2001-01-03January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January
3, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the County Executive, Mr.
Tucker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Election of Chairman.
Mr. Tucker entertained nominations for Chairman of the Board for Calendar Year 2001.
Ms. Humphris nominated Ms. Sally Hyde Thomas as Chairman of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors for Calendar Year 2001. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Mr. Martin moved to close the nominations. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Thomas assumed the Chair. She feels the agenda today was concocted to be a challenge to
a new Chairman. She said she is humbled and appreciative of her election as Chairman.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Election of Vice-Chairman.
Ms. Humphris nominated Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. as Vice-Chairman of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors for Calendar Year 2001. Mr. Bowerman seconded the nomination.
Mr. Martin moved to close the nominations. Mr. Bowerman seconded closing the nominations.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Dorrier said it has been a pleasure to serve on the Board for the first year. He has found that
while the Board members may not always agree, they are never disagreeable.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Appointment of Clerk and Senior Deputy Clerk.
Ms. Humphris moved to appoint Ms. Ella Washington Carey as Clerk to the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors for the Calendar Year 2001, and Ms. Laurel Bentley as Senior Deputy Clerk for the
Calendar Year 2001. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Thomas expressed the Boards appreciation for the work done by the Clerks.
=
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Set Meeting Times, Dates and Places for Calendar Year 2001.
Ms. Humphris offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to continue the regular meeting dates
of the first Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. and the second and third Wednesdays at 7:00 p.m., in the County
Office Building on McIntire Road, but to change the July 4, 2001, meeting date to July 5, 2001, and to
cancel the meeting which would fall on December 19, 2001, due to its proximity to the Christmas holidays.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Agenda Item No. 8. Set Dates for Hearing Zoning Text Amendments requested by Citizens.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to set the dates for hearing zoning
text amendments from citizens for June 13, September 12 and November 21, 2001 and for March 13,
2002.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the recorded vote which follows:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Rules of Procedure, Adoption of.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to readopt the Rules of Procedure
used in previous years.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the recorded vote which follows:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
RULES OF PROCEDURE
ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS
A.
Officers
1.. The Board at its annual meeting shall elect a Chairman who, if
Chairman
present, shall preside at such meeting and at all other meetings during the
year for which elected. In addition to being presiding officer, the Chairman
shall be the head official for all the Board's official functions and for ceremonial
purposes. He shall have a vote but no veto. (Virginia Code Sections
15.2-1422 and 15.2-1423)
2.. The Board at its annual meeting shall also elect a
Vice-Chairman
Vice-Chairman, who, if present, shall preside at meetings in the absence of the
Chairman and shall discharge the duties of the Chairman during his absence
or disability. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1422)
3. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be elected for
Term of Office.
one-year terms; but either or both may be re-elected for one or more additional
terms. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1422)
4.If the Chairman and Vice
Absence of Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
Chairman are absent from any meeting, a present member shall be chosen to
act as Chairman.
B.
Clerk and Deputy Clerks
The Board at its annual meeting shall designate a Clerk and one or more Deputy
Clerks who shall serve at the pleasure of the Board. The duties of the Clerk shall
be those set forth in Virginia Code Section 15.2-1539 and such additional duties set
forth in resolutions of the Board as adopted from time to time. (Virginia Code
Section 15.2-1416)
C.
Meetings
1. The first meeting in January held after the newly elected
Annual Meeting.
members of the Board shall have qualified, and the first meeting held in Janu-
ary of each succeeding year, shall be known as the annual meeting. At such
annual meeting, the Board shall establish the days, times, and places for
regular meetings of the Board for that year. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416)
2.The Board shall meet in regular session on such day or
Regular Meetings.
days as has been established at the annual meeting. The Board may subse-
quently establish different days, times, or places for such regular meetings by
passing a resolution to that effect in accord with Virginia Code Section
15.2-1416. If any day established as a regular meeting day falls on a legal
holiday, the meeting scheduled for that day shall be held on the next regular
business day without action of any kind by the Board. (Virginia Code Section
15.2-1416)
If the Chairman (or Vice Chairman, if the Chairman is unable to act) finds and
declares that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for
Board members to attend a regular meeting, such meeting shall be continued
to the next regular meeting date. Such finding shall be communicated to the
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
members of the Board and to the press as promptly as possible. All hearings
and other matters previously advertised shall be conducted at the continued
meeting and no further advertisement shall be required. (Virginia Code
Section 15.2-1416)
Regular meetings, without further public notice, may be adjourned from day to
day or from time to time or from place to place, not beyond the time fixed for
the next regular meeting, until the business of the Board is complete. (Virginia
Code Section 15.2-1416)
3.The Board may hold special meetings as it deems neces-
Special Meetings.
sary at such times and places as it deems convenient. A special meeting may
be adjourned from time to time as the Board finds necessary and convenient.
(Virginia Code Section 15.2-1417)
A special meeting shall be held when called by the Chairman or requested by
two or more members of the Board. The call or request shall be made to the
Clerk of the Board and shall specify the matters to be considered at the
meeting. Upon receipt of such call or request, the Clerk, after consultation
with the Chairman, shall immediately notify each member of the Board, the
County Executive, and the County Attorney. The notice shall be in writing and
delivered to the person or to his place of residence or business. The notice
shall state the time and place of the meeting and shall specify the matters to
be considered. No matter not specified in the notice shall be considered at
such meeting unless all members are present. The notice may be waived if all
members are present at the special meeting or if all members sign a waiver for
the notice. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1418) The Clerk shall notify the
general news media of the time and place of such special meeting and the
matters to be considered.
D.
Order of Business
The Clerk of the Board shall establish the agenda for all meetings in consultation
with the Chairman. The first two items on the agenda for each regular meeting of
the Board shall be the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment for silent meditation.
The procedures for receiving comment from the public for matters not on the
agenda shall be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise decided, no more
than three persons will be allowed to speak during the time set aside on the agenda
for "Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public". Each person shall be
permitted no more than five minutes to provide comments.
Zoning applications advertised for public hearing shall be on the agenda for public
hearing on the advertised date unless the applicant submits a signed written deferral
request to the Clerk of the Board no later than noon on Wednesday of the week
prior to the scheduled public hearing. The first request for a deferral will be granted
administratively by the Clerk. The Board will be notified of the deferral in the next
Board package and the deferral will be announced at the earliest possible Board
meeting to alert the public of the deferral. Any request received later than the
Wednesday deadline and any subsequent request for a deferral for the same
application previously deferred will be granted only at the discretion of the Board by
a majority vote. The deferral shall not be granted unless the Board determines that
the reason for the deferral justifies the likely inconvenience to the public caused by
the deferral. The staff will make every effort to alert the public when a deferral is
granted.
E.
Quorum
A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for any meeting of
the Board. If during a meeting less than a majority of the Board remains present, no
action can be taken except to adjourn the meeting. If prior to adjournment the
quorum is again established, the meeting shall continue. (Virginia Code Section
15.2-1415)
A majority of the members of the Board present at the time and place established
for any regular or special meeting shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of
adjourning such meeting from day to day or from time to time, but not beyond the
time fixed for the next regular meeting.
F.
Voting Procedures
1.. Unless otherwise provided, decisions of the Board shall
Approval by Motion
be made by approval of a majority of the members present and voting on a
motion properly made by a member and seconded by another member. Any
motion that is not seconded shall not be further considered. The vote on the
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
motion shall be by a voice vote. The Clerk shall record the name of each
member voting and how he voted on the motion. If any member abstains from
voting on any motion, he shall state his abstention. The abstention will be
announced by the Chairman and recorded by the Clerk. A tie vote shall defeat
the motion voted upon. (Article VII, Section 7, Virginia Constitution)
2. A recorded affirmative vote of a majority of all
Special Voting Requirements.
elected members of the Board shall be required to approve an ordinance or
resolution (1) appropriating money exceeding the sum of $500; (2) imposing
taxes; or (3) authorizing the borrowing of money. (Virginia Code Section
15.2-1428)
3. The Board shall not decide any matter before the Board
Public Hearings.
requiring a public hearing until the public hearing has been held. The Board
may, however, at its discretion, defer or continue the holding of a public
hearing or consideration of such matter.
The procedures for receiving comment from the applicant and the public for
public hearings shall be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise
decided, the applicant shall be permitted no more than ten minutes to present
its application. Following the applicant's presentation, any member of the
public shall be permitted no more than three minutes to present public
comment. Speakers are limited to one appearance at any public hearing.
Following the public comments, the applicant shall be permitted no more than
five minutes for a rebuttal presentation.
4. A motion to amend a motion before the Board, properly
Motion to Amend.
seconded, shall be discussed and voted by the Board before any vote is taken
on the original motion unless the motion to amend is accepted by both the
members making and seconding the original motion. If the motion to amend is
approved, the amended motion is then before the Board for its consideration.
If the motion to amend is not approved, the original motion is again before the
Board for its consideration.
5. Discussion of any motion may be terminated by any
Previous Question.
member moving the "previous question". Upon a proper second, the
Chairman shall call for a vote on the motion of the previous question. If
approved by a majority of those voting, the Chairman shall immediately call for
a vote on the original motion under consideration. A motion of the previous
question shall not be subject to debate and shall take precedence over any
other matter.
6. Any decision made by the Board may be reconsidered
Motion to Reconsider.
if a motion to reconsider is made at the same meeting or an adjourned
meeting held on the same day at which the matter was decided. The motion to
reconsider may be made by any member of the Board. Upon a proper
second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to
reconsider, if approved, shall be to place the matter for discussion in the exact
position it occupied before it was voted upon.
7. Any decision made by the Board, except for zoning map
Motion to Rescind.
amendments, special use permit decisions, and ordinances, (these exceptions
shall only be subject to reconsideration as provided above) may be rescinded
by a majority vote of all elected members of the Board. The motion to rescind
may be made by any member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the
motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to rescind, if
approved, is to nullify the previous decision of the Board. Zoning map
amendments, special use permit decisions and ordinances may be rescinded
or repealed only upon meeting all the legal requirements necessary for taking
action on such matters as if it were a new matter before the Board for
consideration.
G.
Amendment of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be amended by a majority vote of the Board at the
next regular meeting following a regular meeting at which notice of the motion to
amend is given.
H.
Suspension of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be suspended by the majority vote of the Board
members present and voting. The motion to suspend a rule may be made by any
member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and
voted. The effect of the motion to suspend a rule, if approved, is to make that rule
inapplicable to the matter before the Board. Provided, however, approval of a
motion to suspend the rule shall not permit the Board to act in violation of a require-
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
ment mandated by the Code of Virginia, the Constitution of Virginia, or any other
applicable law.
I.Necessary rules of procedure not covered by these Rules of Procedures shall be
governed by Robert's Rules of Order.
(Adopted 2-15-73; Amended and/or Readopted 9-5-74, 9-18-75; 2-19-76; 1-3-77;
1-4-78; 1-3-79; 1-2-80; 1-7-81; 1-6-82; 1-5-83; 1-3-84; 1-2-85; 1-3-86; 1-7-87;
1-6-88; 1-4-89; 1-2-90; 1-2-91; 1-2-92; 1-6-93; 1-5-94; 1-4-95; 1-3-96; 1-2-97;
1-7-98; 1-6-99; 1-5-2000; 1-3-2001)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Recognition of Victim/Witness Program.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to recognize and applaud members of the Countys staff for a
=
prestigious honor recently awarded. She said that Albemarle Countys Victim/Witness program was
=
awarded the Program of the Year at the 18th Annual Training Conference on Crime Victims Issues held in
=
November, 2000 at the Virginia Beach Resort Hotel and Conference Center. Ms. Susan Painter, Vic-
tim/Witness Coordinator, and Ms. Sandi Currier, Assistant Program Coordinator, accepted the award and
are present this morning.
Ms. Thomas said the Virginia Network for Victims and Witnesses of Crime, Inc. was established to
promote fair treatment of crime victims and witnesses. She said Albemarle County is fortunate to have a
group of such dedicated, compassionate professionals ready to comfort and aid its citizens who find
themselves in these unfortunate circumstances, and who do their work so capably that they receive
recognition for their efforts from their peers across the state. On behalf of the Board of Supervisors and the
citizens of Albemarle County, Ms. Thomas thanks Ms. Painter and Ms. Currier for their service and
congratulated them on this well-deserved honor.
Ms. Humphris asked if Ms. Painter had been with the program since its inception. Ms. Painter said
she is actually the third coordinator, but has been with the program for twelve years.
Mr. Martin said he works with these two ladies daily, and the victims of crime, including domestic
violence, have incredible advocates in these ladies. He expressed his appreciation for all that they do.
Mr. Tucker noted that Mr. Dorrier had initiated this program when he was Commonwealths
=
Attorney. Mr. Dorrier said the program began in 1983. He said Ms. Painter has the ability to empathize with
the victims, and he thanked her for her service.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. There were no
speakers today.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr.
Martin, to approve and/or accept the items on the consent agenda, with the exception of Item 12.5 which is
pulled and will be returned with further information at another meeting, and to pull Item 12.7 for discussion
under Other Transportation Matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by a following recorded vote:
A@
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 12.1. Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Model Deed of Easement.
The staffs report noted that at the Boards July 5, 2000, meeting, staff presented for consideration
==
a draft model deed of easement for the ACE Program. Since then, the ACE Committee and staff have met
several times to work on and revise the model deed. At its December 14, 2000, meeting, the ACE
Committee recommended the attached model deed (on file in the Clerks Office) as the basic deed of
=
easement to be used for the ACE Program this fiscal year. The model deed is organized into three
sections, as follows:
1.Grant and conveyance of easement: Section 1 effectuates the conveyance of the easement in
perpetuity, and would include a description of the property subject to the easement.
2.Uses and activities: Section 2 delineates the uses and activities that may be made of the
property under the easement. The key provisions address:
A.Division of the property: Section 2(A) identifies the number of lots that may be created on
the property by division (based on the formula in section A.1-109(A) of the ACE Ordi-
nance) and provides that the County will determine whether a division complies with the
easement and the ACE Program when it reviews a plat of division. This section also
allows boundary line adjustments in certain circumstances.
B.Development of lots: Section 2(B) allows lots to be developed, but requires that the
structures be located on a building site shown on a plat or a site plan, delineates the types
of structures permitted; limits the number of secondary dwelling units to two, and places a
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
limitation on a farm building or farm structure's footprint, though that limitation may be
waived by the County and the other easement holder.
C.Uses: Section 2(C) prohibits industrial and commercial uses on the property, other than
commercial recreational uses. The property may be used for single-family
de minimis
residential, agricultural, and forestal uses, as well as certain temporary or seasonal
activities, indoor activities, accessory uses, and other activities not expressly authorized
that are approved by the County and the other easement holder.
D.Other uses and activities: Sections 2(D) through 2(H) regulate various uses and activities
on the property: the types and size of signs and other advertisements; grading, blasting,
earth removal and mining; the management of forestal and agricultural uses resources;
the accumulation of waste material; and mountain protection.
3.Miscellaneous provisions: Key provisions in Section 3 provide that: the easement does not
create a public right of access to the property; the easement applies to the whole property,
rather than to individual lots, and runs with the land; the County and the other easement holder
have various rights to enforce the deed of easement, but the public does not have such rights;
and the grantor may not reacquire rights relinquished by the deed of easement.
Unless further revisions are recommended by the Board, staff recommends that this model deed
be the basic deed of easement used to obtain easements under the ACE Program this fiscal year.
(Ms. Thomas said she would like the Board to formally adopt this recognizing that it can be
amended if necessary for the Virginia Outdoors Foundation to join in specific propertys easements. She
=
said there may be specific instances where the County wants to join with the VOF. Amendments may be
necessary to be flexible in that situation.
Mr. Davis said this model is a baseline easement and it may need to be modified in some particular
circumstances to accommodate concerns such as mountain protection, and other things which are unique
to a specific piece of property. This document will serve as the starting point to evaluate easements. He
said Ms. Humphris did find some punctuation, and some word usage errors on Page 3 which should be
corrected. He said there may be some further fine tuning that will be done before it is in a recordable
A@
form.
Ms. Humphris asked if those things should be mentioned in the adoption of the Consent Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said if it is just what Mr. Davis has referred to as a model deed then she thinks it can be
A@
taken as is.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the model deed of easement
(marked prepared by the Albemarle County Attorney, draft 12/20/00") presented today as the basic
AA
deed of easement to be used to obtain easements under the ACE Program during the 2000-2001
fiscal year (copy of easement on file in the Clerks Office).
==
__________
Item 12.2. Authorize adoption of Statewide Mutual Aid for Emergency Management Resolution.
It was noted in the staffs report that due to a number of disasters that have occurred throughout
=
the state over the past several years, the need for better procedures for implementing broad-based mutual
aid and for seeking Federal/state reimbursement of deployment-related costs was identified. To address
this need, a Statewide Mutual Aid Committee was formed to develop standardized statewide procedures,
which could be utilized by all local governments throughout Virginia. The committee has completed its
=
work and developed the Statewide Mutual Aid Implementation Guidebook which establishes these new
procedures.
Adoption of the resolution is recommended by the Virginia Association of Counties and other local
and state organizations, which participated in the development of the guidebook and procedures. In
addition, Mr. Kaye Harden, Emergency Services Coordinator for the region, is also recommending approval
by the County and City. The main reasons for this recommendation are:
No jurisdiction can support trained emergency responders and stockpile resources in the numbers
that would be needed to prepare for a major disaster.
Resources from other signature jurisdictions will be available for our use in major disasters should
we endorse this plan.
Other similar instate mutual aid programs have been significant in helping those states recover
from major disasters.
Legal issues, such as the liability of workers sent from one locality to perform hazardous duty in
another locality, are addressed.
Reimbursement of expenses for deployed personnel, use of equipment and travel expenses is
addressed.
Training obtained and lessons learned by our deployed personnel in a disaster situation is the best
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
possible experience for improving our disaster readiness.
This plan has the support of 24 Virginia agencies and organizations including the Virginia Municipal
League and the Virginia Association of Counties.
Staff recommends adoption of the authorizing resolution.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Statewide Mutual Aid
for Emergency Management Resolution:
STATEWIDE MUTUAL AID FOR EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency Services and Disaster
Law of 2000, as amended, (Title 44, Chapter 3.2 of the Virginia Code) authorizes the
Commonwealth and its political subdivisions to provide emergency aid and assistance in
the event of a major disaster; and
WHEREAS, the statutes also authorize the State Emergency Operations Center
to coordinate the provision of any equipment, services, or facilities owned or organized by
the Commonwealth or its political subdivisions for use in the affected area upon request
of the duly constituted authority of the area; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution authorizes the request, provision, and receipt of
interjurisdictional mutual aid in accordance with Title 44, Chapter 3.2 of the Code of
Virginia among political subdivisions, other authorized entities and officers within the
Commonwealth;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Supervisors resolves that the County of
Albemarle shall have the authority to participate in Statewide Mutual Aid in the event of
emergency or disaster in accordance with the following terms and conditions, which shall
be in the nature of a compact and agreement among participating entities which have
adopted similar executive orders, ordinances or resolutions. This Statewide Mutual Aid
program may include requests for and provision of personnel, equipment, materials, and
other forms of assistance, or any combination of assistance, to any entity within the
Commonwealth, pursuant to the following terms and conditions:
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS
A."EVENT AGREEMENT" -- a contract between two member political subdivisions
entered into at the time of emergency in which the Assisting Party agrees to provide
specified resources to the Requesting Party under the terms and conditions speci-
fied in the Agreement.
B."REQUESTING PARTY" -- the member political subdivision requesting aid in the
event of an emergency or disaster and participating in the Statewide Mutual Aid
Program pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Resolution.
C."ASSISTING PARTY" -- the member political subdivision furnishing equipment,
services and/or manpower to the Requesting Party, and participating in the State-
wide Mutual Aid Program ("the Program") pursuant to terms consistent with those in
this Resolution.
D."AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE" -- an officer or employee of a member
political subdivision authorized in writing by that entity to request, offer, or provide
assistance under the terms of this Resolution.
E.DEPARTMENT -- the Department of Emergency Management.
AA@@
F."EMERGENCY" -- any occurrence, or threat thereof, whether natural, or caused by
man, in war or in peace, which results or may result in substantial injury or harm to
the population, substantial damage to or loss of property, or substantial harm to the
environment.
G."DISASTER" -- any natural, technological, or civil emergency that causes damage
of sufficient severity and magnitude to result in a declaration of a state of emergency
by the Governor or the President of the United States.
H."IMPLEMENTATION GUIDEBOOK" -- Guidance document promulgated by the
Department to assist member political subdivisions with Statewide mutual aid
activities, to provide procedures and minimum standards for participation, and to
provide for compliance with state and federal reimbursement requirements.
I."MAJOR DISASTER" -- a disaster which is likely to clearly exceed local capabilities
and require a broad range of state and federal assistance.
J."MEMBER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION" -- any political subdivision or authorized
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
officer or agency within the Commonwealth of Virginia which maintains its own
emergency services organization and plan and which enacts an ordinance or
resolution or promulgates an executive order with terms substantially similar to
those set out in this Resolution, authorizing Statewide mutual aid pursuant to Title
44 of the Virginia Code.
K."STATE EOC" -- the Virginia Emergency Operations Center from which assistance
to localities is coordinated when local emergency response and recovery resources
are overwhelmed. This facility is operated by the Virginia Department of Emergency
Management.
SECTION 2. PROCEDURES FOR PROVISION OF MUTUAL AID
When a member political subdivision either becomes affected by, or is under imminent
threat of an emergency or disaster and, as a result, has officially declared an emergency,
it may request
emergency-related mutual aid assistance by: (1) submitting a Request for Assistance to
an Assisting Party or to the State EOC, or (2) orally communicating a request for mutual
aid assistance to an Assisting Party or to the State EOC, followed as soon as practicable
by written confirmation of the request. Mutual aid shall not be requested by a member
political subdivision unless resources available within the stricken area are deemed to be
inadequate. All requests for mutual aid must be transmitted by the Authorized Represen-
tative of the member political subdivision or the Director of Emergency Management. No
member political subdivision shall be required to provide mutual aid unless it determines
that it has sufficient resources to do so.
