, Area B, Rio District, Albemarle County, Virginia prepared by Rivanna Engineering & Surveying, PLC. and dated December 6,2004) located at Outparcel H shall be limited to not more than 2,500 square feet, and . 2. There shall be no outside runs or kennels. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this Special Use Permit with the conditions as previously noted. DISCUSSION: Staff has developed conditions which have been reviewed and approved by the zoning and legal staff. RECOMMENDA TIONS: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit with the following conditions: 1. The veterinary services (as shown on the concept plan entitled Major Siteplan Amendment for Hollymead· Towncenter, Area B, Rio District, Albemarle County, Virginia prepared by Rivanna Engineering & Surveying, PLC. and dated December 6,2004) located at Outparcel H shall be limited to not more than 2,500 square feet, and 2. There shall be no outside runs or kennels. . . . STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: CLAUDETTE GRANT MAY 3, 2005 JUNE 1, 2005 SP 2005-00005 PETSMART Applicant's Proposal: PetsMart is requesting a special use pennit to allow up to 2,500 square feet of a 23,000 square-foot retail building for a veterinary clinic, grooming facility and periodic pet adoption service on property owned by Hollymead Town Center, LLC, located at Outparcel H of Hollymead Town Center, west side afD.S. Route 29. (See Attachments A and B.). Petition: The applicant requests a special use permit for Tax Map 32 Parcel 43. This special use pennit would be in accordance with Section (s) 25A.2.2.-1, 22.2.2-5 & 24.2.2-4 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for veterinary office and hospital use in a PD-MC, Planned Development Mixed Commercial, C-l, Commercial & HC, Highway Commercial zoning district (s). (See Attachments C and D.). The property is zoned PD-MC, Planned Development Mixed Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor and is located in the Rio Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Town Center in the Hollymead Community. Character of the Area: The area surrounding the PetsMart is currently being developed as the Hollymead Town Center. The Town Center will be made up of retail space, restaurants, and in the future some residential units will be developed in a different section. The Town Center is adjacent to Route 29, which is east of the property. The Hollymead Gardens Cemetery, the Forest Lakes residential subdivision and somé retail areas are located across Route 29. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed the proposal for confonnity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the special use permit with conditions. Planninl1aruLZonim~:.Historv: The history of the parcel is as follows: In 1972, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit to allow for the expansion of an existing general store. With ZMA 93-06, The Board of Supervisors approved a rezoning request for several parcels, including TMP 32-43, fÌom RA to HC to allow for mobile home sales. The Board of Supervisors approved a request to modify the conditions fÌom previous special use permits governing the display of mobile homes with SP 96-41. On July 16, 2003 the Board of Supervisors approved a rezoning request from HC to PDMC. Comprehensive Plan and The Nei2:hborhood Model: Requests for special use permits in the Development Areas are assessed for confonnity with the Neighborhood Model and the Land Use Plan. The Open Space Plan does not show any significant environmental features on this portion of the property. The Land Use Plan shows this area as Town Center, which should: . Have a mix of residential and non-residential land uses, including Urban Density Residential of 6 to 34 1 dulac., Office Service, Community Service, Public/Institutional uses including parks and greenways and Regional Service and compatible Industrial Service. The addition of a veterinary clinic, grooming facility and periodic pet adoption service use, such as the request described is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. Because the proposed use is for an already approved building and development, most ofthe principles of the Neighborhood Model have been assessed previously. N either Zoning nor Engineering has issues or concerns with this request. The ARB submission was administratively approved. (See Attachment E.). STAFF COMMENT: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as follows: VVill the use be oÎ substantial detriment to adi acent property? This request to allow up to 2,500 square feet of a 23,000 square-foot retail building for a veterinary clinic, grooming facility and periodic pet adoption service will be located in retail space in a section of the Hollyrnead Town Center. The remaining portion of the building is the PetsMart store. The veterinary use is consistent with the remaining use in the building. The vet should not have negative impact on adjacent buildings/uses within the shopping center. It is not anticipated that this use will be of substantial detriment to adjacent property with traffic or noise anymore than it will be with the proposed development for the ar.ea. Will the character ofthe zoning district change with this use? The proposed veterinary use is not expected to change the PD-MC zoning district or the character of the area. Will the use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? The PD-MC zoning district is intended for large-scale commercial areas with a broad range of commercial uses