The URL can be used to link to this page

2002-02-06February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 6, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker 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 Chairman, Ms. Thomas. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Samuel Fields said he is a resident of Nortonsville. He wished to speak about kennel permits. He bought his house in 1984, and at that time there was only one adjoining owner who had a kennel permit, and the dogs were not loud. Since then, the landowner three houses away has also obtained a kennel permit. There is now another person who wants a kennel permit for the property directly across the road. In his neighborhood, there are five properties where 50+ dogs are housed. He would like to have the law changed so adjoining landowners could have some say before these permits are issued, and so a definition of kennel is set out. He thinks a person should have the enjoyment of his land. Also, he does not think these permits should be carried from one property to another. If a person owns more than one property, he can move the dogs wherever he wants. Mr. Fields said he currently has his property on the market because of these dogs. Out of the 24 people who have looked at the property for purchase, 17 declined because of the dogs. He thinks the law needs to be looked at and changed. Also, the fines for dog violations are so minimal that they do not serve as a deterrent. Ms. Thomas said she will ask staff to look into the request. __________ Mr. John Martin was present to speak about the Moormans River, a natural resource which belongs to every citizen. He said the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA) recently approved additional study of a concept that might remedy the flow problems in the River, and possibly add to the water supply capacity, or flexibility. RWSA voted to fund the study 25 percent with the rest of the funding coming from other sources. The concept has been around for a long time. It is called the Mechum River Pump Station Concept. It was Alternative No. 29 on the February, 2000 Alternatives list. The pump station is located right where the pipeline crosses the Mechum River and the pumps would pump water from the Mechum River into the Sugar Hollow pipeline thereby reducing reliance on the water from Sugar Hollow. In turn, this would allow for more flow in the Moormans River and keep more water in the Sugar Hollow Reservoir for a longer period of time. Mr. Martin said that in the recommendation made to the RWSA Board, there is one sentence reading: As demonstration of the RWSA environmental commitment, and as a good community citizen, it A is recommended that the Board approve RWSA contributing 25 percent of the study cost, up to $3000. He @ said those are welcome words, and this is an encouraging event. He urged the Board, as administrators of the Moormans River, to follow and be involved in the progress of this matter in conjunction with the water supply project. Mr. Rooker asked if there was a cost estimate put on Alternative 29. Mr. Martin said it is approximately $850,000. The concept being thought about at this time may involve a few additional valves, etc. A lot of detail needs to be worked out. _______________ Agenda Item No. 5. Recognition of AIA Award for Neighborhood Model. Ms. Thomas said she does not have the award this morning to hand out; it will be received in May in Charlotte, North Carolina. This award is from the American Institute of Architects. She wanted to make public recognition of the award and thank some people who worked together to develop the DISC Neighborhood Model. She said Albemarles Neighborhood Model was one of 34 projects selected from = over 700 submissions across the country. It received the AIAs 2002 Honor Award which is the professions == highest recognition for excellence in design, and which best exemplifies excellence in architecture interiors and urban design. Ms. Thomas said there are different categories, and Albemarles Neighborhood Model received the = award in Outstanding Regional and Urban Design. She said there were four winners in this category nationwide which demonstrates the valuable contributions that architects, together with clients and entire communities, are making to reclaim and revitalize challenged urban landscapes. Ms. Thomas said she would like to recognize several groups of people who were critical to the successful development of the Neighborhood Model. She said this is an innovative and essential change in the way that Albemarle County responds to and manages development in the designated Development February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) Areas. Many groups in the community contributed time, energy, effort and expertise in creating a workable model for vibrant livable urban spaces in the County, and in moving that model through the processes which culminated in its adoption as a Comprehensive Plan amendment last year, which was just the first step. Ms. Thomas thanked the members of the Development Initiatives Steering Committee (DISC) for their vision and tireless work over several years in fulfilling their charge to create a new pattern of development for the Development Areas. Many members of that committee are present at this meeting, including some members of this Board. She thanked Mr. Neil Paton, and the consultant, Torde Galos. Then, the Planning Commissioners who reviewed page-by-page and line-by-line the report of the DISC Committee, and for shaping that work into a Comprehensive Plan amendment recommendation for the Board of Supervisors. Then, she thanked County staff members, particularly those in the Planning Department, for their dedication and persistence in keeping this effort moving forward through the many stages it took to come to what is a very exciting concept for this community. Ms. Thomas said the Board takes great pride in the Neighborhood Model and offers its thanks to all who participated in this endeavor. She said it is nice that it is a nationally recognized program, but it is a challenge to all to put it into effect. _______________ Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to approve Items 6.1 through 6.10 and Item 6.12 (and to pull Item 6.11, Owensville Road, to be discussed under Transportation Matters), then to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ___________ Item 6.1. Approval of Conditions: SP-2001-036 Darden Towe Park Phase III Improvements (deferred from January 9, 2002). It was noted in the Executive Summary that during review of SP-2001-036 and SP-2001-044, a Board member inquired as to the implications of using Federal TEA-21 Enhancement Grant funds on the proposed boat access if, in the future, the County chose to pursue a public road project located on Park property. The most significant regulation at issue under the above noted scenario is Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303(c)). This Section states that the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation may approve a transportation program or project requiring the use of publicly-owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, state or local significance only if: (1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and, (2) the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use. The County Attorney's Office is of the opinion that any future public road project which uses Federal funds for the development of the road project would require a "Section 4(f) review," regardless of whether Federal funds have been used for the construction or improvement of the park. Therefore, use of the TEA-21 funds for the proposed boat access project should not create any significant additional impediments to a possible future road project. Based on this information, staff continues to recommend approval of SP-2001-036 and SP-2001-044 with conditions. (Ms. Thomas said she would like to thank staff for checking out the question she raised at the public hearing about Darden Towe Park land.) By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved SP-2001-36, Darden Towe Park Phase III Improvements, subject to the following condition: 1. A stream buffer mitigation plan must AA be approved and bonded with the Albemarle County Engineering Department prior to the beginning of any construction or grading. @@ __________ Item 6.2. Approval of Conditions: SP-2001-044 Darden Towe Park Phase III Improvements (deferred from January 9, 2002). By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved SP-2001-44, Darden Towe Park Phase III Improvements, subject to the following condition: 1. The fill in the flood plain shall be in AA general accord with the plan produced by Land Planning and Design Associates, Inc., entitled "Darden Towe Park, Phase III Development (sheets L-1, L-2, L-2A, and L-3), dated July 31, 2001, and @@ last revised on November 8, 2001. @@ __________ Item 6.3. Proclamation recognizing February, 2002 as School Board Recognition Month. February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the following Proclamation designating February, 2002 as School Board Recognition Month. (Note: The proclamation was presented to the Chairman of the School Board under Agenda Item No. 11.) School Board Recognition Month WHEREAS, these are challenging times for public education and for the work of local school boards; and WHEREAS, school boards are responsible for putting into place a system for students to learn and achieve at the highest level possible; and WHEREAS, excellence in the classroom begins with excellence in the board room; and WHEREAS, the key work of school boards includes taking action to create a vision for what students should know and be able to do; to establish clear standards for student performance; to ensure that student assessments are tied to established standards; to be accountable to the community for operating schools that support student achievement; to align school district resources to ensure that students meet standards; to create a climate assuring safe and orderly classrooms; to build collaborative relationships to solve common problems; and to ensure continuous improvement; and WHEREAS, we are proud of the work school boards do and the role they play in creating a quality public education system that is fundamental to a strong democratic society; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby declare our appreciation to the members of the Albemarle County School Board and proclaim the month of February, 2002 as SCHOOL BOARD RECOGNITION MONTH in the County of Albemarle and urge all citizens to join us in recognizing the dedication and hard work of local school board members in preparing today's students for tomorrow's world. __________ Item 6.4. Appropriation: Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program, $136,200 (Form #2001-050). It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Code of Virginia 15.2-2507 stipulates that any ' locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget. The following appropriation is an expenditure transfer between previously appropriated line items and does not increase the total current year budget, therefore, it does not require a budget amendment. Appropriation #2001-050: At its meeting on January 9, 2002, the Board approved the final appraisals on properties from the year 2000-01 applicant pool for Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE). It approved the purchase of easements for the top four properties at a total amount of $1,136,200, and, it supported the transfer of $136,200 from the Board's appropriated FY 2001-2002 Contingency Reserve to cover the additional amount required to fund the Henley property easement acquisition. Staff recommends that the Board approve Appropriation #2001-050 transferring $136,200 from its Contingency Reserve account to the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) program. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02 NUMBER: 2001-050 FUND: CIP-GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR ACE PROGRAM EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 9010 81010 580409 A.C.E. $136,200.00 TOTAL $136,200.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 9010 51000 512004 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND $136,200.00 TOTAL $136,200.00 February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) TRANSFERS 1 1000 93010 930010 TRANSFER TO CIP $136,200.00 1 1000 95000 999990 BOARD CONTINGENCY ($136,200.00) __________ Item 6.5. Appropriation: Education, $43,944.43 (Form #2001-051). It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Code of Virginia 15.2-2507 stipulates that any ' locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser, must be accomplished by publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. Appropriation No. 2001-051 provides additional funds to the FY 2001-02 budget, and, therefore will need to be included in a future budget amendment, when the statutory threshold is reached. Appropriation #2001-051: Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received donations in the amount of $1,400.00. Elizabeth and George Neff donated $900.00 to support the presentation for the science class on cultural enrichment. Hunter Craig donated $500.00 to purchase instructional materials for the school. Western Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $300.00 from Mary and Byrd Leavell. This donation will be used to purchase a DVD player and other instructional materials for the school. Crozet Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $500.00 from the Crozet Elementary School PTO. This donation will be used to help purchase a digital camcorder for the school. Murray Elementary School received donations in the amount of $336.24. Teresa and George Hashisaki donated $300.00 for use in the arts and cultural enrichment programs at the school. The Target School Fund-Raising Program donated $36.24. Target designated their favorite schools to receive donations equal to one percent of purchases made when shopping at Target or on-line. Through the School Fund Raising Program, Target has donated more the $27.0 million to eligible K-12 schools across the country. This donation will be used to purchase educational materials for the school. Federal funding for the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Grant was increased by $34,675.00 over the original budget estimate of $115,000.00. In addition to the increased funding, the grant for FY 00-01 was > not fully expended and has a fund balance of $6,733.19. The additional funds and carryover balance will be used for staff development and purchase of equipment. Staff recommends that the Board approve Appropriation #2001-051 for the above purposes. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02 NUMBER: 2001-051 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND DONATIONS EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 2206 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies $ 1,400.00 1 2302 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 300.00 1 2203 61101 800100 Mach/Equipment 500.00 1 2215 61411 580000 Misc Expenses 300.00 1 2215 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 36.24 1 3207 61190 580500 Staff Dev 3,733.19 1 3207 61190 800100 Mach/Equipment 37,675.00 TOTAL $43,944.43 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 2000 18100 181109 Donation $ 2,536.24 2 3207 33000 330107 Carl Perkins Voc Ed 34,675.00 2 3207 51000 510100 Approp Fund Bal 6,733.19 TOTAL $43,944.43 __________ Item 6.6. Appropriation: Capital Improvements Program (ADA Modifications for Polling Places), $25,608.00 (Form #2001-52). February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Code of Virginia 15.2-2507 stipulates that any ' locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget. The following appropriation is an expenditure transfer between previously appropriated line items, and does not increase the total current year budget; therefore, it does not require a budget amendment. Appropriation #2001-052: Improvements to the facilities used for four County polling places are needed to meet requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Department of Engineering and Public Works has obtained estimates of the cost to have a contractor make the necessary improvements. The total estimate for the work is $23,280.00, plus a 10 percent contingency allowance. The four polling places to be modified and the estimated cost at each is as follows: Union Grove Baptist Church ($950.00); Berean Baptist Church ($9600.00, including replacement of 125 feet of sidewalk); Free Union Baptist Church ($10,530.00, including 110 feet of sidewalk and one handicapped asphalt parking space); Buck Mountain Church ($2200.00), and a Contingency allowance for variances in prices and estimated quantities ($2328.00). This appropriation transfers the $25,608.00 within the Capital Improvements Fund between the Fund Reserve account and the Public Works CIP account for polling site upgrades. Staff recommends that the Board approve Appropriation #2001-052 for this purpose. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02 NUMBER: 2001-052 FUND: CIP-GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO UPGRADE POLLING SITES EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 9010 43100 950142 Polling Site Upgrades $25,608.00 1 9010 11010 999979 Capital Reserve (25,608.00) TOTAL $-0- REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL $-0- __________ Item 6.7. Authorize transfer of funds ($10,000.00) from Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Reserve to Engineering and Public Works CIP for Corville Farm Improvements. It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Board, at its meeting on January 16, 2002, passed a resolution recommending that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) accept Corville Farm Road into the State Secondary System of Highways and construct improvements under the Rural Additions Program. Prior to VDOT constructing the necessary improvements to Corville Farm Road, the County must provide VDOT a guarantee of clear and unrestricted right-of-way and any necessary easements for grading or drainage. The Corville Farm Road right-of-way was recorded with the Corville Farm Subdivision plat, but County staff has identified drainage easements that will be required to satisfy VDOT. As recommended at the January 16, 2002, Board meeting, Engineering and Public Works was directed to obtain the necessary as-built survey and drainage easements. A cost of $10,000.00 was estimated to prepare an as-built survey of the roadway, create the necessary easement plats and have them recorded. That cost was discussed in the Executive Summary of January 16, 2002, in which it was indicated that these project costs could not be included in the Rural Addition Program, but would need to come from County funds. This work must be completed before VDOT will start design or construction of the improvements. The $10,000.00 estimated cost for preparing the easement plats needs to be funded. The readily available source of funding for those easement plats and the as-built survey is the County's Capital Project Reserve. The transfer of the $10,000.00 from the Capital Project Reserve to an Engineering account number would allow for the immediate start of work. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board authorize the transfer of $10,000.00 from the Capital Project Reserve to the Engineering CIP Corville Farm Improvements for the purpose of creating the required as-built survey and easement plat for the Corville Farm Road project. (Mr. Tucker said he has an Appropriation Number to add to this item so that it will not have to be returned on another agenda. The actual appropriation form is No. 2001-054.) By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the staffs recommendation, and == adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02 NUMBER: 2001-054 February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) FUND: CAPITAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR EASEMENTS ON CORVILLE FARM ROAD PROJECT EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 9010 41000 950143 Corville Farm Road $10,000.00 1 9010 11010 999979 Capital Reserve (10,000.00) TOTAL $-0- REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL $-0- __________ Item 6.8. Resolution providing Moral Obligation for Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) Letter of Credit Resolution. It was noted in the Executive Summary that as part of the environmental permitting of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authoritys (RSWA) Ivy facility, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) = requires that financial assurances be in place as a contingency for any environmental mitigation that may be required later. This financial assurance does not indicate a need for any environmental mitigation on the part of RSWA, but assures sufficient funds will be in place should such an effort be required. Based on DEQ's permit requirements, RSWA's Ivy facility is required to provide an additional $1.0 million in financial assurance. In providing the required financial assurance, RSWA has the option of supplying a Letter of Credit rather than the cash amount. The primary benefit of a Letter of Credit is that RSWA keeps its capital reserve available for the current closure work and any mitigation that might be required in the future. Keeping the capital reserve unencumbered allows RSWA to use those funds for their intended purpose rather than necessitating the need for Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville to supplement that capital reserve to cover those anticipated needs. In obtaining a Letter of Credit from a financial institution, RSWA is required to provide a moral A obligation from both the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle. That moral obligation @ provides assurance that the City and County would repay this Letter of Credit if RSWA was unable to do so. While this moral obligation is not a contractual guarantee, the County would repay the letter of credit, failure to honor the moral obligation would have adverse effects on the County's credit ratings. Effectively, the Letter of Credit reduces RSWA's need for the County and City to provide additional financial support that would otherwise be required if a Letter of Credit could not be obtained. In May of 2000, the City and County adopted similar Resolutions creating a moral obligation to secure funds borrowed by RSWA under a line of credit obtained by RSWA necessary to settle contingent liabilities arising from the settlement of the Ivy Landfill litigation and to maintain operations at the Landfill. That moral obligation was for an amount not to exceed $2.0 million. That line of credit has now been converted into a ten-year amortized note and is still backed by the moral obligation of the City and County if RSWA is ever in default. Staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution providing a moral obligation for the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board accepted the staffs recommendation by == adopting the following Resolution in Support of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority: RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle formed the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (the "Authority") in 1990 for the purpose of providing regional solid waste management; and WHEREAS, the continued successful operation of the Authority provides an important public service supported by the County; and WHEREAS, pursuant to certain amendments to Title 9 of the Virginia Administrative Code, Section 20-70 et. seq. governing the amount of cash or cash equivalents solid waste facilities must post in a financial assurance fund maintained by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ"), the Authority is required to post an additional $1,000,000 to the fund; WHEREAS, to enhance the financial strength and continued successful operation of the Authority, the Authority proposes to obtain a letter of credit in the amount of $1,000,000 (the "Letter of Credit") for the benefit of DEQ from the Bank of America, N.A. (the "Lender") in lieu of cash to meet the financial assurance requirements of DEQ; and February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) WHEREAS, the purpose of the Letter of Credit has been fully discussed with the County's Board of Supervisors and the Board supports the appropriateness of the Letter of Credit; however, the Board cannot be legally obligated to appropriate funds to the Authority and believes the Authority should maintain its own financial credentials; and WHEREAS, although the Authority is an independent legal entity, the County has the power to appoint certain directors of the Authority; and WHEREAS, as a condition to providing the Letter of Credit on behalf of the Authority to DEQ, the Lender has requested that the County express its moral obligation to assist the Authority in repayment of the Authority's obligations under its Application and Agreement for Standby Letter of Credit (the "Reimbursement Agreement") with the Lender in the event DEQ makes a draw upon the Letter of Credit and the Authority is unable to repay such obligations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County hereby pledges to the Authority and to the Lender the County's moral A obligation to provide the Authority with sufficient funds for the Authority to make @ timely payments to the Lender as required by the Reimbursement Agreement; provided, however, that the Lender acknowledges that the County shall have no legal or enforceable obligation to provide such funds and the performance by the County of all undertakings for the payment of money by the County pursuant hereto is subject to and conditioned upon approval and appropriation by the Board; and that the approval of any money by the County pursuant hereto is solely for the fiscal year in which such appropriation is made and is further subject to any prohibitions or restrictions imposed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Executive, or any Assistant County Executive, are each hereby authorized in the name of and on behalf of the County to execute and deliver such documents and instruments and to take such other and further actions as may be in any way necessary or appropriate to effectuate the foregoing resolution and to carry out the purposes thereof, and that the taking of any such action and the execution by such individuals of any such additional documents or instruments shall conclusively evidence the due authorization thereof by the Board. __________ Item 6.9. FY 2002-03 Revenue Projection Update and Budget Guidance. It was stated in the Executive Summary that Fiscal Year 2002-03 General Fund revenues were projected at $135,748,127 in October, 2001. The projection has been revised to $137,728,967, a net increase of $1,980,840. By applying the normal allocation formula for local tax revenues, the School Division would receive an additional allocation of $1,326,949 in local tax revenues (60%) for FY 2003 school operations, and Local Government would receive an additional allocation of $884,632 (40%) above the previous allocation (November 7, 2001). However, the net increase actually available to General (Local) Government would be only $653,000 due to the effect of absorbing the projected reductions in other local revenues and state sources of funds which directly impact local government functions, but which are not part of the local tax revenue distribution with the schools. Staff recommends approval of the FY 2002-03 revised revenue projections and the revised allocation of local tax revenues to the School Division and General Government for FY 2003 Budget guidance. (Note: For a more detailed description of the revenue breakdown, please see copy of the Executive Summary which is on file in the Clerks Office.) = By the recorded vote set out above, the Board accepted staffs recommendation and == approved of the FY 2002-03 revised revenue projections and the revised allocation of local tax revenues to the School Division and General Government for FY 2003 Budget guidance. __________ Item 6.10. Set public hearing for February 20, 2002, on availability