A.REQUESTS DIRECTLY TO ASSISTING PARTY: The Requesting Party may
directly contact the Authorized Representative of the Assisting Party and provide the
information in the Request Form prescribed in the SMA Implementation Guidebook.
Each Assisting Party must communicate directly with the Requesting Party in order
to execute an Event Agreement. The Requesting Party shall be responsible for
keeping the State EOC advised of the status of mutual aid activities.
B.REQUESTS ROUTED THROUGH, OR ORIGINATING FROM THE STATE EOC:
The Requesting Party may directly contact the State EOC, in which case it shall
provide the information in the Request Form in the SMA Implementation Guidebook.
The State EOC may then contact other member political subdivisions on behalf of
the Requesting Party. Once identified, each Assisting Party must communicate
directly with the Requesting Party in order to execute an Event Agreement.
C.ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES AND ABILITY TO RENDER
ASSISTANCE: When contacted by a Requesting Party, or by the State EOC on
behalf of a Requesting Party, the Authorized Representative of any member political
subdivision agrees to assess local resources to determine available personnel,
equipment and other assistance.
D.SUPERVISION AND CONTROL: When providing assistance under the terms of
this Agreement, the personnel, equipment, and resources of any Assisting Party will
be under the operational control of the Requesting Party, which shall advise supervi-
sory personnel of the Assisting Party of work tasks, for assignment to personnel.
Direct supervision and control of personnel, equipment and resources shall remain
with the designated supervisory personnel of the Assisting Party.
The designated supervisory personnel of the Assisting Party shall: maintain daily
personnel time records, material records, and a log of equipment hours; be
responsible for the operation and maintenance of the equipment and other
resources furnished by the Assisting Party; and shall report work progress to the
Requesting Party. The Assisting Party's personnel and other resources shall remain
subject to recall by the Assisting Party at any time, subject to reasonable notice to
the Requesting Party. At least twenty-four hour advance notification of intent to
withdraw personnel or resources shall be provided to the Requesting Party unless
such notice is not practicable, in which case such notice as is reasonable shall be
provided.
E.FOOD, HOUSING, AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY: Unless specifically instructed
otherwise, the Requesting Party shall have the responsibility of providing food and
housing for the personnel of the Assisting Party from the time of their arrival at the
designated location to the time of their departure. However, Assisting Party person-
nel and equipment should be, to the greatest extent possible, self-sufficient while
working in the emergency or disaster area. The Requesting Party may specify only
self-sufficient personnel and resources in its request for assistance.
F.COMMUNICATIONS: Unless specifically instructed otherwise, the Requesting Party
shall have the responsibility for coordinating communications between the
personnel of the Assisting Party and the Requesting Party. Assisting Party
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
personnel should be prepared to furnish communications equipment sufficient to
maintain communications among their respective operating units.
G.RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES: Whenever the officials, employees and volunteers of
the Assisting Party are rendering aid pursuant to this Agreement, such employees
shall have the powers, duties, rights, privileges, and immunities, and shall receive
the compensation, incidental to their employment or position.
H.TERM OF DEPLOYMENT: The initial duration of a request for assistance is
normally seven days and may be extended, if necessary, in seven day increments.
However, the duration may be shorter or longer as reflected in the Event
Agreement.
I.SUMMARY REPORT: Within ten days of the return of all personnel deployed under
SMA, the Requesting Party will prepare a Summary Report of the event, and
provide copies to each Assisting Party and to the Department. The Report shall be
in a format prescribed by the Department and shall include a chronology of events
and description of personnel, equipment and materials provided by one party to the
other.
SECTION 3. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The terms and conditions governing reimbursement for any assistance provided pursuant
to this Resolution shall be in accordance with the following provisions, unless otherwise
agreed upon by the Requesting and Assisting Parties and specified in the Event Agree-
ment.
A.PERSONNEL: During the period of assistance, the Assisting Party shall continue to
pay its employees according to its then prevailing ordinances, rules, and regulations.
The Requesting Party shall reimburse the Assisting Party for all direct and indirect
payroll costs and expenses (including travel expenses, benefits, workers'
compensation claims and expenses) incurred during the period of assistance,
unless agreed to otherwise by the parties in the Event Agreement.
B.EQUIPMENT: The Assisting Party shall be reimbursed by the Requesting Party for
the use of its equipment during the period of assistance according to either a
pre-established local or state hourly rate or according to the actual replacement,
operation, and maintenance expenses incurred. For those instances in which some
costs may be reimbursed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the
eligible direct costs shall be determined in accordance with 44 CFR 206.228, or
other regulations in effect at the time of the disaster. Each Party shall maintain its
own equipment in safe and operational condition. At the request of the Assisting
Party, fuels, miscellaneous supplies, and minor repairs may be provided by the
Requesting Party, if practical. If the equipment charges are based on a pre--
established local or state hourly rate, then these charges to the Requesting Party
shall be reduced by the total value of the fuels, supplies, and repairs furnished by
the Requesting Party and by the amount of any insurance proceeds received by the
Assisting Party.
C.MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES: The Assisting Party shall be reimbursed for all
materials and supplies furnished by it and used or damaged during the period of
assistance, except for the costs of equipment, fuel and maintenance materials,
labor and supplies, which shall be included in the equipment rate established above,
unless such damage is caused by gross negligence, or willful and wanton miscon-
duct of the Assisting Party's personnel. The measure of reimbursement shall be
determined in accordance with 44 CFR 206.228 or other regulations in effect at the
time of the disaster. In the alternative, the Parties may agree that the Requesting
Party will replace, with like kind and quality as determined by the Assisting Party, the
materials and supplies used or damaged. If such an agreement is made, it shall be
reduced to writing and transmitted to the Department.
D.RECORD KEEPING: The Assisting Party shall maintain records and submit
invoices for reimbursement by the Requesting Party in accordance with existing
policies and practices. Requesting Party and Department finance personnel shall
provide information, directions, and assistance for record keeping to Assisting Party
personnel. Later, Department personnel will provide assistance to the Requesting
Party in seeking Federal/state reimbursement.
E.PAYMENT: Unless otherwise mutually agreed, the Assisting Party shall bill the
Requesting Party for all reimbursable expenses with an itemized statement as soon
as practicable after the expenses are incurred, but not later than sixty (60) days
following the period of assistance, unless the deadline for identifying damage is
extended in accordance with applicable Federal or State regulations. The Request-
ing Party shall pay the bill, or advise of any disputed items, not later than sixty (60)
days following receipt of the statement, unless otherwise agreed upon.
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
F.WAIVER OF REIMBURSEMENT: A member political subdivision may assume or
donate, in whole or in part, the costs associated with any loss, damage, expense or
use of personnel, equipment and resources provided.
SECTION 4. INSURANCE
A.WORKERS COMPENSATION COVERAGE: Each member political subdivision
shall be responsible for its own actions and those of its employees and is responsi-
ble for complying with the Virginia Workers Compensation Act.
B.AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COVERAGE: Each member political subdivision shall be
responsible for its own actions and is responsible for complying with the Virginia
motor vehicle financial responsibility laws. Member political subdivisions agree to
obtain automobile liability coverage with a limit of at least $1,000,000 combined
single limit and coverage for owned, non-owned, and hired vehicles. It is
understood that the local government may include in the emergency response
volunteer companies that have motor vehicles titled in the name of the volunteer
company. It is the responsibility of each member political subdivision to determine if
the volunteer company has automobile liability coverage as outlined in this section.
C.GENERAL LIABILITY, PUBLIC OFFICIALS LIABILITY, AND LAW ENFORCE-
MENT LIABILITY: To the extent permitted by law and without waiving sovereign
immunity, each member political subdivision shall be responsible for any and all
claims, demands, suits, actions, damages, and causes for action related to or
arising out of or in any way connected with its own actions, and the actions of its
personnel in providing mutual aid assistance rendered or performed pursuant to the
terms and conditions of this Resolution. Each member political subdivision agrees
to obtain general liability, public officials liability and law enforcement liability, if
applicable, with minimum single limits of no less than one million dollars.
SECTION 5. ROLE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
The Department shall, during normal operations, provide staff support to political subdivi-
sions, officers and authorized agencies, serve as the central depository for agreements,
resolutions, ordinances and executive orders, maintain a current listing of member
political subdivisions, and provide a copy of this listing to each on an annual basis. The
State EOC shall, during emergency operations, (1) request mutual aid on behalf of a
member political subdivision, under the circumstances identified in this Agreement, (2)
keep a record of all Requests for Assistance and Acknowledgments, (3) report on the
status of ongoing emergency or disaster-related mutual aid as appropriate, and assist
participants in meeting all procedural and other requirements, including those pertaining
to Federal and state cost reimbursement.
SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY AND THE EFFECT ON OTHER RESOLUTIONS
Should any portion, section, or subsection of this Resolution be held to be invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, that fact shall not affect or invalidate any other portion,
section or subsection; and the remaining portions of this Resolution shall remain in full
force and effect without regard to the section, portion, or subsection or power invalidated.
In the event that any parties to this Resolution have entered into other mutual aid
agreements, those parties agree that said agreement will remain in effect unless they
conflict in principle with this Resolution in which case they are superseded by this
Resolution. In the event that two or more parties to this Resolution have not entered into
another agreement, and the parties wish to engage in mutual aid, then the terms and
conditions of this Resolution shall apply between those parties.
__________
Item 12.3. Appropriation: CIP Inspector, $25,180.00 (Form #20035).
It was noted in the staffs report that previously, the CIP Inspector working at the Jail was a
=
temporary part-time position that was charged directly to the Jail construction project. Currently, this
position has been expanded to full-time and the inspector assigned additional responsibilities inspecting
other County CIP projects. The Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail will continue to transfer funds to
pay for jail construction related responsibilities, estimated at 50 percent. The balance of the personnel
expenditures for this position will be absorbed by the current Department of Engineering's budget and will
not require additional funds. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form #20035 in the amount of
$25,180.00.
By the recorded vote above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20035
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR JAIL CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1000 41000 110000 WAGES $25,180.00
TOTAL$25,180.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1000 16000 160511 RECOVERED COST$25,180.00
TOTAL$25,180.00
__________
Item 12.4. Appropriation: Virginia Fire Services Board Mini-Grant, $7900.00 (Form #20039).
It was noted in the staffs report that the Virginia Department of Fire Programs has approved a
=
mini-grant providing funds to purchase a laptop computer and projector with stand to support training
programs. The purchase is funded by a $3950.00 Virginia Fire Services Board grant. There is a $3950.00
local match which will be funded from current operations. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation
Form #20039 in the amount of $7900.00.
(Ms. Humphris questioned the cost of the laptop computer and a projector at $7900.00. She is
happy to get state or Federal grants, but it seemed to her that this was a lot of money. Mr. Tucker said he
knows the money is supporting a training program, but is not sure that the entire amount is for these items.
He will forward further information on this item to the Board.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20039
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FIRE/RESCUE GRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1555 32015 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT$7,900.00
TOTAL$7,900.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1555 24000 240000 STATE GRANT$3,950.00
2 1555 51000 512004 TRANSFER FR GEN'L FUND3,950.00
TOTAL$7,900.00
__________
Item 12.5. Appropriation: DMV Child Safety Seat Inspection Team Grant 0P01-57-57157,
$6700.00 (Form #200041).
It was noted that traditionally police departments have attempted to improve child safety seat usage
by enforcement. However, like many other agencies, different methods have been implemented to assist
guardians with proper use of equipment to insure the safety of children while traveling in vehicles. The
Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles using Federal pass-through moneys has approved a grant to fund
checkpoints at strategic locations throughout the County to assist citizens with proper installation of child
safety seats. The checkpoints will be conducted utilizing a minimum of four police officers who have been
properly trained. The total grant is $6700.00. The Federal award is $6000.00. There is a $700.00 local
match that will be funded from current operations. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form
#20041 in the amount of $6700.00.
(Ms. Humphris said she is in no way opposed to child safety seat inspections. Mr. Martin said he
also had a question about this one. Ms. Humphris said in this instance the Division of Motor Vehicles is
using Federal pass-through moneys (tax dollars) to fund a grant to the Police Department to set up check
points at strategic locations to assist citizens with proper installation of child safety seats. She has two
points. First, if there are to be check points, they should not be to check child safety seats. Second, there is
already a program that the fire companies implement that is widely advertised. Anybody who uses a child
safety seat can go to a fire company and have a free safety check. She said there are two issues involved.
One is the time the police officers spend in doing this and, second, she does not think it is a good
expenditure of tax dollars or police officers' time.
Mr. Martin agreed. This sound like big brother and it is just going too far. Also, there is a big
A@
debate between the Governor and legislators about mandatory use of seat belts by adults, and whether
they can be stopped while driving because they are not wearing seat belts. He wonders if this is a way of
getting around that law. Once stopped, could the officer give an adult a ticket for not wearing a seat belt.
He thinks this goes too far; the Governor has not signed that kind of legislation for two years in a row.
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is anyway to redirect the funds. Mr. Tucker said he did not know. He
suggested that the Board not take action to appropriate the funds today, and let staff investigate this grant
further.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the concern is about the check points, which is a whole new level of
enforcement. She suggested that the item be pulled from the Consent Agenda today.)
No action was taken on this agenda item this date.
__________
Item 12.6. Appropriation: DMV Aggressive Driving Reduction Campaign Grant PT01-13-57413,
$7,800.00 (Form #20042).
It was noted in the staffs report that traffic activity continues to increase in the County. The Virginia
=
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) recognizes this problem and has funded grants using Federal pass-
through moneys to increase traffic enforcement through selective enforcement activities. In recent years,
incidents of aggressive driving including speeding, reckless driving, and weaving through heavy traffic have
increased and contributed to accidents. As of July 1, 2000, the County was permitted to employ lidar (laser
detection and ranging) for speed detection. DMV has approved a grant to purchase two lidar units. The
total grant is $7800.00. The Federal award is $7800.00. There is no local match. Staff recommends
approval of Appropriation Form #20042 in the amount of $7800.00.
By the recorded vote above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20042
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DMV GRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1531 31013 800100 EQUIPMENT$7,800.00
TOTAL$7,800.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1531 33000 330011 FEDERAL DMV GRANT$7,800.00
TOTAL$7,800.00
__________
Item 12.7. Letter dated December 13, 2000, from the Honorable J. Blake Caravati, Mayor, City of
Charlottesville, to the Honorable Charles S. Martin, Chairman, regarding the Meadow Creek Parkway.
(Ms. Humphris asked that this item be pulled and moved to Agenda Item No. 14b, Other
Transportation Matters, for a full discussion.)
__________
Item 12.8. Letter dated December 18, 2000, from Ms. Suzanne J. Staton, President, Paramount
Theater, providing progress report on the Paramount restoration project, was received as information.
__________
Item 12.9. Memorandum dated December 18, 2000, from Mr. Arthur D. Petrini, Executive Director,
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) to the RWSA Board of Directors, re: Agency Review Meeting
-- Future Water Supply Study Meeting held on December 14, 2000, in Fredericksburg, Virginia, was
received as information.
__________
Item 12.10. Copy of notice of application filed with the State Corporation Commission by Central
Virginia Electric Cooperative for a general increase in rates (Case No. PUE000583), was received as
information.
__________
Item 12.11. Copy of notice of application filed with the State Corporation Commission by Virginia
Electric and Power Company to revise its fuel factor pursuant to 56-249.6 of the Code of Virginia (Case
'
No. PUE000585), was received as information.
__________
Item 12.12. Draft copies of the minutes of the Planning Commission for November 14 and
November 28, 2000, were received for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: October 11 and November 8, 2000.
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Martin had read the minutes of October 11, 2000, and found them to be in order.
Ms. Thomas had read the minutes of November 8, 2000, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Martin moved approval of the minutes which had been read. The motion was seconded by
Ms. Humphris. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Not Docketed: Mr. Martin said that as Chairman of this Board for the past two years, he considers
himself lucky to have worked with these Board members. He has spent a lot of time with the chairs of other
boards and with mayors throughout the locality, and he felt he was extremely lucky. As Mr. Dorrier said
earlier, these Board members have the ability to agree to disagree. The members disagree and then move
on. When there has been a split vote, each member has respected the integrity of that vote and moved on.
He sees some boards which do not have the ability to take a vote and move on. He thinks this Board and
its ability to do that made his job as chair extremely easy. He appreciates that and he wished Ms. Thomas
luck.
Ms. Thomas said she believes she can speak for the whole Board in high appreciation for the job
that Mr. Martin did as chairman. He was presented with lots of ticklish situations, both during board
meetings, and in dealing with committees outside of the board. Mr. Martin did a magnificent job of leading
the board, and also keeping the community together.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14a. Transportation Matters: Six-Year Secondary Road Plan for 2001-2007,
Work Session.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, said the Planning Commission reviewed the
proposed Six-Year Secondary Road Plan, and the Countys Priority List, at its meeting on December 4, and
=
unanimously recommended forwarding the plans (Attachments C and F in the staffs report) to the Board of
=
Supervisors.
He said the Commission did recommend some changes which are set out in Table E and which
A@
also shows cost estimates from VDOT. He said he would give an overview of five changes recommended
by the Commission.
1)Old Ivy Road (current Priority #12): Request that VDOT provide an estimate for a railroad
bridge improvement project (only) to compare with the cost for the proposed road
improvement project.
Mr. Benish said since the cost of the road improvement is $5.0 million, the Commission was curious
as what the cost would be for just a bridge improvement in lieu of the road improvement. The major
impediment to any improvement is the bridge overpass.
Ms. Humphris said she did not understand the recommendation. The original proposal was for
four-laning Old Ivy Road. The major impediment was the railroad underpass at the City Limits. If there
were an improvement to the underpass, is that a VDOT expense or a railroad expense? Mr. Benish said it
is anticipated to be a VDOT expense. VDOT did cost estimates for different cross sections of
improvements, i.e., a three-lane section, a four-lane section, and a proposal for relocating the roadway near
the railroad overpass so they can get a two-lane portion of the road under the railroad in its current
condition. If the road approaches the bridge at the proper angle (the road would have to be moved to the
north and then turned back) two lanes can go underneath. VDOTs proposed project is a two-lane section
=
from Route 250 all the way through the existing railroad bridge, and then it would become a three-lane
section. When the Commission reviewed that, they were concerned that the three-lane improvement was
estimated at $5.0 million. They felt they needed more information on what a bridge improvement would
cost, leave the road in its current alignment and width, then improve the bridge to have a two-lane section
underneath.
Ms. Humphris said at the west end of Old Ivy Road that three-lane section would become a two-
lane section at the bridge across the Bypass. Mr. Benish said he understands that once Old Ivy Road gets
to the existing Bypass, there may be improvements related to the Western Bypass project as well. The
project in this plan goes up to the Route 250 Bypass bridge.
Ms. Humphris asked if this improvement would fit the requirement that is in place now that the
property on the north side cannot be developed until the four-laning of the road takes place. Mr. Benish
said he believes it would. The proffer on that property called for adequate upgrading of Old Ivy Road. He
A@
does not believe it specifies any particular number of lanes.
2)Proffit Road (currently Priority #22): Advance the improvement project as quickly as
possible.
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Benish said the Commission just wanted to emphasize the importance of this road project now
that the new northern elementary school is to be built on Proffit Road. The project has been moved from
Priority #22 up to Priority #9 on both the Project and the Priority Lists.
3)Proffit Road: Undertake spot/safety improvements in the interim of the ultimate improvement
project.
Mr. Benish said staff was requested to look at making interim improvements to address the safety
of that road until the ultimate project can take place. The improvement project is in the year 2007.
4)Catterton Road (current Priority # 58): The Board should consider using a public
informational meeting approach comparable to that used for Route 635 to determine public
support for this paving project.
Mr. Benish said there is still dissention among the property owners on this road as to whether
paving is the desired project. The Commission recommended that the project used for Wyant Lane be
used in making this decision.
Ms. Thomas asked if Board members wanted to discuss this project now. She does not quite
understand what the Commission is suggesting. On Wyant Lane, there was a meeting with the residents.
Then there was a postcard vote taken of the residents. She told the residents that she was willing to argue
before this Board whatever the outcome of that vote was. By a strong majority of the residents, there was
no change recommended in the Six-Year Plan. She did that on her own. There was no agreement among
Board members who did not necessarily want to listen to her after all of that was done. She does not think
the Board would argue that that is a good idea for the Catterton Road project, and does not agree with the
Commission making that suggestion.
Ms. Humphris said she did not know what the public informational meeting approach was. She
A@
knew that Ms. Thomas had been working on this, and from time to time, bits and pieces of it came out in a
Board meeting. When she gathered together her Catterton Road file, she realized that in the first place
there is a huge amount of confusion. The Board has not been provided with a map and this is absolutely
necessary. She went to Catterton Road last week and made her own map to see what the issues are and
the location of the various properties. She said the Board needs a map taken from the tax map showing all
the parcels and the names of the property owners. The Board members need an understanding of who
gets to vote on this issue. The information received previously listed all of the property owners along the full
length of Catterton Road (both the paved and unpaved portions). Who gets to vote on this matter? Is it all
of the Catterton Road property owners from Route 601 all the way back, or only the ones on the immediate
section proposed to go to construction this year? A lot of questions need answers. What is the segment
the Board is supposed to be dealing with? Who gets to make the decision? Has the Board ever had a
situation like this where there has been such a change of ownership between the time the easements were
granted, and the time the project came up for actual paving? She needs guidance from staff and VDOT as
to how to handle this.
Mr. Martin said the original owners pulled together those signatories years ago, went through the
VDOT procedure to get themselves placed on the waiting list for the Six-Year Plan and have been waiting
for twenty or more years, and then waiting for the road to get paved. In that time frame, people have moved
in and out of the neighborhood. What about the person who did the door-to-door work, is that person still in
the neighborhood, and does that person still want the change?
Mr. Cilimberg said it takes a long time for these roads to get from the initial appearance on the list
to the actual improvement. It can be many, many years after the easements are granted. VDOT might be
holding one hundred percent of the necessary easements, but it could still take five-plus years to get the
funding. There will be property owner change over that period to time, and there will be new points of view.
It will happen more with the unpaved road projects.