under a unified planned approach. PD-MC districts should be established on major highways in the urban area and communities in the comprehensive plan. The PD-MC district allows for veterinary offices and hospitals by special use permit if sited appropriately. The veterinary use is viewed as a use supportive to Albemarle County residents and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning district. Win the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? By-right uses in the PD-MC district are commercial and service establishments permitted by right in the C- 1, CO and HC districts. Outdoor storage, sales or display shall be permitted only when enclosed by appropriate visual screening. Utility services, such as electric, gas, oil, water distribution and communication facilities are also permitted by right, as well as public uses and buildings. When sited appropriately, veterinary offices and hospitals are viewed as "in harmony" with the permitted uses of this district. Staff believes the veterinary use is sited appropriately. 2 · · · Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance? The use will comply with the additional regulations relating to veterinary offices and hospitals. The veterinary use will not keep animals overnight except for two narrow circumstances: where an animal has had surgery and must remain under medical care overnight and, very occasionally, where an animal that is going to be adopted is kept overnight for pickup by its new owners the next day. Boarding services will not be offered. The ARB's approved design for the building does not include a separate entrance and because of the limited nature of services provided (e.g., no boarding, "pet-sitting" or dog-walking services), the applicant and staff do not anticipate a need for a separate entrance. Also, the applicant does not plan to provide outside runs or exercise areas; therefore, fencing per Section 5.1.11 (d) of the Zoning Ordinance is not anticipated. Since the vet will be located within a pet store that is in its' own building within the shopping center, outside of the exceptions noted above, Section 5.1.11 (b) and (c) of the Zoning Ordinance comply and are consistent with the special use permit. Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved? The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the special use permit process which assures that uses approved by special use permit are appropriate in the location requested. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: 1. The special use permit is in conformity with the Land Use Plan and the town center recommendations in the Plan. 2. The special use permit is for a small portion of square feet in a by-right retail use. Staff has not identified any factors, which are unfavorable to this request. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of this request with the following conditions: 1. The veterinary services (as shown on the concept plan entitled Major Siteplan Amendment for Hollymead Towncenter, Area B, Rio District, Albemarle County, Virginia prepared by Rivanna Engineering & Surveying, PLC. and dated December 6,2004) located at Outparcel H shall be limited to not more than 2,500 square feet, and 2. There shall be no outside runs or kennels. --------------- ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Parcel Map 3 t'Ijtj(") I I I rt'Ij(") (1) - 0 ;: : (1) ¡:j (1) < (') >-t a (1) I-+. ...... 'ï:::$ >-to 0 ...... o ¡:j "'d S"'d- s::-§ ~ § CJQ ~ ~ s:: f£.. ...... 00 N ~ 00 ð: ...... o ~ 'ï:::$ - ...... (') § ...... 0.. a (1) 0.. w --- tv ....... --- o VI ,þ Attachment B RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO INSTALL CHILD AT PLAY SIGN ON WESTOVER DRIVE WHEREAS, the residents of Westover Drive in the Lake Albemarle subdivision are concerned about traffic in their neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that live and play in the subdivision; and WHEREAS, there are numerous children that live and play on Westover Drive and the residents believe that a "Child at Play" sign would help alleviate some of the concerns. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby supports the community's requests for VDOT to install the necessary "Child at Play" signs on Westover Drive (Route 1701). "********************** 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 vote of _ to _' as recorded below, at a meeting held on June 1.2005. Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Ave Nav Mr. Bowerman Mr. Boyd Mr. Dorrier Mr. Rooker Ms. Thomas Mr. Wyant . . . (II c · · · ATTACHMENT E COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5823 Fax (434) 972-4126 March 21,2005 John Fitzpatrick Regency Centers 8618 Westwood Center Drive, Suite 300 Vienna, VA 22182 RE: ARB-2004-144: Hollymead Town Center Area B - Buildings H, I, J Final Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick: I have reviewed your revised submittal that included the following drawings: · Sheets S 1-S6 and S8-S 11 with revision date of 3-3-5 · Sheets L1 and L2 with revision date of 3-2-5 · Sheet L5, undated · Sheets PE-11A and lIB with revision date of 2-28-5 The changes made to these drawings address the outstanding conditions of ARB approval for this project (ARB-2004-l44). You may consider this letter your Certificate of Appropriateness. Also, as indicated in an email from Amy Arnold to Tina Woods-Smith, we can approve the following plant substitutions: For Acer rubrum "Karpick" - Acer rubrum "Summer Red" For Gleditsia triacanthos "Continental" - Gleditsia