of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and to receive input on housing and/or community development needs. It was noted in the Executive Summary that prior to development of proposals for Community Improvement Grants available through the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development's Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), a locality must hold two public hearings. The first hearing is to provide information on the availability and amount of program funds available, the locality's housing and community development needs, and past performance of CDBG funding during the previous five years. CDBG Community Improvement Grants (CIG) are available for Comprehensive Community Development, Economic Development, Housing, Community Facilities, and Community Service Facilities. The activities must meet at least one of the CDBG National Objectives - benefit to low- and moderate-income persons; aid in prevention or elimination of slums and blight; or meet urgent community needs which pose serious and immediate threat to health or welfare of the community. Generally, CIG applications are limited to a $1.0 million maximum. However, localities may have multiple grants as long as the total outstanding does not exceed $2.5 million. February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) County staff, the County's Housing Committee, and the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program are currently developing information on housing needs. One need identified last year (for which a CIG application was submitted) is the rehabilitation and preservation of affordable rental property. Based on market surveys and the difficulty that Section 8 Program clients have in finding affordable rental property, this will likely remain a high priority need. Any other needs or potential project areas that may be identified will be considered prior to conducting a public hearing on the actual CIG application(s). Detailed information regarding past performance will be available at the public hearing. To summarize, approximately $770,000 in CDBG funds was used in the Porters Road/Yancey School Neighborhood to rehabilitate 29 homes, remove 14 unsafe structures, and develop land for the construction of five new homes. Over $2.0 million in other public and private leveraged funds were used in the project of which almost half was invested in development of a new park (Simpson Park) and the renovation of the W.D. Ward Community Center. The project is on target for completion within the contract period that ends in September, 2002. Staff recommends setting a public hearing for February 20, 2002, to provide information on the availability of CDBG funds and to receive input on housing and/or community development needs. By the recorded vote above, the Board set February 20, 2002, as the date to hold a public hearing on the availability of Community Development Block Grant funds and to receive input on housing and/or community development needs. __________ Item 6.11. Owensville Road (Route 678) Relocation - Consideration of Right-of-Way Vacation. It was noted in the Executive Summary that the County at one time had a Secondary Road Project to relocate Route 678 approaching Route 250. The relocated Route 678 would have been aligned behind the Ivy Commons Shopping Center and in front of the BB&T Bank, and, would intersect with Route 250 West west of the existing Route 678 intersection. The intent of the project had been to establish a better alignment of the road and create a new Route 678/250 intersection with an improved design and sight distance (in part, by moving the road further away from the railroad overpass abutments). However, the proposed alignment still contained several sharp turns and required significant grading (cut/fill activity). Furthermore, sight distance at the new intersection with Route 250 would not have been improved to the desired standards. On October 6, 1993, the Board voted not to pursue this project due to its cost and the limited benefit gained with the project. The necessary right-of-way had been dedicated for this project. There is no urgency for the Board to act on this issue. However, staff often receives calls from potential property owners along the noted right-of-way and informs those calling about this background information. The next question is typically what will be done with the right-of-way. Staff is requesting the Boards direction as to whether to keep this right-of-way or pursue its vacation. The governing body can = vacate the right-of-way by obtaining the signatures of the lot owners immediately adjoining or contiguous to the vacated area. If the County vacates the right-of-way, it would lose the opportunity to use the property for a road improvement similar to what was previously proposed, if it is determined to be necessary in the future. Vacation would return the property to private ownership and taxable status. Unless the Board sees no possibility of reconsidering this project, staff recommends that the right-of-way not be vacated at this time, but that it be kept in its current status for future options. This item was pulled, to be discussed under Agenda Item No. 9b, Other Transportation Matters. __________ Item 6.12. Authorize County Executive to sign Water Quality Improvement Fund Grant Agreement: Stormwater Management Master Plan. It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Department of Engineering & Public Works is undertaking a Stormwater Master Planning project for the Development Areas. The project involves stream assessments for streams within the Development Areas, identification of regional stormwater strategies, development of watershed action plans and development of a financing plan. This project grew out of work sessions held with the Board on March 1 and April 5, 2000. One of the items approved at those sessions was to "prioritize Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funding for completion of regional drainage area studies as an integrated element of the land use planning program." Based on this initiative, staff from Engineering & Public Works applied for year 2001 grant funds under Virginia's Water Quality Improvement Fund, administered by the Department of Conservation & Recreation (DCR). The grant funds are intended to supplement County CIP funds for the development of the Stormwater Master Plan. The firm of CH2M Hill has been selected and is working with County staff on the stream assessment phase of the project. DCR selected the County's grant application for a reward of $100,000, to be matched by $100,000 in County funds. The County funding is in place for FY 01-02. Carryover of some of these funds to FY 02-03 is expected to complete the project. The County Attorney's Office has reviewed the grant agreement and concurs that the agreement can proceed to the Board. Staff recommends that the County Executive be authorized to sign the grant agreement with DCR so that the grant agreement can be executed. February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) By the recorded vote set out above, the Board accepted the staffs recommendation and == authorized the County Executive to sign the grant agreement with the Department of Conservation & Recreation. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 91934-2001-WQIA-01 Water Quality Improvement Act of 1997 Grant Agreement This Agreement is made this ___________day of _______________, 2001, by and between the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Conservation and Recreation, hereinafter called "DCR," and Albemarle County, hereinafter called the "Grantee." Pursuant to the Virginia Water Quality Improvement Act of 1997, Chapter 21.1, Title 10.1 of the Code of (1950), as amended (the "Act"), the General Assembly created the "Virginia Water Quality Virginia Improvement Fund" (the "Fund"). The Director of the Department of Conservation and Recreation (the "Department") subject to available funds and in coordination with the Director of the Department of Environmental Quality, is authorized by the Act to direct the State Treasurer to make Water Quality Improvement Fund grants in accordance with the guidelines established pursuant to section 10.1-2129 of the Code of Virginia. The parties to this agreement, in consideration of the mutual covenants and stipulations set out herein, agree as follows: (1) SCOPE OF SERVICE: The Grantee shall provide the services to DCR set forth in Attachment A. All deliverables shall conform to accepted standards and practices. The Grantee shall provide DCR with quarterly reports and a final report on the progress of work as set forth in Attachment A. The quarterly reports and final report shall contain the following components: (1) a narrative project summary describing, in detail, the progress of the Grantee in fulfilling the provisions of Attachment A of this Agreement; (2) the Project Financial Report, Attachment B, which itemizes the expenses incurred by the Grantee, including separate columns for DCR's and Grantee's contributions to the total cost of services; (3) a completed Milestone Table, Attachment C, of specific project tasks with target completion dates and actual completion and (4) the NPS Pollution Reduction Tracking Data Form, Attachment D. These reports shall be certified by an authorized agent of the Grantee as being true and accurate to the best of the Grantee's knowledge. (2) TIME OF PERFORMANCE: The services of the Grantee shall commence upon the signing of this Agreement and terminate on March 31, unless otherwise altered through provisions of this 2003, Agreement or extended by written authorization of DCR and agreement with the Grantee. (3) COMPENSATION: The total grant award from DCR is The Grantee will provide as $100,000. $100,000 the match for the total grant award. This match shall be certified and documented (via supporting information) by the Grantee as having been used for the purposes provided for in Attachment A. DCR shall release the grant award to the Grantee on a cost-reimbursement basis upon receipt and approval of the Grantee's quarterly and final reports and deliverables, as required by this Agreement. A minimum of 15% of the Grantee's total grant allotment may be held until the final grant report and any pertinent final grant deliverables have been received and approved by DCR. Any cost overruns incurred by the Grantee during the time of performance shall be the responsibility of the Grantee. (4) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The role of the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) must be clearly stated in all press releases, news articles, requests for proposals, bid solicitations and other documents describing this project, whether funded in whole or in part. Acknowledgment of financial assistance, with the DCR logo, must be printed on the cover of all reports, studies, web sites, or other products (including map products) supported, in whole or in part, by this award or any sub-award. The grant number, percentage and dollar amount of total cost of the project financed with WQIF funds must be included. The grantee is responsible for contacting DCR staff in adequate time to obtain the logo in camera-ready or digital form. The final draft must be approved by DCR project management staff prior to production. The acknowledgment should read as follows: This report was in part or in whole, funded by the Virginia Water Quality Improvement Fund at the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), through grant # 91934-2001-WQIA-01. (5) DISCLAIMER: For reports or papers for public distribution (either the final product or based upon work funded by this grant), the following sentence must be added to the end of the above credit: The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of DCR. (6) ASSISTANCE: DCR agrees upon request of the Grantee to furnish, or otherwise make available to the Grantee, copies of existing non-proprietary materials in the possession of DCR that are reasonably related to the subject matter of this Agreement and are necessary to the Grantee for completion of its performance under this Agreement. (7) GENERAL PROVISIONS: Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as authority for either party to February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) make commitments that will bind the other party beyond the Scope of Services contained herein. (8) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: It is understood and agreed between the parties herein that DCR shall be bound hereunder only to the extent of the funds available or which may hereafter become available for the purpose of this Agreement. (9) CREATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: To the extent that the copyright to any copyrightable material created pursuant to this Agreement is owned by the Grantee and/or the Grantee is empowered to license its use, DCR agrees to grant to the Grantee, and hereby does grant to the Grantee, a license to use the materials so owned for public, not-for-profit purpose within the territory of the Commonwealth and shall execute and deliver such further documents as the Commonwealth may reasonably request for the purpose of acknowledging or implementing such license. A copyright notice shall be placed in an appropriate location on any copyrightable material being distributed or published. Such notice shall include (1) either the symbol "©", the word "Copyright", or the abbreviation "Copr."; (2) the year of first publication; and (3) the name of the copyright owner (the Commonwealth of Virginia). This information shall be followed by the words, "all rights reserved." (10) INTEGRATION AND MODIFICATION: The Virginia Water Quality Improvement Act Guidelines for agreed to by the Grantee and DCR are FY2000 and the Application Form with supporting documents hereby incorporated into this Agreement by reference. To the extent there are inconsistencies between the Agreement and the Application Form and its supporting documents, this Agreement and its Attachment A shall control. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between DCR and the Grantee. No alteration, amendment, or modification in the provisions of this Agreement shall be effective unless it is reduced to writing, signed by the parties and attached hereto. (11) BREACH AND TERMINATION: In the event of breach by the Grantee of this Agreement, DCR shall provide written notice to the Grantee specifying the manner in which the Agreement has been breached. If a notice of breach is given and the Grantee has not substantially corrected the breach within sixty (60) days of receipt of the written notice, DCR shall have the right to terminate the Agreement. The Grantee shall be paid for no service rendered or expense incurred after receipt of notice of termination, except such fees and expenses incurred prior to the effective date of termination that are necessary for curtailment of its work under this Agreement. (12) COLLATERAL CONTRACTS: Where there exists any inconsistency between this Agreement and other provisions of collateral contractual agreements which are made a part of this Agreement by reference or otherwise, the provisions of this Agreement shall control. (13) NON-DISCRIMINATION: Funds issued to the Grantee by DCR for Best Management Practice installations must be made available to all eligible landowners or land managers, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, handicap, or political affiliation. During the performance of this Agreement, the Grantee agrees that it will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, sex or national origin, except where religion, sex or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the Grantee. The Grantee shall post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notice setting forth the Grantee's policies of non-discrimination stating that such Grantee is an equal opportunity employer, provided, however, that notices, advertisements and solicitations placed in accordance with federal law, rule, or regulation shall be deemed sufficient for the purpose of meeting the requirements of this Agreement. The Grantee shall include the substance of the provisions of the foregoing paragraphs in every subcontract or purchase order of more than $10,000 so that the substance of such provisions will be binding upon each sub-grantee or vendor. (14) APPLICABLE LAWS: This Agreement shall be governed in all respects, whether as to validity, construction, capacity, performance or otherwise, by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. (15) SEVERABILITY: Each paragraph and provision of this Agreement is severable from the entire Agreement; and if any provision is declared invalid, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless remain in effect. (16) CONTINGENT FEE WARRANTY: The Grantee warrants that it has not employed or retained any person or persons for the purpose of soliciting or securing this Agreement. The Grantee further warrants that it has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon the award or making of this Agreement. For breach of one or both of the foregoing warranties, DCR shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without liability, or, in its discretion, to deduct from the agreed fee, payment or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of said prohibited fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. (17) CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The Grantee warrants that it has fully complied with the State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act as it might apply to this Agreement. (18) FINANCIAL RECORDS AVAILABILITY: The Grantee agrees to retain all books, records, and other documents relative to this agreement for five (5) years after final payment. DCR, its authorized agents, and/or State auditors shall have full access to and the right to examine any of said materials during said period. February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) (19) MATCHING FUNDS: This Agreement is contingent upon cash and in-kind contributions by the Grantee to the project to match at least 50% of the total project amount agreed to by the Grantee. Matching contributions, both in cash and in-kind, must reflect expenses directly related to the implementation of this project. Such contributions must be approved in writing by DCR prior to commencement of any of the work described in Attachment A. The decision of DCR with respect to such approval shall be final. (20) DOCUMENTS: The Grantee may retain any reports, studies, photographs, negatives, or other documents prepared by the Grantee in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement and not required to be delivered to DCR. DCR shall have certain rights to use any such materials as specified above. Where necessary for DCR's full enjoyment of its rights and other rights referenced in this Agreement, the Grantee shall provide a clear, reproducible copy of such materials (machine readable upon request, if readily available to the Grantee in such form) to DCR. (21) QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PROJECT PLANS: Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Agreement and if required in Attachment A of this Agreement, the Grantee will submit to DCR for review and approval a Quality Assurance/Quality Control Project Plan. No water quality monitoring activities shall be initiated until the Quality Assurance/Quality Control Project Plan has been approved by DCR. The Grantee shall implement the approved Quality Assurance/Quality Control Project Plan in performing environmental monitoring activities. (22) FORCE MAJEURE: If at any time the Grantee determines that it is unable to comply with any provision of this Agreement, the Grantee will promptly provide written notification to DCR. This notification will include a statement of the reasons for failure to comply, any actions to be taken to secure compliance and an estimate of the time necessary to regain compliance. The Grantee may assert and it shall be a defense to any action by DCR to collect stipulated penalties or otherwise secure performance of this Agreement that the alleged failure to comply was due to circumstances beyond the control of the Grantee. (23) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE: Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Agreement, the Grantee will submit to DCR, for review and approval, an Operation and Maintenance Plan for the project. The Grantee will operate and maintain the project, or secure the operation and maintenance of the project through landowner agreements, in a manner consistent with the plan as approved by DCR. In the event that the Grantee fails to comply with the preceding sentence, DCR shall give written notice specifying the failure to comply and shall give the Grantee the time to correct such failure as provided for herein with respect to a breach of this Agreement. (24) ENFORCEMENT: For nonpoint source Best Management Practice installations funded through this Agreement, within ninety (90) days of receipt of written demand from DCR, the Grantee shall repay an amount, on a straight line pro-rated basis, of the WQIA funds used for the installation, for noncompliance with Section (21) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, unless the Grantee asserts a defense afforded it under this Agreement. Within sixty (60) days of receipt of written demand from DCR, the Grantee shall pay a stipulated penalty in the amount of $1,000 or 15%, whichever is greater, of the total award for any of the conditions as set forth in this Agreement, including failure to meet the final deadline or noncompliance with the Scope of Services, Attachment A, unless the Grantee asserts a defense afforded it under this Agreement. Repayments and stipulated penalties will be paid into the State Treasury and credited to the Fund. The Grantee's right to collect repayments and stipulated penalties does not affect in any way DCR's right to secure specific performance of the Agreement using such other legal remedies as may otherwise be available. IN WITNESS THEREOF the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed by the following duly authorized officials: Grantee DCR (Grantor) ALBEMARLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION By: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. By: ______________________________ Title: County Executive Title: Jack E. Frye, Director, DSWC Date: February 6, 2002 Date: ______________________________ By: _______________________________ Title: David G. Brickley, Director Date: ______________________________ __________ Item 6.13. Status report on Gypsy Moth, by Gypsy Moth Coordinator, Bob Grace. It was noted in the Executive Summary that in September, 2001, the County contracted with Mr. Bob Grace to perform the duties of Gypsy Moth Coordinator for Albemarle County. Specifically, Mr. Grace was tasked with checking out reported areas of Gypsy Moth activity and performing egg mass surveys in an effort to determine the status of the Gypsy Moth in Albemarle County. Mr. Grace retired from the U.S February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) Forest Service in 1981 and has been in Gypsy Moth suppression activity in Virginia and West Virginia since 1985. He is currently serving as Gypsy Moth Coordinator for several surrounding counties. He has submitted the following report: December 4, 2001 A I have completed my Gypsy Moth Egg Mass Surveys for Albemarle County. The County should anticipate light to moderate defoliation along the western edge of the County particularly in areas within a mile of Skyline Drive. In addition, the areas near Batesville, Buck Mountain and north from Cismont will show strong evidence of Gypsy Moth build-up and subsequent damage. However, in none of these areas do I anticipate mortality. It is strongly recommended that the County anticipate suppression requests and that action be taken in a timely fashion during the Spring and Summer of 2002. This can be discussed further at your convenience. There will be heavy defoliation along the Hardware River in the area east of Route 20 and north from Jefferson Mill. This area had rather high population build-up this year and presently hosts egg mass numbers that will produce defoliation in excess of 30 percent. Some mortality can be expected. I have met and talked to several landowners and advised them on techniques to moderate the impact near their homes. I fully expect a suppression program begun in a timely fashion will be beneficial to these landowners, and will definitely be needed in the spring of 2003. However, planning needs to begin this coming Spring. @ This report was accepted as information. __________ Item 6.14. Copy of letter dated January 14, 2002, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels: Tax Map 28, Parcel 1 (property of Chapel Spring Farms Holdings, LLC), Section 10.3.1, was accepted as information. __________ Item 6.15. Letter dated January 29, 2002, from Ray D. Pethel, Interim Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner, re: Virginia Transportation Development Plan (VTDP), was received as information. __________ Item 6.16. Charlottesville VDOT Residency Monthly Report, February, 2002, was received as information. _______________ Agenda Item No. 7. Region Ten, Presentation. Dr. Peter Sheras, Chair of Region Ten, was present to make the presentation. He said this Board appoints four members of the 14-member Region Ten Board. They like to come before the Board periodically to give a report on what is happening at Region Ten, which is an important agency in the community. He introduced Ms. Barbara Barrett, Albemarle County appointee who lives in Crozet, and asked that she talk about recent activities. He said that Mr. Jim Peterson, Executive Director, is also present today. Ms. Barrett thanked the Board for appointing her as a member of the Region Ten Board. She read its Mission Statement. She noted that the Supervisors had been sent a copy of their Scrapbook, and said A@ she would walk the Board through the pictures. On the cover is a photograph of the Region Ten Mental A@ Health Services building located at 800 Preston Avenue in the City of Charlottesville. Also shown are pictures of Rural Services Out-Patient Clinics in Greene, Fluvanna, Nelson and Louisa counties. They also have Clubhouses (Psycho-Social Rehabilitation): Blue Ridge House in Charlottes-ville, Friendly Oaks in A@ Mineral, and Horizon House in Lovingston. They have two facilities which provide residential housing, one on Carlton Road and the other on Carlton Avenue in Charlottesville. The Dual Recovery Center is an outreach program funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing. This program aims to provide psychiatric treatment, substance abuse treatment, aggressive outreach case management, residential supports, and day supports to homeless persons suffering from the dual diagnoses of chemical dependency and serious mental illnesses. Ms. Barrett said Virginias Human Services Training Center was established in March, 2000. It = offers consumer provider training programs to statewide mental health services consumers. Classes are held at PVCC and the first class of students graduated and received certificates in September, 2001. Ms. Barrett noted information about Region Tens Mental Retardation Case Management and = Family Support Services. She said they are based at the central offices. Case Management is provided to any resident of Planning District Ten (Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Nelson, and the City of Charlottesville) who has a documented diagnosis of mental retardation. Case Management assists individuals in accessing resources and support in all areas of their lives and is the referring agent to other Region Ten mental retardation services. Family Support provides resources and financial support to individuals and their families to allow for the continued provision of care at home for the family member with February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) mental retardation. Ms. Barrett said that Infant Services under Part H of the Individual with Disabilities Act (IDEA) ensures that all children under the age of three with disabilities receive appropriate early intervention services designed to help them attain or retain the capability to