Ms. Humphris said some other issues have come up connected to this project. The Board has
been told that it can take some of its Unpaved Road funds and move them to Construction, even though
there is a penalty attached. This would take the County a step forward into the Rural Areas plan. She
thinks it is VDOTs intention to pave every unpaved road in the Commonwealth. Is it Albemarle Countys
==
plan to pave every unpaved road in Albemarle County? Does that forward the plan for protection of the
Rural Areas, or does it not? That was called to her mind when she traveled along Catterton Road. The
section of the road being discussed is a truly beautiful rural road, but it does have lots of curves, and it is
very narrow. Her experience was that everybody she met traveling the road, going in the opposite direction,
obviously knew the road and knew that they had to travel it slowly and carefully. Everybody moved over so
that she could pass. She also noticed steep slopes, a lot of large trees close to the road which would mean
a huge amount of cutting, clearing and grading if the road is to be paved given VDOT requirements. Is it the
Boards intention to pave these little roads and change the complexion of the Rural Areas because that is
=
what it would do. She can see why people might want to see that section of road paved in order to make a
faster connection from one section to another, but she is not sure that is the Boards goal.
=
Mr. Cilimberg said in the mid-90s, staff pointed out to the Board that money could be moved
around. The penalty for this is that the mileage for unpaved roads gets reduced which means that the
formula for future years is also reduced. It was discussed as to how this would relate to the Rural Areas
Policy. At that time, the Board decided not to do anything because there were many unpaved roads on the
list which had been requested for paving. There will be a few rural roads which are key roads for
agriculture/forestry purposes which need paving. A lot are more localized in their importance. If the Board
feels differently as to how to treat those roads, staff needs to know that. The Board does have the
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
discretion to make certain changes in funding. Staff has gone under the assumption for the past years that
the Board did not want to change the policy.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it is possible for the Board to look at the Rural Areas Plan to determine if there
is some compromise between paving a road completely and leaving it unpaved. He wonders if an
improvement could not be made and still leave the road unpaved.
Mr. Martin said sometimes the Board is talking about one thing, and then it moves into another area
making decisions in another area, and then it finds out that there are all kinds of pitfalls. If the Board could
move with the idea in mind of building some system for deciding who should be the voters on a road
project, and how those votes should be weighted, he would not object. He would object to changing where
the money goes for unpaved roads. He said there have been meetings where a lot of citizens demanded
that their road be paved. There have been pictures shown of safety issues concerning school buses. He
would not want the Board to move in the direction of changing because only the very minimum amount of
money is being put into the unpaved road fund. When he first became a Board member, the biggest issue
facing him were the people calling about unpaved roads. He wants everyone to keep in mind that there are
two sides, and there are some people who are just as adamant about their unpaved road being paved.
Ms. Humphris said on the stretch of Catterton Road being discussed, she found that there are 90
vehicle trips per day. Also, the $300,000 figure shown for the project has not been updated for two or more
years. She does not think this is still a realistic figure, and the Board needs to have a more accurate
estimate. She said the paved section from Route 665 up on Route 667 for about 1.6 miles carries 210
vehicles per day. The one mile in the middle carries 90 vehicle trips per day and the northwestern part,
about 0.8 mile, is 80 vehicle trips per pay. She said that is the kind of information staff needs to furnish the
Board.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has to set a public hearing for the Six-Year Plan update, so she
suggested the Board members tell staff what they want to hear, and then just listen to the public comments
at the public hearing. She found a copy of a school transportation analysis which was very important when
the Board was looking at another road project. She suggested getting such an analysis for Catterton Road,
get a description of the project from VDOT and how far back the cuts would have to go (this is a project
where there is already right-of-way so they do not have to do engineering drawings), ask staff to provide an
analysis of the road, especially the importance of this road to the County (who uses it daily, is it important for
the movement of agricultural products, is it a cut-through, would it become more of a cut-through, would the
Board have to begin talking about traffic calming). Then the public would be able to speak to the Board.
The Board should know how many of the people who originally gave rights-of-way are still there and still
want the project to take place.
Ms. Humphris said one of the people on the road said they truly thought that VDOT would simply
come in and pave the road; simply a pave-in-place situation. They had no understanding that it meant
bringing the road up to VDOT standards and cutting of the trees, etc. That has a great deal to do with
making the decision.
Mr. Perkins said one of the problems is that VDOT standards do change from time-to-time. What is
being proposed here is almost a superhighway connecting two pig paths. Maybe the Board needs to
A@
formulate a policy that the road which is improved would be to no higher standard than the road leading to
that road. This road would then be no better than Route 601 or its paved portion leading to 601. He thinks
that would solve a lot of the problems. He believes the portion of this road to be paved could be paved in
place. The Governor has been talking about VDOTs overexpenditure of funds, road projects are coming in
=
at much higher estimates than the projections. This would be a chance for VDOT to change that and build
roads at a cheaper price. It is ridiculous for four-tenths of a mile of Grassmere Road to cost over $250,000
when it could be paved in place. A lot of things could be done to change those costs and the aggravation of
the people along the road. He had a copy of a letter from 1966 which noted Catterton Road as being a
state-maintained road. What does that mean? If there are roads in the system which serve a truly limited
A@
purpose, maybe they should be taken out of the system and no longer be a public road. There have been
people working for 60 years to get Catterton Road paved. People have made statements that the runoff
from gravel roads is much less than from paved roads, but that is not the case. The runoff from a gravel
road is 80 percent as much as what it is from a paved road. Probably the siltation and erosion from an
unpaved road is greater than what it would be from a paved road. Water quality is better from a paved road
than from an unpaved road. There are a lot of issues, but he feels it comes down to VDOTs standards
=
being too high. Many, many years ago, VDOT said they were working to reduce their standards, but they
have not done so. It seems to be a good time for VDOT to say it can build this road to a lesser standard
and maybe satisfy more people than would have been satisfied with the present plan. He referred to Mr.
Dorriers comment about making improvements and keeping it a gravel road, and said that a gravel road is
=
unsafe at any speed. Although he realizes Mr. Dorriers point, once the improvement is made, a surface
=
treatment needs to be put on the road.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board had an unwritten policy to defer to the Supervisor in whose district the
road was located. He wonders if that is being changed, and if so, why change it for one road and not
another road? Ms. Humphris said that has never been her policy. She has never based any vote on just
going along with another Supervisor because it is his/her district. She always has to make her own
decision.
Mr. Martin said he has never known that to be the Boards policy.
=
Mr. Perkins said he had one other comment about Catterton Road. He said that cars can pull over
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
to let another car pass, but he has been involved with people timbering along that road. When a log truck
uses that road and there is another car on the road, one of them has to back up. He said log trucks dont
=
back up.
Mr. Martin said he would make a motion that the Board set the public hearing on the Countys Six-
=
Year Secondary Road Plan for February 14, 2001. Between now and then take into consideration some of
the comments made today and come up with a strategy for moving forward, especially on individual roads.
He would like to underline the importance of the recommendation to move the Proffit Road improvements
up in the plan, the spot improvements, as well as the other improvements, due to the new Baker-Butler
School being built in the area.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the motion could include some of Ms. Humphris comments directed to
=
staff to clarify some conditions. Mr. Martin said the motion takes into consideration comments made by
both Ms. Humphris and Ms. Thomas. Mr. Bowerman then gave second to the motion.
Ms. Thomas said there was actually one more recommendation in the staffs report that had not
=
been mentioned yet.
Mr. Benish said No. 5 is Barracks/Garth Road from Georgetown Road to White Hall to include a
spot improvement/paved shoulder project for this road, the purpose being to make the road more
accommodating to bicycles.
Ms. Thomas said she would like for staff to look into whether there is anything this Board needs to
do at the Countys end for the Hillsdale Connector. At the MPO, it has become evident that the City is
=
increasingly interested in this project with it possibly being an urban project for the City. Mr. Tucker said that
basically, the County has already built its part. There may be some other connection that needs to be
looked at.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the recorded vote which follows:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14b. Other Transportation Matters.
Ms. Thomas welcomed Mr. Jim Bryan as the new Resident Engineer.
__________
Mr. Bill Mills, Acting Resident Engineer, was present. He asked Mr. Benish if January 24 would be
a good date to look at Route 601.
__________
Mr. Mills said the contract has been awarded for the Route 791 project. He will E-mail Ms. Thomas
the name of the contractor and the phone number.
__________
Mr. Mills said the contract for unlimited excavating on Route 605 has been awarded. He will let Ms.
Thomas know the particulars in writing.
__________
Mr. Mills said a Location Public Hearing has been advertised for Route 651, Free State Road
connector. The public hearing will be held at CATEC on January 25, 2001, from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
__________
Mr. Mills said the Board probably already knows that there is a Route 29 Corridor hearing on
January 18 at Red Hill School from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Ms. Thomas said the Board did not know that.
She said she and Mr. Cilimberg are on the committee and had not been advised of this hearing. She asked
County staff to contact Mr. Joe Springer and make sure that publicity about this meeting is widespread.
__________
Ms. Humphris said the Board is continuing its discussion about Routes 22/231. A copy of another
letter has been received from Mr. Henry J. Browne who had a tractor trailer run into the front of his property
(Walkers Mill). He suggested to the owner of the company owning the truck that it would be good, both for
=
his truck drivers and the community, if he would join with all and try to control the problem of tractor trailers
on Routes 22/231. Mr. Tucker said the Highway Commissioner is looking at the idea of shifting this road
from a primary to a secondary road in the hope that that might help. Staff has not received anything from
him at this time. There is a provision in State Code which allows the locality to initiate such a request. He
has not looked at all of its implications. He had hoped the Commissioner would take the initiative.
__________
Ms. Humphris referred to the advertisement for the public hearing on Route 651. She asked if the
other Board members felt the public would understand what the hearing is about. She said VDOTs
=
advertisements, although factual, dont give the public any idea of what is going to happen.
=
Ms. Thomas said they are not County ads, but VDOT ads. She asked Mr. Mills for his thoughts if
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
the Board felt the ads should be more reader-friendly. Mr. Mills said there is a map which goes along with
that ad and some of those maps will be posted in public places.
Ms. Humphris said she has been having this discussion with VDOT for about 11 years. She has
even gone to Mr. Don Askew about these ads, which although legal, dont help the public understand what
=
is going to happen. She said once all the legal requirements are fulfilled, the Board gets the grief.
A@
Ms. Thomas asked if Ms. Humphris wanted the County to run parallel ads at its own expense. Ms.
Humphris asked for comments from Board members. Mr. Martin said he thinks this is one of those areas
where if an improvements is wanted, you have to do it yourself. Mr. Tucker said Ms. Lee Catlin will work
A@
with the local media to see if they can develop some language and information about the project.
Ms. Thomas asked if staff would work with VDOT to see if they would like to contract with the
County to write the actual advertisement.
__________
Ms. Thomas asked that VDOT keep the Board informed when new stop lights are to be installed.
Staff was informed about one to be placed on Route 250. The Route 250 West Advisory Committee would
like to be given time to understand better that light on Route 250, its impact, and its necessity. Mr. Mills said
VDOT has installation of three lights in progress. One is at the intersection of Route 250 East with Route
616. There is one to be placed at the intersection or Routes 250 and 677, and a third at the intersection of
I-64 and Fifth Street. He will send the warrants to Mr. Juan Wade today.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the next item to be discussed is Item 12.7 from the Consent Agenda, Letter
A
dated December 13, 2000, from J. Blake Caravati, Mayor, City of Charlottesville, to the Honorable Charles
S. Martin, Chairman, regarding the Meadow Creek Parkway.
@
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
A
Office of the Mayor
P.O. Box 911
Charlottesville, Virginia A 22902
Telephone (804) 970-3113
December 13, 2000
Charles Martin, Chair
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Charles:
Enclosed is a copy of a letter, dated December 11, 2000, from the City Council to the
Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT"). It revises comments we had made to
VDOT last year, which we forwarded to you on July 19, 1999. When compared to our
initial comments of a year ago, I believe what the Council is saying now can be character-
ized correctly as a refinement of the earlier comments and is not a substantial variation
from our original focus.
We believe the comments we make at this time to VDOT will create a better product, a
road that truly will be seen as a good example of an urban "parkway." Our Council has
changed to some extent since last year and now has an even greater sense of urgency
about the need for cooperation between the County, the City, and the University in
fashioning a regional transportation network. Many of the things we said in our July 19,
1999, letter to you and the Board are still true, particularly as they relate to the need to
acquire additional parkland between the 250 Bypass and Rio Road in connection with the
Meadow Creek Parkway project.
The Council is strongly motivated to work closely with the Board to solve the increasingly
complex transportation challenges, in the context of the Eastern Connector, the Meadow
Creek Parkway, and the other related transportation issues which face our community
and our region. Within the next two months I would request that two members of Council
join with two members of the Board to identify the issues that will be addressed in a new
regional plan. Consideration of an update of the existing Three Party Agreement is
paramount in our minds. I will look forward to discussing with you in early January the
most efficient process to use so that our respective elected bodies and of the University
can make significant progress on these issues relatively soon.
Best wishes for a wonderful holiday season.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
J. Blake Caravati, Mayor
@
_____
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
A
Office of the Mayor
P.O. Box 911
Charlottesville, Virginia A 22902
Telephone (804) 970-3113
December 11, 2000
H. Charles Rasnick
Reginald H. Beasley, Jr.
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219-1939
Re: McIntire Road Extension (Meadow Creek Parkway)
VDOT Project No. U000-104-102; 0631-002-128
City of Charlottesville
Gentlemen:
BACKGROUND
Early last year, preliminary road plans were presented by the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT), proposing four motor vehicle travel lanes crossing the eastern
portion of McIntire Park at a design speed of 70 km/hr (43.5 MPH). VDOT sought public
comment on this proposal at a hearing held May 27, 1999. Mayor Virginia Daugherty,
duly authorized by a Council resolution approved July 19, 1999, forwarded comments to
VDOT by letter dated July 20, 1999. While the Mayor's letter contained 12 numbered
paragraphs on specific categories, the primary thrust of her letter in behalf of the City was
to obtain a redesign by VDOT which would result in a two-lane parkway through McIntire
Park in accord with recommendations from the City retained consultant, Rieley & Associ-
ates, rather than allowing construction of a four lane highway.
The current design, as presented by VDOT requires further modification to be acceptable
to the City. The latest revisions to the preliminary plans submitted by VDOT to the City
and Rieley & Associates in August of 2000 represent a step in the right direction toward a
design that the City can accept, but the City is not yet willing to approve the major design
features of that plan or sell the necessary right of way to VDOT until the design is further
amended and necessary assurances given by VDOT and Albemarle County to comply
fully with the comments contained in this letter. The specific or technical design revisions
which the City thinks are still needed in order to achieve a true parkway concept are
attached hereto as Exhibit A. The City will not endorse or approve any design activity for
the Parkway which deviates from the guidelines set forth in Exhibit A.
REVISED COMMENTS FROM CITY COUNCIL
In addition to asking that VDOT make proposed technical revisions described in Appendix
A to the current VDOT plans for this project, the City Council by majority vote also
submits herewith comments which effectively revise portions of the City position stated in
Mayor Daugherty's letter of July 20, 1999. Set forth below using the same numbering
system that was utilized initially are all 12 points of the City's position, as revised
(paragraphs that contain revisions when compared to the July 20th letter are shown in
italics).
1. Design Speed. Each and every member of Council opposes the roadway
design speed proposed by VDOT of 70 km/hr. Instead, Council asks that the Meadow
Creek Parkway be designed for a maximum speed of 60 km/hr or 37.25 MPH. In
conjunction with its suggestion to lower the road's design speed, Council also asks that
the proposed road be sized and aligned in a manner consistent with the Rieley Report so
that the road will be "blended as gracefully as possible into the existing land form." This
should help to reduce the project's impact on McIntire Park.
(VDOTs amended plans
=
have responded in part to this comment by lowering design speed).
2. Number of Lanes. Council requests that two (2) primary (north-south) motor
vehicle travel lanes, rather than four (4), together with bike lanes and pedestrian paths,
be constructed (between of the 250 By-pass and Rio Road). The footprint for the
Parkway acquisition must have a centerline, curves, and size to match approximately the
2-U Study Alignment (2-Lane Undivided) identified on Page 6 in the first Rieley Report
A@
(dated April 27, 1999) entitled "Alternative Alignments and Profiles."
3. Sufficient Right-of-Way for Two (2) Lanes. Right of way for only two (2) lanes
of motor vehicle travel bike lanes and pedestrian paths should be acquired at the outset
as part of the current project.
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
4. The Intersection at Route 250.
(a) Proper design of this intersection is critical if this project is to succeed without
considerable damage to the Park. In our opinion, any final design has to include a tightly
drawn intersection with a relatively small footprint. The initial VDOT design is
far too large. We believe that the total number of lanes created by the intersection
should not exceed seventeen (17).
Access for pedestrians and bicycle travel to Mclntire Park at the proposed
intersection also must be accommodated in an effective manner for the intersection to
work as we desire
and in accord with the second Rieley Report (dated August 31, 2000,
copy of which is enclosed).
(b) While the approval process, design and construction of the Parkway project
goes forward, Council is committed to seeking VDOT funding - and approval for a
second project - one that results in a tight urban interchange which replaces the
intersection described in section 4a. Councils commitment is based in part on
=
recommendations contained in an October, 2000 report of Rieley & Associates (copy of
which is enclosed), and in part on a belief that such an interchange will operate more
efficiently, allow for safe pedestrian and bicycle access to the Park, provide aesthetically
pleasing access to the City, and help address long term traffic movement needs between
the 250 By-pass and the Parkway. To further underscore a desire on the Citys part to
=
facilitate this second project, the City is willing to perform design, bid, and construction
phases of this second project - all within the required oversight parameters for this type
of process.
5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel. Council endorses the construction of dedi-
cated "on road" bicycle lanes on each side of the Parkway's north-south travel lanes to
serve high speed cyclists. In addition and in accord with the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (the MPO) recommendation, Council also supports construction of a shared
pedestrian/bicycle path much like the one proposed by the VDOT design, but eight rather
than five feet in width.
6. A New Lake or Pond for the Park. Combination of the storm water manage-
ment facilities into one pond or "lake", as in the Rieley report, . The City will
is essential
do everything within reason to expand this concept in cooperation with VDOT. Everyone
will benefit, park and outdoors enthusiasts, and motorists using the Parkway.
7. Additional Park Land.
The Citys approval for the Meadow Creek Parkway
=
design shall be and is contingent upon the acquisition of replacement parkland and
green space by the City, the County, and VDOT to create a greater contiguous Park, for
the use of our citizens throughout the region and confirm the status of this new road as a
true Parkway. This new parkland and green space is intended to replace the land lost to
the Parkway as well as the loss of use imposed on some of the remaining portions of
Mclntire Park. It is also intended to serve as a community asset for Park/Rio and its
environs, and to protect the view shed surrounding the Parkway and Park/Rio Road.
While an expert evaluation could be provided by a third party, such as the Va.
Department of Conservation and Recreation, we suggest that 50 acres of land,
contiguous to the existing park would be an appropriate replacement amount.
8. Cell Towers. To supplement its revenues, VDOT has begun leasing portions
of the public rights-of-way that VDOT now owns - property originally acquired solely for
traditional road system purposes. Such leases transfer long term use of various sites to
private companies who then construct wireless telecommunication towers ("Cell towers")
on the sites along our highways.
Cell towers are just as unsightly as billboards, perhaps more so, because they
are larger or taller or both. Yet, construction of these towers continues to proliferate in
Virginia. This new cell tower-highway program has occurred without any local
government zoning or land use oversight or permission, and without any meaningful
opportunity for the public to participate in deciding where the next tower will appear. For
these reasons, the City is opposed to any construction of such towers anywhere along
Phase I of this project without the express permission of this Council and of the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County. We wish to see VDOT's agreement to this local
government involvement memorialized in a formal document as the project moves
forward.
9. Limited Access. Council endorses the concept of a limited access Parkway
for this road
for its entire length, from the 250 Bypass to Rio Road, except for the single
It should be engineered for passenger traffic only, and
intersection of Melbourne Road.
signed to prevent truck traffic. Council chooses not to recommend fencing of the right of
way as is conventional in many limited access highways. As the Rieley Report indicates,
"with the lower speed design and the objective of making this roadway as much a part of
the park as is possible" fencing is not "necessary or desirable".
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
10. Regional Transportation and the Eastern Connector. While the Council
supports construction of a two lane version of the Meadow Creek Parkway as described
in this letter, Council has no interest in this Parkway's becoming a "eastern
de facto
connector", i.e., being used by the public to travel from Route 29 North to Pantops-Route
20 North. The Parkway should be viewed as only one small part of the regional transpor-
tation solution.
To this end, the Citys approval of the Meadow Creek Parkway is
=
contingent upon receipt of a commitment within six months from the date of this resolu-
tion from Albemarle County and the University of Virginia, in cooperation with the MPO
and VDOT, to develop a new regional transportation network plan which, among other
things, will minimize increases in automobile traffic in City and County neighborhoods
through the year 2015. Development of this plan shall include focus on reviewing all
data that has been created. The goal of the plan shall be to develop new regional
solutions to our current and future traffic problems, without adversely impacting existing
City and County residents or businesses or overly depleting our regions natural
=
resources.
11. The MPO Meadow Creek Parkway Design Advisory Committee. This
Committee is commended by Council for its extensive work on the preliminary Parkway
designs heretofore put forward by VDOT. We urge VDOT to continue to work with this
Committee to ensure "that the road is compatible with the community's natural and built
environment, and enhances the multi-modal mobility for area residents". To the extent
that the Advisory Committee needs assistance in the future from the City in these
continuing efforts, the City may hire a technical consultant to monitor design and con-
struction, and seeks VDOT cooperation in addressing legitimate concerns of this Council
and City staff as the process moves forward.
12. Vietnam War Memorial. As final design plans evolve, proper measures
must be taken by VDOT in cooperation with the City to protect, preserve, and care for the
War Memorial which currently is located on a hill in McIntire Park near of the proposed
intersection of the Parkway and the 250 Bypass.
The foregoing items - one by one - are each in their own right important, crucial,
elements in any final design that the City and this Council will support. These compo-
nents were coupled together in order for Council to build a consensus. To the extent that
the City has any right, by law or practice, to approve of the final design, we ask and
expect that VDOT will remember this linkage.