triacanthos "Skyline" Please include these revisions in your final site plan. This approval is predicated on the fact that the design and materials, as proposed and exhibited for review, will be used. The acceptance of approval implies that the applicant has agreed to execute the design as indicated on the site plan, attachments, materials, samples, and other submittal items presented. Any change in the approved design or materials will require an amendment to the plan and must be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board. Sincerely, Margaret Maliszewski Design Planner, Planning Division cc: Stephen Waller File 8 · · · SP 2005-005 PetsMart (Sian #35) - Request for special use permit to allow 2,000 square feet of a 23,000 square-foot retail building located in the Hollymead Town Center for a veterinary clinic, grooming facility and periodic pet adoption services in accordance with Section (s) 25A.2.2-1, 22.2.2-5 & 24.2.2-4 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for veterinary office and hospital use in a PD-MC, Planned Development-Mixed Commercial, C-1, Commercial & HC, Highway Commercial district (s). The property, described as Tax Map 32 Parcel 43, contains 2,000 square feet, and is zoned PD-MC, Planned Development-Mixed Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor. The proposal is located on the west side of US Route 29 North, approximately 1/4 mile south of the intersection with Airport Road and across from the Forest Lakes Shopping Center, in the Rio Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Town Center in the Hollymead Community. (Claudette Grant) Ms. Grant summarized the staff report. PetsMart is requesting a special use permit to allow 2,000 square feet of a 23,000 square-foot retail building for a veterinary clinic, grooming facility and periodic pet adoption service on property owned by Hollymead Town Center, LLC. It is located at Outparcel H of Hollymead Town Center on the west side of U.S. Route 29. The property is zoned PD-MC, Planned Development Mixed Commercial, which allows for a veterinary office and hospital with a special use permit. The veterinary use will be located in a pet store that is a freestanding building. Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the special use permit. Mr. Edgerton asked if staff has any more information about where it will be located in this 23,000 square foot building Ms. Grant stated that there was nothing specific about where in the building it would be located. Mr. Edgerton stated that it would be any 2,000 square feet that they wanted to use for this purpose. Ms. Grant suggested that the applicant might be able to be more specific. Ms. Higgins pointed out that they don't have a copy of the application itself. It says that the applicant wants a veterinary clinic, grooming facility and periodic pet adoption service, but they don't have any of the elements of Section 5 that talks about businesses next to residential. As soon as they put a veterinary clinic in this there are other things that the Planning Commission has to look at to decide whether they meet the 200 feet from residential, the sound proof building and all of that. She noted that was not addressed in the staff report at all. Ms. Grant stated that the request meets all of those requirements. Mr. Rieley stated that there was no residential any where near it. Ms. Higgins stated that there was also the portion about whether they have a place to curb the dogs outside and to be 500 feet from the adjacent lot line if it is not soundproofed. She pointed out that she did not think of PetsMart as a veterinary clinic. Therefore, she was wondering if that use needed to be in that list at all. If it was not a veterinary clinic, then she did not think these other regulations were a factor. Ms. Grant stated that it was her understanding that this would be a veterinary hospital or clinic or a place where you could bring your animals to get checked. It was her understanding that there would be an area within the PetsMart Store that will service this use. Ms. Higgins stated that usually they have information about whether they need a separate outside area and if they keep animals overnight. She had assumed that PetsMart was more of a retail store, but you could bring your dog in on Saturday for a shot and the SPCA shows up once in the spring and has an adoption service. But, a veterinary clinic opened it up a little bit more. Ms. Grant stated that it was her understanding that the applicant does not plan to have any open area space and the intent is not to have an area for dogs to be walked. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 3, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES FOR SP-2005-003 FOOTNOTES DANCE STUDIO AND SP-2005-005 PETSMART (SUMBITTED TO BOARD ON MAY 24,2005) 1 Ms. Higgins stated that they would need to have some conditions about that. Mr. Benish stated that condition would be needed if the Planning Commission thinks it is applicable for a pet store. Ms. Higgins stated that if it was purely a pet store, then she would not think it would be necessary. Mr. Edgerton asked Mr. Kamptner for his comment because he felt that her questions were good questions. Mr. Kamptner stated that there is a 500 foot standard that applies if the animals are not confined in soundproof air-conditioned buildings from an agricultural or residential zoned line. It would be 200 feet when the building is soundproofed. The regulations of Section 5.1.11 do not need to be included as a separate