function age-appropriately within their environment. After a child is found eligible and a service plan is written, a coordinator with the Step by Step program is assigned. A family may choose the Step by Step program and/or receive referral services for occupational, physical and/or speech therapy, or other appropriate services. Ms. Barrett drew the Boards attention to a picture of Region Tens Meadowcreek Center which was == dedicated last September. This center houses the mental retardation Adult Day Support Services. There were also pictures of some of the master crafters and gardeners at the Center, photos showing highlights of the Centers Spring Plant Sale and its fifth Annual Plant and Craft Sale on December 14, 2001 (all = proceeds go back into the day support programs). She noted that on March 23, 2002, the Virginia Festival of the Book has chosen the Meadowbrook Center as the site of a book fair reading. On July 21, 2002, the Ninth Annual Softball Extravaganza will be held. Ms. Barrett noted pictures of several homes where programs are offered by Mental Retardation Adult Residential Services in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. She said these programs offer supported living (intermittent staff supervision, training and assistance), in-home residential (families receive staff support in their homes), supervised living (13 homes consisting of one to four house mates with 24- hour staff support), intensive residential (two homes with four to six house mates with 24-hour staff support), and the apartment program (19 apartments located throughout the City and County, with supervision, support and training as necessary). Next was a photo of the Fourth Street Station which is the main location of their substance abuse programs. Adolescent and prevention services provide intensive outpatient counseling to adolescents. Adult substance abuse treatment is provided to adults through specialized programs for substance abusers who are involved in the criminal justice system. The programs serve people from all five counties and the City of Charlottesville. Project LINK serves women of childbearing age with the highest priority going to women who are pregnant and abusing substances. There is also the Mohr Center which offers a social detoxification program and transitional housing. It serves adults eighteen years old and older who want to withdraw from alcohol and other drugs without medication. The Region Ten Dual Recovery Center is an outreach program funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing which aims to provide psychiatric treatment, substance abuse treatment, aggressive outreach case management, residential supports, and day supports to homeless persons suffering from the dual diagnoses of chemical dependency and serious mental illnesses. Ms. Barrett thanked the Board on behalf of the thousands of consumers who take part in the Region Ten programs. She also thanked the Board for herself. She said her two daughters benefited from the MR programs. Her daughter passed away in February, 2000 and she had received day support and residential services. Her step-daughter presently receives day support services. She then offered to answer questions. Mr. Dorrier asked how many volunteers there are for Region Ten. Ms. Barrett said there are hundreds. She noted that there were pictures of many young people included in the report. She said the Key Clubs of Charlottesville and Albemarle hold a fund-raiser each year for Region Ten. Mr. Rooker asked if Region Ten provides services to people who are impaired due to the result of a brain injury. Mr. Jim Peterson, Executive Director, Region Ten, said that service does not come under Region Tens umbrella of services. The John James Center is the primary provider of that service. = Ms. Thomas said she has read in the news media that a methadone clinic is opening in this area. She asked if methadone is something that Region Ten uses, and does Region Ten have a relationship with all of the private providers. Mr. Peterson said Pantops Center, to which Ms. Thomas referred, is a new, private organization. Region Ten does not use methadone in its services. This new private clinic will be affiliated only because every licensed program has to come under a local human rights committee. As a service to other organizations, due to the bureaucracy involved in having a human rights committee, Region Tens Board allows private agencies to petition to come under their committee. There are probably 30 = agencies that use that umbrella. The Region Ten Board will be hearing this new group next week. Ms. Thomas asked how Region Ten is faring with the proposed state budget. Mr. Peterson said as they look to July 1, 2002, Region Ten has a fairly sizable shortfall due to reasons other than state revenues. Because so few employees actually stay with Region Ten until retirement, their VRS contribution has been zero for many years. Now, that is being reinstituted at one percent, so that is a $100,000 shortfall. Also, their salaries have averaged a one percent increase per year for ten years, so they have had a problem staffing their group homes and getting 24-hour a day coverage. They have spent the last two years trying to reorganize, restructure and catch up on salaries. Finally, they have to return $142,000 from February 1 through June 30, 2002, to the State, and then it will be $550,000 next year. The Region Ten Board is struggling with a $1.4 million problem between now and July 1 to try and enter next fiscal year with a balanced budget. Mr. Rooker asked how many employees Region Ten has. Mr. Peterson said this coming Friday they will have their six hundredth active payroll person. Mr. Dorrier asked if it is still a trend to move people from centralized mental health hospitals to the February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) localities. Mr. Peterson said yes. He said Western State has gone from 3300 patients at its highest count A@ down to 250. They are still under the gun from the Federal Bureau of Justice to get more people out. A@ People with mental retardations are no longer allowed by Federal law to be institutionalized in mental health facilities. Other people who are no longer receiving active treatment, or are not subject to effective treatment in a facility, have to be put out of that facility. Mr. Dorrier asked if any money comes to the locality for this purpose. Mr. Peterson said a lot of services used to be funded by Medicaid. Now, almost one-half of Region Tens budget is generated through fees. Also, institutions have had Region Ten put together = individualized packages of services for a given person. If the institution agrees with the program presented, then the person is released. Dr. Sheras said as Chair of the Board, the issue they face with budget cuts is whether to cut staff or services. The Region Ten Board, over the years, has had a tradition of providing the maximum amount of services. Since they are now so highly dependent on fees for services, when they cut staff they also cut revenues. He said the Albemarle members of the Region Ten Board appreciate the opportunity to serve and the opportunity to report to the Supervisors. Ms. Barrett said if the budget cuts proposed in Richmond go into effect, the populations in state hospitals will increase because communities will not have the money to provide the services. If the community does not have the money to provide the services, that person can either go back to a state hospital or back into the jails and the courts. Ms. Thomas thanked the people from Region Ten for making this report. She said the photo- graphic report brings it to life by showing a lot of faces. _______________ Agenda Item No. 8. Second Quarter Financial Report. Ms. Thomas noted that usually Ms. Roxanne White gives this report. However, Ms. White is out on sick leave with a broken arm. She then introduced Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance. Mr. Breeden said current year revenues are projected to be about $1.6 million (1.3%) over budget. This increase comes about as a result of increased real estate taxes. The 2001 reassessment was projected at 11 percent, but actually was 12.5 percent and resulted in $884,000 in additional revenue. Personal property taxes are currently projected to be about $2.0 million over projections due to better than anticipated sales and higher collections in the first half of the year. Also, zero percent financing significantly increased sales of new vehicles in late 2001, although resale values for used vehicles have declined. Sales tax revenues are expected to be below budgeted estimates by $330,000. Utility taxes are $189,000 over projections due to increased compliance by providers and expanded cellular use. Other Local Taxes are projected to be $92,000 less than budgeted, although this is an upward trend from the $256,000 shortfall projected in November. Other Local Revenues show a decrease of $382,000 primarily due to lower interest rates on bank deposits and earnings on investments. State and Federal revenues will probably be $426,000 less than budgeted based on decreases from the Compensation Board, Social Services, Recordation Fees, and the 599 Funds. Mr. Breeden said expenditures are about normal for this time of the year, 54 percent overall, with departmental budgets at 52 percent. He said that contributions to agencies are normally made during the first half of the year, so it runs a little bit above normal. Mr. Breeden said revised revenues show $1.6 million in additional revenues. One change on the Fund Balance report shows an additional $500,000 from last year in revenues recognized by the Audit, which gives $2.105 million in Projected Unobligated Funds which could be used for various contingencies, A@ or capital projects or even in the coming years budget cycle. He offered to answer questions. = Mr. Rooker asked if the County receives any part of the tax charged on the sale of vehicles. Mr. Breeden said not on vehicles, but the County does receive a portion of the tax charged on the sale of mobile homes. Mr. Martin said the car sales which were so high at the end of 2001 have started sliding drastically. He asked if there is any projection as to how that will affect revenues. Mr. Breeden said it is one of the most difficult revenues to project. He said until staff gets the new NADA guides, they do not know what impact there will be on the sale of used cars. However, he does not think there will be a big change. Ms. Thomas asked about a proposal in Richmond to increase the car registration fee so that localities could get revenue from that source. She asked if it is a major revenue source for the County at this time. She asked what difference a few dollars would make in County revenue. Mr. Breeden said the County sells from 75,000 to 80,000 decals. Mr. Davis said that currently, the local decal cannot exceed the amount that the State applies to the State registration of the vehicles. Currently, the State registration fee is $26.50. The local decal is $23.00. There are two proposals before the General Assembly at this time, one would increase that fee to $28.50 with the $2.00 being applied to a terrorism fund, and the other proposal is to add an additional $2.00 to go toward the Four-for-Life Program to be used for fire and rescue programs in the State. If both of those bills passed, the State fee would be $30.50 which would enable the County to raise its local fee as high as the State fee. The County could conceivably raise its fee as much as $7.00. Ms. Thomas asked if the extra money the State is proposing in the fee must go to those two February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) programs. Mr. Davis said as it is proposed now, that increase would all be state revenue. Ms. Thomas said the County could now raise the decal fee by $3.50. Mr. Davis said yes. A@ Mr. Martin said there is a reason the County has not raised the fee prior to now, and that reason still exists. Ms. Thomas said she is sorry the State seems to be going in that direction. There have been a lot of proposals at the state level as to ways to raise revenues. Mr. Breeden said along with the PPTR program for the State credit on the personal property tax, there has been discussion as to how to eliminate the decal tax altogether. One of the primary reasons it was instituted was to enforce personal property tax collections, but the problem is how to replace the revenue. Mr. Martin said if the car tax is eliminated in its entirety, then there will be a push to eliminate the decal. The two things go hand in hand, without both, the other has no purpose except to raise money. Mr. Breeden said a lot of localities have looked at going to a five-year decal, so they do not have to go through the renewal process each year. Mr. Perkins said he continually sees a lot of cars with out-of-state plates and knows they have been in the area for more than 30 days and they have no decal. He thinks the County should make an effort to enforce the decal law. He thinks the County could increase revenues by enforcement. Mr. Breeden said it would be a good idea. There has been a tendency over the past years not to do the road checks where a lot of those people are caught. Also, with so many University people in the area, there are many vehicles with out-of-state plates. (Note: At 9:50 p.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 10:05 a.m.) _______________ Agenda Item No. 9a. Transportation Matters: Presentation, Study of the Impacts of the Proposed Route 29 Western Bypass on the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir (State Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101; RUVA-002-001, PE 101, Albemarle County and the city of Charlottesville). Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, introduced Mr. Don Askew, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Operations (aka District Administrator), Mr. Robert Connock, Acting District Administrator, Ms. Patsy Napier from Central Office Location and Design, Mr. Don Wells from Central Office Planning, Ms. Jackie Keeney, Cultural Resources Manager for VDOT, and from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Mr. Ed Sundra, who is in charge of environmental issues. He then introduced Mr. Mark Wittkofski from VDOTs = Central Office who is managing this effort on the Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). Mr. Wittkofski said this project has been studied since the early 1980s. Throughout that time VDOT has worked with local, State and Federal agencies, as well as citizens, in the study area to get information and feedback on key issues related to this location and project. In January 1998, two groups, the Piedmont Environmental Council and the Sierra Club, sued the Federal Highway Administration and VDOT to stop the project. It was their belief that the environmental impacts had not been adequately studied. In August, 2001 the Federal District Court prepared an opinion concluding that FHWA and VDOT had adequately examined most of the issues within the complaint, but requested more detailed study concerning potential impacts to the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir and the completion of the archeological identification studies within the expanded footprint that would be impacted by the proposed grade-separated interchange at the northern terminus of the bypass. The Judge ruled that a SEIS should be prepared to address these issues. VDOT began the studies for the document in September 2001. Mr. Wittkofski said he can report that the SEIS was completed last week and approved by the FHWA. The document is at the printers now. It is anticipated that copies will be mailed starting next week. Copies of the document will also be made available at many locations for public viewing. Notification of the documents availability will be published in on February 15. A public hearing will be The Federal Register = held at the Double Tree Hotel on Route 29 North on Thursday, March 14, 2002, beginning at 4:00 p.m. The first three hours of the meeting will be an open forum, and then citizens may sign up to present verbal comments to the Administrator. There will be a three-minute time limit for speakers. Written comments will also be taken, and for anyone who does not complete his remarks, a written copy of those remarks can be submitted. Mr. Wittkofski said he appreciates the written questions submitted by the Board of Supervisors for this presentation today. Because of the amount of data in the document, the high level of complexity in the Boards questions, and the nature of this briefing, the questions were used as a basis for the discussion. In = other words, the questions will not be answered one by one. He then introduced/ reintroduced the staff members and consultants present this morning. Mr. Stuart Tyler is with the Parsons Transportation Group and served as project manager and is chief author of the SEIS; Ms. Lauren Fillmore is from Parsons Engineering Science and has managed most of the environmental issues in the study; Mr. Ed Sundra is from the FHWA and was the chief reviewer for the FHWA and the signatory for the document; Ms. Jacky Keeney is the VDOT Cultural Resources Manager responsible for the archeological issues of the study; and, Ms. Patsy Napier has been the project manager for the location and design studies for this project. He then asked Mr. Tyler to speak about the SEIS. Mr. Tyler gave to the Board copies of the drawings/representations for the Route 29 Bypass (on file). He said he has split his presentation into four major topic areas: the process, methodologies, results of the studies, and some of the mitigation measures which will be incorporated into the project. He hopes February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) to address most of the questions submitted by the Board. If the Board would like to have a full written response to the questions at some time in the future, that will be provided. Mr. Tyler said there were two laws to comply with: the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). NEPA lays out the steps necessary to prepare a SEIS. It specifies the format and the step-by-step process to be used to comply with the law. Section 106 of the NHPA has to do with identifying and evaluating historic resources, whether they be buildings, districts, archeological sites, etc. This came into play because of the archeological resources found at the northern interchange. In complying with this process, they had to determine the scope of the document. In an original EIS they usually go through a formal scoping process in which they contact agencies or organizations which have expertise or jurisdiction by law and ask them for input on major issues. For this SEIS, the report basically gave the scope for the report. They were told to look at the affects of the selected alternative on the reservoir, the watershed, and the impacts on the archeological resources at the northern interchange. Mr. Tyler said in doing details on the issues identified by the judge, they went back to the transcripts of all the public meetings and public hearings, and pulled out those comments which related to these three issues (A list of specific comments is included in one of the appendices of the SEIS). They wrote letters to local agencies, County (Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority), State (Department of Environmental Quality) and Federal (Environmental Protection Agency) to inquire about their main concerns. They exchanged correspondence with the Southern Environmental Law Center and received a copy of the SELC consultants report. = Mr. Tyler said they looked at literature sources which discuss how to look at water quality impacts and also looked at projects close to reservoirs. They ended up with four areas to study: hazardous materials spills; other pollutants which might result from roadway runoff either during operation of the roadway or during construction of the roadway (sediment, oil and grease drippings and various other pollutants generated by vehicles traveling on roadways or by dirt moving during construction); measures to mitigate the effects on the reservoir and the watershed; and the differences between what the project looks like now and what the original selected Alternative 10 looked like. The Court said VDOT needed to be more specific on how the changes affected the reservoir and its watershed, and that the environmental assessment done to address the changes in the project termini were not sufficient. Mr. Tyler said using all of that information, complying with the law, and looking at the scope of the issues they had to address, they prepared a Draft SEIS. It is not a final document, but will be available for review and critique by the public, or anybody who has an interest in the project. All of the agencies, organizations and individuals who received a copy of the original Final EIS will receive a copy of this Draft SEIS. There will be a 60-day review period. Mr. Rooker asked when the 60-day period of comment starts. Mr. Tyler said comments are due by April 16, 2002. Mr. Tyler said the Draft SEIS will be at the public hearing on March 14, and it will be available in libraries, at the local VDOT office, and at County and City offices. People will have plenty of time to see the document and decide if it is sufficient. At the public hearing, in addition to the document, there will be maps, displays and other information for people to peruse. There will be people available to answer questions. The informal process that has been seen at other public hearings will take place during the first part of the hearing. During the second part of the hearing, people may make formal statements about the materials they have seen and their thoughts about the project. After all comments are received on the document, the next step is to prepare the Final SEIS. In that document, they will incorporate comments that people, agencies and organizations had about the Draft SEIS. The document will be edited as necessary to address those additional comments. In many cases, they will provide point-by-point responses to the comments made. Mr. Tyler said the Final SEIS will go through several iterations. A preliminary draft will be sent to the FHWA, they will review it, and VDOT will review it and make any additional edits based on FHWAs = comments. The final EIS will be published and made available for public review for a period of time before the official record of decision is made. The FHWA will then make a formal record of decision documenting the outcome of the studies, their decision on whether the project should go forward, what other additional measures might need to be incorporated into the project to make it acceptable, etc. That is the process they are going through now. As to methodology, Mr. Tyler said there were two basic steps to determine what the impacts of the project will be. They looked at existing conditions. Then, they looked at future conditions. He noted that several maps had been posted on the wall for review today. Figure 3-2 is the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Watershed, and is the one where the judge said the impacts needed to be studied. The area has been split into subwatersheds (Ivy Creek, Mechum River, Moormans River and Buck Mountain Creek), all of which drain into the main reservoir. He said the main area of concern is the Ivy Creek subwatershed because that is where the project will be located. Mr. Tyler said the next map shows the northern interchange of the project, and shows the two archeological sites which have been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. While the project will displace those sites, there will be a data recovery effort to recover all useful data. Next is Figure 1-2 which shows the alignment of the project. Mr. Tyler said in reference to existing conditions, they looked at previous studies done in the area. A@ They went back to the study done by Reed & Associates for the original EIS. They got water quality monitoring data from the RWSA, got data from the University of Virginia, looked at the Countys Land Use = February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) Plan and Comprehensive Plan, got additional data from the County about development trends in the area, some of the measures the County put into place to restrict or control development within the watershed, looked at previous bathymetric studies, got information on the water treatment plant, the characteristics of the plant and distribution system, service area, etc. Mr. Tyler said in looking at future conditions they usually use a model which seeks to replicate A@ what things will be like with the project in place. He said that models are tools to be used in finding an answer to a question. Either complex models or simple models can be used. A lot of time the same answer is derived from either model. The models require data for input and assumptions. Are all of the sources, pathways and disposition of pollutants considered, or just where it is generated and where it ends up? Do they consider details like dispersion of pollutants and dissolution within the reservoir? He said they leaned toward the simpler models because these models make more conservative assumptions and tend to overestimate the results. A more complex model can be done but it takes more data and more effort. Also, there may not be a better answer even with more information. There is an appendix in the SEIS that talks about different types of models, what they are used for, and what types of assumptions and data go into these models. In terms of their analysis, Mr. Tyler said they took a composite approach. They did not do original modeling, but looked at previous studies and modeling such as the Reed & Associates Study done in 1990. They used the FHWA model to estimate runoff constituents going into the reservoir. They looked at the Black & Veitch Study commissioned by the MPO to look at the impacts of a bypass on the reservoir and its watershed. The University is doing studies on runoff into the watershed and the reservoir, and they used those and other studies for comparable types of things in other areas. They looked at EPA data on constituent loadings. They looked at other localities and what they are doing with projects near reservoirs, mainly for New York City. They got information from the SELC about what New York City does in the way of locating projects near reservoirs. All of these studies came up with similar answers. The numbers of the output were different, but the basic answers seemed to be within the same bracket of concentration for pollutants, estimates of pollutant loads, etc. Mr. Tyler said he would note some features of the project and its relationship to the reservoir and its watershed. The project is about 6.2 miles long with 3.4 of those miles being within the boundaries of the watershed (55% of the total project length). The closest edge of proposed pavement to the reservoir is approximately 530 feet. The closest limit of roadway embankment (fill in some of the low areas and ravines) to the reservoir is approximately 454 feet. The closest distance between the water treatment plant intake and an outfall point from which road surface runoff would discharge into the reservoir is 5800 feet. The maximum difference in elevation between the reservoir surface and the proposed road surface on the section closest to the reservoir is approximately 188 feet. The proposed bypass right-of-way encompasses approximately 330 acres of land, 219 of which lie within the reservoir watershed. Of these 219 acres, about 33 acres would be paved (100% impervious) and the remaining 186 acres would be grassed or landscaped areas (10% impervious, equivalent to mowed lawns) which would revert over time to indigenous vegetation. Mr. Tyler said the Group was asked to look at the difference between the original alignment and the selected alignment (See Figure 2-4). The new alignment is somewhat closer to the reservoir. The additional length of the project within the watershed reservoir in this particular section is about 410 feet. Overall, the total length of the project within the watershed is less than it was before. The original EIS talked about 4.2 miles of the project being in the watershed. That has been shortened to about 