Finally, if there are questions that VDOT has about Council's position as stated in
this letter, please let us know, through contact with City staff or with me. We stand ready
to cooperate with VDOT in moving this project from the proverbial drawing board to
construction.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed)
J. Blake Caravati, Mayor
cc: Donald R. Askew, District Administrator, Culpeper
Carter Myers
Board of Supervisors
@
__________
Ms. Thomas said she believes the Board had been requested to make a response to Council within
two months. She said the MPO meets monthly, and an informal way to make that response would be to
instruct the Countys MPO members, but a more formal answer will be needed later. They are asking for
=
more assurance about parkland, but the letter very carefully did not demand 50 acres, but suggested that
50 acres is what they would be comfortable with. She has been told that is probably within the realm of
reason. The other request is that some new, better, improved regional transportation network be
developed. The members of the MPO are puzzled because that is what the MPO does all the time. She is
pleased that the City is interested in a regional network. She said there will soon be an Advisory Committee
appointed to work on the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS). That would be a perfect time
to give them a charge, and if the City wants to put in something about protecting their neighborhoods from
transportation impacts, that would be the right time to do so. She asked for comments from Board
members.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the 50 acres can be obtained from the one hundred year flood area along
the streams. Ms. Thomas said there is an expensive consultant working on that exact point. She believes
the most practical response would be to say the County is waiting for a report from its consultant. She was
just giving a feeling of magnitude because she cant tell two acres from twenty acres. She was told that fifty
=
acres is not an unreasonable suggestion.
Ms. Humphris said she has been irate since she saw the letters above. She has a few items to
mention. In Councils resolution to VDOT, they had the audacity to include a statement saying ... the Citys
=A=
approval of the Meadow Creek Parkway is contingent upon receipt of a commitment within six months from
the date of this resolution from Albemarle County and the University of Virginia, in cooperation with the MPO
and VDOT, to develop a new regional transportation network plan .... She said her wrath was raised by
@
that. She brought with her this morning a red notebook which was prepared for and used at a Charlottes-
A
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
ville City Council and Albemarle Board of Supervisors Work Session on Transportation, Monday, April 10,
2000, 7:30 to 9:30 p.m. at the Senior Center. The agenda included, among other things, the Thomas
@
Jefferson Planning District Transportation Planning Program, the Transportation Planning Process, all of
the transportation funding programs, the CATS Project Plan, the Fiscal Year Transportation Improvement
Program (the Federally approved program), the Three-Party Agreement, the Eastern Planning Initiative
Project, and highlights of regional transportation studies and reports. She also brought a copy of the
Regional Transportation Plan which shows what the City does, what the County does, what the MPO does,
what VDOT does. At that meeting which was for City Council and the Board of Supervisors, every member
received a copy of that plan showing who does what and when. It even included graphics.
Ms. Humphris said all of this is just jabber made by City Council about preparing a new regional
A@
transportation plan. She has been on the MPO Policy Board for 11 years, was a member of the MPO
Technical Committee for seven years, and she knows how this works. Three of the people on City Council
either currently serve, or have served, on the MPO. Her ire was fair because there is no way they could not
understand that there is a locally-mandated, a state-mandated and a federally-mandated process which
the MPO goes through all year long every year, and every 10 years for the CATS update. Mr. Caravati, in
his cover letter, requested that within the next two months two members of Council and two member of the
Board meet to identify the issues to be addressed in a new regional plan. The MPO is just on the verge of
appointing the Citizens Advisory Committee to work on the update of the CATS Plan. That Committee will
eventually present a plan which will be approved by the Board, Council and the MPO.
Ms. Humphris said the mention in the letter of the Eastern Connector is interesting because it is
already currently the subject of a one-half million dollar study, the results of which will not be known for
another year. It is also a fact that there is no money to build any road from Route 250 East to Route 29
North, no matter the recommendation. Such a road does not fit into the Countys current Comprehensive
=
Plan. There is no intention to have any growth in the northeastern part of the County. She said that to her,
the whole thing seems to be a sham on the part of someone wanting to appear as being cooperative about
a regional transportation plan, an eastern connector, a good network that serves the City and the County
well, when in fact all of these suggestions are already in place and working according to law. She is baffled
by the whole thing.
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees with Ms. Humphris. The process is in place to do that which Council
directed be done. He believes all of the Board members agree that if it were possible to have an eastern
connector, the Eastern Corridor Study Committee would be the ones to make such a recommendation. He
is not sure of the intent of the communication to this Board in light of the facts that Ms. Humphris has just
put into the record.
Mr. Dorrier said he is fairly new to the Board and does not know all of the history of the Meadow
Creek Parkway design and the process. In looking at some of Councils comments, he is not sure if the
=
Board should take them substantively or if they should go back to the MPO. If there is a process in place,
he thinks the Board should send a letter back to the City recommending that they go through the process
that has already been set up, rather than changing the process. That is his recommendation.
Ms. Thomas asked if staff could be directed to draft a response to City Council's letter of December
13, 2000. She said the italicized parts of the letter to VDOT (set out above) are new, but the other parts are
from the letter of September, 2000 and the Board has already responded to those comments. She
suggested that the letter make reference to the fact that the Board has now hired a consultant to work on
the design of the Parkway. She wishes the news media, instead of emphasizing the disagreement, would
get excited about the Parkway which is about to be designed. She thinks it will be a real amenity to the
community in a way that was not anticipated. It will create a linear park, and there is something positive
going on here that is not recognized in the letter from City Council.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there should be any reference to the fact that Penn Parks existence is a
=
result of the knowledge that McIntire Park would have a roadway through it. It was an attempt to eliminate
the loss of parkland. He said that is an important factor. Ms. Humphris said it is definitely a thread which
has been lost by City Council and their staff.
Mr. Martin said it is usually not possible to change the behavior of another person, but if you change
your behavior, sometimes that will help the other person change. He said City Council members are split
about the issue of this Parkway. Some members were recently elected running on an anti-parkway
platform. This Board will probably continue to see these split votes, and there might come a time when the
vote goes against the County. He believes this Board should prepare itself for what it would do if the vote
goes 3:2 not to build the Meadow Creek Parkway in the City. The Board needs to have a contingency plan
if that happens. Would the County go ahead with its part of the road and just drop it at Melbourne Road?
He understands that scenario has been run past the Transportation Board and it has not been ruled
completely absurd. He said City Council continues to add contingencies such as the request for an Eastern
Bypass which is not a possibility, so the Boards letter needs to be clear on the things that cannot be done.
=
The 50-acre park is still possible, but remind Council that Penn Park was supposedly built as the answer for
taking McIntire Park and that was a done deal, signed, sealed and delivered. In the past, there have been
A@
periods when the City was opposed to the Parkway. Right now they are 3:2 in favor. Next week they might
be 3:2 opposed to it. The Board needs to articulate what it will do if it decides to move forward with the plan
Council has already agreed to.
Mr. Bowerman said the County is spending $140,000 for that plan now.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the Highway Department has some say in this, and they are going ahead
with an existing plan working with the consultants. It is not just two governmental bodies involved, it is a
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
State department dealing with the money to construct the road. They may have the final say no matter
what City Council says.
Ms. Humphris said until now, the Board has been going along to keep the peace. It looks now as if
the Board is being bullied into agreeing to some things the County simply cannot do. She said the Board
does need a contingency plan. The Board cant control City Council. What she understands from talking to
=
some Councillors is that what came out in the Mayors letter, not the resolution, is not what City Council
=
agreed to overall. She read in a news article that what was agreed to in their work sessions was changed
somewhat through the E-mail process. She said this Board does not do business that way. The Board is
sitting right here in public, and whatever conclusion is reached at the end of this discussion is what staff will
carry out for the Board. The Board members will not go home and start E-mailing each other and suggest
that something be changed. This was termed by one of the City Councillors as business as usual, politics
A
101. Here on the Board it is government 101" and it is done in public. Knowing how this Board operates,
@A
relying on its staff for factual information, there seems to be some lack of information on the part of staffs
=
counterparts in the City. She read The transportation planning process, how projects are proposed,
A
planned, and implemented is done by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. She
@
suggested that staff draw the attention of their counterparts in the City to this document so they can give
guidance to City Councillors in reference to the letter, the two things dont fit.
=
Ms. Thomas said the meeting she attended was a discussion among City Council members with no
reference to or use of their staff. She said that doing government in the open does take more time, so the
Board is now running late on todays agenda. Before this item is closed, she asked if staff had any
=
questions to ask before it starts to draft a letter to the City. Mr. Tucker said staff will draft a letter, show it to
the Board, and it will be amended until the Board is happy with it.
Mr. Martin said he thinks it is very important for the Board to start looking at options. What will the
County do if the City backs out at a future date?
Ms. Humphris said this involves finding out from the Countys CTB member if he would entertain
=
the idea of the County simply continuing with its planning process without the City.
Mr. Bowerman said he understands that Council has a proposal for some moderate income
housing which would access Rio Road and would involve taking the Countys right-of-way to allow that to
=
happen. He does not believe Rio Road can take an additional daily 2000 vehicle trips per day generated by
this development. Without improvements to Rio Road, vis-à-vis the Meadow Creek Parkway, Rio Road
would be unsustainable and the City would not be able to have those units.
_______________
(Note: Ms. Thomas said that because the meeting is running behind the published schedule, she
thinks some items will have to be moved to the afternoon portion of the meeting. After a short discussion, it
was the consensus to take a short recess, come back and hear the School Boards presentation, and hold
=
the public hearings advertised for the morning session. After that, the Board will decide what to do about
the other items on the morning agenda. At 10:38 a.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:55 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. School Board Presentation.
Mr. Charles Ward, Chairman of the Albemarle County School Board, was present to make the
presentation. He said the School Board appointed Ms. Mary Rodriguez to a one year term to represent the
Rio District; she will fill out the term of Ms. Susan C. Gallion who has resigned. Ms. Rodriguez is a former
assistant principal, a principal, and an instructional coordinator in Albemarle County schools. She retired
from the Culpeper County school system in 1997 and currently works part-time with student teachers at
James Madison University.
Mr. Ward said that on December 9 and 10, the Division conducted Veteran Teacher interviews, and
as a result, 33 early contracts were offered, with 14 already being accepted.
Mr. Ward said that at its December 14 meeting, the School Board directed the Superintendent to
submit a needs-based request for funds for next years budget.
=
Mr. Ward said the Board also discussed its High School Program of Studies, and will try to expand
its use to two years. They are looking at the idea of having Gifted Resource Teachers advise students more
in course selections. There have been a lot of overworked guidance counselors, so this should help give
them some more time. The guidance counselors will also be doing remediation for the SOLs.
Mr. Ward noted that the School Board Clerk, Ms. Tina Fuller, has resigned. They have advertised
for a replacement, with the closing date of applications being January 12, 2001.
Mr. Ward said the Charter High School Application for Murray High School has come before the
School Board. The Board sent it back and asked for a detailed breakdown of the school with its own
budget. This was done because they would have access to Federal pass-through money to allow them to
do different things. They have asked for a variance on the curriculum, which is a yearly request. They also
asked for other waivers relating to the School Board Policies. He feels this school will be a great asset to
the County.
Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Ward for the presentation.
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. SP-2000-55. Mt. Sinai Baptist Church (Sign # 93). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to allow dining hall add'n to church. Znd RA. TM 18, P 31. Contains 2.009 acs. Loc on Simmons
Gap Rd (Rt 663) approx 1.4 mls from intersec w/Buffalo River Rd (Rt 604). White Hall Dist. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on November 27 and December 4, 2000. Because of inclement weather, the hearing
was postponed to this date.)
Mr. Tucker summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office and made a part of
==
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this is a request to construct a 30-foot by 40-
foot addition to an existing church. There are no homes in the immediate vicinity of the church and the
addition will be constructed with materials similar to the existing church. Staff did not feel the addition would
be detrimental to adjacent properties. VDOT recommended that the northern entrance be closed due to
inadequate sight distance. They recommended that the southern entrance be widened to a commercial
standard width with surface treatment in the vicinity of Simmons Gap Road. The existing fence on church
property near the road should be removed in order to achieve adequate sight distance. Staff
recommended approval of the applicants request subject to five conditions.
=
The Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 14, 2000, unanimously recommended
approval of SP-2000-55 subject to the conditions recommended by staff, but did rewrite Condition #1.
Mr. Cilimberg handed to the Board members a copy of Condition #1 which is suggested for a
further rewording.
Ms. Thomas asked if the applicant would like to speak.
Ms. Marcia Joseph was present to represent the applicant. She said they do not want to submit a
site plan for this addition, and the ordinance does not require a site plan unless the use is being intensified.
They want to submit only a sketch plan showing that there is adequate parking. She said it is implied in the
staff report that there will be a site plan submitted, and she wants to clarify that a site plan is not required.
Ms. Thomas asked if Condition #4 should be reworded. Mr. Cilimberg said there is no requirement
in the conditions for a site plan. It is in general accordance with a concept plan. The determination of a site
plan is an administrative decision. If it were necessary, the applicant would have to seek a waiver from the
Commission. There is no reason to address that in the conditions.
Mr. Nathaniel Wright said he is a deacon in the church. The church is a fixed part the community.
The congregation is small, and they do not foresee an increase in membership. They want to update the
church in order to have more room for activities, but stay focused and maintain the present church facility.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve SP-2000-55
subject to the five conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, with Condition #1 being reworded
as presented to the Board this morning.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1)The applicant shall close the northern entrance and extend the drainage ditch
through the entrance area and seed. The existing fence on church property near
the southern entrance shall be removed to the extent necessary to achieve
adequate sight distance. All improvements shall meet VDOT requirements.
Widening the southern entrance to commercial standard width with surface
treatment in the vicinity of Route 663 shall not be required;
2)There shall be no day care center or private school on site without a separate
special use permit;
3)Any future expansion of the church structures or use shall require amendment to
this special use permit;
4)The site shall be developed in general accordance with the concept plan known as
The Mt. Sinai Baptist Church Property Conceptual Site Plan by Gloeckner Engineer-
ing\Surveying, Inc. dated 11/9/99. Locations of building is approximate; and
5)The applicant shall obtain approval from the Health Department.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. SP-2000-56. Dennis Enterprises (Sign #92). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to allow add'l vehicle display parking. Znd HC, EC. TM 78, P 13. Contains 2.748 acs. Loc on
Richmond Rd (Rt 250) approx 1 ml from intersec of Richmond Rd & Stony Point Rd. Rivanna Dist.
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 27 and December 4, 2000. Because of inclement weather,
the hearing was postponed to this date.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office and made a part of
==
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the request is for expansion of the existing
outdoor storage and display of automobiles for sale. It is a site which currently has a showroom. The
additional display spaces will be located at the back of the site. No negative impact is expected on the
surrounding properties from this proposal. It is in an area designated for Regional Service in the Compre-
hensive Plan, and is consistent with development of the adjacent properties. The ARB expressed that there
may be an impact and recommended conditions for any approval. Staff recommended approval subject to
three conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 14, 2000, unanimously
recommended approval of the petition subject to the same conditions recommended by staff.
Ms. Thomas asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Glenn Smith was present to represent Dennis Enterprises. He had no comments to add to the
staffs report.
=
Mr. Mike Spooner said he is the adjacent landowner. He has not seen the staffs notes, but he
=
would like to be sure the piping is engineered for the stormwater drainage so that when he develops his
property (he is working on a proposal now), as well as any land to the east of him, it will be sufficient to
handle runoff. He is working with VDOT and the County on a site plan and extending the drainage pipe
along that area to the place where Mr. Mentos pipe is being installed.
=
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and Ms. Thomas
asked for staff comments.
Mr. Cilimberg said the matter of stormwater drainage would be addressed by the Engineering
Department during final site plan approval.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it is customary to allow for what Mr. Spooner requested. Mr. Cilimberg said
he would have to defer to Engineering for an answer to that question. He is not sure how they deal with off-
site drainage.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is any meeting where the adjacent landowner could attend and make
his concerns known. Mr. Cilimberg said this proposal has been through site review and it would be handled
in a standard form for stormwater management. He must defer to Engineering for an answer as to exactly
how that would be handled. Ms. Thomas told Mr. Spooner he should call the Engineering Department.
Mr. Brian Smith said this area is not in a stormwater detention area or regional area, so each
property is handled independently with its own stormwater facilities. The pipe has been sized to handle
more than a ten-year flow, which is the design criteria for the pipe that goes through Dennis Enterprises.
When Mr. Spooner gets ready to develop his property, he will have to address stormwater detention
ordinance requirements.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve SP-2000-56 subject to
the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1)Vehicles on display shall not be elevated;
2)Vehicles shall be displayed only within the areas designated for display on the site
plan labeled sheet 2 of 4, entitled Dennis Enterprises, Inc. Site Plan Amendment
A
(siterev2.pro) with revision date of August 28, 2000;
@
3)The use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the
Architectural Review Board for the associated site plan amendment to include ARB-
required landscaping.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. SDP-00-119, Home Depot at North Town Center, Preliminary Site Plan
Appeal. Request for preliminary site plan approval to allow construction of a 130,184 square foot building
for retail sales store, on approximately 15.9 acres, zoned HC (Highway Commercial) and EC (Entrance
Corridor). The property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 110, 110A, 111, 111A and 111B is located on
the east side of Route 29 North, approximately 1/2 mile north of the Rio Road intersection. This site is
designated as Regional Service in Urban Neighborhood 2. Rivanna Dist.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this is a heavily wooded site with many large,
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
mature trees. Two small streams converge and pass eastward through the property toward the rear
boundary. There are areas of critical slopes on the property associated with the stream. He said the
resources identified on the composite map in the County's Open Space Plan, and which are present on the
property, are a buffer area to the rear of the property which is to buffer commercial from residential uses,
and the Entrance Corridor Overlay District (EC) on Route 29. The buffer areas are intended to separate
and protect dissimilar uses such as residences and commercial developments, and are recommended for
protection in the Development Areas. Staff is requiring the applicant to construct a screening fence to
reinforce the screening provided by vegetation within the buffer.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Architectural Review Board (ARB) addresses development within the
Entrance Corridor District (EC), and this development proposal has already been the subject of preliminary
ARB review. Final ARB approval and issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness will be required prior to
approval of the final site plan. He said the Site Review Committee has reviewed the preliminary site plan
and staff could grant administrative approval of the plan, subject to Commission approval of the waivers
and modifications, there being three needed: waiver of provisions for critical slopes; modification to allow a
reduction in the number of loading spaces; and, waiver to allow a fence within the 20-foot undisturbed
buffer.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff has received comments from several abutting property owners in
Carrsbrook and Woodbrook regarding the preliminary site plan itself. Staff notes that the proposed
development is a by-right use in the Highway Commercial District, so the issue of whether the proposed use
is an appropriate use for the site was not a consideration of the review. With the exception of the requested
waivers and modifications, review is limited to deciding if the site plan is in compliance with regulations set
forth in Section 32.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. Because the subject property naturally drains in the
northeastern direction to Carrsbrook, concern has been expressed as to the impact the proposed
development could have on the subdivision's existing lakes and ponds which are already exposed to
increased amounts of runoff and siltation from upstream development. The Engineering Department
reviewed the conceptual stormwater management layout for compliance with preliminary site plan
provisions in the ordinance and the County's Water Protection Ordinance. As a result of that review, the
required changes have been made, and the Engineering Department's recommendation includes many
conditions that will have to be addressed prior to approval of the final stormwater facilities and drainage
calculations. Prior to approval of the final site plan, other issues related to the appearance of the site, such
as landscaping, lighting, and building colors, must be reviewed by the ARB, Planning Department, and the
Zoning Department for compliance with all relevant ordinances and design guidelines.
Mr. Cilimberg said as to the proposal to waive provisions for critical slopes, the applicant is
proposing to fill and construct in an area containing critical slopes. He said the 15.9 acres contains
approximately 2.41 acres of critical slopes, which is about 15 percent the total site area. According to the
site plan, a majority of the critical slopes would be filled and compacted in order to create an area sufficient
for the building and parking lot, and portions of a stormwater detention facility. He said the Engineering
Department has evaluated this request for potential movement of soil and rock, excess stormwater runoff
and siltation, and water pollution, and they recommended approval. The fill activity to create the building
site would require piping the two natural streams that converge and run through the center of the property.
Although the lakes and ponds in the nearby subdivisions are mapped on the wetlands inventory map, staff
analysis has determined that neither of the streams on the subject property are inventoried on the Open
Space Plan Composite Map, or the U.S. Department of the Interior's Wetlands Inventory Maps. Any
disturbance of wetlands located on the site are subject to all state and Federal regulations. Staff cannot
grant approval of the final site plan unless all of the required state and Federal approvals and permits have
been issued.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff uses the Open Space Plan to objectively assess the possibilities for loss of
aesthetic appeal. The property proposed for this development is bordered by a designated buffer area and
is adjacent to Route 29, an EC, and both of these items are identified as resources on the Composite Map.
Staff found that none of the other aesthetic resources identified by the Open Space Plan are present on this
site. The ARB conducted a preliminary review of the site plan and its aesthetic impact on the EC, with an
understanding that a development of this size would require clearing nearly all of the trees on this wooded
site, and filling the critical slopes. Since a majority of the critical slopes are internal to the site, the ARB
review and comment focused on ensuring that development will be consistent with design guidelines for
development in the EC. The ARB did propose conditions under which the development could take place
and meet their guidelines. Staff recommended approval of the critical slope waiver request (Section
4.2.3.2) subject to conditions for approval of the final site plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said as to the request to modify Section 4.12.7.2a, Required Off-Street Loading
Spaces (Retail), a strict application of the ordinance would require that 17 loading spaces be provided. The
applicant says that in their experience, four spaces have provided adequate loading area. Although
approval of this request would allow a substantial reduction in the required amount of loading spaces,
similar requests for fewer than the required number of loading spaces have been approved in the past.
Because it is the applicant who will coordinate delivery schedules with suppliers, staff feels they would be
capable of determining the number of spaces sufficient to accommodate the loading and receiving
operations. Staff recommended approval of this modification.
Mr. Cilimberg said as to buffer areas, there is a requirement in the commercial districts that a 20-
foot undisturbed buffer be maintained on commercially-zoned properties adjacent to residential and rural
areas districts. Increasing the size of the buffer is not an option the applicant is willing to pursue.