special use permit condition because for the use to exist the applicant has to comply with these requirements. It is required by the ordinance. But, regarding overnight stays and things like that, it would be appropriate. Ms. Higgins stated that in other sections it talks about if there are issues that conditions could be imposed if necessary. She asked if those apply to pet stores or just clinics. Mr. Kamptner stated that it applies to commercial kennels, veterinary services office or hospital, animal hospital, and animal shelter. Ms. Higgins stated that she did not think that PetsMart was any of those. Mr. Kamptner stated that they are providing veterinary service as part of the commercial use. Mr. Edgerton stated that if they are providing limited veterinary service if from a legal point of view do they need to clarify what that limitation is. He asked if there were no overnight stays. Mr. Kamptner stated that they are limited to the 2,000 square feet that they are asking for. Ms. Higgins stated that she was just looking for parity between the different veterinary clinics that they have been reviewing. Honestly, she read it and it did not click that it was a clinic until earlier today or she would have called staff earlier. Grooming and pet adoption did not bother her, but the clinic raised some questions. Mr. Kamptner stated that Section 5.1.11.d says in areas where such uses may be in proximity to other uses involving intensive activity, such as shopping centers or other urban density locations, special attention is required to protect the public health and welfare. To these ends the Commission and Board may require among other things such as separate building entrances and exits to avoid animal conflicts and area for outside exercise to be exclusive for an access by the public by fencing or other means. He stated that he did not think that the applicant has proposed any outdoor exercise. But, the Commission could impose a condition that says no areas for outside exercise. Mr. Edgerton stated that it was a little hard to know, but his recollection of what was suggested when they saw this before was that this was going to be a restaurant. He questioned if that was something that the Commission should be concerned about. He pointed out that maybe this would be clearer after the applicant speaks. He asked if there were any other questions for Ms. Grant. There being none, he opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. Tara Boyd, representative for the property, stated that the use that they were applying for is actually for a tenant of the property who will be Pets Mart. There is a representative present for the property owner and PetsMart in case the Commission has some veterinary oriented questions that she is not qualified to answer. When their client was originally looking for tenants for the building there were a couple of ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 3, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES FOR SP-2005-003 FOOTNOTES DANCE STUDIO AND SP-2005-005 PETSMART (SUMBITTED TO BOARD ON MAY 24, 2005) 2 · · · different pet supply stores who were in the running for it. They had originally gone to the zoning administrator and said that it was only going to be a veterinarian coming in ever so often and giving vaccinations. Ms. McCulley gave them an opinion that is consistent with the existing zoning. Therefore, they thought that they were okay. But, the tenant that they ended up with to their delight was Pets Mart. Pets Mart actually contracts with a full scale veterinary group that comes in and puts a practice within the retail store itself. Therefore those folks who come to PetsMart to adopt animals can also come back there for vaccinations, routine care and even surgery. The proposed use will not extend to a boarding facility. Overnight stays will be limited to sick animals that are visiting the veterinary clinic for treatment and the occasional animal that is waiting for an adoption or to be picked up after an adoption. But, overnight stays in terms of routine boarding is not included in our request. Consequently, there are no outside runs or play areas included on the plan for the property. As you can see from our site plan, it is one big indoor building. The veterinary clinic or the places where the animals are examined and stay are all indoors in a sound proofed air conditioned building, which is consistent with how PetsMart does their interior veterinary clinics in their other stores. Therefore, they feel that their applied for use, which they originally thought was going to be completely permitted under the zoning even though they are having to come for a special use permit now, is very consistent and harmonious with the PD-MC zoning for the area. They sort of looked at it originally as an accessory to the retail pet supply store, but it turned out to be a little more. Therefore, they were here to get their special use permit. In terms of the conditions that Ms. Higgins' referenced in 5.1, those talk about where there are outside runs that are proposed to be provided and that there be sound proofed fencing and screening and limitations on the hours. Again, due to the limited nature of the services we don't feel that those are necessary. The tenant's leased area is not going to include any outdoor areas. Therefore, they don't feel that those conditions would apply here. But, they are certainly opened to their concerns. In terms of the advantages, they feel that this use would bring a lot to the