3.4 miles primarily due to shifting the southern terminus out of the reservoir by shifting the project from one side of St. Annes-Belfield School to the other side. The total length of the project in the watershed is less than it was = due to the shift to avoid encroachment on the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School property. Mr. Tyler said looking at the results of the various studies done, it became apparent that the project itself, compared to the watershed as a whole, would not be a major contributor of pollutants to the reservoir. There will be some. There is always the potential for hazardous materials spills, but based on the studies and their results, it does not appear the pollutant/sediment runoff will be a significant portion of the total amount coming from the entire watershed. Mr. Tyler said some people were interested in the deicing chemicals used by VDOT during the winter months. VDOT uses calcium chloride, sodium chloride and abrasives (sand and grit). Those chemicals are applied at 250 pounds per lane mile between ten and 15 times each year. Based on that amount of application and the dilution of those materials going into the reservoir, it was not felt that source would be of major concern. They looked at the herbicides which VDOT uses in maintaining the roadsides. They use growth regulators so they do not need to mow as often. They use under the guardrails Roundup to get rid of unwanted vegetation. They use weed control for thistles and Johnson Grass, etc. They use for brush control alongside the roadways. Considering the amount of herbicides used, the fact that Crinite any runoff from these things would probably go through a stormwater management system, the dilution of the chemicals in the reservoir, and the fact that the applicators of these chemicals are well-trained in safety procedures and proper application, they did not feel there would be a problem. Mr. Tyler said he would now talk about mitigation. There will be some pollutant runoff from the project, but what can be done about it? VDOT is committed to a number of measures to manage the stormwater runoff and to improve the quality of the runoff before it enters the receiving streams in the reservoir. He pointed to Figure D-1C which shows a number of Stormwater Management Ponds(three) within that same section of roadway. The closest pond is on the west side of the project discharging almost directly into the reservoir. Ms. Thomas asked if it is a dry, or wet pond. Mr. Tyler said all of the ponds in the watershed are February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) wet ponds. They are all multi-component ponds. There is a wet pond for treatment and retention of the runoff. There is a sediment forebay to help settle out the largest sediments before they get into the wet pond. There is also a dry sump to help collect materials as they come in to help contain any initial flush of hazardous materials that might get into the system. Ms. Thomas asked the assumed effectiveness of these combined treatments. She said the Board saw a presentation a year or so ago and was not impressed that good systems seem to remove only 60 percent of some things. She asked what percent is anticipated with this proposed system. Mr. Tyler said he would ask Ms. Fillmore to answer that question. Ms. Fillmore said different pollutants and different pollutant efficiencies depend upon the substance. For sediment, they are confident that there can be an 80 percent removal. For some of the nutrients, the removal rates would be lower; phosphorus would be about 35 percent, which is standard for this type of pond. Some substances attach to the sediment so they might obtain an 80 percent removal. During the design phase, there were a series of iterations with civil engineers at the University and they made additional recommendations. The ponds are not designed in the most basic way, they have augmented the design and expanded the ratio of length to width. There is a history of changes which are documented in the appendices to the report. Mr. Rooker asked if the removal rates mentioned come during average times or during storm events. Ms. Fillmore said there can be a storm with rainfall during a dry period when rain is slight and there is no runoff. The next storm might cause runoff into the pond, but the pond is sized so that all of the runoff is retained in the pond. There are smaller storms where the pond is 100 percent effective. During a larger storm, there might be flow through to the pond. The overall performance of the facility has to be based on annual rainfall. Mr. Rooker asked the types of chemicals where that performance would not be obtained. Ms. Fillmore said some nutrients are in a dissolved form. Vegetation uses nutrients to grow. There are vegetated sections of these ponds and the growth of the rooted aquatics in the ponds take up the nutrients. In situations where the nutrients are retained in the ponds, the vegetation will grow and basically fix the nutrients in the plant growth. However, reduction of nutrients is based on microbes. But, there are circumstances where microbes are not as effective. The nutrients might go through because they dissolve and are not in a form to settle out. Mr. Bowerman asked if the consultants had a worst case scenario for some type of spill. Ms. Fillmore said they looked at spills, runoff and construction. There are different answers depending on which scenario is used. Mr. Bowerman asked if they looked at a local summer rain event (one to three inches in an hour) combined with a worst case hazardous spill. Ms. Fillmore said they looked at a lot of statistics which had been assembled by a number of Federal agencies (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles) and they found from spill data for transport of hazardous materials that the accidents were not occurring during wet weather events. A catastrophic spill during a rain event is probably not the worst case scenario. A vehicle accident where spills went directly into the reservoir and co-mingled would be worse. If that happened, there are forebays designed to capture the spills, but it depends on the material. There was an attempt made to identify the type of material most likely to spill, and it was determined to be a petroleum product, and petroleum products do not dissolve in water. Even if such a spill occurred, there would be a number of factors which would cause the petroleum to be retained. The size of the forebay is such that the whole contents could be captured, but a lot of the material would be retained on the soil and could be cleaned up. They looked at other mitigation measures should anything go through to the pond and those are shown in the appendices. There are different capture technologies. They even looked at a vortex separator. Mr. Rooker said he thought the worst case scenario was a turnover of a hazardous materials truck where the contents went into the reservoir. Ms. Fillmore said that was considered and eliminated because this particular bypass route does not actually cross the reservoir. They did look at the potential for the wet weather event, and felt that in the overall spectrum there was less of a chance of that happening because most accidents happen in dry weather. Mr. Rooker asked if they ran the numbers based on a wet weather event. Did they determine that A@ most accidents with hazardous materials trucks occur during dry weather? Ms. Fillmore said they looked at the volumes of what would potentially be the worst case, spilling the contents of a full tanker truck. They tried to identify what would be the likelihood of a whole tanker truck releasing its contents. They looked at statistics, but found no data which indicated the volume of these releases. When they ran the numbers, they looked at the size of the units, the size of the stormwater ponds and the fact that they are designed to capture up to a one hundred percent return event. Mr. Bowerman asked if they looked at an event where the collection area is over a mile away from the intake. Since the roadway does not cross the reservoir, they did not look at a direct spill into the reservoir. What would happen if there were an accident with a tanker truck? Ms. Fillmore said the Black & Veitch study looked at the scenario where the whole contents of a tanker truck reached the reservoir. The consultants do not feel that could happen because there is no crossing of the reservoir. They did not duplicate the Black & Veitch study, but did review all of the comments about the study. Even if all of this petroleum product were released during a wet weather event, all of it would not go into the water. Some would go into the soil, and depending on whether it were gas or fuel oil, a certain component would evaporate, and some would adhere to vegetation and cement and pavement. All of these are processes February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) and mechanisms which basically reduce the volume. Then there is the unit which was designed to capture the entirety of the truck. They looked at a wet weather event where the volume of that unit is taken up by having water flowing through it. Then there is the actual pond which has more volume than what is called water quality volume". There are two separate levels so volume can be controlled for up to a one hundred A year storm. The water quality is for a ten-year storm. The volume itself in the pond has flexibility to capture materials should there be a portion of this scenario where there is contamination of the pond. Mr. Rooker said the original EIS on this project discussed the potential for substantial amounts of hazardous materials reaching the reservoir. He understands Ms. Fillmore is discounting things by statistical events, but is acknowledging that there could be an accident in which a substantial amount of hazardous material reaches the reservoir. Ms. Fillmore said it is possible, but to look at the overall concern, the community now has two roads which cross the reservoir. They projected risks for the bypass, risks for the roads in the vicinity, and they looked at the combined risks. Mr. Rooker asked if that risk actually occurred, is the State prepared to take the responsibility for cleaning up the reservoir to its pre-hazardous materials condition? Ms. Fillmore said someone from the State would need to answer that question. Mr. Donald Askew said VDOT involves the various agencies which are responsible for cleaning up, but it all goes back to the carrier who has to pay the bill. The carrier is responsible for that clean-up process. Mr. Perkins asked if VDOT oversees such accidents. Mr. Askew said VDOT is the first responder, but many agencies would be involved. VDOT, as the first-responder, would try to stop the spill using sand materials or other apparatus available. Mr. Rooker said that means the State would not assume financial responsibility for cleaning up the reservoir if a hazardous materials spill occurred. Mr. Askew said VDOT would go after the trucking concern. Mr. Rooker said when the original Alternative 10 was approved in 1990, the VDOT position paper which recommended this project as the last in a series of projects for the Route 29 corridor, said A key A ingredient to the successful implementation of Alternative 10 is the protection of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. To alleviate concerns regarding hazardous materials spills in or near the reservoir, consideration could be given to prohibiting hazardous materials carriers from using the Alternative 10 route." He asked if that is something VDOT would support. Mr. Askew said that is certainly a possibility. Mr. Rooker asked who has control over that process. Mr. Askew said it is something the Board may want to request after this public hearing. Mr. Tyler said he would mention a couple of other design features which can be used to try and minimize the potential for materials reaching the reservoir. The sections of the project within the reservoir watershed which are on fill, will all have curb and gutter along the edges to capture all of the runoff from the roadway and direct it into the stormwater ponds. There has also been a commitment to build a Jersey A concrete barrier along the shoulder of the section of the project which is closest to the reservoir to try and @ provide a more positive containment from trucks that do start edging off of the road in that particular location. In addition, VDOT has a number of measures in their road and bridge specifications that are standard for all construction contracts. It requires phased construction. It requires stabilization of disturbed areas within a specified number of days. It requires a number of different erosion and sediment control measures. There are a lot of measures which VDOT uses every day to try and control the sediment running off the project while it is under construction. They have also committed to hiring a full-time, certified erosion and sediment control inspector to be on the project during construction. Ms. Thomas asked what percent of sediment capture is predicted. Mr. Tyler said for estimation purposes, they assumed about a 50 percent capture rate. Ms. Fillmore said the University ran a more complex model for capturing sediment during construction using very conservative numbers, and the numbers show about a 50 percent sediment removal. Based on the literature values they saw, that is a very low number. She thinks that in reality it would be much higher. Mr. Tyler said for material which gets off of the project and into the reservoir, they will use turbidity curtains (a fabric curtain that is suspended from floats on the surface of the water). The curtain is weighted at the bottom so it hangs down into the water and provides a barrier for silt that is suspended in the water from moving further downstream toward the water treatment plant. Ms. Thomas said that helps the water treatment plant for any immediate effect, but it does not keep the reservoir from losing its capacity. Mr. Tyler said it helps it settle out in that local area rather than moving further downstream, and settling out somewhere else. He said there would be some loss of volume of the reservoir itself. Mr. Rooker asked if the annual total sediment load this project is expected to contribute to the reservoir has been quantified. Ms. Fillmore said it was quantified, but she does not know the specific numbers. They used the UVA numbers and also included in the document the Black & Veitch numbers for comparison. The UVA numbers were a more defined range so gave better projections. They also looked at some of the earlier numbers for the overall watershed and did a couple of cross checks to be sure everything was matching in terms of the contribution of the overall watershed. The conclusions were the same. The overall watershed, even during the construction phase, contributed far more sediment in terms of its runoff than did construction. February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) Mr. Tyler said there are some other measures which could be implemented on which no decision has been made. Things like adding additional outlet gates in the stormwater pond. In case a spill got into the stormwater pond, those gates could be closed thus increasing the volume that could be contained for a longer period of time. The ponds could be lined with some kind of imperious material to prevent seepage into the ground. There are other measures which could be implemented, but whether they will be is not known at this time. He said that is basically all he has to say about the reservoir and water quality except for Map Figure 4 which shows a rendering of what the bypass would look like in the section that has been discussed. He noted that the map is not to scale. Ms. Thomas asked if the map is to scale in terms of visualizing how close the bypass would be to the reservoir. Mr. Tyler said they took the actual project plans and draped the photograph over them, so the relationship between the road, the reservoir, Woodburn Road, and some of the other features shown should be fairly accurate. Mr. Rooker said Mr. Tyler had mentioned some measures that might be added which are not presently in the plan. He asked if VDOT staff will make a recommendation regarding those items. Mr. Tyler said some features were decided on while the design process was on-going, but all the design work has been suspended until this document (SEIS) is completed. They are not doing any detailed design work on these features at this time. But, based on comments received during the hearing process and further evaluation by either VDOT or FHWA, those measures could be incorporated. The FHWA actually has the final decision on what needs to be incorporated to make this an acceptable project. Mr. Perkins noted the words or would revert over time to indigenous vegetation in Mr. Tylers A@= written summary. He asked why they would not go ahead and plant some vegetation on the whole project in the beginning. Mr. Tyler said there will be some landscaping in selected areas, primarily in the median. Usually when a project is built, it is seeded with grasses and then over time, as various seeds float in from surrounding areas, the bushes and trees grow up naturally. It usually happens about as fast as having VDOT plant. Mr. Perkins disagreed. He thinks the vegetation would happen a lot faster if it were planted, and you could be more selective about what is planted. He thinks the process could be speeded up by four or more years. Mr. Tyler said if Mr. Perkins feels strongly about that, he should make that comment when reviewing the document. He suggested that all of the Board members read the document carefully, and note any additional features which need to be considered. Ms. Thomas asked if there is any estimate of the cost if a perfect system is put together. Mr. Tyler said they do not have an estimate. They will not know what all the extra features might be until after the public hearing process is completed. Ms. Thomas said since the consultants used a lot of the Black & Veitch report, do they agree with their recommendations? This Board felt strongly that it wanted the best system which would include a boom around the water treatment plant and also an upstream intake pipe for situations when Ivy Creek is impacted. Mr. Tyler said they looked at the alternate intake upstream, and based on that analysis, it did not look feasible to do that. Some of their numbers were different from those of Black & Veitch and also some of the engineering considerations. He said FHWA will be the ultimate decision-maker on the final measures which will be included in the project. Ms. Jackie Keeney was present to address the archeological sites. She said they are complying with two different laws. One is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the other is the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). She is responsible for seeing that they comply with the second. As directed by the court, they went out and surveyed the modified area of the northernmost interchange. Their consultant identified a total of five archeological sites. Those sites range from prehistoric to historic period sites. Of those five sites, they said that two of them were eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Several weeks ago, the Board was sent a copy of the consultants report. When they = conveyed the report, they asked for any comments the County had regarding the contents of the report. Comments can still be given, either before the public hearing, or at the public hearing. Basically, the report sets out the findings of the archeologist. Ms. Thomas said the Countys Historic Preservation Committee has several members who are = knowledgeable either as professionals or amateurs in this area and they are looking at the report for the Board. Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board also wants to be considered a consulting party. Ms. Keeney said the Board is considered a consulting party. She said that of the five sites identified, two are eligible for listing in the National Register. Those two are shown on the map that was distributed this morning. Knowledgeable parties were involved in the process including the Department of Historic Resources (DHR) in Richmond which has the States pool of experts on archeology. When they forwarded the report to the = Board of Supervisors, they also forwarded it to the DHR, and they agreed that the two sites are eligible for listing in the National Register. This reaffirmed a decision made in 1995 when they agreed that the sites were eligible for listing, and agreed to implement data recovery plans for both sites. They had the A@ consultants prepare data recovery plans and consult with the DHR about those plans. Once the plan was modified as suggested by DHR, it was submitted to the Board of Supervisors and to City Council for comment. She does not believe any comments have been received from either party at this time. February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) Mr. Rooker asked if their consultant had given a proposal for a Phase 3 that was to cost more than $80,000. Ms. Keeney said yes. A@ Mr. Rooker said he does not believe the County has any record that there was a response to that request by the consultant. Ms. Keeney said she is not sure which document Mr. Rooker is referring to. Mr. Rooker said that last fall the consultant made a proposal to do a Phase 3. Ms. Keeney said that is basically the data recovery plan. Mr. Rooker asked if they have responded to that. Ms. Keeney said they have responded. Mr. Rooker asked the response to the proposal. Mr. Keeney said the consultant is a group out of Richmond, Virginia, that is on-call, it is the Lewis Burshur Group. Mr. Rooker said he understands that under NEPA this property is considered 4F property. Ms. A@ Keeney said that is not correct, 4F is not under NEPA, but under a separate law. Mr. Rooker said he understands the property has to be treated somewhat like 4F property. Ms. Keeney said that is not correct. Mr. Rooker asked if she believes they are required to consider alternatives to taking this property. Mr. Tyler said if the site is only important from the information that can be gained from it, it not considered 4F. The fact that the NHPA has agreed to recover that data is evidence that the site is important only for its evidence. Mr. Rooker said the Board may want an opportunity to comment on that conclusion. Ms. Keeney said that is why this information is being provided today. Mr. Rooker said if their conclusion is correct, then they would have to look at alternatives to taking this property. Mr. Tyler said if the conclusion is that both sites are worthy only for preservation in place, then they would be considered a Section 4. Mr. Rooker said he saw a report where the consultant actually said that ideally the sites can be avoided through project redesign. He assumes they have decided to ignore that statement and go forward with a secondary approach of recovery. Assuming, they are incorrect about that statement, he asked if they considered redesigning the northern terminus to avoid these sites, or will they look at alternatives to this project. Mr. Tyler said he is sure they could redesign the northern interchange to avoid the sites, but that is not because they are significant for preservation in place. He said these decisions were made at least five years ago. These sites were not discovered as a result of the current effort. These two sites were discovered in 1995. No new sites were identified eligible for the National Register as a result of the most recent effort. Mr. Rooker said in 1995, an at-grade intersection was being considered at the northern terminus. Mr. Tyler said that is correct, and that would have impacted these two sites which is why they went to Phase 3 of data recovery. Mr. Rooker said Phase 3 has not yet started. Ms. Keeney said they have not been given notice to proceed with data recovery. Ms. Thomas asked if the data on the sites goes back as far as the archaic period, or is it only the late woodland period. Ms. Keeney said both sites date to what is known as the middle archaic period, approximately 4000 years ago. Both sites are called limited activity sites. The limited activity implies that A@ people did not live there continuously or year round, but they came to these two sites to do very specific activities. The limited activity was most likely procurement of materials for making stone tools. Mr. Thomas said the County recently required an archeological study of an area approximately in this area before allowing some soccer fields to be built. She asked if what will be done is enough to know whether it is a large area of early activity. Ms. Keeney said during recovery they will look at things which are site specific, what types of tool making activity happened at which locations within the site, but they will also take a more general, broader view of the landscape. That is when they would look at other sites in the vicinity. Mr. Rooker said there was a Phase I done of the larger footprint of the northern terminus. He asked how they did that. Ms. Keeney said when there is an area like the interchange, there are boundaries. Typically they provide systemic coverage over the entire footprint of the interchange by running transects across the landscape. They do shovel test pits which are generally a foot in diameter, and they go into the A@ ground until they reach culturally sterile subsoil. Depth varies depending on the location. In general, the A@ interval between those shovel test pits is 75 feet. If evidence is found of an archeological site, that interval is reduced so they can find the boundaries of or absence of archeological materials. She said the goal is to define where a site is, and where it is not. Mr. Rooker said in that case, if there were anything between the 75 feet it would not necessarily be found. Ms. Keeney said indications would be picked up in each shovel test pit that there is an archeological site. The sites generally have enough artifacts in them that they are picked up. Ms. Thomas said the Board will be making comments in writing. She has worked a little with the Black & Veitch study, and one of the things that stymied them was not being able to update traffic projections. Because they could not do that, everybody recognized that their study was an incomplete study. All knew that I-81 was to undergo a period of construction so that would increase pressure to get more trucks in this area. As soon as there is a bypass, there will be more trucks. She understands that VDOT did not update any traffic projections for this study. Mr. Tyler said they looked at the traffic data which was available. They looked at the original studies Parson Brinkerhoff did in 1997 and the numbers generated for CHART-21. Looking through those reports they did not see a need to generate new traffic data. They did not think it would be substantially different from what was already available. Some people February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) think Route 29 may some day become a freeway all the way from Charlottesville to I-66. That did not seem to be a realistic scenario based on the Phase I studies done for Route 29 from Charlottesville to Warrenton. The Route 29 Steering Committee decided that was definitely not a desirable scenario and to assume it might occur is not realistic. Ms. Thomas said the Board is nervous because the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) has never adopted the conclusion to which Mr. Tyler just referred. Mr. Tyler said based on the current funding situation at VDOT, there are probably a whole lot of projects that will go off the board. Based on A@ the design time frame for the bypass (2020 to 2022), and considering the Countys land use plan and = patterns, it would not have been productive to just update the numbers. They looked at the 24,400 vehicles per day (1997 number in the Parson Brinkerhoff Study). The truck percentages were from that study also. In the Black & Veitch studies, one of the scenarios they ran used 35 percent trucks, which is probably right for I-81, but is not correct for Route 29. They did not think it would be realistic to run that scenario. Mr. Rooker asked if their analysis concerning pollutant loads took into consideration the potential induced growth resulting from a bypass. Mr. Tyler said they considered the induced growth issue, but did not feel there would be any. When a new highway is built, the impetus for induced growth is from the new access provided to undeveloped areas. There is no access off of this bypass anywhere except at the termini, so any property in the watershed that abuts the project will not have access to this roadway. There is no causal link between the bypass and development in those areas. Ms. Thomas said providing no access was the Boards idea, not that of VDOT. Mr. Tyler said the = other thing to look at is whether the improvement in mobility would facilitate people going greater distances, or different places to develop their homes or businesses. They felt any affect from that would be marginal because both of the project termini are in designated development areas. The southern terminus ends on the Route 250 Bypass which is already a limited access highway. Neither the north end or the south end of the project is in the watershed, so they thought there was no causal effect for this bypass to generate development within the watershed. In addition, there are the aggressive steps the County has taken to control and prevent development in that area. He understands one of the main goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to protect the natural resources in the western part of the County. Those efforts will go a long way to prevent future development. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Sundra would like to speak about the process from his point of view, and what the FHWA is doing as this project is proceeding. Mr. Sundra said the FHWA is responsible for the environmental document. They are the owners and take full legal responsibility for the document. Beginning in December, 2001, as the consultant began to develop individual chapters of the SEIS, they reviewed them and continued their review throughout December and most of January. He was the principal reviewer of the document, and reviewed it at least three times before signing off on it. Ms. Thomas asked who determines whether VDOT will have to pay for the necessary protection of the reservoir in terms of the forebays, the more extensive sediment control, the more extensive hazardous materials control system, the training of local emergency response teams, and the building of a new intake pipe if that is necessary for the water plant. The County would like to think it has an ally in the FHWA if it turns out that these things are necessary to protect the water supply. Mr. Sundra said all of the mitigation measures which have been committed to and are included as part of the design, would be eligible for 80 percent Federal funding as part of the projects construction. There are other possible mitigation measures = included in the SEIS. Some of them are still under consideration. They are waiting for the results of the public hearing to look to VDOT to make a recommendation regarding any additional mitigation measures. Any commitments they make regarding additional mitigation measures will be included in the final EIS, and will become part of the record of decision. Those, too, would be eligible for 80 percent Federal funding as part of this project. Ms. Thomas asked if there are alternatives to this bypass which can be considered. Is that something that would come out of the EIS? Mr. Sundra said the SEIS is not a reinitiation of the environmental process, it is a continuation of the existing process. As such, it does not throw out any previous approvals or decisions. The court did not vacate its approval of March, 2000 when it issued a revised record of decision for the bypass. The purpose of this EIS is to look at the impacts on the reservoir, and if they determine that those impacts are significant, then they would have been required to look at additional alternatives. Based upon information in the document, and based upon Mr. Tylers and Ms. = Fillmores presentation, they do not feel that the impacts are significant. = Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board has a clearer picture of what has been done, and what its opportunities are for participation in the public hearing process, and also in written comments. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Tyler if, in light of the economic conditions faced by the State and the County, would VDOT go back and look at any other alternatives the County has suggested. For example, the grade-separated interchanges at Hydraulic, Greenbrier and Rio, mainly because of the current economic situation, and the cost of the current bypass. Mr. Tyler said that is a question VDOT would have to answer. He said the document does review other alternatives from the original FEIS and some other possibilities. Where could a project like this go, or where could something other than this project go? Those other alternatives have been looked at in detail in the other documents, and this EIS summarizes those findings. Basically any decision not to go forward with the bypass and do something different is something VDOT would have to respond to. February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) Mr. Martin said he thinks there are two different things being discussed. First, Mr. Tucker is discussing the sequence. He is very concerned about the sequence, and is concerned that if the bypass is built, that the watershed is protected. He is not concerned about alternatives. Ms. Thomas said the word alternatives can have different meanings. If alternative means a A@ sequence of getting the interchanges, that is all right. Mr. Martin said if the discussion is about those interchanges, he is in favor, but he wants to make it clear that if there is discussion of an eastern bypass which is something else altogether, he is not in favor, because that battle has been fought and been laid to rest. Mr. Tucker said he was focusing on what the County originally proposed. Mr. Tyler said their focus in this document is on the bypass and its impacts on the issues that the court said needed to be addressed. Although they reviewed the other alternatives in the document and the reasons they were not selected, they did not take a new look at those other alternatives other than to document the previous work that had been done. Ms. Thomas said if there are no more questions from Board members, she will thank all who appeared before the Board this morning to discuss this subject. _______________ Agenda Item No. 9b. Transportation Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, was present. He said that are a lot of issues with VDOTs = budget. It has been the subject of much discussion by the news media. He said the main office is running about eight different scenarios. The role of the Residency is just to sit back and wait until they decide what the budget will be. He said Maintenance Funds will be kept at four percent per year. The bad news is that the Six-Year Plan will probably be changed drastically in a lot of areas. Compared to some counties, there are not a lot of changes contemplated for Albemarle. Albemarle has been prudent in terms of appetite. He does expect that a lot of projects will slow down in terms of funding, and could drop off of this year's plan. It is too early to tell what will happen. By late Spring, something should be ironed out for the Six-Year Plan. Ms. Thomas asked if things which drop off the end of the Six-Year Plan will just be dropped. Mr. Bryan said they will be extended beyond this six-year period into the out years. __________ Mr. Bryan said Mr. Tucker had called him about some issues. Mr. Tucker asked him what would happen if the City changed its mind about the Meadow Creek Parkway, will VDOT still build the County portion? He said the answer is yes. Mr. Bryan said the second issue is why the Meadow Creek project has been delayed for two years from the original advertising date. He said Mr. Chuck Proctor made up a detailed time line. He said these are great questions because it is education for VDOT staff. This process began in the 1970s. The original advertising date was scheduled for March, 1999. Then it was delayed until July, 2001 for various reasons. Then it was moved back to July, 2002 because there were design changes. The latest changes are essentially design changes caused by the Jones & Jones alignment. A normal design period is two years. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bryan for the status of the portion of Meadow Creek Parkway which lies in the City. Mr. Bryan said he thinks the last vote of Council was to go ahead with the project. Mr. Bowerman asked about VDOTs role in that project. Mr. Bryan said he did not have an answer at this time since it is = handled by VDOTs Urban Division. Mr. Bowerman asked if the project is time lined with the Countys == portion of the project. Mr. Tucker said it is. Mr. Rooker asked about the interchange proposed at McIntire Road. Mr. Bryan said that is a secondary issue, and they will design it on-grade first, and then go through the public process on the interchange. Mr. Rooker asked if VDOT is participating in that design work. Mr. Bryan said he is sure they are; the project is in the concept stage at this time. __________ Mr. Bryan said someone asked at last months meeting about alternatives to the Southern Parkway. = It is No. 35 on the Countys priority list, so it will be quite a while getting to the top of the list. It is a great = subject in terms of the issues being dealt with now in terms of neighborhood development, traffic, growth, etc. He mentioned that there is a new planner in his office, and he has studied this question. Mr. Bryan said the other issue had to do with the Proffit Road cost breakdown. He handed to the Board a memorandum on the subject (on file). He said this shows the most accurate cost estimate from the Location & Design Division in Culpeper. Mr. Bryan introduced Mr. Matt Grimes who began work as a planner about three weeks ago, but immediately had surgery and spent the next week in the hospital. Mr. Grimes said he has been living in the area since 1995 when he came to the University, so is somewhat familiar with the area, but does not have a lot of background on the Southern Parkway project. He said they did not try to just generate alternatives to the Southern Parkway, but set up a procedure to do that. The first step was to identify the existing network (see memorandum on file). The next step is to identify the purpose for such a facility, and that task is left to this Board. He said there are conflicts when a road is to function for higher speeds and volumes, versus lower speeds and accessibility. Those issues February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) must be resolved early on in a process. Mr. Grimes said the second step is to identify some evaluation criteria. Once it is decided what the transportation facility is to do, then there needs to be evaluation criteria for the facility. He listed some A@ generalized criteria from TEA-21 criteria. Mr. Grimes said that following identification of the evaluation criteria, alternatives can be identified. He has shown seven different alternatives in his memo. He mentioned Alternative A (Bicycle/pedestrian facility connecting the Southern Parkway to Fifth Street Extended), and, Alternative F (Bike/pedestrian/ transit service improvements). Since they do not know the purpose of the facility (in the Moores Creek watershed between Mill Creek and Lake Reynovia), if the idea is just to connect the neighborhoods and provide some access to some of the industrial and commercial areas on either side of that, it could be done with a pedestrian/bicycle facility which would be a much smaller footprint than a roadway. He understands that the area is flood plain so it would be very difficult to develop. That is why there are the two alternatives. Mr. Grimes said Alternative B is a Vehicular facility connecting the Southern Parkway to Fifth Street A Extended which would require a 500-foot structure to cross the wetlands. Then Alternative C is Avon @A Street interchange on I-64. VDOT does not recommend that alternative due to safety concerns. @ Alternative D is Bent Creek road connector. That is north of I-64 and would connect Fifth Street and Avon A@ Street. There is all ready a partial road there going back to the Grand Furniture warehouse. This would cause less disturbance. Mr. Tucker said this roadway goes across the old City landfill site off of Avon Street. Mr. Grimes said that depending on how it were build, a roadway through there might be a good thing. If the grades were right, and there was no cut required in the landfill, a roadway could help provide additional cover for the landfill. Mr. Grimes said Alternative E is Improvements in the City on either the Elliott Avenue/Cherry A Avenue or Monticello Avenue corridors. There could be an extension to Ninth Street. The last alternative F would be to help service those areas by having more transit service, bike lanes, etc. He said the final A@ alternative is always the no build option. A@ Mr. Grimes said he would appreciate any comments the Board members might have. He mentioned a matrix attached to the memorandum on which he listed the alternatives and crossed them with the evaluation criteria, as well as costs. He then assigned a relative weight to show how well a given alternative meets that criteria. VDOT cannot say which of the criteria is the most important, that is for the Board to do. Mr. Dorrier said he thinks Mr. Grimes brainstorming is good on this subject. It is the kind of = thinking out of the box that is needed to assess this parkway. People in that area are very concerned A@ about having a high-speed throughway running through their neighborhoods. He would like to be sure that the Board stays in touch with VDOT on the planning phase of this project in order to arrive at the decision which satisfies the most people. Mr. Rooker asked if Alternatives A and B could be combined. Mr. Grimes said yes, it may be A@ possible to combine any one of the alternatives listed depending on funding and priorities. One thing that lends itself to a combination is the bike/transit improvements in addition to any one or more of the other alternatives. He said if VDOT had to make a recommendation, it would be for improvements to the corridors in the City in conjunction with bike/transit improvements rather than constructing a road on a new alignment. Ms. Thomas said the City members of the MPO have been very interested in the Southern Connector because they see that traffic trying to get from Avon Street to Fifth Street now has to go into the City to make that trip. They do not like that impact on their neighborhoods and they see that traffic increasing. She does not think that Alternative E would get a favorable reception in the City. Mr. Dorrier said Avon Street is becoming more and more crowded at its intersection with Elliot/Cherry Avenue. Mr. Grimes said that is one reason he put Monticello Avenue on the list because it is somewhat better. It is not as much of a neighborhood street as Elliott. They need to look at what is best for the Charlottesville/Albemarle community as a whole, and where the money is best allocated, and who will make compromises and do what is best for the region as a whole. Ms. Thomas said she thinks it is good for the Board to think through to the purpose of the road. Mr. Cilimberg asked Mr. Grimes if he had looked at the Southern Cities Study done about five years ago. Mr. Grimes said he will look at that study. Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks a lot of these alternatives were looked at in that study, and the decisions made were based on that study. The regional look at transportation is underway, and he thinks the place to take this information so it can be discussed and considered is with CHART. Mr. Rooker asked if impacts on intersections, etc. can be studied using existing traffic models. Mr. Cilimberg said CHART is working with the Regional Transportation Model. Mr. Grimes said it might be possible to build an extreme southern alignment which would skirt just inside the edge of the development areas between Old Lynchburg Road and Route 20 South. He said if the purpose is to open more land for development, it might be best to try and get developers to fund a lot of the construction costs. Mr. Tucker said at one time there was a connection that did that very thing, but it was as part of the requested Biscuit Run PUD. It actually connected Route 20 and Old Lynchburg Road, but the majority was being done by the developer. However, the PUD was not approved. February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) Mr. Dorrier said the concern of the citizens in that area is that the County may want to create a limited access road that becomes a bypass, a high speed bypass for people trying to avoid the Avon Street light, so it would become a cut-through to the University. It may be something the County did not intend, but could become that because of its location. Mr. Grimes said he used to live in the Scottsville area, and there is demand to access the University from that area. If the purpose of the facility is not to provide that type of mobility, then it can be limited by limiting the termini to two scopes of the entrance corridor. Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Grimes for his report, and said she agrees this is something that CHART should look at. __________ Mr. Martin mentioned a situation at Proffit Road with the length of the green signal for those wanting to turn south onto Route 29. Mr. Grimes said he has all ready requested Culpeper staff to check the signal. __________ Ms. Thomas said she would like to discuss Owensville Road (Consent Agenda Item No. 6.11). She asked if the County is just being cautious in thinking that sometime in the future the path behind the shopping area might be reinstituted. Mr. Tucker said that was staffs thinking; it is a reservation of that = alignment. Some things were done a few years ago that partially preclude it from happening. It was all tied in at the time to whether there would ever be improvements to the existing intersection at Owensville Road and Route 250, and the road which goes to Murray Elementary Road. This was to be the resolution of the fact that these roads are offset from each other. Ms. Thomas said the Board is basically just being cautious. There is no new plan for anything. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board actually removed that project from the Six-Year plan. There is no active planning taking place. __________ Ms. Thomas said a few days after the Board adopted the Six-Year Plan she discovered that Dry Bridge bridge cannot be used by either fire trucks or school buses going to Peacock Hill and other developments in that area. The project is way down on the Six-Year Priority list. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Bryan had asked if smaller school buses could be used, but all of the buses are full. Mr. Bryan asked about using two buses instead of one. He said that the citizens who live in that area probably would not want that bridge upgraded. Ms. Thomas said their neighborhood association said they would approve of it, even though it might improve the usability of the industrial park in that area. They think safety overrides that concern. __________ Mr. Bryan said the bridge on Dick Woods Road is being fixed now. He has gotten a lot of telephone calls about that project, and it is not even in their neighborhood. Ms. Thomas said people were concerned because there is a very large development on Verulum Farm which is right next to it, and just when they thought that was put aside for a while because of the financial condition of the people who proposed the development, then VDOT came in to build the bridge. Mr. Bryan said he wants to support Ms. Thomas but wants that taken into consideration. Ms. Thomas said the Board will have to decide next year if it wants to change the priority of this project on the Six-Year List. __________ Mr. Rooker said on the weekends, the light trippers on Rio Road at Route 29 do not seem to be traffic sensitive. He asked VDOT to look into this situation. __________ Mr. Martin asked about the cameras which have been installed. He said some people have called him thinking they are the photo-red cameras. Mr. Bryan said they are trippers, not cameras. A@ __________ Mr. Perkins mentioned a project shown on Page 8 of the Six-Year Plan as Route 691 (Proffit Road). He said that Route 691 is Jarmans Gap Road. Mr. Bryan said that is a misprint, it should show as Jarmans Gap Road. __________ Mr. Perkins said he has received some calls about paving of gravel roads. He refers then to VDOT, and VDOT refers then back to him. He has told them that they have to get the right-of-way, and then the Board can put it in the Six-Year Road Plan next year. He said that VDOT would provide them help with paperwork. __________ Mr. Rooker asked if there are many trippers operating in the City. Mr. Bryan said he does not think there are. _______________ Agenda Item No. 10. Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 12:30 p.m., Mr. Bowerman offered motion to go into Closed Session pursuant to Section 2.2- 3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards and commissions; under Subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of property for public use; under Subsection (1) to discuss February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) the performance of specific employees; under Subsection (7) to discuss specific legal matters requiring the advise of legal counsel regarding law enforcement matters; and, under Subsection (7) to discuss pending litigation regarding the police department. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 11. Certify Closed Session. At 2:00 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board members 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. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. _______________ Agenda Item No. 12. Board-to-Board Presentation - School Board Chairman. (Note: Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 2:02 p.m.) Ms. Thomas read into the record, the School Board proclamation which was adopted during approval of the Consent Agenda earlier in the meeting. Mr. Steve Koleszar, the new Chairman of the School Board, was present to make the presentation. He said he appreciates the working relationship the School Board has with the Board of Supervisors and he hopes the work of the School Board is appreciated. Mr. Koleszar said the School Board is working on its FY 02-03 Budget, and there is an issue with > the compensation figure chosen for the budget. The School Board does not want to change the two- percent salary increase discussed by the two Boards in November, by itself. The School Board would like to leave its budget with the two-percent figure and in March have a joint meeting with the Supervisors to talk again about the issues of compensation and health insurance. There is strong sentiment among School Board members to maintain market competitiveness for its salaries, even if there is a need to cut in other areas. The School Board has some preliminary results from its competitive market survey. The school divisions surveyed are averaging a 3.7 percent increase. Mr. Koleszar said there is a very competitive market for teachers and administrators. Mr. Bowerman asked if that is caused by demographics. Mr. Koleszar said it is partially because of demographics, and partially because over the prosperous 90s, private sector salary increases outstripped public salary increases. A person with a Masters Degree or a Doctorate can go into fields which pay much more than the salary of a teacher. Mr. Koleszar said the Superintendent presented the School Board with a proposed budget last week and they have held three work sessions so far. This year they will be looking at more detail than in the past, and in a more organized way. They are looking to see what items are mandated, and which items they are providing to improve instruction. They are trying to decide where they can cut back on expenses, if that becomes necessary. He said that activities do not necessarily mean results, and physical resources do not necessarily get results. But, using data analysis, focusing on resources, and cultivating quality instruction with effective teaching is producing results in the School System. He said two examples are, remediation and working to bring people up to the SOLs. In five years, the School System has gone from having 26.6 percent of students in Second Grade from reading below grade level, to 12.4 percent. He said a lot of money is being put into literacy, and it is working. Mr. Koleszar said some people think the Schools are spending a lot of time with students at the bottom of the scale, but over the years, the Gifted Program has been expanded. In 1999, there were 788 people taking AP classes. Last year there were 1178 in AP classes. In Albemarle County, they believe in education for all. He said the system has a lot of dual-enrollment students with PVCC which is an opportunity for a high school student to get college credit for their work. Mr. Koleszar said the Parent Council produced a video explaining the budget process. The video is on file in the School Board Office and is available for anyone to see. The video was produced in the Video Studio at Monticello High School. Mr. Koleszar said that on January 20, the School Board reorganized and he was elected Chairperson. Diantha McKeel is Vice-chair, Gary Grant was appointed to the PREP Committee, and Kent Boyd and Pamela Monahan were appointed to CATEC. February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) Mr. Koleszar said some School Board members were unhappy that the CIP Technical Review Committee could reverse a vote on the CIP process the School Board was using. It is their understanding that everything they wanted for next year is still in the plan, so it is not an issue to fight over this year. But, they would like Dr. Castner and Mr. Tucker to review the whole CIP process to look at ways to do it better. Ms. Thomas asked if this is because the School Board felt left out of the CIP process. She said she knows that the Monticello High School auditorium was a testing point. Mr. Koleszar said there was a lot of public testimony taken and the Schools Long-Range Planning Committee looked at the project. The School = Board voted, and then the project was wiped out by the Technical Review Committee. Mr. Tucker said there are School representatives serving on the Technical Committee, but no School Board representatives. Staff has talked about this concern and expects to solve it before the next CIP Technical Committee meeting. Mr. Koleszar said the Schools had a delegation of Chinese educators visit on January 27 and 28. Mr. John Baker helped to organize this event and served as the tour guide while they were here. They had supper together and had a long discussion about education. The persons he talked with liked and were amazed by how much creativity the children had. They asked how to teach creativity. They said their problem is that their children are very academically talented, but they cannot apply their knowledge. The basic goal of Albemarle County is to have students actually apply knowledge. Mr. Koleszar said there has been some controversy reported in the news media about a video, part of the family life education materials. A decision was made by Dr. Castner that it was not the right time to bring that material up, so it has been pulled. There is still on their agenda, a decision to bring VIVA (a program where high school students put on skits about sexual harassment) into the schools. This has been done in the high schools, but now they want to take it into the middle schools. He offered to answer questions. Mr. Koleszar then distributed to the Board members a copy of an article from The Virginia News published by the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia, concerning Letter Virginias fiscal condition. = _______________ Agenda Item No. 13. SP-2001-062. Hydraulic Road Dental Center (Signs #68 & 71). Public hearing on a request to modify existing special use permit (SP-99-67) to allow it to be valid until Nov 7, 2006, to be consistent with approved site plan. The applicant has approval for approx 10,000 sq ft of office space. Znd R-10 and EC. TM61, P's 36 & 36A1 contains 1.22 acs. Loc on Hydraulic Rd (Rt 743) across from Albemarle HS. Jack Jouett Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on January 21 and January 28, 2002.