Therefore, staff required that privacy fencing be provided in order to reinforce the screening provided by the
20-foot buffer of natural vegetation. The applicant shows a fence on the site plan. However, in response to
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
varying opinions of neighbors, the applicant has agreed to construct the fence either on the 20-foot buffer
line, or directly on the lot lines shared with adjacent residential properties. The location of the fence in
relationship to each property would be determined by the individual property owners. The
applicant requests a waiver in order to allow the fence to be constructed on the property line, as desired by
specific neighbors. It is not to reduce the 20-feet, only to allow that disturbance.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff determined that the proposed wood fence is consistent with fencing that
has been required for supplementing buffers between commercial and residential developments. It is
staff's opinion that the construction of a wooden fence would impose minimal disturbance within the buffer
because its position could be easily maneuvered around any significantly-sized trees, and the relatively
small foundations required for the fence posts could be spaced so as not to damage the underlying tree
roots. Staff recommended approval of this particular modification with conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval of the preliminary site plan and the waivers and
modification requests with a number of conditions (listed in the staff's report). As to the Planning
Commission's recommendation, at its meeting on November 28, 2000, it denied the Critical Slopes Waiver
request by a vote of 6:1, for three reasons:
1)The waiver would not forward the purposes of the ordinance or otherwise serve the public
interest; the waiver would not provide alternatives that would satisfy the purposes of Section
4.2 to at least an equivalent degree. This was based on the Commission's conclusions that
the volume of the runoff, the siltation and the desire to protect the streams in proximity to the
critical slopes and downstream water quality would not be satisfied by this critical slope waiver.
The importance of protecting water quality is identified in the "Purposes" section of the Water
Protection Ordinance. (Mr. Cilimberg said this does not fall under the Water Protection
Ordinance because these are not perennial streams.)
2)Under Section 4.2.5.2(b) which deals with the size, topography, shape of the property or
location of the property, the Commission found that there is no unreasonable restriction,
because as noted in the staff report, critical slopes comprise approximately 2.41 acres of a
15+ acre lot. There are other uses that can be made of the property given the location of the
critical slopes without disturbing these critical slopes. (Mr. Cilimberg said there has been no
plan on this, so there has been no analysis by staff. Several years ago there was a plan for
this property which showed development in smaller buildings, so it is reasonable to expect that
alternative layouts could be proposed that would have less of an effect on the critical slopes.)
3)Under Section 4.2.5.2(c) which allows a waiver to be granted if it is found that it would serve a
public purpose of greater import than would be served by a strict application of Section 4.2,
the Commission found that the waiver would not serve a greater public purpose for all the
reasons set forth above.
Mr. Cilimberg said that regarding the reduction in the number of loading spaces, the Commission
unanimously approved the off-street loading space waiver. Also, as to allowing the fence within the 20-foot
undisturbed buffer, the Commission unanimously approved this waiver request subject to three conditions
as outlined in a letter dated December 1, 2000, from Stephen Waller, Planner, addressed to the applicant.
Finally, the Commission denied by a vote of 6:1, the preliminary site plan for four reasons: 1) The project
would disturb critical slopes and the critical slopes waiver was denied; 2) Failure to comply with Section
32.5.6(f) which requires that the name and location of all watercourses and other bodies of water be
identified on the preliminary site plan; 3) Failure to comply with Section 32.5.6(d) - The proposed grading to
five-foot contours was inaccurately shown around the retaining walls; and, 4) Failure to comply with Section
32.5.6(n) which requires that the location and dimensions of proposed fences and other structures be
shown (in this case, the fences) on the preliminary site plan.
Ms. Thomas asked if Board members had questions.
Mr. Dorrier said he noted that there have been other applications for use of this property which
involved the critical slopes issue. In 1994, the Carrsbrook Retail Center was approved with a critical slopes
waiver being granted by the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said it was a different development proposal. Mr.
Dorrier said it basically involved the whole lot.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Davis to clarify what action is expected of the Board today. Mr. Davis said
this is an appeal of the decision of the Commission. Under Zoning Ordinance provisions, the applicant can
appeal that decision to this Board instead of taking it to the Circuit Court. The Board can affirm, reverse, or
modify the decision of the Commission on both the waiver of critical slopes, and on the preliminary site plan
approval. The ordinance requires that the Board take into consideration the recommendation of the agent,
which is the Planning Director, the Site Plan Review Committee, and the Planning Commission. It allows
the Board to take into account any additional information it feels is necessary to properly make the decision.
Site plan approval is a ministerial act and if the Board finds that the site plan meets all the requirements of
the ordinance, the Board is required to approve the site plan. The waiver of the critical slopes provisions is
also a ministerial act, but the criteria that are set forth in Section 4.2.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance is
somewhat subjective in nature. The Board needs to make its decision based on facts that are before it. If it
finds that the criteria in 4.2.5.2 have not been met, the waiver can be denied. If the Board denies this
request, it is probably a matter of litigation. There are some legal issues the Board may wish to discuss in
Closed Session before making a final decision, if the Board is inclined to consider denial.
Mr. Cilimberg said he would like to clarify that the waivers cannot be granted by staff. By ordinance
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
provisions, they are subject to Commission approval. Staff can administratively approve the site plan.
Mr. Dorrier said he understands the waiver can only be granted by the Commission and then
appealed to the Board. Without the waiver, the staff cannot approve the application. Mr. Davis said that is
correct. Without the waiver, the proposed site plan is in violation of Section 4.2 of the ordinance, it is not a
building site that does not disturb critical slopes. Without the waiver being granted by the Commission, the
plan would have to be denied.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board is limited to what the Commission and the Board can grant in the way
of a waiver, or can the Board consider the whole site plan. Mr. Davis said before the Board today is the
waiver of critical slopes and the preliminary site plan.
Mr. Bowerman asked if those were the only items appealed by the applicant. Mr. Davis said that is
correct.
Ms. Thomas said if the Board wanted to approve the site plan, it would have to grant the waiver,
and both the waiver and the site plan can have conditions attached. The Board might also want to discuss
those conditions further. It could ask the Commission to provide further conditions, or something in
between those two. Mr. Bowerman asked if the plan could be returned for final review to the Commission.
Mr. Tucker agreed.
Ms. Thomas said there are no rules as to how the Board handles the public portion of an appeal,
but in courtesy it always allows the applicant to speak. Today, the applicant will be allowed ten minutes to
speak. The Board has also offered the two affected neighborhoods a like amount of time. She believes
they have organized, and will have one speaker each. This is not an ordinary public hearing, and the Board
is not required to hear from anybody. She then asked the applicant to speak first.
Ms. Valerie Long, McGuireWoods, was present to represent the applicant. She introduced from
Home Depot, Mr. Ed Ogletree, Real Estate Manager, and Mr. Randy Royal, Project Engineer, and Ms.
Gloria Frye from McGuireWoods. She noted that the architects are also present. They ask that the Board
grant a critical slopes waiver with the conditions suggested by staff, and to also reverse the decision of the
Commission and approve the preliminary site plan with the conditions suggested by staff. She said Home
Depot did elect to appeal the decision to this Board instead of going to Circuit Court.
Ms. Long said the Commission denied the site plan for four reasons, and of those four reasons,
three could have been easily remedied. The plan could have been approved and the three items
addressed on the final plan. The fourth reason is the essential reason for the denial, the denial of the
critical slopes waiver. It is the position of the applicant, and the Site Review Committee, that the critical
slopes waiver should have been granted.
Ms. Long said the Commission has the authority to grant development waivers as provided in
Section 4.2.5.2. provided they make one or more of three findings. Either a) that when the alternative
proposed satisfies the purposes of the requirement to at least an equivalent degree, or b) when strict
application of 4.2 would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property, or c) when
granting the waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than that served by strict application of
Section 4.2. of the ordinance.
Ms. Long said the Commission concluded that the preliminary site plan did not meet any of these
criteria. She thinks that they actually meet all three. First, the alternative Home Depot proposes will satisfy
the five purposes of Section 4.2 at least to an equivalent degree. Regarding the concern for movement of
soil and rock, County Engineering staff states in the report that proper slope construction, control of
drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any movement of soil, and that stormwater runoff will be
diverted from the fill slopes by curb and gutter, storm sewer inlets and underground pipes. Regarding the
second concern for excessive stormwater runoff, the stormwater detention pond will detain runoff from one-
year, two-year, ten-year and one hundred year storms. The one-year storm design, they have been told, is
more stringent than what has been required of other developers in the same area. This goes beyond the
typical requirements of the Zoning Ordinance which are for a ten-year design. She understands this
one-year requirement was made by staff in response to specific concerns of some downstream neighbors.
She said the detention pond will provide for both water detention and water quality. All stormwater
generated by the increase in impervious surfaces on-site will be impounded and detained, and then after
filtering and solid settlement, it will be released at pre-development rates to preserve water quality.
Ms. Long said regarding the third concern in Section 4.2, Siltation, inspection and bonding will
insure that siltation control measures meet State Erosion Control standards during the site work period,
which is a relatively short window of six to eight weeks. Following construction, the stabilization and
maintenance proposed will insure long-term stability. Regarding the fourth concern of Section 4.2,
regarding loss of aesthetic resource, the 20-foot buffer and fence between the property and adjacent
residences will help mitigate loss from tree removal. In addition, the staff concluded that none of the other
aesthetic resources identified by the Comprehensive Plan's Open Space Plan, often associated with critical
slopes, are present on this site. Finally, according to correspondence from a member of the ARB (included
in the staff's report), this stream is not visible from the EC, and the loss of critical slopes will not be noticed
from the EC.
Ms. Long said the fifth concern of Section 4.2 regards septic effluent. Because this property is
served by public sewer, that is not applicable. Therefore, because the alternatives proposed by Home
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Depot will satisfy all five of the purposes of Section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree, Home Depot meets
the criteria for a critical slopes waiver contained in paragraph (a) of Section 4.2.5.2 of the ordinance. In
addition, while they only need to satisfy one of the criteria, they believe they also satisfy the following two
criteria: In paragraph (b) of 4.2.5.2, due to the topography and the location of the property downstream
from other large-scale development, and given that evidence has been provided that the critical slopes
waiver criteria has been met, they believe it would be unreasonable not to grant the waiver considering that
it was granted for upstream developments, such as Lowe's. This is how they comply with paragraph (b) of
4.2.5.2 because it would unreasonably restrict the use of the property based on the evidence provided.
Granting the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development
of the area as the property has been zoned this way for many years and is consistent with other
development in the area. Nor will it be detrimental to adjacent properties because the slopes will be
stabilized and maintained. It will be consistent with sound engineering practices.
Ms. Long said that finally they feel they meet the criteria contained in paragraph (3) of Section
4.2.5.2 because granting the waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than a strict application
of 4.2 because based on the stormwater control measures being provided, the quality of the water leaving
the property will actually be improved over pre-development quality based on existing natural erosion and
siltation. Also the water will be detained and released at a controlled rate equal to or less than the current
rates. Finally, granting the waiver will permit the development to occur and will allow for the creation of
approximately 150 new jobs and millions of dollars in tax revenues. Therefore, because Home Depot
actually meets all three criteria contained in Section 4.2.5.2 and not just the one criteria that is required, it
would be unreasonable not to grant the critical slopes waiver. In addition, as Mr. Cilimberg noted, despite
some disagreement among Planning Commissioners, this is not a perennial stream under the definition of
the County's Water Protection Ordinance, and thus it is not subject to the stream bank buffering
requirements under Section 3.17 of that ordinance.
Ms. Long said she has shown that Home Depot meets the critical slopes criteria which was one of
the four reasons why the plan was denied. The other three reasons were for not showing the exact fencing
location, for some inaccuracies regarding grading contours, and for not showing the location of the stream.
All three of these concerns could be easily remedied as a condition of approval. They could have been
added as a condition of approval at the Commission level. She reiterated the extent to which the applicant
has worked with County staff, as well as all of the neighbors. The proposal has undergone many changes
in response to comments from the neighbors, suggestions of the Site Review staff, many of which were
specifically in response to concerns of the neighbors. They ask that the Board use the same criteria for
evaluating this appeal as it has on other site plans and other critical slope waivers granted in the past. As
Mr. Davis noted, it is a ministerial act guided by the ordinance.
Ms. Long said they believe Home Depot deserves to be treated the same as all the other
development in the area, both public and private. For all of these reasons, they ask that the Board grant
the critical slopes waiver with the conditions noted, as well as the site plan, with the conditions
recommended by staff.
Next to speak was Mr. Frank Rice, a homeowner in Carrsbrook. He recognizes that it is by the
indulgence of the Board members, and not by right, that he has the opportunity to voice the opposition of
Carrsbrook residents to this request. He said SDP-00-119 is before the Board due to an appeal of the
Commission's denial by the developer of the critical slopes waiver essential to site development. He said
testimony and arguments at Commission and other meetings clearly showed that this site plan did not, and
could not, comply with the provisions of the County's Code Section 4.2 which was the Commission's
authority for denial of the requested waiver. After receiving the entire record of these proceedings, the
Board is extremely informed as to the abundantly clear and compelling arguments for denial. He will not
summarize all of them. He will address key points for special attention in the Board's decision-making
process.
Mr. Rice said it is important to keep in mind that by-right development does not imply the right to
waivers essential to the development. Such waivers are in the discretionary purview of the Board members
who may grant them only when a variety of County Comprehensive Plan provisions are met, chief of which
are the well-being of the people who elected the Board to serve, maintenance of the communities and
environs that give them identity and emotional stability, protection of their investments, and promotion of
factors essential to their quality of life.
Mr. Rice said it might be argued that the requested waiver be granted because in the past critical
slope waivers have been granted in order to accommodate a site plan. However, it defies all odds to
believes that a critical slopes waiver has been granted for another site where commercial development
intrudes approximately 900 feet and is surrounded on three sides by established residential neighbor-
hoods. Approximately 900 feet of a live stream will be piped, wetlands destroyed along with the various
wildlife that it sustains. It would cause massive alteration of the existing terrain, destruction of the last
forested area between the South Fork of the Rivanna River and the Charlottesville City limits, and would
have devastating aesthetic results and would wreak havoc on the site and destroy the aesthetic resources
of the site. It would adversely affect safety of entrance to and egress from a residential area due to
increased traffic and vastly altered traffic patterns. The consequences of the waiver, in the words of the
Commission, does not provide alternatives that would satisfy the purposes of Section 4.2. The volume of
the runoff, the siltation and the desire to protect the streams in the proximity to the critical slopes and
downstream water quality would not be satisfied by the critical slope waiver.
Mr. Rice said the uniqueness of the situation disallows precedent and is the criterion for evaluating
the request for waiving critical slope requirements on this particular site plan. He said the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers has determined that the site of the subject plan has water and wetlands regulated under
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Section 404 of Virginia's Clean Water Act. The Corps also determined that the area to be developed is a
headwaters of the Rivanna River. Construction requires a Department of the Army permit which is routinely
granted when an acre or less is involved, albeit, there also must be compliance with State and local
regulations. However, the Corps has identified approximately 900 feet of this stream channel to be
impacted. Piping any part of the stream will negatively impact the natural environment presently made
possible and sustained by the natural flow of water. Any piping, with the accompanying fill, will constitute a
degradation, if not the destruction, of the natural waterway officially recognized as a headwaters area.
While building on regulated waters and wetlands areas may be perfectly legal, you need to ask yourselves
whether it is right, especially when it would negatively affect ponds further downstream in residential
neighborhoods.
Mr. Rice said these factors are sufficient to warrant denial of the requested critical slope waiver, but
much more compelling, the intent and the spirit of Albemarle County's Zoning Ordinance Section 1.4.10, "to
include reasonable provisions not inconsistent with the applicable state water quality standards, to protect
surface water and groundwater as defined in Section 62 of the Code of Virginia" makes it impossible to
grant the requested waiver.
Mr. Rice said he would refer the Board to SP-91-57. That site plan called for construction of a used
car dealership on the same parcel for which SDP-00-119 is proposed. He said that the Entrance Corridor
Overlay District requiring a special permit for plans featuring outdoor storage was the only reason for the
Board considering that plan. A special permit in the EC District is limited to matters of aesthetic
consideration. The then board of supervisors unanimously disapproved that plan as being aesthetically
incompatible with the EC District standards. He cites this to provide statistics to emphasize the massive
scope of the site plan presently being considered. SP-91-57 called for 159,201 square feet of impervious
area, or 3.61 acres. SDP-00-119 calls for 452,110 square feet of impervious area, or 10.25 acres. SP-91-
57 called for 473 spaces for outdoor parking. SDP-00-119 calls for 514 parking spaces. If SDP-00-119
were being considered under EC regulations alone, for aesthetic reasons it would be denied. His point is
that over 10 acres of the 15+ acre site will be covered with impervious material. Gas, oil and other fluids
leaking from parked cars and other contaminants will find their way into streams and ponds in residential
areas making them environmentally unsafe, eventually killing them, and leaching into subterranean water
potentially contaminating the well water used by many residents. He said it is worth noting that one inch of
rain on a ten-acre area produces over 275,000 gallons of water. Without the natural absorbency of the
ground with all of its vegetation and natural contours, drainage from this impervious area in just one heavy
downpour will most certainly wash out at least one private driveway and street and could possibly washout
and damage public streets, not to speak of damage to private property. (time expired)
Mr. Dennis Mills said he is President of the Woodbrook Community Association. He is speaking on
behalf of the residents in Woodbrook and Carrsbrook. They, along with the Commission, do not feel the
critical slopes waiver is acceptable. They ask that the request be denied today. He had prepared
comments, but in listening to Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Rice, and the technical data which a lot of people,
including himself, do not understand, if all of that could be wrapped into some type of plan it could be sold
to the shoe industry because we are trying to fit a size 12 into a size 10. All of the requirements,
considerations and waivers, special permits, and putting streams into a pipe, are just asking to take
something huge and try to insert it into a lot that doesn't fit. It also would affect greatly established
communities in Albemarle County. He noted a map on the wall and the amount of critical slopes shown.
One thing the map does not show are the number of homeowners in the area and where the critical slopes
extend off of the property.
Mr. Mills said they have seven concerns that he would like to mention for the Board. First, the
parcel is much too small for a development of this magnitude. The development places an irreversible
negative impact on the natural environment and the quality of life of the residents who dwell on three of the
four borders of the parcel. The development places a dangerous and inappropriate commercial entity, not
merely on one border, but firmly in the midst of preexisting residential developments. The develop-ment
deprives certain homeowners of proprietary interests and places egregious harm to the quiet enjoyment of
homes of others, and diminishes financial value of many of the properties without any recourse,
accountability or compensation. There are other more suitable locations in the community for Home Depot
to establish its business. There are other more suitable business opportunities for this parcel which would
result in less economic and aesthetic harm to the community.
Ms. Mills said they realize that the land is zoned commercial. In all probability, the owner can
develop this site without having a building of this magnitude stuck in between two residential neighbor-
hoods. He said the Board has the legal and moral authority to balance commercial and residential interests
and to enforce critical slope restrictions in order to protect the natural environment and aesthetic
advantages of the community. Few people in their communities understand the regulations about critical
slopes. They have tried to educate people, and these people are becoming more aware of why such an
important regulation exists. The Engineering Department of Albemarle County understands why careful
consideration must be given to protecting the natural resources, and that is why the regulation is in place.
Mr. Mills said that in a telephone conversation, Mr. Bowerman said to him that the real dilemma
may be that the stream and slope regulation is out of date. Well, it is in place. Looking at the map and the
critical slope runoff, the slope and the stream run into their community. The Board's decision today will
affect their community and their homes. It goes beyond just this development, and it will affect their futures.
The critical slope regulation was created to establish a definitive and sound protection for the people of
Albemarle County and to protect its natural resources and its green space. The people in Woodbrook and
Carrsbrook ask that the Board deny this request for an exception to County planning. The Commission said
this clearly with a 6:1 vote in November. After all communications sent to the Board, if the Board has any
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
questions about this site, they feel the decision should be deferred until it has more information. He
suggests talking to people in these neighborhoods before deciding their future. As soon as something of
this size is in place, the neighborhoods behind it will look like a "wood pile in a car lot." He said it has been
mentioned that the critical slopes and stream cannot be seen from Route 29, but that is not important.
They do exist and have been there for a long time. They do not want their
neighborhoods degraded financially or their quality of life degraded by a "big box" development of this size.
He said there are other locations for this store. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said the applicant would be allowed a few minutes to respond to the statements
made. Ms. Long said Home Depot has been meeting with people in both of the neighborhoods for months
in an effort to hear concerns and suggestions and to accommodate their requests into the plans to the
extent possible. Originally, staff requested that the fence be added, and Home Depot agreed to the fence
at the six-foot level. There were comments at the Commission meeting that eight feet would be more
acceptable, and Home Depot is willing to do that. They would be willing to go even higher, but have been
told by their engineers that this would require a larger foundation thus disturbing some of the trees in the
buffer. There were concerns about noise and lighting, and they will comply with both the County's noise
and lighting ordinances. There was a mention of donating some white pines to the neighbors on the
Woodbrook side of the property so they could plant trees on their own property to supplement some of the
buffer. Home Depot also agreed to do that. There are some concerns that they will not be able to
accommodate to the neighbor's satisfaction. There was a comment about stormwater runoff, but their
plans meet the stringent engineering requirements of the County. The last issue was the visibility of critical
slopes from the Entrance Corridor. She said her reference to that was the issue of the aesthetic resource,
which goes to the issue stated in Section 4.2. Ms. Long said she would appreciate the Board s
consideration of this request.
Mr. Bowerman said his name was mentioned, and the property does lie in the Rio District. His
comments to Mr. Mills were based on the fact that the County is trying to get in-fill in the growth areas to a
denser degree. It indicates that some of the County's requirements are outdated. In this particular case, he
does not believe that applies. Assuming that this is a by-right use, then he believes the applicants have
worked diligently with neighborhoods to mitigate the impact of the development to the extent that County
ordinances require. The key to him is that there is a perennial stream in that critical slope area although it is
not identified on the Critical Resources Plan. Since it does exist, and the Commission indicated that it
should be shown on the site plan, and with the comments of the Corps of Engineers, it does become a
critical resource. Everyone has to look at whether a waiver meets the conditions outlined in Section 4.2.5.2.