area. It sounds like some people are familiar with PetsMart. This is not the type of pet store that she remembers going to the mall as a kid to see where there were rows of animals that they were selling along with some pet supplies. PetsMart sell animal supplies but instead of selling animals there they bring in community groups, such as the humane society, SPCA, etc, to adopt animals that are strays or otherwise unwanted. To date she understands that they just pasted their 2.2 million animal adoption mark. So they have been very successful with coupling with local community groups to adopt animals. In terms of impacts of this, she did not know if they go to Harris Teeter on Saturday and see the animals out front, but this is not going to be anything near that kind of impact. It will all be inside. That is where all of the adoption and all of the veterinary services take place. One other benefit that she has come to learn that PetsMart will bring to our community in addition to partnering with local community groups is they also have a charitable arm, which further supports animal related programs that has donated over 35 million dollars in funds to support animal rescue type of programs. So they feel that there are sufficient benefits to the community with our application with pretty minimal impacts. Therefore, they hope that the Commission will recommend approval to the Board. Ms. Higgins stated that the permit is 2,000 square feet of a 23,000 square foot building. She asked if PetsMart was getting the whole 23,000 square feet, but the 2,000 square feet is the part that the special use permit applies to. Ms. Boyd stated that was correct, and she was glad that she had asked about that because they had a clarification from their tenant, Pets Mart, that the use will actually be 2,061 square feet. Therefore, if a condition is placed on the special use permit that talks about square footage, she asked if they could make it for 2,100 square feet to be on the conservative side. Ms. Higgins pointed out that she had made the statement for PetsMart, but the special use permit runs with the land. Therefore, if PetsMart were to vacate the building and there was some sort of retail with a sublet to a veterinary clinic that they really do need to have the conditions that are associated with the things she was saying like no boarding except for the adoption of animals or no overnight stays. That is ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 3, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES FOR SP-2005-003 FOOTNOTES DANCE STUDIO AND SP-2005-005 PETSMART (SUM BITTED TO BOARD ON MAY 24,2005) 3 Pets Mart's way of doing things, but they are just leasing the building. She asked Ms. Boyd if they would have any problems with those conditions. Ms. Boyd stated that they would definitely be open to a condition regarding overnight stays as long as it was clear that animals who are being treated at the veterinary hospital could stay overnight with their associated care and animals that were waiting for adoption could stay overnight. Ms. Higgins asked where those animals would be allowed to go outside. Ms. Boyd stated that they would stay totally within the cages. Ms. Higgins asked where the 2,000 square feet would be located in the building. Ms. Boyd stated that it was her understanding that it would be towards the rear, although with the caveat that the interior floor plan has not been totally agreed upon. Therefore, that may change. Mr. Kamptner stated that the use itself would be allowed on the parcel. The condition would limit it to the 2,100 square feet. Ms. Boyd stated that the tenant would like to have the ability within the building if they did some remodeling or up fit during the term of the lease to move that around as long as it stayed within the total permitted area. Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any other questions for Ms. Boyd. There being none, he invited public comment regarding this application. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for action. Mr. Thomas asked if the square footage could be split up anywhere within the store with 500 square feet here and another 500 square feet in another area. Mr. Edgerton stated that was the way that it explained. Mr. Craddock stated that he had been in a few PetsMarts and they have been very clean and this area had been near the main entrance. He pointed out that it was just a small part of their whole operation. Mr. Rieley stated that the special use permit does go with the land and the tenants that will be there ten years from now may be entirely different. Therefore, the points that Ms. Higgins raised were correct. From his perspective he felt that a veterinary clinic, particularly when they are allied with a pet store, seems to be a compatible use. While twenty years ago he would have thought that it was a surprising thing to do, but that there are a number of them in shopping centers today that are successful. He pointed out that he would like to limit this as little as possible because he felt that a veterinary clinic is compatible and there are a lot of things that are within the current zoning. He suggested that they give them maximum flexibility and make it 2,500 square feet so that if they expand the veterinary component of this a little bit that they don't have to come back in to amend the special use permit. The other thing that he was concerned about because of the potential conflicts is the outside runs, but they have no intention of doing that. He felt that the special use permit should be amended if another veterinarian comes in sometimes in the future and wants to have outside runs. He did not think that they should preclude it, but he felt that it should require a separate review under the special use permit. Mr. Edgerton stated that they could make a condition that there be no outside runs or no curbing of the dogs outside. Mr. Edgerton pointed out that Ms. Boyd said that the building was soundproof. Ms. Boyd agreed that the building would be air-conditioned and soundproofed. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 3,2005 DRAFT MINUTES FOR SP-2005-003 FOOTNOTES DANCE STUDIO AND SP-2005-o05 PETSMART (SUMBITTED TO BOARD ON MAY 24,2005) 4 · · · Ms. Higgins stated that it could then be reduced down to the 200 feet. She suggested that they condition it to that particular building. Mr. Benish stated that if the Commission decided to include that as a condition that staff would clean up the language to include the 2,500 square feet and the reference to that site plan and that building. Mr. Rieley suggested that they exclude outside runs without a review of a special use permit. But, beyond that he was happy with the veterinary clinic. He moved for approval of SP-2005-005, Pets Mart with the following conditions. 1. The veterinary services shall be limited to not more than 2,500 square feet, and 2. There shall be no outside runs or kennels. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of (6:0). (Joseph - Absent) Mr. Benish clarified that when staff references the 2,500 square feet they would also reference the specific building and plan. Mr. Kamptner asked that staff be reminded to please be certain that the public notice for the Board meeting identifies the increased square footage. Mr. Edgerton stated that SP-2005-005, PetsMart, would go to the Board of Supervisors on June 1 with a recommendation for approval. (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 3,2005 DRAFT MINUTES FOR SP-2005-003 FOOTNOTES DANCE STUDIO AND SP-2005-o05 PETSMART (SUMBITTED TO BOARD ON MAY 24,2005) 5 . . . f COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012 May 18, 2005 Robin Joslin 5705 Sugar Ridge Road Crozet, VA 22932 RE: SP 2004-051 Free Union Church of the Brethren (Sign #36) & SDP-2005-00041 Free Union Church of the Brethren Site Plan Waiver Tax Map 29, Parcels 57, 58, and 59B Dear Mr. Joslin: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 10,2005, unanimously recommended approval of SP 2005-051 to the Board of Supervisors, and unanimously approved the above-noted Site Plan Waiver (SDP 2005-041). Reeardine SP 2004-051: The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of SP 2004-051 to the Board of Supervisors, subject to the following conditions in the staff report as modified: 1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled "Free Union Church of the Brethren Concept Plan ," revised Apri122, 2005, including the note relating to combining the parcels; 2. The area of assembly shall be limited to the existing 90-seat sanctuary; 3. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit; 4. Cons1ruction of the proposed addition shall commence within 4 years or this special use permit shall expire. 5. The applicants shall secure a VDOT cons1ruction pennit for the modified entrance from Route 601. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on June 1,2005. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. SP-04-051 and SDP-05-41 Free Union Church Page 2 0[2 May 18, 2005 Re!!ardin!! SDP 2005-041: The Planning Commission unanimously approved your request for a Site Plan Waiver, subject to the following conditions in the staff report as modified: 1. No development shall occur until Erosion and Sediment Control Plan has been approved and any required bonds have been posted or confirmation that less than 10,000 square feet is to be disturbed. 2. No Certificate of Occupancy will be issued for the building until completion of the VDOT construction permit improvements as shown on the plan titled Free Union Church of the Brethren Concept Plan, revised April 22, 2005. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832. Sincerely, ~ Scott Clark Senior Planner Planning Division SC/aer Cc: Christian & Brethren Church C/O Rosa McAllister Po Box 213 Free Union, VA 22940 Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse . Staff Contact: Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: Scott Clark May 10, 2005 June 1,2005 SP 2004-00051 Free Union Church of the Brethren SDP 2005-00041 Free Union Church of the Brethren Site Plan Waiver Applicant's Proposal: The applicants plan to add a meeting hall of approximately 1,400 square feet onto the existing Free Union Church of the Brethren. The church is an existing nonconforming use that requires a special use permit in order to expand. Staff is recommending a waiver of the site plan requirements for this use; see the comments below under "Staff Comment (Site Plan Waiver)." Petition: The applicants are requesting a special use permit to allow an expansion of an existing church, Free Union Church of the Brethren, in accordance with Section 10.2.2(35) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for churches. The property, described as Tax Map 29 Parcels 57, 58, and 59B, contains 2.5 acres and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The proposal is located at 4152 Free Union Road (Route 601), approximately 1,000 feet south of its intersection with Willington Road (Route 665) in the Whitehall Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 1. Character ofthe Area: The church is located on the outskirts of Free Union, in an area including both farms and small residential parcels. . Plannin!! and Zonin!! Historv: This existing church does not have any previous special use permits. The existing church building was built in the late 1960s or 1970s. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. Applicant's Justification For The Request: The applicants need a meeting hall and have no meeting space outside their sanctuary. The hall and sanctuary will not be used simultaneously, and the level of use on the site will not increase. See the conceptual plan (Attachment B) for the proposed layout of the site. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of SP 04-051 with conditions. Staff also recommends approval of the site plan waiver. STAFF COMMENT (Special Use Permit) Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon afinding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, . This approval would not increase the intensity of use on the site, and would not create impacts on adjacent properties. The three nearest dwellings are approximately 450 feet away. A large farm is located to the west, adjacent to the cemetery parcel. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, Churches are a permitted use in the Rural Areas district, and are a longstanding feature of the rural landscape. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, The use is not expected to be in conflict with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, or of the Rural Areas zoning district. with the uses permitted by right in the district, This is a small church and does not host meetings or other activities for other organizations at this time. The addition is planned for the use of church members. The church serves members of the community and is not in conflict with agriculture, forestry, residential uses, or other by-right uses in the district. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no additional regulations in section 5.û fur this lise. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The only safety concern with this site was sight distance at the entrance. The applicants have revised their concept plan to show an entrance that is acceptable to VDOT. Sight distance is also limited by vegetation on a neighboring property. The landowner has given consent for that land, which is already under a power-line easement, to be kept clear to maintain sight distance for the church. VDOT has approved this arrangement, and will accept a plat showing the location of this sight-distance clearing as part of the entrance approval in recommended condition 5 below. STAFF COMMENT (Site Plan Waiver) The Zoning Ordinance addresses the need for a site plan in Section 32.2.1 which states: 32.2.1 A site plan shall be required for any construction, use, change in use or other development in all zoning districts; provided that no site plan shall be required for the following: a. The construction or location of any single-family detached dwelling which is located upon a lot whereon are located or proposed to be located an aggregate of two (2) or fewer dwellings. b. The construction or location of a two-family dwelling on any lot not occupied by any other dwellings. c. Any accessory structure to a single-family detached or two-family dwelling. d. Any agricultural activity except as otherwise provided in section 5. O. e. Any change in or expansion of a use provided that: (1) such change or expansion does not occasion additional parking under the requirements of this chapter; (2) no additional ingress/egress or alteration of existing ingress/egress is recommended by the Virginia Department of Transportation based on intensification of use; (3) no additional ingress/egress or alteration of existing ingress/ egress is proposed. (32.2.1, 1980) This project requires a site plan due to the proposed changes to the entrance only. Ifno changes to the entrance were proposed or required, this project would not require a site plan. The other changes to the site, building expansion, do not create the need for a site plan as it does not occasion the need for additional parking. l- The Zoning Ordinance does permit the waiving of the site plan requirement in Section 32.2.2 which states: . 32.2.2 Theforegoing notwithstanding, after notice in accordance with section 32.4.2.5, the commission may waive the drawing of a site plan in a particular case upon a finding that the requirement of such plan would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest,' provided that no such waiver shall be made until the commission has considered the recommendation of the agent. The agent may recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of such waiver. In the case of conditional approval, the agent in his recommendation shall state the relationship of the recommended condition to the provisions of this section. No condition shall be imposed which could not be imposed through the application of the regulations of section 32. O. (32.2.2, 1980; Amended 5-1-87) Staff has analyzed this application and is recommending appwval ûf a waiver of the dra-wing of a site plan, with conditions. The method staff used to reach this recommendation is included below. . The submittal ofa site plan meeting all of the criteria of Sections 32.5.6 (Preliminary Site Plan Content) and 32.6.6 (Final Site Plan Content) would not in the opinion of staff forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest. The