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report. He said this request is to extend an existing special = use permit originally issued in February, 2000 to allow construction of professional offices. The special use permit (SP-99-67) was approved with conditions. Site plan approval was given and the site plan was signed in November, 2001. A site plan is good for five years. The applicant has requested extension of the special use permit to coincide with the approved time period of the site plan. Mr. Cilimberg said the request was discussed by the Planning Commission on January 29, 2002, and the Commission decided to recommend extension of the special use permit for only two years, which is the normal procedure. Mr. Cilimberg said staff looked at records to find out how many times longer approvals had been granted, and so far found only three. Two permits were for churches, and the extended period was to allow their members time to raise funds. The third was for Westminster-Canterbury in 1997 and they were given five years. Staff did not find any justification for that time period in the record. For this request, the applicant feels that since the site plan has been approved, an almost five-year extension of the special use permit would be appropriate. Some of the Commissioners felt it should look at this special use permit again in two years in the event no construction has taken place during that time period. Staff has no problem with the applicants request. One thing he would like to mention is that the extension of any special use permit = requires a $55.00 fee and the request goes through a public hearing process with the Commission and the Board. Mr. Bowerman asked the price of a reapplication. Mr. Cilimberg said if the permit expires, it is quite a high fee. The process does not change. The request cannot go on a Consent Agenda, it must be placed on the agenda for a public hearing, and go through the entire process. At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Mike Matthews was present to represent the applicant. He thanked staff for helping to get this application through the process before the permit expired. He appreciates the Commissions recognition of = the appropriateness of extending this special use permit. However, they did not take up the request to have the special use permit run concurrently with the site plan. He said the applicant used up the two years of the special permit getting the site plan approved. It is a very tiny, but complex site involving a lot of access easements with adjacent properties, all which were negotiated. The property cannot be used for anything but this dental office complex, both as a factor of the approved site plan, and the unusual property it is with access through an adjacent dental office complex. Mr. Matthews said Mr. Cilimberg had noted a couple of examples where permits had been granted February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) for longer than two years. He was involved with the permit for Westminster-Canterbury. It was for professional offices of 90,000 square feet on the front parcel. Martha Jefferson was the eventual user of the first one, and it was granted for five years. The actual special use permit extension for Westminster- Canterbury is indefinite, it does not expire. In 1999, the Board reaffirmed that for another five years for the professional offices. He said there is precedent, and Zoning Ordinance Sec. 31.2.4.2 allows the Board to approve special use permits for any length of time. He feels that all of the circumstances and the very special hardship circumstances surrounding Dr. Kangurs partnership explains why the project has not been = started. It will probably be two more years before he will be ready to start again. The permit would expire, and this they would have to go through this process again. It is an uncertainty for a partner coming into the practice to have to consider. They ask that the Board exercise the discretion it is allowed to see the circumstances of the application and grant an extension that is commensurate with the length of the other approval. He then read several paragraphs from the Commissions minutes. He asked that this application = be approved in this special case. Ms. Thomas asked what special circumstances exist. Mr. Matthews said one partner left the practice, and the practice requires three oral surgeons to make the project work. Dr. Kangur is actively recruiting another partner, but banks like to see a stable working relationship for at least two years before they will loan on a project of this scale. For the practical and business situation, coupled with the fact that nothing else can happen on the property, seems to make this a project that would be approvable. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Rooker said he thinks the request to have this special use permit run consistent with the site plan makes sense. He does not see anything to be gained by having them come back in two years. He then offered motion to approve SP-2001-062, Hydraulic Road Dental Center, with the extension of the special use permit to run for the same period of time that the site plan is approved, or November 7, 2006. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. _______________ (Note: The Board heard the following two items concurrently.) Agenda Item No. 14. ZTA-2001-07. Alleys and shared driveways. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend 3.1, Definitions, 4.4, Visibility clearance at intersections, 4.6.1, Frontage and lot width '' measurements, 4.6.3, Lots, yards adjacent to streets, 4.11.2.1, Accessory structures, 5.1.39, Off-site employee parking for industrial use, and 32.5, Preliminary site plan content, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, to define 17-203 "alley, "driveway, "private road and "shared driveway, to @@@@ require adequate sight distance be provided where alleys intersect with other travelways, to clarify that frontage for a lot served by a shared driveway or alley shall be provided along the public street or private road, to require that the regulation pertaining to required lots and yards adjacent to streets also apply to alleys and shared driveways and provides an additional setback for a shared driveway, to clarify the location from where the yard shall be measured, to clarify that the setback for accessory structures applies not only from the property line, but also certain travelways, and to allow the director of planning and community development to waive the setback from alleys in limited circumstances, to allow a parking area to be separated from an industrial use by an alley, and to require that alley easements and rights-of-way be shown on preliminary site plans. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on January 21 and January 28, 2002.) __________ Agenda Item No. 15. STA-2001-01. Alleys and shared driveways. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend 14-106, Definitions, 14-303, Contents of final plat, 14-313, Instrument evidencing maintenance '' of certain improvements, 14-512, Standards for both public streets and private roads, and 14-514, Standards for private roads only, and to add 14-241, Circumstances when shared driveways and alleys ' may be authorized, of Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle County Code, to define "driveway" and "shared driveway," and to amend the definitions of "alley" and "private road," to establish the conditions and procedures by which shared driveways and alleys may be authorized, to require that final plats contain information pertaining to alleys and shared driveways, to require that alleys be subject to an approved maintenance agreement, to add that an alley may provide reasonable access to a lot, to clarify the design standards for alleys, to allow alleys to be provided on the side of certain lots and to be subject to approval by the county engineer. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on January 21 and January 28, 2002.) Mr. Cilimberg said that on April 23, 2001, Weatherhill Homes requested a Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) to add a definition of alley to the Zoning Ordinance. They also requested that a provision be added A@ to the Zoning Ordinance to say, In the case of alleys, no yard requirement is necessary for accessory A structures provided there is a minimum of two off-street parking spaces for each lot". Mr. Cilimberg said that at the time this request was made, the Planning Department became aware that while it was promoting the creation of alleys and use of shared driveways, the Zoning Department was requiring front, side and rear yard setbacks on alleys and shared driveways. The reason for this application was the wording in Section 4.6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance that required these yards on all access February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) easements. The end result was the creation of greater setbacks on Development Area lots than what the Comprehensive Plan encourages. Looking into the issue further, Planning Department staff realized that the Subdivision Ordinance makes no distinctions between shared driveways, private roads, alleys and access easements for lots in the Development Areas and lots in the Rural Areas. To implement the Neighborhood Model, staff believed that modifications to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance were needed immediately. Staff took the ZTA request of Weatherhill Homes, modified it, and included it with other subdivision text amendments. Weatherhill Homes had said, the purpose of the alley is to hide A vehicles and services. This creates a more neighborhood-oriented front yard as DISC proposals acknowledge. Current zoning at Parkside Village requires a 20-foot access easement plus a 20-foot rear setback making garages 60 feet apart, which defeats the purpose of alleys. @ Mr. Cilimberg said staff believed that the additional changes to the Subdivision Ordinance were essential to promote more efficient use of Development Area land and to achieve more compact, neighborhood-friendly development. The most recent example of the need for the ordinance amendment relating to shared driveways was, SUB-01-154, Fontana Land Trust Resubdivision of Lots 163 & 164, which was on the Planning Commission's agenda August 14, 2001. The resubdivision was for approval of a private road for a shared driveway in the Development Areas. The proposed shared driveway traverses A@ the front of a lot to serve the adjacent lot. This arrangement avoids making severe cuts in the slope of the adjacent lot for a separate driveway. The request for approval of a private road, as well as dealing with excessive setbacks in the Development Areas could have been avoided if the amendments had been in place. Another example of the need for the ordinance amendment was the Zoning Administrators = interpretation that shared driveways along the shared lot line are access easements requiring a separate front yard from what is really the side lot line. Regarding alleys, accessory structures are required to meet front yard requirements if they are noted as access easements or separate rights-of-way (interpreted as private roads) on a recorded plat. A@ Accessory structures cannot be placed in front yards. These requirements are antithetical to the County's policy of promoting the use of alleys in the Development Areas. With regard to the Weatherhill Homes proposed text amendment, staff incorporated the Weatherhill Homes concept into the larger set of amendments. Weatherhill Homes believes that the proposed text amendments will achieve their goals of removing the application of a front yard to the alley easement, thereby reducing the setback requirements for accessory structures from alleys. Weatherhill Homes further suggested that the recommended three-foot setback be eliminated altogether so that accessory structures may be located at the easement. Staff believed that a three-foot setback would provide six to eight feet of distance from an accessory structure in which maneuvering could take place outside of the travelway and in which a car could sit in a driveway outside of the travelway. Mr. Cilimberg said on August 14, 2001, and October 30, 2001, the Planning Commission discussed the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance text amendments related to shared driveways and alleys. Changes to the proposed ordinances were made based on discussion that occurred at both of those meetings. The staff report (on file) addresses the changes made as a result of both of the Commission meetings and a public meeting (Roundtable) held on November 15, 2001. Since copies of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments of November 14, 2001, two changes have occurred. The first change was to Section 4.6.4 with the addition of the following statement, If an A alley abuts the rear yard, the required rear yard shall be measured from the edge of the alley right-of-way or easement. This change was advertised and was requested by one of the participants at the @ Roundtable. The second change was to the definition of the word alley. The definition now proposed for alley is, A form of vehicular travelway providing access to the rear and/or side lot line of abutting properties A which front public streets or private roads. An alley is privately owned .... This change did not need to be @ advertised but is provided for clarity in both the proposed zoning and subdivision text amendments. Staff appreciates the efforts of the public who helped identify text needing clarification and the additional places in the proposed amendments which should have contained references to alleys and shared driveways. Staff incorporated those additions as well as the changes requested by the Planning Commission and recommends approval of the text amendments as proposed. __________ Mr. Rooker said he was a member of the Planning Commission when it was dealing with these amendments. He thinks the items raised by Mr. Ceta were dealt with in those sessions. Staff was asked to look specifically at those issues, and did make some changes by granting discretion to the Planning Director regarding certain setback requirements. At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing on both agenda items. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Rooker to approve ZTA-2001-07 by adopting An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, Article IV, Procedure, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 3.1, Definitions; Sec. 4.4, Visibility clearance at intersections; Sec. 4.6.1, Frontage and lot width measurements; Sec. 4.6.3, Lots, yards adjacent to streets and alleys; Sec. 4.6.4, Rear yards on interior lots; Sec. 4.11.2.1, Accessory structures; Sec. 5.1.39, Off-site employee parking for industrial use; and, Sec. 32.5, Preliminary site plan content, draft dated January 4, 2001. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. (Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.) ORDINANCE NO. 02-18(2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article IV, Procedure, of the Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 3.1 Definitions Sec. 4.4 Visibility clearance at intersections Sec. 4.6.1 Frontage and lot width measurements Sec. 4.6.3 Lots, yards adjacent to streets and alleys Sec. 4.6.4 Rear yards on interior lots Sec. 4.11.2.1 Accessory structures Sec. 5.1.39 Off-site employee parking for industrial use Sec. 32.5 Preliminary site plan content Chapter 18 Zoning Article I. General Provisions Sec. 3.1 Definitions . A form of vehicular travelway providing access to the rear and/or side lot line of Alley abutting properties which front along public streets or private roads. An alley is privately owned and maintained, is intended to be used primarily by the owners and occupants of the abutting properties and persons and vehicles providing services to those properties, including emergency services vehicles, and is not intended for through traffic. An alley is neither a "private road" nor an "access easement," as those terms are defined or used in this chapter and chapter 14. (Added 2-6-02) . A form of vehicular access from a public street, private road or alley to the Driveway interior of a lot or parcel of land. (Added 2-6-02) . Any road, street, or other way or means of vehicular access to a lot that is Private road not maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation, regardless of ownership, approved as a private road pursuant to Albemarle County Code 14-232 through 14-235 '' or any prior ordinance regulating the subdivision of land. Any road identified on a recorded plat as a restricted road, access road or other designation which was not approved by the county as a private road pursuant to chapter 14 or any prior ordinance of the county regulating the subdivision of land is not a private road as defined herein. (Added 2-6-02) . A form of vehicular access to only two lots which have frontage on a Shared driveway public street or an approved private road and which are authorized pursuant to Albemarle County Code 14-241. (Added 2-6-02) ' Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.4 Visibility clearance at intersections For protection against traffic hazards, no material impediment to visibility shall be placed, allowed to grow, erected or maintained on any parcel so as to restrict sight distance at any intersection of any public street, private road or driveway, or at the intersection of any alley and public street or private road, below the minimum required by the Virginia Department of Transportation for such intersection. (Amended 9-9-92, 2-6-02) Sec. 4.6.1 Frontage and lot width measurements (Amended 7-20-88, 2-6-02) Lot frontage and the minimum lot width shall be established as follows: a. Except as otherwise provided in sections 4.6.1 and 4.6.6, every lot shall front on an existing public street, or a street dedicated by subdivision plat and maintained or designed and built to be maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation, except that private roads shall be permitted in accordance with section 14-514 of February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) Chapter 14 of the Code of Albemarle. (Amended 7-20-88, 2-6-02) b. Except as specifically permitted in this section, frontage shall not be less than required by the regulations of the district in which the lot or parcel is located. (Amended 2-6-02) 1. Frontage on a public street cul-de-sac or on a private road cul-de-sac may be reduced provided that driveway separation shall be in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation standards. (Amended 9-9-92, 2-6-02) 2. For a lot located at the end of an access easement, frontage shall not be less than the full width of such easement. For a lot served by a shared driveway or alley, frontage shall be provided along a public street or private road. (Added 7-20-88, 2-6-02) c. Minimum lot width shall be at least the same distance as the frontage required for the district in which such lot is located. The depth of front and rear yards shall be established where minimum lot width is achievable but shall not be less in depth than required for the district in which such lot is located. Minimum lot width shall be maintained between the front and rear yard. Lot width shall not be reduced under section 4.6.1(b). (Amended 7-20-88; 9-9-92, 2-6-02) Sec. 4.6.3 Lots and yards adjacent to streets, alleys and shared driveways (Amended 2-6-02) Lots and yards adjacent to streets, alleys and shared driveways are subject to the following: a. Front yards of the depth required in the district shall be provided across the full width of the lot adjacent to the public street or private road. The depth of a required front yard shall be measured from the right-of-way line of the public street or private road so that the building line is equidistant from the public street or private road right-of-way at all points. Areas in parking bays shall not be considered as part of the public street or private road for purposes of determining front yard setback. In addition, if a shared driveway traverses a front yard, each primary structure also shall be located at least ten (10) feet from the edge of the shared driveway easement; if a shared driveway is concurrent with the shared lot line of the lots served by the shared driveway, each primary structure also shall be located at least six (6) feet from the edge of the shared driveway easement. (Amended 2-6-02) b. Other yards adjacent to public streets or private roads shall have a minimum depth, equal to the minimum front yard depth required in the district in which the lot is located. This provision shall apply to lots in the RA or residential districts only. The foregoing notwithstanding, section 10.4 shall apply as written and depth of individual yards to streets shall be determined by the nature of the individual street. (Amended 2-6-02) c. Street line for measurement of required yards adjacent to streets. Required yards and setbacks shall be measured from a line equidistant from the public street or private road right-of-way line(s) at all points. (Amended 2-6-02) d. A front yard shall be measured from the right-of-way of public streets, private roads and vehicular access easements except alley easements and shared driveway easements. (Amended 2-6-02) Sec. 4.6.4 Rear yards on interior lots Rear yards on interior lots shall be provided at the depth required for the district, and shall run across the full width of the lot at the rear. The depth of a required rear yard shall be measured in such a manner that the yard is a strip of minimum depth required by district regulations with its inner edge parallel to its outer edge. If an alley abuts the rear yard, the required rear yard shall be measured from the edge of the alley right-of-way or easement. (Amended 2-6-02) Sec. 4.11.2.1 Accessory structures No structure shall be permitted in an easement in a way that adversely affects the easement. Accessory structures shall be erected no closer than six (6) feet to adjacent lot lines or, in the case of an alley easement or right-of-way or shared driveway easement, no closer than three (3) feet to the edge of the alley easement or right-of-way or the shared driveway easement. The director of planning and community development may authorize an accessory structure to be located closer to the edge of an alley easement or right-of-way if the director determines that, based upon the written recommendation of the county engineer, the proposed design incorporates features that assure public safety and February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) welfare. The county engineer shall consider the provision of adequate access to required onsite parking and/or garages, unimpeded vehicular circulation along the alley, an adequate clear zone along the alley, and other safety issues deemed appropriate for the conditions. (Amended 2-6-02) Sec. 5.1.39 Off-site employee parking for industrial use In order to provide the minimum parking required by section 4.12 or to provide additional parking, off-site employee parking may be authorized only when: (1) the provision of on-site parking is not physically feasible or, when considering the general public interest, as opposed to the private interest of the applicant, is not physically desirable; (2) the proposed off-site parking is limited to employee use; (3) the provision of off-site parking does not change the character of the area surrounding the property on which the off-site parking is located, and does not require substantial alteration to roads; (4) alternate transportation opportunities have not eliminated the need for additional parking; and (5) the parcel on which the off-site parking is located is either contiguous with the parcel on which the industrial use being served is located, or if the two parcels are not contiguous, they are separated only by a public street, private road, or alley. (Amended 2-6-02) To insure that the review of each application for a special use permit for off-site employee parking is consistent with this intent, each applicant shall comply with the following requirements: a. The applicant shall demonstrate that additional on-site parking is not physically feasible or physically desirable due to topographic constraints such as critical slopes and natural drainage features; wooded and buffer areas; unusual configuration of the lot or remaining undeveloped area on the lot; entrance corridor and/or landscaping requirements; stormwater management February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) improvements; the location and visibility of the site; and other physical features of the property. b. The applicant shall demonstrate that he has made a determined effort to reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicle use by putting in place incentives and/or employee programs to encourage alternatives to single occupancy vehicles. Where public transit reasonably could be made available, the applicant should demonstrate that efforts have been made to coordinate routes and times with the public transportation service and the workforce hours. c. The parking lot shall be located, designed and constructed to reduce or eliminate significant visual impacts from all public streets, private roads and adjacent properties, and to reduce or eliminate other significant impacts to adjacent properties resulting from vehicular noise, dust, artificial lighting, glare, runoff, degradation of water quality and other similar disturbances. d. The applicant shall submit a conceptual plan or a site plan with his application for a special use permit. The plan shall show the approximate location of the parking lot on the property, its dimensions, its access to a public street, its distance from the off-site parking to the industrial site, and shall identify how persons will be transported or will transport themselves from the off-site parking to the building or use. The plan shall also show all features of the parking lot, which will insure that the parking lot will not adversely change the character of, or significantly impact, the area surrounding the property on which the parking lot is proposed, and will impact to the least extent practicable the property on which the parking lot is proposed. The features which shall be shown on the conceptual plan or site plan, and which may be required as a condition of approval of a special use permit, include but are not limited to: 1. Visual or noise barriers such as earthen berms, the existing or planned terrain and/or vegetative screening; 2. Proposed construction elements, which shall include elements which will minimize noise, light pollution, dust, glare, and runoff and which will protect water quality and protect trees designated to be preserved and will result in no significant degradation to the environment; 3. A lighting plan which identifies the location and design of all outdoor light structures and fixtures, demonstrates that all outdoor lights comply with section 4.12.6.4 and demonstrates that all outdoor lights will be shielded in such a manner that all light emitted from the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal plane of the fixture; and 4. Changes proposed to the entrance and public road, including any necessary road-widening, or grading and removal of trees to accommodate sight distance. e. The off-site parking and loading requirements set forth in section 4.12 shall apply to the off-site parking subject to this section, except as expressly provided otherwise therein. Article IV. Procedure Sec. 32.5 Preliminary site plan content 32.5.1 Sixteen (16) clearly legible blue or black line copies of a preliminary site plan shall be submitted to the department of planning and community development. (32.3.5, 1980; Amended 5-1-87) 32.5.2 If revisions are necessary, seven (7) full-sized revised copies and one (1) reduced revised copy no larger than eleven (11) inches by