He said there have been a couple of cases before the Board where critical slope provisions were waived
because without the waiver, development of the site would have been denied. In this case, he does not
think that is the case. With the perennial steam in place, and with it being a critical resource, although not
identified, once it was identified by the Commission, he believes the Commission was right in their
determination that they should not grant the critical slope waiver request for the reasons they outlined. He
thinks it is critical that this Board recognize that the site is developable. A key element is the fact that the
stream does exist and it should be identified and he thinks it furthers the public good to have it identified and
to have it respected. It is his feeling that the Board should uphold the Commission's recommendation of
denial for the reasons they stated. He said he would defer to Mr. Davis to make sure he has articulated
properly the reason for a denial; he does not think the Board should take any action today.
Mr. Martin asked if this is the same kind of stream that was identified with the Northern Elementary
School where staff used the rules in place to define the stream as not being perennial because under the
current rules it is not. Mr. Bowerman said he can't speak to that issue. He knows it was important enough
to have a connection into that neighborhood that the Board allowed the critical slope waiver in that case.
Mr. Tucker said it might be helpful if the Engineering staff explained their thinking on this issue.
Mr. Bowerman said he understands waivers are often given by the Commission and the Board, but
each case is specific. Mr. Martin said he is not talking about the critical slopes waiver itself. He is talking
about Mr. Bowerman's rationale in terms of the perennial stream. He said it was brought up by the same
Commission during discussion of the Northern Elementary School, and they were defining the perennial
stream using definitions that are not on the books in this county. He did not like it then, and he wants to be
sure the Board is not doing the same thing here. Mr. Bowerman said this is truly a perennial stream, it just
was not identified on that map.
Mr. Perkins said there must be some basis for making that determination. He has stated before
that topographic maps are used and if a solid blue line is shown on that map, it is a perennial stream. If a
broken blue line is shown, it is an intermittent stream. Mr. Bowerman said he knows for sure that it is a solid
blue line. Mr. Perkins disagreed. He said if it is, he believes the Engineering staff would have recognized
that line. He said it is a real judgement call to say it is a perennial stream. He said the County needs to use
the same basis all the time to determine if a stream is perennial. Mr. Bowerman said he agrees, but not all
of the U.S.G.S. maps are up-to-date, and when one observes something, one cannot deny that. Mr. Martin
said he will defer to staff because they are the experts.
Mr. Dorrier said "perennial" means a constantly flowing stream. When he went out to visit the site,
he was not convinced that it is a perennial stream because he did not see a constant flow. It appeared to
him to be a small stream, at best, and if it was flowing, it was flowing into a holding pond. Mr. Bowerman
said there are two ponds which are filled by that stream on a regular basis, and he has never seen those
two ponds down. Mr. Dorrier said it appeared to be more like a creek than a stream.
Mr. Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering, said there seems to be confusion as to what constitutes a
perennial stream. The confusion comes from the literal meaning of "flowing all the time." Biologists
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
sometimes have an answer which is different from the definition in the County's ordinance, which defines
the standard as being the U.S.G.S. map. They defined which are perennial streams and which are
intermittent. All of the streams on this site have been defined by the U.S.G.S. as being intermittent. They
are not perennial, and they are not protected by the buffer requirement of the County's Watershed
Protection Ordinance.
Ms. Thomas asked if they have not been found by the Army Corps of Engineers to be in a category
which they regard as Waters of the U.S. Mr. Mawyer said that is correct.
Mr. Martin said the Board is on "a slippery slope." He is not just talking about this project. If the
County has a way to define something, the County must use that way. In the case of the elementary
school, the School Board and the Planning staff both followed the rules in deciding what that stream was. It
was some of the Commissioners who wanted to redefine what is used to define a perennial stream. At that
time, he said that is not the way he plays the game.
Ms. Thomas asked staff to clarify that the action taken by the Commission was not based on a
determination by them or anybody else that this is a perennial stream. They discussed that during their
meeting, but they did not make a contrary finding to the Engineering Department who said this is not a
perennial stream. Mr. Cilimberg said they identified it as being perennial in a literal sense, but also
recognized that it is a broken line on the U.S.G.S., so is not subject to the County's Watershed Ordinance
provisions.
Ms Humphris said in all of the input she received, to the benefit of the applicant, she did not get a
tremendous influx of negative comments based on the fact that this was for a Home Depot store. In fact,
there were a lot of comments about the store, and, in a sense, a warm welcome if the Home Depot were to
go anywhere else but on this site. This was much contrary to the comments the Board received about the
proposed "big box" on Fifth Street. When she read all of the material supplied to the Board from staff, the
Commission, and the public on this request, she turned to the County Code to make her own interpretation
(as a lay person). She was quite disappointed to find that part of Section 4.2.5, Modification of Regulations,
had not been included in the Board"s materials. Her reading of this was that the Board has the critical
slopes provisions in the Code to protect and conserve steep hillsides together with the public drinking water
supplies, etc.; to prevent excessive stormwater runoff; siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water;
loss of aesthetic resource; and, these critical slope provisions are to direct building into terrains which are
more suitable than might be found on some critical slopes. From there, moving to 4.2.5 which provides for
the Commission to modify critical slope regulations, she found that her interpreta-tion of 4.2.5.2. a, b, and c,
was exactly in the reverse to those of the Home Depot representative. She agrees with the Commission
that they could not waive these provisions. She did not find that granting the waiver would serve a public
purpose which is of greater import than would be provided by the strict application of the ordinance. She
agrees with Mr. Bowerman that the Commission was correct in not granting the critical slopes waiver, and
she will support their decision.
Mr. Dorrier said he looked at it a little differently. He went out to the site, examined it, and looked at
the traffic flows. Admittedly, there are homes in the area which border the site. This site is designed for
highway commercial. The site has been zoned that way for years. The site, admittedly, is problematic
because it has a gully running through it, and the stream or creek, whatever it is called, running through it.
The stream comes under Route 29, comes by Lowe's, and Lowe's was built over or near the stream, and it
was protected. He looked at the engineering report and it appears that the engineers, who are the
professionals dealing with grading and runoff feel confident that this can be dealt with in a way that protects
both the stream and the residents in the area. Going through the conditions which must be met, to him it
appears that from an engineering standpoint, the waiver can be justified. That appears to be the major
reason the Commission denied the application. As he feels the waiver can be justified, he plans on
supporting the applicant in this request. He is not willing to deny the waiver based on a definition of a
stream whether it is perennial, intermittent or otherwise. He does not think that definition aspect would be
upheld in the courtroom.
Mr. Martin said he feels as Mr. Dorrier does. He realizes the homeowners are opposed to this
application, realizes why, and does not disagree with them. However, the Board has been trying to target
growth into the growth area. This proposal is in a growth area; it is a by-right request. It is the goal of the
Board to protect the Rural Areas and the beauty of the County, noted by many on a survey as being the
most important issue in the County. The Board often has to deny requests for things in the Rural Areas, so
has to be willing to approve requests in the growth areas. It can't be both ways. He said the Board has
competent staff people who he knows and trusts who have said that this request complies with ordinances.
For this Board to say it does not, the Board members would need to be professionals and know more than
staff. When he looks at some of the decisions which have been made and which this Board reversed, he
had to decide whether or not to be sued, whether or not staff is competent and made a legitimate decision,
or whether or not this group of lay people know more than staff in terms of whether the requests meet the
definitions. When people call him on the telephone and ask for his interpretation, he says he must call staff
because they have the facts. He said staff is supposed to be giving just the facts, not politics or any outside
issues. He trusts them to do that.
Mr. Bowerman said he is not saying they did not follow to the letter the requirements of the review.
He is saying that the facts differ from what is on the paper, and because of that he cannot accept that. He
will say, although it is not germane to this discussion, that Home Depot is a regional use and he knows of
no other regional uses sandwiched between two residential neighborhoods like this. This is a unique case.
Ms. Humphris said it is a fact that the runoff will increase from about 35 percent to 85 percent on
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
the neighboring properties because of the addition of impervious surface. Even though the siltation in that
runoff will be contained to some extent, there is only so much that can be done. Only about 65 percent of
the siltation is able to be contained. No matter what the engineers do, the downstream neighbors are going
to be negatively affected.
Mr. Dorrier said he thought the engineering staff told the Board that holding ponds for runoff would
be sufficient to prevent that. Mr. Perkins said that is what the County's regulations require. Ms. Humphris
said the total amount of water that will move from that site onto the neighbors will be two and one-half times
what it is now.
Ms. Thomas said the pre-development rate has to be the same, and will be the same with this
proposal. They will have a holding pond, a standpipe with holes in it, so that the rate going out cannot be
greater than the rate a two- or ten-year storm would have been from this site. But, the amount of water that
will go out at the peak flow will be steady. She thinks that has been confusing to some people, and is why
people can state that it is exactly the same, and other say it is two and one-half times more. An impervious
surface does not allow any of it to settle in, so that is the difference between the quantity of water that will go
out. The peak flow cannot be any greater than it was before development.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Ms. Thomas is saying that because of the amount of blacktop on the site, it is
not a critical slopes issue, but a blacktop issue. If that is the case, why does the County allow development
by-right on a highway commercial parcel of land that allows blacktop. Mr. Bowerman said he is limiting his
thinking on this to the issue of the critical slopes and its relationship to the stream.
Mr. Perkins said the County's rules and regulations have been developed and put into place over a
number of years. The owner and Home Depot have looked at the site, and they think that using existing
ordinances, the site can be developed. They have proceeded with their planning and staff has said they do
meet all of the County's requirements. He thinks that if the site plan is denied, the County will end up in
court.
Ms. Humphris said if that does occur, would it not be better to know now that there is a problem
with the ordinance that needs to be corrected.
Mr. Martin said he has always taught his children to play by the rules.
Ms. Humphris said she believes the Board is playing by the rules.
Ms. Thomas said she does not sense that any Board member is changing their mind. There can
be a motion if the Board so desires.
Mr. Davis said there are some legal issues the Board needs to be apprised of. Since the time is
late, he suggests that the Board go into closed session so he can brief the Board on the legal issues, and
the Board can take action when it returns from lunch.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Closed Session: Personnel Matters.
At 12:40 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board
go into Closed Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(a) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to
consider appointments to boards and commissions, and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel
and staff to obtain legal advice regarding probable litigation relating to a site plan.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Certify Closed Session.
At 2:27 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and motion was immediately offered by Mr.
Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge
only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard,
discussed or considered in the closed session. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Ms. Humphris.
_______________
Return to Agenda Item No. 18. SDP-00-119, Home Depot at North Town Center, Preliminary Site
Plan Appeal.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Martin, to defer the appeal of
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
SDP-00-119 until February 7, 2001, to allow staff time to develop conditions for approval of the critical
slopes waiver and the site plan which are acceptable to the Board of Supervisors so as to allow approval of
this development with appropriate conditions.
(Note: Ms. Humphris returned to the meeting at 2:29 p.m.)
Ms. Thomas asked for some discussion about items that should be included in any negotiations.
Mr. Bowerman said he is in a position that he will be voting against the deferral. He would like to
see larger buffers included. He thinks there was discussion by the applicant that they may be willing to
dredge a couple of ponds which are filling up. Also discussed was an allowance for better bus service or
better pedestrian access. There was a question about the out-parcel and its use. He thinks that if this
proposal is to go forward, the buffer should be increased to acknowledge the intense use on this site
adjacent to the two residential communities.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks that Mr. Bowerman has mentioned most items, at least in general
terms. This is, in essence, an attempt to be mindful of what the Board is trying to protect and yet allow the
applicant an opportunity to make this development fit this site. They have been willing to work in that
direction. There is the possibility that it can be worked out.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms. Thomas could explain to the public the process from this point. Ms.
Thomas said the staff is going to develop some additional conditions and get these agreed to by the
Commission. It will not be a total referral back to the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said staff will talk to the
applicant first and develop those conditions, then go to the Commission to let them see what has been
developed, and obtain their acceptance.
Ms. Thomas said this is in recognition of the Board's split situation which the Board would rather
have an agreement on, if possible, and hold out hope that there is a way to meet more of the goals of the
people involved. This also recognizes the fact that the applicant has been willing, up to this point, to work
with staff within existing regulations.
Mr. Martin said the Board talked a lot prior to going into closed session as to how the individual
Board members feel. The Board is not deferring, but moving forward based on the rules as they have
applied to this point, and with the cooperation of the owners and applicants.
Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: Mr. Bowerman.
_______________
(Note: At this time, the Board returned to discuss the agenda items which had been skipped during
the morning session.)
Agenda Item No. 15. Water Quality Impacts of the Proposed Route 29 Bypass, Discussion of.
Mr. Tucker said the Board had received a memorandum and related material from Ms. Thomas,
who is also Chair of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The MPO is
scheduled to adopt the Fiscal Year 2001 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and an interim Year
2020 Update to the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS). The MPO is requesting direction
from both City Council and the Board relating to how the MPO should modify its position on the proposed
Route 29 Western Bypass based on a recently completed consultants study funded by the Rivanna Water
=
& Sewer Authority (RWSA) concerning the impact of this project to the regional water supply.
Ms. Thomas notes in her memorandum that an MPO resolution regarding this project has been in
the annual TIP for the past four years, and is also reflected in the CATS 2015, which was adopted in 1998.
The MPO and its Route 29 Bypass Design Advisory Committee have attempted for several years to engage
in productive dialogue with VDOT concerning the effects of the bypass on the regional water supply. They
have been unable to elicit a satisfactory level of information and commitment from VDOT regarding their
plans to protect water resources. In February, 1999 the MPO hosted a public forum to identify relevant
concerns. In response to the forum, the MPO developed a scope of work for a consultant study to identify
water resource risks and possible mitigation strategies. By local agreement, the study was conducted with
funding from the RWSA.
In September, 2000 copies of the consultants report Analysis of Water Quality and Quantity
=A
Impacts of Proposed Route 29 Bypass were forwarded to the Board and the MPO and RWSA also met at
@
a public forum to review the report. The RWSA has since compiled recommendations regarding necessary
mitigation measures in the event their base position, to locate the bypass outside of the water supply area,
cannot be supported.
According to RWSA, the estimated risk of water plant shutdown due to the effects of the proposed
bypass is 6.2 percent per year, a long-term average of once every 16 years. The package of mitigation
strategies recommended by RWSA would bring the risk down to 2.3 percent, a long-term average of once
every 43 years, but cost $3.85 million (this is about $1.0 million more than VDOT will fund as part of their
improvements). The consultants calculated that the current risk, with no bypass, is 2.2 percent per year, a
long-term average of once every 45 years. Since the consultants report was done, RWSA has indicated
=
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
they will plan to move forward with installation of an oil boom regardless of plans for a bypass. There is
nothing at this point to indicate how much that would lower the existing risk. It should be noted that the
success of risk reduction depends on the regions ability to act quickly and effectively in the case of a
=
hazardous spill. This may require additional planning, event monitoring, and communications systems
beyond those in the consultants report.
=
The consultants recommendations are focused on preventing water plant shutdown and reducing
=
erosion and sedimentation. The consultant was not charged with the task of estimating costs in the event
the strategies failed. RWSA has made a summary of the impacts based on length of shutdown time, but
their information does not include costs of staff, equipment and other resources needed in the event of
damage to the water supply, nor who should be responsible for these costs.
Mr. Tucker said, as an alternative, the consultants note that a new water intake upstream of the
=
bypass location could be constructed at an approximate cost of $5.3 million which would reduce the risk to
zero of any water plant shutdown, assuming an intake site could be found which would allow sufficient draw
down. This is the approach RWSA would recommend if the current local planning process regarding
long-term water supply results is a decision to name the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir as the major water
source for the future.
At this point, the MPO sees two possible courses of action:
1)If the City and County feel the reduced risk, given the recommendations by the RWSA,
addresses the regions need for water resource protection, the MPO will modify the TIP
=
resolution and CATS plan to state that these recommendations are conditions which must be
met and, except where otherwise noted, funded by VDOT in order to improve the projects
=
eligibility by MPO endorsement. The risk to water resources is not the only issue raised by this
project which causes the MPO concern. Several other issues would have to be resolved
before the project could receive MPO endorsement.
2)If the City and County do not feel the reduced risk which can be achieved by the recom-
mended mitigation strategies is appropriate to meet the regions needs, the MPO will withhold
=
approval of funding for construction of the bypass in this location based in part upon the risk to
water resources. This action would not have an effect on the current TIP since VDOT has not
yet requested MPO endorsement for construction funds. However, it may impact an
upcoming TIP, perhaps as soon as the FY 02 update which is slated for development and
>
endorsement in the Summer of 2001.
Mr. Tucker said this matter was to be brought to the Board in December, but because of inclement
weather had to be postponed. He has not heard if this was discussed by City Council last night.
Ms. Humphris said she knows this is routine, but thinks everybody needs to clearly understand what
the Board is being asked to do. She asked to reiterate what had just been said. It is an accepted fact if the
proposed Western Route 29 Bypass were built, there would be the danger of an accident occurring
resulting in a toxic spill which would cause a water treatment plant shutdown and contamination of the
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Therefore, RWSA had Black & Veitch do an analysis of water quality and
water quantity of the proposed bypass in cooperation with the MPO, which has the responsi-bility for having
the bypass in the TIP or not. It is in that plan now with certain restrictions, such as there can be no
construction funds put into the bypass until certain requirements are met, the major one being that VDOT
honor the commitment it made to the community back in 1991 and 1992 to the sequencing of construction
of new roads in the region.
Ms. Humphris said planning for the road is moving forward. The MPO has the results of the study
which sets out the estimated risks of water plant shutdown due to the effects of the proposed bypass and
the cost of mitigation measures. The MPO is asking the City and County to answer two questions. Does
the reduced risk address the need for protection of this major water resource? If it does, the MPO will
modify the TIP resolution and put in the recommendations of this new report as conditions which have to be
met. If the City and County do not feel the reduced risks which can be achieved by mitigation measures are
appropriate to meet the regions needs, then the MPO should withhold its approval of funding for construc-
=
tion based in part on risk to the water resources.
Ms. Humphris said RWSA has said the best way to protect this major water resource is not to build
any bypass in this area. What needs to be understood is that the estimated risk of water plant shutdown
due to the effect of the proposed bypass is 6.2 percent a year. The only way lay people can understand
that is the probability of that happening is a long-term average of once every 16 years. No one can say
when, or even if, an accident would occur, but there could be a toxic event in which the water treatment
plant would have to be shut down. If the package of mitigation strategies recommended by RWSA were
implemented, the risks would be reduced to 2.3 percent which is a long-term average of once every 43
years. The cost of that would be $3.85 million. That is about $1.0 million more than VDOT plans to put into
mitigation features.
Ms. Humphris said RWSA has learned that if this bypass is built, the only way to reduce the danger
of water treatment plant shutdown to zero is to fund a new intake upstream from the bypass (cost of $5.3
million). The consultants have told the MPO the cost of these mitigation plans should be measured along
with whether the area is willing to take a chance on the water treatment plant being shutdown. If the water
treatment plant were shut down, where would the water supply come from for the community? The
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Rivanna Reservoir contains about 60 percent of the water used.
Ms. Humphris said the MPO has posed this question over and over to VDOT. They have said they
are not responsible for anything that happens after road construction is complete. If the area should lose its
water supply, it is not their responsibility. After there was a lawsuit lodged against them by the Southern
Environmental Law Center, they would not talk to the MPO any longer about the cost of damages and who
would pay. The big question is, how would the community be supplied with water? She is saying all of this
so that everyone will understand this is a very serious question that the MPO is being asked to answer. Is
the reduced risk, given the recommendations of RWSA, enough? Should it be stated in the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP), the proposed Western Route 29 Bypass will stay in the plan as long as you
say you will pay the $5.3 million, or, should the MPO say, this is not worth the risk. There is no way the
community could deal with the results of any event because it would be so catastrophic.
Ms. Humphris said she is not sure what happened at City Councils meeting last night. She saw
=
part of it on television and Council discussed that this is a political issue. She said this is not a political
issue, it is the communitys water supply that should be protected. Council wondered if a decision had to be
=
made at this time. She said the answer is yes because the MPO needs to know what to say when it has to
A@
sign off on the TIP which must be done soon. Ms. Thomas said it is to be completed next Monday.
Ms. Humphris said Council discussed the kind of toxic materials mentioned. She said that is all set
out in the consultants report and is not something this body needs to become involved in. Another issue
=
which affects this is VDOTs plan for the Route 29 Corridor which would potentially divert 19,000 vehicles
=
per day from I-81 to Route 29 if it becomes a limited-access, through highway. A lot of those vehicles
would be tractor trailers carrying hazardous materials. Added to that is whether or not the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir is going to continue to be a major water supply based on a decision which will be made
by RWSA in the next couple of months. If the Rivanna were to be undesignated as a potential water supply,
that sheds a different light on the subject. Because the Rivanna supplies about 60 percent of the
communitys water, even if a change is contemplated, it would still be the major water supply when
=
construction of this road is begun. She thanked everyone for listening to this long discourse. She said it is a
very complicated matter. She understands that Council, although they started to make a motion, they
ended up doing nothing. They did not have good support from their staff on what is in the report and what
they were being asked to do and the reasons for the request.
Mr. Dorrier said he thought the Board and Council were going to have another meeting on the
whole issue of water. Mr. Tucker said that meeting has to do with alternative water supplies. Mr. Dorrier
said he thought the Board and Council were going to have a meeting concerning transportation matters.
Ms. Humphris said that has nothing to do with the decision the Board needs to make today about the
protection of the quality of the water if the bypass were to be built. Ms. Thomas said that in some senses,
the meetings Mr. Dorrier inquired about have a lot to do with the question.
Mr. Dorrier said he thought there was going to be a regional approach to dealing with the whole
problem of the reservoir, the roads, the water supply, runoff, groundwater, and possibly the bypass. He
thought there was going to be a comprehensive approach taken to all of these issues. Ms. Humphris said
she did not know anything about that. Mr. Bowerman said the MPO is looking at the transportation plan and
RWSA is looking at water resources and no decision has been made on that. There is also the Eastern
Planning Initiative. All three of these are different issues. Then there is the issue before the Board today
related directly to the Western Bypass.