submittal of a plan will provide substantially more information than currently provided. However, the proposed level of development is limited and the plan provided by the applicant for review with the special use permit has allowed staff to analyze the impact on this project on adjacent properties. Prior to development the applicant will need to obtain approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. This will allow the County to address all issues of drainage, both during and after development. Further, the applicant will have to obtain a permit from the Virginia Department of Transportation for the improvement of the entrance. This permitting process by VDOT will insure that the entrance is properly designed and installed. The scale of this project is limited and the use of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and the VDOT permitting process will allow adequate protection ofthe public interest. SUMMARY This is a minor expansion of an existing nonconforming church, which will increase in area but not in level of activity. Approval of the request would bring the church into conformity with current requirements. . RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of SP 04-051 with the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. . 4. 5. The site shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled "Free Union Church of the Brethren Concept Plan ," revised April 22, 2005; The area of assembly shall be limited to the existing 90-seat sanctuary; There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit; Construction of the proposed addition shall commence within 4 years or this special use permit shall expire. The applicants shall secure VDOT approval of the entrance from Route 601 . "3 Staff recommends approval of the site plan waiver, SDP 2005-00041, with the following conditions: 1. No development shall occur until an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan has been approved and any required bonds have been posted. 2. No Certificate of Occupancy will be issued for the building until VDOT approval of the installation of the improvements as shown on a plan titled Free Union Church of the Brethren Concept Plan, revised April 22, 2005. ATTACHMENTS A. Location Map B. Conceptual Plan for SP 04-051 if . . Attachment A \ I \ i I , , /'/ .,,/// 0"/ ,I / ,I ,/ ...--- \ / /\ ( \ )' \, \ \ 15 ~~ ~:; ~oo z> ;.1~ ~~ X ~ ~ z ·.0 - .-------::::::===~=::=::..-.--::::::.:.:- Z~ Z ~ \ ì I i . \ / /1 ) , / ( I / II! / I / ª 1? !.~~' U'~l""'" ATTACHMENT 8 " --"-_. -_. FREE UNION CHURCH OF ~,~~-'};·7 .\I"'~\.·"''' "bR-. ,,¡-: "It'\....~ /-,>1 ¿:. ..J Luv'J 1 ,.' ~ , -" ". - -'~ ..... - - Nzt,' '&;' 1/"'" - - e< ~'''<6 . _... _ ~ -r--....-f / .,\ \ \ . ---'-- , - "\ - . -,- ,.- I . \ ' .~. -, I' / \ 1" \ '{ - \ J \ /_\",,, \ //" / .......- \ / \ \ \ - 7 - - - \ I \ \ ,,, / I. - , \' ^' " , -- / , I , ~', ", '/ ., , 1:, I ~"r""",- \ \ ." \ '- ~v sja.--/." . ,,""'" ,,,, IS \\ I \" , \ '- / ('- to. 11' '" ..... -¥" I ";' ~ - _ - t'!'''I..é. I'L ~ ~/ ,., " 1M<1/~pe:1/ .~~ I GM"'€L ;¡ /' f "1ßr2 > . r··,p"eÞ I "." _ _ II' ¡- - - - - MofJ'1í'" ~ __ _ ~o '- \ I '0 -- ,I, I 'I , ~ . _ __ .. ~... _, _.. , ..... I ~ _ ,_ _ '" I - - -1 I 'WI).' .~ I" I ex,..",,,,,, J I _ rYP . ~ '2.t ... à ....... C#<JÞ-c1/ EJ(, :- ...... I e.m..T eo 't ~ ...... ,... -, , Ml>Plr'( ~~ ... ~ 'y/ "I n r ,...,,~ """'T'/Nfj ...... \ I I 'f L - - - I' 7 / GM~e" """""AI", 7'\ '. ,. I 1 ..' .............- - - - {. ~ ..../ . 'Z4 \ 'I 1'-----" III ~ ......,.¿ ~ . "",. '/ ~ -I ~, ~ -¡-""'" "" r......."'" ~. '£ !' "- ..- "":::.." /, - -- - -- ~~ - ~ :;: "I \ L ..J T..... t\Ar'Z~ IP '" ~ ì ~--:.. 'I!<.~LJi<.~ f~. '0' '" ... 'I 1'1'"\ ~ ,I.c.~" -5 Tir \J b I' \ "- / N",p 'M,"_OõN : \ :"""", Wr J , I ' , p..c - - - , ,- i .. ~ " ..... -,,/ ':: (~5'-- - - "'\ + ~ . . 7'5' '-. '..... '-...:. , _ .. _ 5l!TÞ"~<..,. ,~. " . _...... \ '"'[ _ ~ ' "\........ 1> I _ _ _ _ _ .. '-...... "- ............. '- L. _ '- " ....... ~-t. , ".L- _ t 82,' _ _ ...... - '- " ........ .........; 2, ~~ ;x..,- ..... '- ....... ~c ""I---- _ \, \. "<..,., ! " I ...... \," .........~ ...... ____ ~L.J . , 30 " ........ V _ , __ , ' I .....; \. ...... = 't.~ ~ . .,. " ' ::... ...... ;,-:" L..... ~ i ........ :::::- _ " /....... ----- " "-, .'30' ....... THE BRETHREN CONCEPT PLAN :'Z;:2~:_1:::: t,~-'~!' .;, ~ """C'i\!.!i"i\.,",'.. -::'1 -." ¡,.J¡,~J'J- ~ \~ 11.X I-«P"" ;>^ItG~L Se> -._-. February 7, 2005 NOtes: Zoning District - RA Rural Areas Tax MtJp 29 Parcels 57. 58 and 598 Total acreage 2.66 acres Owner - Church Ðf the Brethren P.O. Box 213 Free Union. Virginia 22940 Existing U~ - Church Proposed Use - Church Proposed Addition to Church includes 1.413 square toot Fellowship Hal Fellowship Hall does not constitute an expansion ot use Manual standards. Parking Calculations Fellowship Hall (Area ot Assembly) requires 1 space175 sf 19 Spaces Required Sanctuary seats 90 people Sanctuary requires 1 spacel4 seats 23 Spaces Required 30 Existing Spaces Provided Boundary information and topography taken from site plan by Joseph Norris Associates ."-. Tax MtJp 29 parcds 57, 58 and 598 will be combined. Rain gardens will conform to Water Protection Desi9n /It; lot Ge-Me.1e~'i ">~ T<\< M.<cr:<, t~L~!!> Y/CAi'//TY t1AF . . It; = 1 MAI'cti It;, VJOt; Åf'It.IL It;!, 'Z.~l? Atr-IL 1'1, W6 ArNL Z'tl ZM6 Scale 1116 - CøAN6/<.- of ....r ec..e\f.4.í'ðN H.cø' 0' , \ IO"l. 1"~T to&E:¡1l"t!e To þe.tte-I"1P'l.-ø J~ / ...- 10 I \ -.......- - A.,. u"'" I> """",,,eD c,,-1 ,%3 <L-- ! \ ........ r- .