seventeen (17) inches shall be submitted by the revision deadline. (Added 5-1-87) 32.5.3 All waiver, variation and substitution requests in accordance with section 32.3.10 shall be submitted with the preliminary site plan and clearly state the specific items being requested for waiver, variation or substitution. (Added 5-1-87) 32.5.4 The preliminary site plan shall be dimensioned to the accuracy standards required in section 32.5.6.r. (Added 5-1-87) 32.5.5 The preliminary site plan shall be prepared to the scale of one (1) inch equals twenty (20) feet or to such scale as may be approved by the agent in a particular case; no sheet shall exceed forty-two (42) inches by thirty-six (36) inches in size. The preliminary site plan may be prepared on one (1) or more sheets. If prepared on more than one (1) sheet, match lines shall clearly indicate where the several February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) sheets join. The top of the sheet shall be approximately either north or east. (Added 5-1-87) 32.5.6 The preliminary site plan shall contain the following information: a. The name of the development; names of the owner, developer and individual who prepared the plan; tax map and parcel number; zoning; descriptions of all variances, zoning proffers and bonus factors applicable to the site; magisterial district; county and state; north point; scale; one datum reference for elevation (where section 30.3, flood hazard overlay district, is involved, United States Geological Survey vertical datum shall be shown and/or correlated to plan topography); the source of the topography; the source of the survey; sheet number and total number of sheets; date of drawing; date and description of latest revision; owner, zoning, tax map and parcel number and present use of adjacent parcels; departing lot lines; minimum setback lines, yard and building separation requirements; a vicinity sketch showing the property and its relationship with adjoining streets, subdivisions and other landmarks; and boundary dimensions. (Added 5-1-87) b. Written schedules or data as necessary to demonstrate that the site can accommodate the proposed use, including: proposed uses and maximum acreage occupied by each use; maximum number of dwelling units by type; gross residential density; square footage of recreation area, percent and acreage of open space; maximum square footage for commercial and industrial uses; maximum number of employees; maximum floor area ratio and lot coverage if industrial; maximum height of all structures; schedule of parking including maximum amount required and amount provided; and maximum amount of impervious cover on the site; if a landscape plan is required, maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation areas. (Added 5-1-87) c. If phasing is planned, phase lines and proposed timing of development. (Added 5-1-87) d. Existing topography (up to twenty [20] percent slope, maximum five [5] foot contours, over twenty [20] percent slope, maximum ten [10] foot contours). Proposed grading (maximum five [5] foot contours) supplemented where necessary by spot elevations; areas of the site where existing slopes are twenty-five (25) percent or greater. Existing topography for the entire site with sufficient offsite topography to describe prominent and pertinent offsite features and physical characteristics, but in no case less than fifty (50) feet outside of the site unless otherwise approved by the agent. e. Existing landscape features as described in section 32.7.9.4.c. (Added 5-1-87) f. The name and location of all watercourses and other bodies of water adjacent to or on the site. Indicate if the site is located within a reservoir watershed. (Added 5-1-87) g. Location of septic setback lines from watercourses including intermittent streams and other bodies of water. (Added 5-1-87) h. One hundred year flood plain limits as shown on the official flood insurance maps for Albemarle County. (Added 5-1-87) i. Existing and proposed streets, access easements, alley easements and rights-of-way, and travelways, together with street names, state route numbers, right-of-way lines and widths, centerline radii, and pavement widths. (32.4.5, 1980; Amended 5-1-87, 2-6-02) j. Location and size of: existing water and sanitary sewer facilities and easements; storm sewer facilities, drainage channels; and drainage easements. (Added 5-1-87) k. Proposed conceptual lay-out for water and sanitary sewer facilities and storm drainage facilities including storm detention ponds or structures, indicating direction of flow in all pipes and watercourses with arrows. (Added 5-1-87) l. Location of other existing and proposed utilities and utility easements. (Added 5-1-87) m. Location of existing and proposed ingress to and egress from the property, showing the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection. (Added 5-1-87) n. Location and dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements including: buildings (maximum footprint and height) and other structures; walkways; fences; February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) walls; trash containers; outdoor lighting; landscaped areas and open space; recreational areas and facilities; parking lots and other paved areas; loading and service areas together with the proposed paving material types for all walks, parking lots and driveways; and signs. (Added 5-1-87) o. All areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use. (Added 5-1-87) p. Landscape plan in conformance with section 32.7.9 if required. (Added 5-1-87) q. Where deemed appropriate by the agent due to the intensity of development, estimated traffic generation figures for the site based upon current Virginia Department of Transportation rates. Indicate the estimated vehicles per day and direction of travel for all connections to a public road. (Added 5-1-87) r. The preliminary site plan shall be dimensioned to at least the following standards for accuracy: 1. Boundary, setback and zoning lines - one foot in one thousand (1:1,000) feet; 2. Existing contours - one-half (1/2) of the contour interval required in section 32.5.6.d above; 3. Proposed contours - within five (5) feet horizontally and vertically; 4. Existing structures, utilities and other topographic features - within five (5) feet; 5. Proposed structures, roads, parking lots and other improvements - within five (5) feet. (Added 5-1-87) s. The agent or the commission may require additional information to be shown on the preliminary site plan as deemed necessary in order to provide sufficient information for the agent or the commission to adequately review a the preliminary site plan. (Added 5-1-87) __________ Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve STA-2001-01, Alleys and shared driveways, by adopting An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Administration and Procedure, Article III, Plat Requirements and Documents to Be Submitted, and Article V, Design Requirements, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 14-106, Definitions; Sec. 14-303, Contents of final plat; Sec. 14-313, Instrument evidencing maintenance of certain improvements; Sec. 14-500, General; Sec. 14-512, Standards for both public streets and private roads; Sec. 14-514, Standards for private roads only; and by adding Sec. 14-241, Circumstances when shared driveways and alleys may be authorized, draft ordinance dated January 4, 2002. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. (Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.) ORDINANCE NO. 02-14(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE, ARTICLE III, PLAT REQUIREMENTS AND DOCUMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED, AND ARTICLE V, DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 14, Subidivision of Land, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Administration and Procedure, Article III, Plat Requirements, and Article V, Design Requirements, of the Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 14-106 Definitions Sec. 14-303 Contents of final plat Sec. 14-313 Instrument evidencing maintenance of certain improvements Sec. 14-500 General Sec. 14-512 Standards for both public streets and private roads Sec. 14-514 Standards for private roads only February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) By Adding: Sec. 14-241 Circumstances when shared driveways and alleys may be authorized Chapter 14 Subdivision of Land Article I. General Provisions Sec. 14-106 Definitions. (2) The term “alley” means a form of vehicular travelway providing Alley. access to the rear and/or side lot line of abutting properties which front along public streets or private roads. An alley is privately owned and maintained, is intended to be used primarily by the owners and occupants of the abutting properties and persons and vehicles providing services to those properties, including emergency services vehicles, and is not intended for through traffic. An alley is not a “private road.” (12.1) The term “driveway” means a form of vehicular access from a Driveway. public street, private road or alley to the interior of a lot. (35) The term “private road” means any road, street, or other Private road. way or means of vehicular access to a lot that is not maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation, regardless of ownership, approved as a “private road” pursuant to sections 14-232 through 14-235 or any prior ordinance regulating the subdivision of land. Any road identified on a recorded plat as a restricted road, access road or other designation which was not approved by the county as a private road pursuant to this chapter or any prior ordinance of the county regulating the subdivision of land is not a private road as defined herein. (43.1) The term “shared driveway” means a form of vehicular Shared driveway. access to only two lots which have frontage on a public street or an approved private road and which are authorized pursuant to section 14-241. (§ 18-2 (part) 9-5-96, 4-13-88, 7-9-86, 3-29-78, 12-15-76, 4-21-76; § 18-56, 9-5-96, 10-17- 79, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, §§ 18-2, 18-56; Ord. 98-A(1), 7-15-98; Ord. 02-14(1), 2-6-02) Article II. Administration and Procedure Sec. 14-241 Circumstances when shared driveways and alleys may be authorized. A shared driveway or alley may be authorized as provided herein: A. The agent may authorize a subdivision to be developed with one or more shared driveways in a development area designated in the land use element of the comprehensive plan when private road or public street frontage meeting the road frontage requirements of the zoning district exists or is to be provided to both lots. B. The agent may authorize a subdivision to be developed with one or more alleys in a development area designated in the land use element of the comprehensive plan when private road or public road frontage meeting the road frontage requirements of the zoning district exists or is to be provided for all lots to be served by the alley(s). C. Where alleys are authorized, vehicular access to the interior of a lot shall be provided only from the alley unless otherwise approved by the agent for cases such as, but not limited to, corner lots or lots where access is prevented by topographical constraints. (Ord. 02-14(1), 2-6-02) Article III. Plat requirements and documents to be submitted Sec. 14-303 Contents of final plat. In addition to containing all of the information required by section 14-302, except for the information required by sections 14-302(L) and 14-302(T), a final plat shall contain the following information: A. . A statement that: "The division of the Statement of consent to division land described herein is with the free consent and in accordance with the desire of the undersigned owners, proprietors and trustees. Any reference to future potential development is to be deemed as theoretical only. All statements affixed to this plat are true and correct to the best of my knowledge." B. . The name or number of the section if the Section name or number property is a part of a larger piece of land. C. . The exterior boundary lines of the property with bearings Boundary lines in degrees, minutes and seconds. Curvilinear data shall include radius, central angle, arc length, and tangent distance. All dimensions shall conform to the standards set forth in February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) this chapter. D. . The total acreage of each existing lot and each proposed Acreage of lots lot. E. Dimension standards and information on all lots, streets, alleys, All linear, angular, and curvilinear dimensions of lots, easements, and shared driveways. streets, alleys, public easements and private easements shall conform to the requirements set forth in 18 VAC 10-10-370(C), a copy of which shall be on file in the department of engineering and public works. Curvilinear data shall include radius, central angle, arc length, and tangent distances and may be shown either directly on the corresponding boundary or surveyed line or in table form. If easements are shown for alleys and shared driveways, they shall be labeled as “alley easement” or “shared driveway easement.” The easement holder(s) shall be identified on the plat. If alleys are shown, a maintenance agreement meeting the standards of section 14-313 shall be provided. If shared driveways are shown, a note shall be added to the plat stating that maintenance shall be by the owners of the lots affected by the shared driveway easement, not by VDOT or the County. F. . The lot numbers, in numerical order, and block identification. Lot numbers G. . The location of all minimum building setback lines specified Setback lines in this chapter and the zoning ordinance, with the area in square feet. H. . The location and material of all permanent reference Monuments monuments. Monuments found or installed prior to plat recordation may be referred to if permanent and undisturbed. If any monument required by this chapter will be installed after recordation of the final plat, the certification of the professional engineer or land surveyor shall so note. I. . A definite bearing and distance tie between not Bearing and distance ties less than two (2) permanent monuments on the exterior boundary of the property and further tie to existing street intersection where possible and reasonably convenient. J. . Restrictions imposed in conjunction with the approval of the Restrictions preliminary plat and their period of existence. If the length of a restriction makes its inclusion on the final plat impractical, and does not necessitate the preparation of a separate instrument, reference shall be made to the restriction on the final plat. K. . The location of temporary cul-de-sacs, if needed, Temporary cul-de-sacs with the following accompanying note: “The area on this plat designated as a temporary cul-de-sac will be constructed and used as other streets in the subdivision until (street name) is/are extended to (street name), at which time the land in the temporary cul-de-sac area will be abandoned for street purposes and will revert to adjoining property owners in accordance with specific provisions in their respective deeds.” L. . The location of all public utility and Public utility and drainage easements drainage easements outside the right-of-way of public streets and private roads. M. The name of each public street and private road, Street and road names. which names shall be reviewed and approved by the agent. N. If the subdivision will contain one or Statement pertaining to private roads. more private roads, the following statement: “The streets in this subdivision may not meet the standards for acceptance into the secondary system of state highways and will not be maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation or the County of Albemarle.” O. s. Signature panels for the owner and for the agent. The Signature panel signature panel for the owner shall be located immediately below the statement required by paragraph (A). P. . Notary panels for the notary to acknowledge the signature Notary panels of the owner. (9-5-96, 2-4-81, 8-28-74 (§ 8); 1988 Code, § 18-55; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 02-14(1), 2- 6-02) State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(1), 15.2-2262, 15.2-2264. Sec. 14-313 Instrument evidencing maintenance of certain improvements. If the subdivision will contain one (1) or more private roads, alleys, or any water system, sewerage system, stormwater management facility, open space, common area, street or road sign, or other improvement, individually and collectively referred to herein as the “improvement,” which are not to be maintained by the county or any authority or other public agency, the subdivider shall submit with the final plat an instrument evidencing the February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 38) continuing maintenance of the improvement, as provided herein: A. The instrument shall, at a minimum: (i) have a statement that the improvement shall be maintained in perpetuity to assure that it remains in substantially the condition it was in when approved by the county; (ii) identify the standard to which the improvement will be maintained; (iii) identify the timing or conditions warranting maintenance of the improvement; (iv) state a means to collect debt; (v) state a method for prorating expenses among the lot owners, including if and when there is further division of any lot or the number of units per lot increases; (vi) have a statement that no public agency, including the Virginia Department of Transportation and the county, will be responsible for maintaining the improvement; and (vii) identify the plat to which the instrument applies. B. If the instrument pertains to the maintenance of one or more private roads or alleys, it shall contain, in addition to the contents required by paragraph (A), a statement that for purposes of the instrument, maintenance shall include maintenance of the roads, alleys, curbs, gutters, drainage facilities, utilities or other road improvements, and the prompt removal of snow, water, debris, or any other obstruction so as to keep the road or alley reasonably open for usage by all vehicles, including emergency services vehicles. C. The instrument shall be subject to review and approval by the county attorney and shall be in a form and style so that it may be recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county. D. For purposes of this section, the term “to maintain,” or any derivation of that verb, shall include maintenance, replacement, reconstruction and the correction of defects or damage. E. Nothing in this section shall affect the rights of the county reserved under section 14-403. (§ 18-7, 9-5-96, 12-21-83; § 18-36 (part), 9-5-96, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, § 18-7, 18-36; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 02-14(1), 2-6-02) State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2242(3), 15.2-2262. Article V. Design Requirements Sec. 14-500 General. Each subdivision shall comply with the following general lot design requirements: A. The number of lots within a subdivision shall comply with the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. B. Each lot shall have at least one building site which complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance and applicable health regulations. C. Each lot shall have reasonable access to the building site from a public street or private road within the subdivision. The term “reasonable access” means a location for a driveway, alley, or, if a driveway location is not provided, a location for a suitable foot path from the off-street parking spaces required by the zoning ordinance to the building site. D. Double frontage lots shall not be permitted except where authorized by the agent or the commission, as the case may be, upon a determination that the lot arrangement is essential to provide separation of residential development from streets or to overcome topographical problems. E. The applicable setback line as provided in the zoning ordinance for a lot affected by a reservation for a proposed right-of-way as provided in section 14-407 shall be measured from the proposed right-of-way line. (§ 18-29 (part), 9-5-96, 8-28-74; § 18-34 (part), 9-5-96, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, §§ 18-29, 18-34; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 02-14(1), 2-6-02) State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(3). Sec. 14-512 Standards for public streets, private roads and alleys. All design standards for public streets and all design standards for private roads based upon public street standards shall comply with Virginia Department of Transportation standards and other design standards applicable to the particular classification of street or road. In addition, the following minimum requirements for public streets, private roads, and alleys shall apply: A. Public streets and private roads in predominantly residential Layout. February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 39) subdivisions shall be designed to discourage through-traffic. Offset or jog streets shall be avoided, whenever possible. B. An angle of intersection of not less than eighty (80) Angle of intersection. degrees is acceptable; however, a perpendicular intersection, where practical, is preferred. The county engineer may grant an exception to this requirement for a private road in accord with the Virginia Department of Transportation standards for public streets. C. The right-of-way width for major highways shall Right-of-way width. conform to the widths designated on the comprehensive plan. Except as otherwise provided, the width of all public street or private road right-of-ways or access easements shall conform to Virginia Department of Transportation standards. D. Cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets Cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets. shall provide a terminal turnaround having a right-of-way radius as prescribed by Virginia Department of Transportation standards. The permitted length of a cul-de-sac shall be determined by the agent or the commission, as the case may be, taking into consideration the terrain, density of development, and lot frontage. E. Public streets and private roads more than three Temporary cul-de-sacs. hundred (300) feet in length from an intersection, or proposed to serve more than four (4) dwelling units that terminate temporarily shall be provided with a temporary terminal cul- de-sac having a radius as prescribed by Virginia Department of Transportation standards. The temporary cul-de-sac shall exist until the street extensions are accepted into the secondary system of state highways. F. Alleys with a right-of-way or easement width of not less than Alleys. twenty (20) feet may be provided in the rear or side of all commercial, industrial, and residential lots. The design specifications shall be determined by the county engineer, subject to the following: (1) the alley design shall allow emergency services vehicles such as police cars and ambulances to use the alley; and (2) an alley need not be designed to accommodate the largest emergency services vehicles, except that if firetrucks do not have adequate access to one or more lots from a public street or private road, the county engineer shall require that the alley be designed to accommodate firetrucks. The director of planning and community development may authorize an alley to be established with a right-of-way or easement width of less than twenty (20) feet if the director determines that, based upon the recommendation of the county engineer, the proposed design incorporates features that assure public safety and welfare. The county engineer shall consider the provision of adequate access to required onsite parking and/or garages, unimpeded vehicular circulation along the alley, an adequate clear zone along the alley, and other safety issues deemed appropriate for the conditions. Alley rights of way may either be established as a privately held fee simple interest or as a privately held easement. G. Reserved or spite strips restricting access to a Reserved or spite strips. public street, alley, or private road shall not be permitted; provided that nothing herein shall prohibit areas for scenic planting and landscaping where adequate access is otherwise available. H. The principal means of access to a Principal means of access. subdivision shall conform, in the case of a public street, to Virginia Department of Transportation standards, or, in the case of a private road, to the standards of the county as set forth in section 14-514, throughout it length, including any distance between the boundary of the subdivision and any existing public street. If the subdivision will result in the potential development of fifty (50) or more dwelling units, the subdivision shall have more than one principal means of access from an existing public street. If discharge water of a one hundred year storm could reasonably be anticipated to inundate, block, destroy or otherwise obstruct a principal means of access to a residential subdivision, the following shall also apply: 1. The principal means of access shall be designed and constructed so as to provide unobstructed access at the time of flooding, subject to the requirements of section 30.3, flood hazard overlay district, of the zoning ordinance; and/or 2. An alternative means of access which is not subject to inundation, blockage, destruction or obstruction, and which is accessible from each lot within the subdivision shall be constructed. I. Each entrance onto any public Entrances to streets, roads and highways. street or private road for traffic to and from a subdivision shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation standards. If the entrance is onto a multi-laned divided highway, an entrance which is not directly opposite any crossover in the median of any that highway shall not be permitted within five hundred (500) feet of the crossover except upon findings by the agent that: (i) there is no other reasonably practicable access to the subdivision except within five hundred (500) feet of the crossover; (ii) no reasonable means of alternative access is available to the subdivision; and (iii) the provision of an entrance within five hundred (500) feet of the crossover will be consistent February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 40) with the public health, safety or welfare. J. Adequate drainage control shall be provided for public streets Drainage. or private roads by installing culverts under streets; side, lead, or outlet ditches; catch basins; curb inlets; or any other devices, including piping, as determined to be necessary by the county engineer. All of these improvements shall meet the standards of the county or, in the event no county standards exist, Virginia Department of Transportation standards. (§ 18-37, 9-5-96, 11-21-79, 3-29-78, 8-28-74; § 18-39 (part), 9-5-96, 10-19-77, 5-10-77, 8- 28-74; 1988 Code, §§ 18-37, 18-39; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 02-14(1), 2-6-02) State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(4), 15.2-2242(3). Sec. 14-514 Standards for private roads only. In addition to the minimum design requirements set forth in section 14-512, the following minimum design requirements shall apply to private roads authorized pursuant to section 14-232: A. Each private road shall be designed to be adequate to serve the General. subdivision of which it is a part. Except as otherwise expressly provided, the private road shall be designed and constructed to conform with Virginia Department of Transportation standards. B. . Each private road authorized by sections 14- Roads subject to Table A 232(A)(1), 14-232(A)(4), 14-232(B)(1) or 14-232(B)(2) shall conform to the requirements of Table A. C. A private road authorized by sections 14- Roads subject to Table B. 232(A)(2) or 14-232(A)(3) shall conform to the requirements of Table B, except that: (i) a pavement structure design that conforms to Virginia Department of Transportation standards shall be required for the most traffic-intensive uses to which the land may be lawfully devoted for a private road authorized by section 14-232(A)(2); and (ii) the commission may authorize the application of Virginia Department of Transportation mountainous terrain design standards to apply to a private road, as provided in section 14- 233(D). D. Except as otherwise expressly provided, a private Right-of-way width. road subject to Table A which serves fewer than six (6) lots shall have a minimum right-of- way width of thirty (30) feet. E. Notwithstanding any practice of the Clearing land for improvements. Virginia Department of Transportation, only those areas necessary to accommodate private road improvements and to achieve required sight distance shall be required to be cleared. F. Subsequent to Landscaping and other improvements permitted. construction of a private road, a subdivider may install ornamental plantings and any other improvements provided that they do not conflict with sight distance, drainage facilities or other required improvements. G. The radius for horizontal curvature shall be Minimum allowable radius. forty (40) feet or greater, unless otherwise authorized by Table A or Table B. Table A Single-Family Detached Residential (Also Agricultural) MINIMUM SIGHT DISTANCE NUMBER OF LOTS DEPTH OF BASE SURFACE TREATMENT (In accordance with SERVED BY ROAD WIDTH OF TRAVELWAY (VDOT Aggregate (Except as otherwise VDOT methodology for SEGMENT* Base) expressly provided) stopping sight distance) Family Division Only See note** See note** See note** See note** (Any number of lots) 2 Lots See note** See note** See note** See note** 14 Feet (In addition to 4 foot Not required (unless slope 3 – 5 Lots shoulders and ditch 6" - # or # 26 exceeds 7%)*** 100 Feet requirements) 6 Lots or More Shall be designed to VDOT MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN Standards. February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 41) *NUMBER OF LOTS SERVED shall mean the aggregate of all lots served by such road segment and all lots having access over such segment to a public road. ROAD SEGMENT shall mean each portion of a private road between its intersection with other private or public roads (See illustration below.) **The surveyor shall certify on the plat that the existing and/or proposed right-of-way is of adequate width and horizontal and vertical alignment to accommodate a travelway passable by ordinary passenger vehicles in all but temporary extreme weather conditions, together with area adequate for maintenance of such travelway. Such certification may be accomplished by the following wording on the plat: “This private road will provide reasonable access by motor vehicle as required by § 14-514 of the Albemarle County Code.” This provision includes family divisions. ***If slope exceeds seven percent, 6" of #21 or 21A and prime & double seal are required. For purposes of this chapter, shared driveways and alleys are not private roads. ILLUSTRATION TO ACCOMPANY NOTE ONE: NUMBER OF LOTS SERVED: Segment A = Lots on Segment A Segment C = Lots on Segments A, B and C Segment E = Lots on Segments A, B, C, D and E Note: Any lot with frontage on more than one road segment shall be counted on each road segment on which such lot fronts, unless access is specifically restricted by notation on the final plat. TABLE B Residential Uses Other Than Single-Family Detached Dwellings (Also Commercial/Industrial) 1. Shall be designed to VDOT ROLLING TERRAIN Standards. 