Ms. Humphris said this is a request for direction regarding the water quality impacts of the proposed
Route 29 Western Bypass. Does the Board think it can afford the risk? Should the Board accept the risk
and ask VDOT to impose measures beyond what they currently impose? Does the Board think it cannot
afford the risk, in which case it should tell VDOT it cant afford the risk of having the water supply contami-
=
nated and the water treatment plant shut down.
Mr. Martin said a third option would be to do nothing; just go along with VDOTs mitigation
=
measures. That sounds like what the City Council decided to do. Ms. Humphris said they didnt really
=
decide to do anything. Councilor Meredith Richards tried to make the same kind of presentation that Ms.
Humphris just made. Councilor Kevin Lynch voiced the idea that whether VDOT did it of not, the taxpayers
should fund the $5.3 million alternate intake. Mr. Bowerman asked if he referred to taxpayers, or users of
the system. Ms. Humphris said he referred to taxpayers, he never said users. It must be understood that it
is not sure the intake could be put at a depth where it would work at certain draw down levels of water in the
reservoir, i.e., in a drought situation.
Ms. Thomas said the Boards MPO representatives want guidance as to what they should do on
=
Monday. The TIP is the official document on which is based Federal funding of any road projects in the
area. In approving the TIP, they make sure it fits with the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan, but the Bypass
always sticks out like a sore thumb in this TIP. For about five years, the MPO has been referring to the
Three-Party Agreement in which it agreed to consider the possibility of a bypass in the future when there is
funding available, when traffic conditions make it necessary, and when all of the prior projects in the
agreement have been built. They agreed to let VDOT continue with engineering, planning and right-of-way
purchases, particularly purchasing houses in hardship situations. But, there is the resolution which the MPO
attaches to the TIP each time. Should the MPO change that resolution to say in light of this study, we are
A
going to redraw our approval of having any bypass constructed at all. Should the MPO say in light of this
@A
study, we now know the risks and the costs, and we would demand that VDOT pickup these responsibilities
and costs and clarify what these are. She thinks the cost would actually be higher than the several million
@
dollars being talked about, because when an event does take place, it will be more expensive. These costs
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
do not deal with the expense of an event, only the expense of the mitigation measures prior to an event.
Mr. Martin asked if the City has been attaching the rider regarding the Meadow Creek Parkway and
the Bypass. Ms. Thomas said yes.
A@
Mr. Martin said there is still the third option of just removing the rider and going along with the plan
for the Western Bypass. Ms. Humphris asked why the Board would do that. Mr. Martin said he is simply
stating that that is also an option. He asked if the Board approved Scenario 1 and kept it as a rider in
opposition to the Western Bypass, is the date of February 2 the date where there occurs a conflict with
VDOT and Federal moneys for the Western Bypass. Ms. Thomas said it depends on how fast they are
moving ahead with their plans for construction. In previous years they have kept putting it farther off. She
asked if staff knew whether VDOT is moving any faster toward construction of the bypass. Mr. Tucker said
no. Ms. Thomas said that for all other projects, funds are being put back farther. What the MPO has to
A@
do is to be in compliance with those plans two years ahead of time. When VDOT gets to the point where it
is planning on constructing the bypass two years into the future, that is when time becomes crucial.
Mr. Martin said he has heard that at that point, if the MPO remains in total opposition, it is possible
we may dry up every cent of money that could be obtained for the project. Ms. Humphris said the MPO,
every month, discusses what the implications would be if they ended up in conflict with VDOT in the TIP and
did not agree with what they were going to do with respect to the Bypass. At its last meeting, they discussed
the implications and even had a person from FHWA attend and give them all information possible. She
said they have a fairly clear idea of what could possibly happen, but which has never happened in the
country. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room 3:04 p.m.)
Ms. Humphris said there is one more thing that is important to note. Paragraph 2 in Ms. Thomass
=
letter states It is important to note that the consultants study recommendations are focused on preventing
A=
water plant shutdown and reducing erosion and sedimentation. The consultant was not charged with the
task of estimating costs in the event the strategies failed. RWSA has provided a summary of impacts based
on length of shutdown time, but information on the costs of staff, equipment and other resources needed in
the event of damage to the water supply has not been calculated, nor have recommendations been
considered regarding who should be responsible for these costs. These issues remain to be investigated
and discussed with VDOT should the community wish to move forward as planned. (Note: Mr. Bowerman
@
returned to the meeting at 3:07 p.m.)
Ms. Humphris said one question asked of Mr. Art Petrini last night was how long the water supply
would last in the event of an accident and a shutdown. Mr. Petrini said it would last one day, three days if it
occurred in a period of low water usage. One day of storage capacity is all there would be. After that, there
would be no water supply.
Mr. Martin said his own preference would be to approve No. 1, then try to get from VDOT any kind
of mitigating abilities, and payment for those abilities. He thinks that at the point where the Board has to
decide about its opposition to the Western Bypass and what VDOT might do in punishment, in addition to
the MPO having that long discussion, all need to have that discussion and an update.
Ms. Humphris said it is her understanding that the most recent numbers from VDOT as to the cost
of the Bypass, which has a major affect on when it will be constructed, is that it is pushing $200.0 million in
VDOT numbers. Including the inflation factor that VDOT is not being required to use, by a construction date
of 2007 the number was large enough so that the cost of building the road was going to be about $38.0
million per mile.
Mr. Martin said in that case the extra $5.3 million wont mean much. He recommends going along
=
with No. 1. Ms. Humphris inquired as to whether to ask VDOT for the $5.3 million. Mr. Tucker said he
understood the intent is to support the enhanced measures which RWSA recommended, and also say that
if the South Fork Rivanna is selected as a future water supply, then the maximum measures should be
considered, which is the $5.3 million for the new water treatment plant.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. George Larie has been waiting all this time to speak. She said if there is
something the Board has not mentioned, she will allow him two minutes to speak.
Mr. Larie said it is CATCOs position that the Bypass should not be built, therefore the RWSAs
==
recommendation that the only way to preserve the water supply absolutely is not to locate the bypass in the
watershed. Having said that, if the bypass is going to continue in the TIP, CATCO feels all these measures
should be included, not only those that the RWSA recommends now, but those on a contingent basis. That
is, another alternative input. Speaking about Ms. Humphris point, under the Freedom of Information Act,
=
they recently got numbers from VDOT which show that the current cost of the bypass is $181.0 million. As
of last spring, VDOT is required to include inflation factors in their numbers, and they received those
numbers which show that it will cost $220.0 million in 2006 and $238.0 million in 2007. CATCO urges the
Board to adopt all of the recommendations of the RWSA and beyond that they think the bypass should be
withdrawn from the TIP.
At this point, motion was offered by Mr. Martin to adopt the "Enhanced Measures" as recom-
mended by the County Executive and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors at a total cost
for all of the recommended measures (VDOT measures and RWSA staff recommendations) at $3.85
million, which is approximately $1.0 million over the VDOT planned measures. These recommended
measures would reduce the annual probability of a water treatment plant shut down from 6.2 percent to 2.3
percent. In addition, if the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir is selected as a future water supply, the maximum
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
measure of constructing a new emergency intake upstream of the proposed bypass should be provided by
VDOT at an estimated cost of $5.3 million. Although this recommendation needs further study to determine
that the proposed intake could be set at an elevation in the Reservoir that would allow sufficient draw down
for daily to monthly consumption, the Board believes this measure should reduce the annual probability of a
water treatment plant shutdown to zero percent
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Appeal: ARB-F (Sign)-2000-51. Dips and Sips.
(This item was appealed to the Board in a letter dated December 11, 2000 from Mr. Ben Foster,
President, Hightech Signs, on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Jeff Turner. The ARB denied an application for
approval of a channel letter sign for Mr. Turner's business.)
Ms. Margaret Pickart said the Dips & Sips sign is proposed for one of the retail shops in the
Seminole Commons Shopping Center located on Route 29 North, south of Airport Road and across from
the Forest Lakes North shopping center. The site plan for the shopping center was approved by the ARB in
July, 1999, and the applicant at that time proposed red channel letter signs for the buildings in the shopping
center, and those signs were approved as part of the ARBs site development plan review.
=
Ms. Pickart said that on October 2, 2000, an application for a "Dips & Sips" channel letter sign was
submitted with graphics. This was reviewed by the ARB and approved with the following conditions: 1) The
channel letter sign shall include no graphics, and 2) The Lucite Red 2283 is not appropriate for the
Entrance Corridor. Staff may approve a darker less brilliant shade of red, as represented in an accurate
color sample.
Ms. Pickart said the applicant resubmitted his application for a design with graphics. There was
one change in that proposal, that being the color of the graphics. It was indicated at that time that he would
appeal the ARBs decision to deny the graphics. The ARB reviewed the application on December 4, 2000,
=
and denied it based on the finding that the graphics, together with the channel letters would increase visual
clutter and distraction, would detract from a unified appearance throughout the shopping center, and would
decrease visual continuity for the development.
Mr. Dorrier asked the meaning of the words decrease visual continuity. Ms. Pickart said With just
A@
red channel letter signs, there is a certain appearance which is maintained throughout the shopping center.
Ms. Thomas asked the applicant to speak at this time.
Mr. Ben Foster said he is from Hightech Signs. He would like to deal with each of the grounds for
refusal, individually. As to the question of clutter, he gets three professional sign magazines, and looking at
these over the years, he has never seen any award winning sign which does not incorporate graphics. He
rode along Route 29 North from Airport Road to Rio Road and came across 70 signs with graphics. He
wondered why the Dips & Sips signs would cause clutter when the other 70 signs do not. He referred the
Board to a picture of the signs for Kohr Brothers. He said those signs are twice as big as the ones they
propose, and there are three of those signs. There is the opportunity to put up an all letter sign, but that
creates more clutter. He showed an illustration.
Mr. Foster referred to the other issue of visual continuity. He said most people do not want visual
A@
continuity. He is more often asked to break up the continuity of buildings, than to create continuity. He does
this by painting buildings different colors. He does not think Albemarle County wants boring continuity of
signs. Basically, the two things, unified appearance and continuity are the same thing. He said
A@A@
everybody wants variety. He believes it improves the appearance.
Mr. Jeff Turner, the owner, said when he and his wife decided to go into this business and came up
with this name, the ice cream cone and coffee mug were centered to get attention. They had a logo done
for inside of the store, and wanted to use the same thing outside. When that could not be colored, they
understood, but to not have it at all, they do not understand. They just want to be able to promote their
business the same way as McDonalds and Dominos. To be able to ride down Route 29 and see the ice
==
cream cone invites one to stop. He asked that the Board reconsider.
Mr. Martin said that unless someone has strong objections, he does not see any harm in the two
symbols of graphics, especially after they were changed to match the exact colors of the sign. He does not
know if this sets any precedent for the ARB, but unless someone objects, he would approve it.
Mr. Dorrier said he has no objection, but it doesnt look like a coffee cup to him.
=
Ms. Humphris said she prefers to uphold the decision of ARB because when she read the
comments of the members, the whole idea is to keep uniform signage. Even though there are exceptions
up and down the corridor, a lot of those came before there was an ARB and before the County could have
any control to approve the appearance of the Entrance Corridor. Things have improved greatly and a lot of
it has to do with the quality of the signs which are much superior to what they used to be. She intends to
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
support the decision of the ARB which she feels it is important for the Board to do.
Mr. Dorrier asked how Kohr Bros. got their signs. Mr. Martin said the ARB was definitely in place
when that occurred because it has only been there for a couple of years. Ms. Pickart said the Kohr Bros.
building is a pre-existing, freestanding building with a shopping center behind and around it. The continuity
the ARB is talking about is for this shopping center where there will be multiple signs for multiple
businesses which is different than an individual building. The Kohr Bros. building would be allowed bigger
signs as it is a much larger building than those in the shopping center.
Ms. Thomas said the County has been requiring businesses all along the Entrance Corridors to
abide by a set of rules. The baby diaper store next door to Dips & Sips does not have a diaper or a stork as
a graphic. The golf store does not have golf clubs, the pizza store does not have a slice of pizza, the
chiropractor does not hands in motion, etc. She said these regulations are usually not popular with each
individual member of a shopping center or business, but the overall appearance of the Entrance Corridor is
beginning to be greatly improved. She thinks it would be unfair to those businesses which are participating
in the regulations being placed on them to do otherwise than uphold the same kind of regulations they had
to meet.
Mr. Martin said he appreciates what the ARB has done. He was on this Board when it adopted the
new sign ordinance regulations. He is not going to put up a big argument to approve this sign, but he just
does not see why it looks anyway but okay.
Ms. Humphris said it is not the individual buildings, but the entire shopping center where uniformity
is important. She said that Barracks Road Shopping Center, even though it is located in the City, is a very
good example of how they have brought their signs into conformity over the years. Other shopping centers
further up the corridor have followed suit, and she thinks that is important.
Mr. Bowerman said in the recommendations from staff, they suggested that if the ARB did not go
along with the sign as proposed, that the graphics be changed in color. Mr. Martin said it was changed. Mr.
Davis said it was changed to red, not to a neutral color. Staff had recommended that it be limited to the
colors brown or cream and that it not be illuminated.
Mr. Martin moved that the Board follow staff's original recommendation. Mr. Bowerman asked if
that was to have the graphics in neutral shades and that they not be illuminated. Mr. Martin said that was
correct. Mr. Bowerman then gave second to the motion.
Ms. Thomas urged everyone to think about the precedent being set for others. Mr. Bowerman
suggested that the Board discuss this a little more.
Ms. Humphris said this sounds simple and harmless, but it definitely would set a precedent.
Graphics would be allowed where, heretofore, they had not been allowed.
Mr. Dorrier said he thought the Board was talking about visual continuity. Ms. Thomas said that is
just in this shopping center. Mr. Dorrier asked if the graphics were removed if the sign would be okay. Ms.
Humphris said it would be. Mr. Dorrier said even if it is red. Ms. Humphris said all of the signs are red.
A@
Mr. Martin said the only difference is the coffee mug and the cone. Ms. Thomas said this opens the door to
have a baby diaper, a piece of pizza, etc. Mr. Martin said if graphics were allowed across the whole building
there would be continuity. Ms. Thomas said that is right. Ms. Humphris said it would be visual distraction
and clutter.
Ms. Thomas said there is a motion on the floor. She asked the Clerk to call the roll. The motion
failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin.
NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
_______________
(Note: The next two agenda items were heard concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 25. CPA-98-03. Post Office Land Trust/Theater. PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to amend the Comp Plan desig for approx 180 acs w/in the Community of Hollymead by changing
land use desig from Industrial Service, Office Service & Regional Service to mixed-use Town Center
Designation. Loc on W side of Rt 29N (Seminole Trl), S of Rt 649 (Airport Rd), and bounded on S & W by
unnamed stream (which crosses Rt 29 N of Rt 29/Hollymead Dr intersec). (Notice of this public hearing
originally scheduled for December 13, 2000, was given in the Daily Progress on November 27 and
December 4, 2000. Because of inclement weather, the hearing was postponed to this date.)
____________
Agenda Item No. 26. CPA-2000-05. Rt 29-Hollymead. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend
the Comp Plan, Land Use Plan, by amending recommendations for transportation improvements for
Hollymead Community. (Notice of this public hearing originally scheduled for December 13, 2000, was
given in the Daily Progress on November 27 and December 4, 2000. Because of inclement weather, the
hearing was postponed to this date.)
Mr. David Benish said CPA-2000-05 is a proposal to provide recommendations for transportation
improvements along the Route 29 corridor in the Hollymead Development Area from Airport Road south to
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Polo Grounds Road, including a recommendation for improvements to Proffit Road. CPA-1998-03 is a
proposal to amend the land use designations for approximately 180 acres within the Hollymead
Development Area from Industrial Service, Regional Service and Office Service to a Town Center
designation. This amendment also includes recommendations for the development of that area. The
Planning Commission held public hearings for both of these CPA's and unanimously recommended
approval of each to the Board of Supervisors. The Board had held work sessions on each amendment. It
has been suggested that staff provide at least a conceptual map for the transportation improvements to
make it easier for people to follow the recommendations in the text. He referenced a map which was
posted in the Board Room today.
Mr. Benish said the Board members had been sent comments from owners of the property in the
town center area, along with suggested changes to the Planning Commission's proposed language (on file
in the Clerk's Office). He offered to answer questions.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing on both of these proposed Comprehensive
Plan amendments.
Mr. Bruce Appleyard said he is the Transportation and Land Use Planner for the Southern
Environmental Law Center. He said SELC strongly supports the two amendments before the Board
believing the purpose of creating an appropriately scaled, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly community, is
essential to addressing the loss of open space and mounting traffic congestion impacting the County.
SELC also supports the idea of developers working together with the community and the County to design
their properties in a more attractive, liveable environment. In addition, they commend the Planning staff and
the Planning Commission for their hard work in ironing out the details of these amendments. In light of the
major transportation development proposals for this area, and the enormous impacts of these proposals,
SELC hired Walter Kulash to help them determine the best way to approach the growth in the Hollymead
community. His analysis, which was forwarded to the Board earlier, concluded that if development
guidelines such as those called for in the Hollymead Town Center CPA are implemented in concert with the
creation of a network of comprehensively-linked streets as called for in the transportation improvement
CPA, the widening of Route 29 is not necessary in either the near future or in the long-term.
Mr. Appleyard said a town center where people can either walk or make just one automobile trip
will lower the need to rapidly expand the Route 29 corridor. Creating such a town center requires a
comprehensive disciplined approach to development. While SELC is cognizant of the developer's need to
keep profits in the bottom line, they ask that the Board adopt these amendments. This is one of the hottest
areas for development in the County. It is centrally located in the Hollymead growth area and is in close
proximity to both Forest Lakes and the Hollymead neighborhoods. VDOT has major plans to expand
Airport Road, as well as Route 29, and the Airport itself is undergoing a multi-million dollar upgrade.
Clearly, there will be no shortage of a desire to invest in and develop this area. The question is not whether,
but how this area will develop.
Mr. Appleyard said rather than change the Comprehensive Plan to the Hollymead Town Center as
currently drafted, SELC urges the Board to adopt it and work to redirect a portion of the millions of dollars
which VDOT wants to spend on the expansion of Route 29 for the expansion of a road network that
facilitates the type of development envisioned by the Hollymead Town Center CPA. By offsetting a
developer's costs, such targeted infrastructure investment has proven itself an effective strategy in creating
vibrant community environments. By adopting the CPAs drafted by the Planning Commission and the
Planning staff, everybody wins. This will happen because the County will have laid the ground-work for
creation of a valuable and successful town center that strengthens the integrity of the growth areas and will
have utilized the land in a more efficient manner. SELC urges the Board to seize this moment and adopt
these amendments as currently drafted.
Ms. Elizabeth Hare said she is a resident of Hollymead. She said anyone traveling Route 29 during
the rush hour knows that a road bisecting the Hollymead subdivision will not provide any significant
alleviation of the current traffic problems in the area. The proposed additional lanes do not match those
proposed by VDOT. She understands the proposed addition would put two lanes into Hollymead and two
lanes west of Route 29. She proposes that instead of bisecting Hollymead, Route 29 currently going north
be converted into an access road going north with a 35 mph speed limit. What is currently Route 29 South
be converted into the 55 mph limited-access road. Then take the other four lanes that were planned, and
put them as complementary lanes on the west side of 29 which is basically open farm land. This would not
create the need to condemn homes. She has lived in 24 different places, and in a number of them they
had to evacuate. She said there would be no way to evacuate her community now. If an access road is put
through Hollymead, it would do nothing to help with an evacuation situation. She thinks that if more roads
are going to be put in, they should help move people out of town.
Mr. Martin said he would like to comment. The issue brought up by Ms. Hare is not the issue before
the Board today. She is talking about VDOT's plans to build parallel roads, and one of those plans includes
a parallel road on the west side. This amendment before the Board today is what the County is proposing
for the whole area. It is not a VDOT issue although they are somewhat connected. The VDOT issue Ms.
Hare mentioned is now completely dead in its tracks.
Mr. Steve Blaine said he was present to represent Gherman Realty Group. His client has an
interest in this amendment since it has a contract to purchase 42 acres within the acreage being considered
for the town center proposal. The client has been working with Wendell Wood who has the controlling
interest in the eight parcels which front on Route 29 North. The current land use plan designation for these
parcels is Regional Service. It is not clear under the amendment what the land use designation of this
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
property would be. His client wants to support the town center concept, but cannot support the existing
version of the proposal because of specific development guidelines. Some of the guidelines are too
inflexible. Some may actually be in conflict with some of the objectives of his client. They have talked to
some experienced developers who have shown an interest in their proposal, and they believe that with their
input and his client's input, they can develop an integrated approach to the town center that will actually
achieve some of the objectives in concept. His client intends to pursue a master plan for a retail project.
After learning of this initiative, they met with owners who are interested, including the Southern
Environmental Law Center, and they feel that with experienced developers involved, and by addressing
some of the development guidelines that contain weaknesses, they can come up with a financially viable
approach that will be a blueprint for success. He presented a handout to the Board (copy on file) which lists
improvements needed to the development/design guidelines. He said these issues must be addressed in
order to address concerns about development outside of the growth areas.
Mr. Katurah Rouel showed a sketch of a small portion of the town center, representing about 20
acres. He said it shows a walkable area, integration of buildings, connecting streets, and access from
Forest Lakes. He and Mr. Steve Runkle have worked together, and think this is an opportunity to do
something which is a new trend-setting initiative. It is something that has not been done in this county
before. He said the proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would not allow them to do anything at this time. He
sees this as an opportunity to create some initial structures at the lower end of the FAR, but as time
progresses and land values increase, it is a perfect area for in-fill where a second building could be added,
and then put parking over the existing ground parking, and increase density. In Northern Virginia, in order to
buy land for $25-$40 a square foot, to put on a parking deck at $12+ a square foot, makes economic
sense. In this area where land is $10 a square foot, to put in a parking deck at $12+ a square foot does not
work mathematically. There are too many other places where people can buy land cheaper and spread
out. To maintain that as a minimum effective level now would essentially kill any activity there is in the
immediate future. He said they are in favor of an increase in density, but it will take staff some time to get
there.
Mr. Steve Runkle said they have 25 acres on the west side of the proposed town center area. As
developers and property owners, they get very nervous when there are specific requirements mentioned
which they know economically cannot be met. There are other things which have not been mentioned
which should also be a concern of this Board. Whether they are mentioned as requirements, or just
implied, there is a grid system proposed. The size of that grid has significant implications on the amount of
grading that may be needed on the site. This site is not unusual in the County in terms of its underlying
grades, but to overlay a grid system with 200 foot blocks would imply massive grading. That implies that
the natural condition of the site would be equivalent to WalMart's parking lot. He knows of no place in the
County where that natural condition exists. He wants to support this amendment, and be a participant in the
development of an urban environment in which people will live and shop, and within that environment
diminish their automobile dependency. He wants to help create some viable public spaces which are viable
to the public, and also help enhance the value of his property. He thinks this process has to be guided by
the 12 principles which are enumerated as part of the DISC recommendations rather than by specific
individual requirements that establish a particular tract which may not be appropriate. He suggests that the
principal landowners come together, work with staff and propose a master plan which tries to meet as many
of those goals as possible without first requiring specific requirements.
Mr. Wendell Wood said Mr. Runkle, Mr. Rouel and Mr. Blaine have had numerous meetings since
the last discussion on this matter. Before that, he wrote a letter to the Board stating his opposition to what
was happening. He was opposed basically to the conditions being imposed. He did not think the market in
this area could support the addition of a parking deck. A grocery store, under the present conditions, would
require deck parking. They know that a grocery store in this area could not afford this, so would locate
elsewhere. Under the proposal put forth by Mr. Blaine, and Mr. Deerman who has a contract on a portion
of the property, there may be the possibility for a town center under this concept. He thinks there would
need to be a lot of things worked out. He represents 11 of the 13 owners (125 acres of the 180 acres) who
are willing to try. Given the guidelines proposed to the Board, there is the possibility and it may be worth the
effort to try. There are two parcels in this acreage where the owners are not willing to participate, and it
would require everyone's cooperation. It would take quite an effort to make it happen. He said the total
concept is a good one, but it will require everyone's cooperation.
With no one else from the public rising to speak the public hearing was closed at 3:55 p.m.
Mr. Bowerman asked if what is being suggested is that the principals work together and bring in a
plan that could work looking at the economics and the recommendations of the DISC Committee without
using specific criteria.
Mr. Martin said the last time this was discussed, there was a major player in total opposition to this
amendment. Basically, it will be hard to move forward and accomplish anything listed in the DISC
Committee report without the cooperation of the people who own the property and who will develop that
property. Since that time there have been a lot of meetings, and everyone has moved toward supporting
this type of development for a town center. A couple of issues have gotten in the way. One is the
recommendation for Floor Area Ratio. It has gone a little farther than he believes anyone expected. He did
not expect to see a requirement for parking decks for a grocery store. He asked if Mr. Runkle could explain
to the Board where they are with the overall recommendation, and where they would like it to go. Mr. Martin
said he thinks this is reasonable because most of the time the Board is in a situation of imposing its
guidelines, and they are saying that they would like to put together a plan using the 12 principles of the
DISC Report, and then let the Board look at it, instead of the Board putting together rules and regulations
which they cannot work under.
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Mr. Bowerman asked if whatever were brought back would be in the way of a Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
Mr. Runkle commended staff on the work they have done. He has had a difficult time from the
beginning understanding how this Comprehensive Plan amendment could be executed in the real world
without some significant adjustments in the zoning and regulatory climate. He thinks the best thing would
be to develop a zoning overlay for this town center to deal with these issues. As an example, in order to
produce the kind of environment envisioned, it implies either significant cooperation or a single grading plan
on the whole site. Otherwise, a lot of plateaus would be generated which could not be connected. The
kinds of issues that need to be addressed are how the plan will be developed, executed and what happens
if there is not cooperation. Is there any relief in road design standards which would permit a tighter grid to
happen than can happen today under the same conditions? What are the appropriate mix of uses? What
will cause the town center to work? Some people think there should be no big users for fear it will drive
away small users. He thinks there need to be the big users to draw people to the facility and create the
demand for the smaller users.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the proffer system is still being used as part of this. Mr. Runkle said that at
some point the property would have to be rezoned. There are public facilities mentioned in the
recommendations. How are they provided, and what is the location of them, and who pays? He would not
want to be the developer who provides all of those public facilities. Part of this plan is the Route 29 and off-
site transportation improvements. He said if the developers have to fund those improvements, this proposal
will not work. Also, building any kind of parking structure will not happen in the foreseeable future. He
suggests, with the agreement of the others, that they be allowed to put together some kind of a master plan
which addresses the goals expressed and in a way they think is economically viable. As part of that
process, let them identify some of the issues which will have to be resolved before the plan can be
executed. A couple of things which need to be addressed are: how to accomplish grading over multiple
parcels under a tight grid system, and how to handle stormwater on a regional basis. This may be
particular to this area only. In considering something similar in the future, the underlying physical conditions
may be different site-to-site.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the developer is being asked for public facilities in return for increased density.
Mr. Runkle said the Comprehensive Plan amendment alludes to public facilities which will be provided on
some basis, not necessarily in exchange for density. It does not specifically say who will provide them or
how they will be maintained. He cannot say that could be paid for through increased density. Another thing
envisioned is a type of infrastructure which the developer will be asked to provide which will be more
expensive. Hopefully, some of that cost could be recovered through increased density. If this amendment
is adopted, he does not see how the County will get the property owners together, and there is no other way
to execute this plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said certain issues have been raised which will be difficult to solve in order to proceed
with any plan, particularly in today's market. The real question is whether to try and work out the master
plan concept before amending the Comprehensive Plan, or whether to get guiding language in the Plan
from which a master plan could be developed. It is a timing thing. Staff is willing to work in either way with
the landowners.
Mr. Bowerman said it is also a practical question of the landowners coming together with a unified
plan and then proposing a structure under ordinances which allow that. Mr. Cilimberg said the ordinance is
a step beyond. There are steps which must be taken along the way in order to get this in place, and the last
step is the ordinance. Mr. Runkle made a good point that first you need to decide what you are trying to
achieve and then look to see if it is possible under existing ordinances. Staff was not trying to write
ordinances; these are guidelines from which plans are developed and submitted to the County for review
and approval. The question is what those guidelines should be and whether they should be based on a
picture which has been presented in a master plan first. He thinks that will delay a decision on the
amendments, but since these are already in process, there will be no need for another Comprehensive
Plan amendment. What this will mean is that the Comprehensive Plan will not contain the amendments
needed for dealing with VDOT.
Mr. Humphris said she remembers that one of the reasons the Board pushed for this amendment
was to meet a deadline and have something in place to prove to VDOT that the County has a different plan
and it had been adopted and was in place. She asked if it is possible to adopt CPA-2000-05 alone. Mr.
Cilimberg said he thinks that theoretically it is possible. The recommendations from Mr. Blaine were mostly
in the land use element and not the transportation element. If the Board wishes to do so, CPA-2000-05
could be adopted, and then the staff would work further on the land use element.
Mr. Martin said he does not think the Board needs to adopt the transportation portion today. He
thinks these folks should be allowed to talk and kick around the idea. He believes this is one of the best
opportunities the County has to do something on a larger scale, something which will move the County in
the direction of the DISC principles. There is a large block of land, and there are some willing participants.
There might be another opportunity to do this with The Towers property, but this is what the Board has
before it now. He thinks the Board should allow them to put together a proposal based on the 12 principles.
Let the Board see the proposal, and see what problems the community might face. He said this might
work better if the Parks & Recreation department is involved. They might also bring back recommendations
for ordinance changes.
Ms. Humphris said her only worry is that in addition to any deadlines the property owners might
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
have, there is also VDOT's public hearing looming. Mr. Martin said the whole Route 29 proposal is shut
down completely. Ms. Humphris asked how Mr. Martin knows this for a fact. Mr. Martin said it is connected
to the lawsuit over the Western 29 Bypass. He found out about this about six weeks ago from Mr. Mills at
VDOT. Mr. Mills said the whole project is tied up with the lawsuit, and VDOT will make no moves with that
project until the lawsuit is decided.
Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Cilimberg if that is his understanding of the project. Mr. Cilimberg said he
has not heard that from any official source, but has heard it from others who say that has happened. He
does understand that for some reason, the Route 29 Corridor improvements have been linked into the
lawsuit about the Western Route 29 Bypass. Ms. Humphris said when the Board saw the maps of the
Route 29 corridor improvements, they had no link to the Western Bypass. Mr. Martin said it was the
Southern Environmental Law Center which made the connection.
Ms. Thomas said it is her understanding of the situation that the Board wants to be ready to go
when VDOT puts pen to paper and it does not want to be scrambling to catch up as it did a year ago. Now
before the Board are two Comprehensive Plan amendments, one dealing with land use and the other with
transportation improvements. She is delighted with the comments received about the land use
amendment, and glad to see the kind of work going into that. She asked Mr. Appleyard if he would like to
comment about what is going on with VDOT.
Mr. Appleyard said SELC amended its complaint in the lawsuit in July, 2000. That was at the time
the public information meeting was held. VDOT's next step was to hold a public hearing, but the public
hearing required a 30-day advance release of the environmental assessment. FHWA said that while the
amended complaint was being contested in court, they would not sign off on the environmental
assessment, which gave the opportunity to get the public hearing process to occur. On December 29, the
Judge came down with his decision on the amended complaint. He understands this opens the door for
everything to go forward for the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas asked exactly what happened on December 29. Mr. Appleyard said that their
amended complaint on July 29 was that the widening project north of the Rivanna River and the two
parallel frontage roads should be part of their case. That was the main point of the amended complaint.
That decision was received last Friday. Ms. Thomas asked what the opinion was. Mr. Appleyard said it is a
17-page document, and it is still being studied. Ms. Thomas asked if there was a bottom-line decision. Mr.
Appleyard said "no." However, it is his understanding that now that the decision has been laid down, the
stipulation that FHWA put on not to sign the environmental assessment has been removed.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board might expect to receive the environmental assessment soon. Mr.
Appleyard said it is possible. Ms. Thomas said it would then be possible for VDOT to announce that in 30
days they would have a public hearing. Mr. Appleyard said that is possible.
Mr. Martin said he understands from Mr. Mills that VDOT shut down all action, so it would not
happen within 30 days. Ms. Thomas said VDOT's planning has not been moving on during this time, so it
would take them sometime to get ready, maybe four months away, not an indefinite period of time away.
Mr. Martin said he brought this up to indicate that taking action this week versus next week will not make a
huge difference. He does agree that the Board should move forward with the transportation aspect.
Ms. Humphris asked if the Board was faced with an emergency, could it at its next meeting adopt
the transportation improvements amendments. Mr. Tucker said staff can find out more from Mr. Appleyard,
and also from VDOT as to their plans. These amendments can be deferred until February 7 thus giving
staff and the landowners an opportunity to bring back some suggestions. He asked if these two
amendments can be segregated so the Board can go ahead with the transportation planning amendment.
Mr. Dorrier asked if in the interim a committee can be set up to deal with the FAR issue, the building
footprint issues, and the one hundred foot buffer requirement (all as noted on handout from Mr. Blaine
earlier in the meeting).
Ms. Thomas said there are a couple of issues here. There is the Floor Area Ratio issue, the other
problems with the proposed language, and the land use issue. There is the issue of whether the
transportation planning can be separated from the land use issue and this needs an answer first. She
assumes there is continual work on the land use issues. She thinks everybody is excited about this. She
said it provides the opportunity for what DISC and a lot of other people have been working very hard to
develop.
(Note: Mr. Martin said he had another meeting he must attend, so left at 4:19 p.m.)
Mr. Appleyard said SELC has talked to VDOT officials about this Comprehensive Plan amend-
ment. They talk often about their willingness to work with local land use planners, but if there is not a plan
in place which is meaningful, they defer to the existing plan. It is very important to get this in place well in
advance of any advancement of their plans. The money which VDOT plans to spend on these parallel
frontage roads could be redirected to providing the road network for this town center. He said Mr. Runkle
had mentioned the need for a comprehensive grading plan. If the County could get VDOT to work with it in
developing a road network which would relieve traffic on Route 29, there would be a way to help developers
develop this site in a fashion which makes for a more vibrant community.
Ms. Thomas said she does not think the Board will be taking any action today. She asked for
comments. Mr. Tucker suggested that the amendments be deferred to a date specific.
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to defer CPA-98-03 and CPA-
2000-05 until February 7 to allow staff and the landowners time to work together on the land use and
transportation issues and bring back a recommendation.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
__________
Mr. Cilimberg said staff would like to clarify one point. The public hearing today was held on a
particular recommendation. Staff recognizes that there may be a need to modify that language based on
the discussions which are to take place. He said the proposed language sets out a vision for 20 years and
beyond, and he wants to be sure that the vision this represents is what the Board wants to achieve. Ms.
Thomas said she has not heard anything today that would indicate this is not the vision.
Mr. Benish said some of the speakers had complimented the staff for their work in this matter, and
he would like to compliment them for their patience with staff and their willing to work with staff for this long
time. Overall, it has been a very good process.
Mr. Cilimberg said to get multiple landowners working together on something like the proposed
master plan will be quite a feat. Staff looks forward to doing that.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Public Hearing on recommended amendment to the FY 2000-01 Operating
Budget. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on December 5, 2000. This hearing
was originally scheduled for December 13 but had to be postponed due to inclement weather.)
Mr. Tucker said that on December 2, 1998, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute
purchase agreements for the Esmont Park property. On February 2, 2000, the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Community Foundation announced a $500,000 gift, made possible by the Dave Mathews Band and an
anonymous donor, to fund construction of the park. Based on the cost of the final park design, which
includes a spray garden, the donors have agreed to donate an additional $92,000. Since the $592,000
donation will exceed the $500,000 maximum addition to the FY 01 budget allowed by Virginia Code
>'
15.2-250, the County must hold a public hearing.
Mr. Tucker said the project was bid in November, 2000 and construction will begin in December,
2000 with a mid-summer completion schedule. The park construction contracts cannot be signed unless
funding is appropriated. The County Attorney's Office has drawn up an agreement between the County and
the Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation. Under the terms of that agreement, the County will
pay the bills and then submit bills to the Foundation for reimbursement. The Charlottesville-Albemarle
Community Foundation will reimburse the County up to $592,000. There are no local funds in this
appropriation as all funding for the Park has been donated by private individuals.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends approval of the proposed FY 01 Budget amendment in the
>
amount of $592,000 and requests approval of Appropriation Form #20038 in the amount of $592,000 in
donated funds for the Esmont park project (newly named Simpson Park).
With no questions from the Board, the public hearing was opened. No one from the public rose to
speak, so the public hearing was closed.
Motion was immediately offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve the FY 01
>
Budget amendment in the amount of $592,000, and to adopt the following Resolution of Appropriation.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the recorded vote set out below:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 22038
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DONATION AND AUTHORIZATION FOR SIMPSON
PARK
EXPENDITURE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 9901 71000 950121 SIMPSON PARK $592,000.00
TOTAL$592,000.00
REVENUE
CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 9010 18100 181113 DONATION-SIMPSON PARK$592,000.00
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
TOTAL$592,000.00
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris to:
Appoint Mr. Michael Matthews as the joint City/County appointee to both the Joint Airport Commis-
sion and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Authority, with said terms to expire on December 1, 2003.
Reappoint Ms. Gene E. Smith, Mr. Edward J. Jones and Mr. Sanford P. Wilcox to the Jefferson
Area Board on Aging (TJ Planning District), with said terms to expire on March 31, 2003.
Appoint Mr. Charles S. Martin as the Consortium Chief of Local Elected Officials for the Workforce
Investment Act.
Appoint Mr. Joseph T. Samuels, Jr. to the ACE Appraisal Review Committee, with said term to
expire on December 31, 2001.
Mr. Perkins moved to reappoint Mr. Albert O. Humbertson, Jr. to the Equalization Board to
represent the White Hall District, with said term to expire on December 31, 2001.
The motions were seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 27. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Ms. Humphris mentioned a memorandum from VACO concerning the Governor's Budget
proposals. She said the Board needs to be aware that local government is facing some dire consequences
if things proceed as VACO foresees them. These have to do with teacher salary increases, school
construction funds, the impact of the VRS Health Insurance Credit, the State's share of salary increases for
local employees and the car tax.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 4:28 p.m.)
__________
Ms. Humphris said in the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority minutes it was clearly stated by Mr. Art
Petrini that the new intake (the Board discussed this earlier today) to deal with water quality from the
proposed Western 29 Bypass, would be used only in an emergency situation (when the existing intake
could not be used because of the spill of contaminants), but it could not be used as the full-time intake point
because there would not be an equivalent water supply. She said everybody needs to understand that.
__________
Ms. Humphris asked about a request from the High Growth Coalition last November. Mr. Tucker
said last year the Board supported the High Growth Coalition's request to appropriate $1000 for lobbying
efforts. The Coalition has again made that request. Both Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris, who represent
the Board on that Coalition, support the request. There needs to be some action from this Board approving
an appropriation. The official paperwork can be brought back on a future consent agenda.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve of an appropriation of
$1000 for the lobbying efforts by the Virginia High Growth Coalition. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Martin.
__________
Mr. Tucker said that earlier today, the Board approved setting the public hearing for the Secondary
Six-Year Road Plan for February 14. He has been told by the Clerk that it is a long agenda, so he asked to
have that date changed to February 21.
Mr. Dorrier moved that the hearing date for the public hearing on the Secondary Six-Year Road
Plan be changed from February 14 to February 21. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Martin.
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
__________
Mr. Cilimberg said January 1 was the deadline for ACE (Acquisition of Conservation Easements)
applications. He said that 11 applications were received. Most of those applications looked pretty good
upon initial review. Staff will be analyzing the number of development rights which are achievable so it can
then judge the number that would be forfeited. This will be done in conjunction with staff from the Zoning
Department. Some even qualify for the complete 100 percent.
Mr. Tucker said no applications were received for appointment to the ACE Appraisal Committee. If
the Board members know of anyone who might be interested in serving, there is a need to get that
committee constituted. He is debating whether to readvertise. Mr. Davis said the Board may want to rethink
the number of people on the committee. It could be that three people would be a better number.
Ms. Humphris said the County is actually asking professionals to do volunteer work, so she can
understand their reluctance to apply. Mr. Davis said the ordinance would need to be amended, but in the
meantime, if three people were appointed, that would be a quorum of the five members now required. He
said there may be some other technical amendments needed in the ordinance.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said he has provided Board members with a copy of the Historic District Guidelines for
the Town of Scottsville. He said they are still in a state of passage, so if anyone has any recommendations,
please pass them along. Scottsville Town Council plans to hold a public hearing on the second Monday in
February. He asked if a County planner could be there for the discussion.
__________
Mr. Perkins mentioned that he has been bombarded with complaints from citizens about their real
property reassessments. There is nothing the Board can do about it, so he has told them the process to go
through for an appeal. He just wanted to say that everybody he saw yesterday was upset about the
reassessment. He got a lot of telephone calls. Ms. Humphris said she also had received many calls, but
there is nothing the Board can do about them. Mr. Tucker said the County does not set the values, it is the
market conditions.
__________
Ms. Humphris suggested that the Board consider some kind of a policy for issuing proclamations.
A couple of months ago, the Clerk asked the Board about a request from some people she had never
heard about. She was leery because she thought it might even be a joke. During all the upheaval of the
Presidential Election, while watching a group of protesting people on TV at the Capitol, behind this group
was a huge sign with the name of this group on it. She found an article in the local paper on December 14
about this movement, which is banned in China. They created a big uprising, and they feel this group is an
evil and socially menacing cult. People were arrested for practicing these exercises. She is not comment-
ing on this group, but does think the Board needs to consider some kind of a policy about issuing proclama-
tions. From time to time the Board is requested to issue frivolous ones, but it certainly does not want to get
involved in anything political.
Ms. Thomas said she told Ella that the group was banned in China. Ms. Carey said she had found
a message on her voice mail, left over the holidays, asking if this group could come and present the
proclamation. She basically told them no. Ms. Thomas said they can certainly come for the items not on
A@
the agenda, and introduce themselves. Ms. Humphris said she does not think the Board should be issuing
such proclamations.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she just learned that on January 9, 2001, at 10:00 a.m., there will be a meeting of
the Route 29 Southern Corridor Study Steering Committee, combined Phases II and III. She has just
arranged to talk to a group at exactly the time this meeting will occur. She asked if another member could
attend. Mr. Cilimberg said he has not received that notice. He said the County has made comments, but
this is another report.
__________
Ms. Thomas said a citizen brought to her attention a newspaper article in which Lt. Moore from the
Virginia Game and Inland Fisheries was quoted as saying We have been working the counties around
A
Albemarle this year, and not working Albemarle as much because Albemarle has put money into its
enforcement. Ms. Thomas said the County has thus gotten less Game & Inland Fisheries enforcement
@
when, in fact, the Board thought it was getting additional support because of putting in County money. If the
County puts in extra money and that causes the State agency to walk away, that has defeated the whole
purpose of putting in the Countys money. Mr. Tucker said that is what they have been doing for 10 or 15
=
years. If the County puts money into enforcement they walk away. Ms. Thomas asked that this be kept in
mind during the next budget process. Mr. Tucker said when the County created a Police Department, funds
started to drop off, there was less enforcement by the State Police, etc.
__________
Ms. Thomas mentioned the notice from Central Virginia Electric Cooperative (CVEC) concerning a
rate increase. She asked that when items of this type are included on the Consent Agenda, that these
public hearing dates be listed somewhere for the general public. Ms. Humphris asked that the Board just
get the cover of the notice and not the entire document. Ms. Thomas said this public hearing is scheduled
for March 29. Mr. Tucker said CVEC publishes a notice in the newspaper.
January 3, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
__________
Ms. Thomas congratulated staff on getting Chapter 2, Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, in
print. She said that Page 87 still needs some work. It has a memo to itself included in the text, and that
needs to be changed. She said that Pages I - A4 were removed from the earlier document (the final report
of the Mountain Protection Committee 1996). She was sorry to see it removed.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 28. Adjourn to January 10, 2001, 4:30 p.m., Meeting Room #235, for Joint
Meeting with the School Board.
At 4:48 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Ms.
Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adjourn to January 10, 2001, for a joint meeting with the School
Board.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the vote which follows:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Martin.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date
Initials