2. The Planning Commission may require concrete curb and gutter and sidewalks or other pedestrian ways in accordance with Section 14-513. 3. The Planning Commission may require increased travelway to provide for on-street parking upon a determination that provisions for off-street parking may be inadequate to reasonably preclude unauthorized on-street parking. (§ 18-36, 9-5-96, 8-28-74; § 18-37, 9-5-96, 11-21-79, 3-29-78, 8-28-74(part); 1988 Code, §§ 18-36, 18-37; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 02-14(1), 2-6-02) State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2242(3). _______________ Agenda Item No. 16. ZTA-2001-10. Shopping center and commercial area parking (PD-SC and commercial areas in PD-MC zoning districts). Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend 4.12.6.6.2, ' Schedule of specific requirements for number of off-street parking spaces, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, to change the minimum number of parking spaces required per one thousand square feet of gross leaseable area from 5.5 to a minimum that varies depending on the gross leaseable area. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on January 21 and January 28, 2002.) Mr. Cilimberg said that on July 1, 2001, the Simon Property Group requested a Zoning Text amendment (ZTA) to change Section 4.12.6.6.2 to reduce parking for shopping centers zoned Planned Development- Shopping Center (PD-SC) from 5.5 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross leasable floor area (GLFA) to 4.5 spaces per 1000 square feet of GLFA. The Simon Property Group, which owns the Fashion Square Mall, wants to redevelop portions of the Mall's parking lot into additional retail space. A reduced parking requirement would enable them to remove portions of the parking lot and replace them with buildings. As part of their justification, the applicant supplied the staff with a series of research papers from the Urban Land Institute. These documents, as well as others discovered by staff, indicate that a standard of 5.5 spaces per 1000 square feet of GLFA is in excess of real use requirements. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission asked staff to draft an ordinance to modify and reduce the parking standard for shopping centers in planned districts. Staffs recommended changes to the = Ordinances shopping center requirements are based on planning literature which shows that the current = standard is too high and which suggests a graduated parking reduction. The logic for a graduated system is based on the following observation. In smaller centers, the percentage of shoppers visiting multiple stores is smaller because the number of stores to choose from is relatively small. The larger the shopping center, the more stores to choose from, thus, shoppers tend to combine a single visit to the shopping center into visitations to multiple stores. The effect is that the businesses share the parking spaces and thus reduce the number of parking spaces needed. The consensus in the literature is to reduce the required parking per 1000 square feet of GFLA as the shopping center gets larger. This rule breaks down when a shopping center becomes really large (600,000 square feet or more). These large shopping centers start to generate a regional market due to their size, thus drawing more customers. As a result, they need more parking. Mr. Cilimberg said staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of ZTA-2001-10 as February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 42) presented. At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. Mr. Dick Gibson was present to represent the applicant, Simon Property Group. He said they proposed the change in the ordinance in order to cause the parking requirements to reflect reality. In support of the application, they offered an Urban Land Institute Study. As far as the size of Charlottesville Fashion Square is concerned, the Institute Study indicates a need for 4.4 parking spaces per 1000 square feet GFLA. They request that the ordinance be amended to allow for 4.5 spaces. They also conducted a study based on actual usage at the mall. With the exception of obvious times during the year, there are 650 parking spaces which are not used. If those were deducted from the total number of parking spaces, that is a total of 4.21 spaces per 1000 GFLA, which is less than the 4.5 requested. If approved, Fashion Square would be able to expand its facility. At this time, that is not possible because of the parking space requirements. He said this was recommended by staff and the Commission, and they ask that the Board approve the amendment. Ms. Thomas asked if shopping centers provide off-site parking spaces for their staff during holiday parking crunches. Mr. Gibson said he did not know. He knows things are done to accommodate their customers. Mr. Paul Grady said he does not have anything against what is being proposed. What he would like to talk about is how the Fashion Square Mall property relates to DISC and the Countys desire to encourage = denser development in the growth areas. This property, as well as most commercial properties, has zero density because no one lives there. Therefore, as this property redevelops in the future, the Board and all County departments should encourage the landowner to introduce dense housing because it is one of the largest parcels in the growth area and one of the most strategically located. If there is ever to be any kind of efficient and effective mass transit in the community, it is extremely important that commercial property in the growth areas redevelop with mixed uses and at high density. To him that means multi-story buildings and parking garages. Surface parking is a very inefficient and environmentally unfriendly use of land. Some of the Board members know that he has been a strong advocate of light rail for a long time. His vision is that in 40 to 50 years there will be a light rail system, probably elevated, down the median of Route 29 North from University Hall to Ruckersville. For this to happen, parcels like the Fashion Square Mall property have to redevelop at a very high density. He described his vision of how the Fashion Square property should redevelop. The existing mall is covered by a dome and buried. The area above the mall becomes a park which is surrounded on the perimeter of the property by multi-story buildings with below grade parking. The park would become a very dense, mixed-use development with condos for the retiring, aging population. The residents have everything they need right on site, but if they want to go somewhere else they simply walk across the pedestrian bridge and get on the light rail system above the median of Route 29, and off they go. He knows this would be very expensive to do all at once, but you have to start somewhere. His experience in dealing with situations like this is that most people have a tendency to think small. He said his ideas may be too grandiose, but he would rather be accused of thinking too big, than too small, so this is just a little food for thought. Ms. Thomas said she recently attended a speech by the editor of . He thought Virginia Business everything along Route 29 North should be redeveloped. She thinks he would be delighted with Mr. Gradys suggestion. = With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Gradys idea is not a grandiose idea because DISC anticipates a dynamic = and increasing density as the community grows and as the land becomes more valuable. He thinks staff has done its homework by looking at parking requirements throughout the country to determine the number generally needed to serve a retail establishment. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman to approve ZTA-2001-10, Shopping center and commercial area parking (PD-SC and commercial areas in PD-MC zoning districts) by adopting An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 18, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 4.12.6.6.2, Schedule of specific requirements for number of off-street parking spaces, draft ordinance dated December 5, 2001. Mr. Martin said he would love to see Mr. Gradys idea take place, have the mall buried, but still = viable. This is in-fill at its best. He would like to think that light rail would be heading out of town and = people would be able to see the beautiful and fertile countryside because there has been this type of in-fill to keep people from the rural areas. Also, not just this item, but the other two ordinances as well, he hopes the Board will be seeing more and more of these kinds of amendments. He then seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. (Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.) ORDINANCE NO. 02-18(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 43) BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 4.12.6.6.2 Schedule of specific requirements for number of off-street parking spaces Chapter 18. Zoning Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.12.6.6.2 Schedule of specific requirements for number of off-street parking spaces Automobile Service Station: One (1) space per each employee plus two (2) spaces per each service stall. In addition, when accessory activities such as the rental of automobiles, trucks and trailers of all types are involved on site, there shall be provided suitable area to accommodate the highest number of rental units expected at any one time. Barber Shop, Beauty Shop: One (1) space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area plus one (1) space per employee. Boarding House: One (1) space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area plus one (1) space per employee. Building Material Sales: One (1) space per five hundred (500) square feet of retail sales area. (Amended 7-20-88) Campground: One (1) space per campsite; for group campsites, adequate parking space shall be provided for buses as determined by the zoning administrator. Church: One (1) space per four (4) fixed seats or per seventy-five (75) square feet of area of assembly, whichever shall be greater. Club, Lodge: One (1) space per four (4) fixed seats or per seventy-five (75) square feet, whichever shall be greater. Contractor's (Construction Office, Shop, Equipment Storage and Materials Yard): One (1) space per two (2) employees on the major shift. Dance Hall (including dance area in restaurant, hotel, etc.): One (1) space per one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area. Day Care Center, Nursery School: One (1) space per ten (10) children enrolled in major class or shift plus one (1) space per employee. Drive-in Restaurant: Eighteen (18) spaces per each one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area. Dwelling, Multi-family shall conform to the following: Number of Parking Bedrooms/Unit Spaces/Unit No separate bedroom or one (1) bedroom (total area of unit 500 sq ft or less) 1.25 One (1) bedroom 1.50 Two (2) bedrooms or more 2.00 Dwelling, Multi-family dwellings for the elderly: One and one-quarter (1 1/4) spaces per unit plus one (1) space per employee on the major shift. Dwelling, Single-Family Detached, Semi-Detached, Attached, Townhouse; Patio House; Duplex; Mobile Home: Two (2) spaces per dwelling unit. Eating Establishment: Thirteen (13) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area. Fast Food Restaurant: Thirteen (13) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area. Feed and Seed Store: One (1) space per five hundred (500) square feet of retail sales area. (Amended 7-20-88) Financial Institution: One (1) space per one hundred fifty (150) square feet of February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 44) gross floor area. This requirement may be reduced by twenty-five (25) square feet per drive-in aisle. Food Store: One (1) space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area. Funeral Home: One (1) space per four (4) fixed seats or per seventy-five (75) square feet area of assembly, whichever shall be greater. Furniture Store: One (1) space per four hundred (400) square feet of retail sales area. (Amended 7-20-88) Gift, Craft, Antique Shop: One (1) space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area; provided that for any area devoted to furniture, parking shall be one (1) space per four hundred (400) square feet of such area. Golf Course, Driving Range: One (1) space per two (2) tees. Greenhouse and Nursery: Enclosed Retail Area - One (1) space per each one hundred (100) square feet of retail sales for the first five thousand (5,000) square feet and one (1) space for each two hundred (200) square feet of retail sales area above five thousand (5,000) square feet. Greenhouse Sales Area - One (1) space per one hundred (100) square feet for the first one thousand (1,000) square feet and one (1) space for each five hundred (500) square feet of greenhouse sales area above one thousand (1,000) square feet. Exterior Nursery Sales Area - One (1) space per each five thousand (5,000) square feet of exterior nursery sales area. Hospital: One (1) space per two (2) beds. Hotel, Motel: One (1) space per unit. Additional spaces shall be required for restaurant, assembly room, etc., as provided for in this ordinance. Kennel, Commercial: One (1) space per four hundred (400) square feet of gross floor area including runs, plus one (1) space per employee. Laundromat: One (1) space per two (2) washing machines. Laundry, Dry Cleaning: One (1) space per fifty (50) square feet open to the public. Machinery, Equipment Sales and Service: One (1) space per five hundred (500) square feet of sales, display, repair area plus one (1) space per employee. Medical and Dental Clinic: One (1) space per two hundred (200) square feet of net floor area. Mobile Home, Modular Home, Travel Trailer Sales: One (1) space per three thousand (3,000) square feet of display area. Motor Vehicle Sales Including Automobiles, Farm Equipment, and Trucks: One (1) space per one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet of display area. Offices: Business, Administrative, Professional: One (1) space per two hundred (200) square feet of net office area. Over-the-Counter Sales: One (1) space per fifty (50) square feet open to the public or one (1) space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area, whichever shall be greater. Printing and Publishing Facilities, including Newspaper Publishing: One (1) space per two (2) employees plus one (1) space per each five hundred (500) feet of floor area open to the public for customer parking, but in all cases a minimum of two (2) customer parking spaces. Production or Processing of Materials, Goods or Products: One (1) space per two (2) employees on the main shift plus one (1) space per each five hundred (500) square feet of floor area open to the public for customer parking, but in all cases a minimum of two (2) customer parking spaces. Rest Home, Nursing Home, Convalescent Home: One (1) space per four (4) beds. February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 45) School: One (1) space per twelve (12) pupils for elementary schools (kindergarten through grade five), and one (1) space per eleven (11) pupils for middle schools (grades six through nine). For adult education or for schools in which pupils drive to school, one (1) space per three (3) pupils. Where possible, overflow parking shall be provided in a well-drained, suitably graded area adjacent to required parking area. (Amended 12-5-90) Shopping Center (Planned Development - Shopping Center District Only): The minimum number of required parking spaces shall be determined during the review of each site plan or site plan amendment and shall be based on the aggregate square footage of the gross leasable floor area of the structures within the district, according to the following schedule: Minimum number of parking spaces Gross leasable floor area required per one thousand square (in square feet) feet of gross leasable floor area 1 to 25,000 5.5 25,001 to 50,000 5.0 50,001 to 200,000 4.75 200,001 to 600,000 4.5 600,001 to 750,000 4.75 750,001 and larger 5.0 (Amended 7-20-88; Amended 2-06-02)) Skating Rink: One (1) space per two hundred (200) square feet of rink area. Stable, Commercial: One (1) space per three (3) animals. Testing, Repairing, Cleaning, Servicing of Material Goods or Products: One (1) space per two (2) employees on the main shift, plus one (1) space per each five hundred (500) square feet of floor area open to the public, for customer parking, but in all cases a minimum of two (2) customer parking spaces. (Amended 3-18-81) Theatre, Drive-in: To be determined by the staff after review of the site development plan. Theatre, Indoors or Outdoors: One (1) space per each four (4) seats. Tourist Lodging: One (1) space per unit. Veterinary Clinic: One (1) space per one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area exclusive of that area to house animals. Wayside Stand: One (1) space per one hundred (100) square feet of sales, display area. _______________ Agenda Item No. 17. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Chapter 15, Taxation, Article X, Real estate - In General, of the Code, to establish abatement of levies on buildings that have been razed, destroyed or damaged by fortuitous happenings. (Note: This item was not advertised correctly for public hearing; was readvertised and heard on May 15, 2002.) Mr. Tucker said the Code of Virginia 58.1-3222 enables a locality to provide, by ordinance, for the ' abatement of levies on buildings which are (i) razed, or (ii) destroyed or damaged by a fortuitous happening beyond the control of the owner. County Code 15-1001 provides for the assessment of all new buildings ' substantially completed or fit for use and occupancy prior to November 1 in the year of completion. The assessment is prorated based on the portion of the year the building is substantially completed or fit for occupancy. Currently, however, there is no County ordinance providing for the abatement of levies on buildings that have been razed or destroyed or damaged after January 1 of each year. To promote taxation equity, the ability to abate levies as provided in Code of Virginia 58.1-3222, should be enacted effective for ' the 2002 tax year. The financial impact to the County would be minimal. The County Attorney's office drafted the ordinance based on the enabling State legislation. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the ordinance after the public hearing is held. Mr. Dorrier asked if this is to make that when a building is destroyed, the owner received a tax credit. Mr. Tucker said the tax is prorated in terms of taxation. Mr. Dorrier asked if a person cannot come in now and say they dont have the building anymore and get the credit. Mr. Davis said no, the building is =A@ removed from the tax rolls during the next reassessment (January 1 of the odd numbered years), when it is determined that the building is no longer there. Mr. Martin asked if the owner could not go to the Equalization Board. Mr. Davis said the Equalization Board has no authority to change the assessment based on the fact that the building was razed. Mr. Dorrier asked if credit is given for buildings being destroyed when the property is assessed. Ms. Thomas said the question is whether or not the ordinance allows that. February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 46) Mr. Bruce Woodzell, County Assessor, said there have been circumstances where he has abated a tax that legally he should not have. If someones home burns down during the year, and they cannot = occupy their home, the statute says he cannot take that property off of the tax records. This ordinance, if adopted, would allow him to do that. Mr. Tucker said the State Code allows him to do it, but the County does not have the ordinance in place to allow him to do that. He said Mr. Perkins had just showed to him an E-mail which came in today from Ms. Sara Lee Barnes. Ms. Thomas said she had sent around a copy of Ms. Barnes E-mail. When she read the = ordinance, she thought the phrase beyond the control of the owner applied to both razed or destroyed A@ and damaged. She should have realized that the word razed meant you had done it yourself, or caused it A@ to be done, so she was not alarmed about the ordinance. But, when she pointed this out to the Chair of the Historic Preservation Committee, she sent the E-mail. The concern is that the County is rewarding people for razing their buildings. At the same time, the Board set up a large committee to see how it can protect its historic structures. To have an incentive for razing a building seems to be going in the wrong direction. For that reason, Ms. Barnes has asked that the Historic Preservation Committee be allowed to look at this question. If the Board only adopted the words destroyed or damaged by a fortuitous happening beyond A the control of the owner she does not think there would be a problem. Mr. Tucker asked if the Board could @ do that. Mr. Davis said he thinks the Board could adopt only that wording, then the Finance Department would have to abide by that whether or not it were an historic structure. Mr. Woodzell said as the County Assessor he is charged with valuing what is in place. Following reassessment, if the building is gone, it will come off of the tax rolls. He was under the impression that if a building/structure exists today to the extent that it is valuable property, it would require a permit in order to be razed. Mr. Davis said it is not a disincentive to tear down a building to avoid taxes. If someone were inclined to tear down a building to avoid taxes, he believes they would do so whether or not they got the tax break for the first year. Ms. Thomas said it is small, but it is going in the wrong direction. She hates to have the Historic Preservation Committee trying to figure out how to keep certain buildings from being razed while at the same time the Board gives an incentive to people to tear down their buildings. Mr. Bowerman suggested the Committee be given an opportunity to look at this question before the Board takes action. Mr. Martin said the Board could always take action, and if the Committee found something significant, a change could be made at that time. Mr. Dorrier said it is harder to change something once it is in place. The Historic Preservation Committee has a goal of preserving buildings that could be torn down. He agrees with Ms. Thomas that they be given an opportunity to look into the question. Mr. Woodzell said if it should come up today, he no longer feels comfortable abating tax without enabling legislation. He is probably stretching the limits of what he can do. Mr. Davis said the actions Mr. Woodzell previously took unwittingly would now be done knowingly and that makes a big difference. He could not advise him to act without this authority until the Board adopts the ordinance. Mr. Rooker suggested the Board adopt the ordinance with the change mentioned earlier taking out the word razed. Mr. Woodzell asked if the Board would be penalizing the person who has a building that A@ is not historic, by not allowing that person the abatement. Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Woodzell if many historic buildings are involved. Mr. Woodzell said no. He A@ sees more buildings destroyed or damaged by fires and lightning. Mr. Dorrier said there is the example of the Enniscorthy property which contained a barn which was razed, an historic structure, and there was a lot of reaction to that after it occurred. Mr. Davis said the difference under this ordinance is that instead of getting the tax break next year, they would get it this year. Mr. Melvin Breeden said if there is a building which someone is going to tear down, the value the County has on the building is minimal anyway. The person would not be doing it to save real estate tax. He hates to penalize people who have a legitimate reason for tearing down something to compensate for the few who would be doing that. Mr. Perkins said even though a building has historic value, it would still have a low monetary value. Mr. Breeden said the monetary value would be so low, that it would not be an issue with the owner of tearing down the structure/building for that reason. Ms. Thomas said she opposes the raze part because she thinks the Board should be consistent A@ in what it is saying to the community. Mr. Rooker suggested having the Committee make comments on the ordinance and then place it on a consent agenda in the future for action. Mr. Martin agreed. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the Committee should have an opportunity to look at the question as long as it is in a timely fashion. Mr. Martin asked if the Countys ordinance has to contain the same language as the enabling = February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 47) legislation. Mr. Davis said under the State Constitution there must be equal taxation, so if the ordinance stays within the categories authorized by the State Code, that is alright. But, the County cannot unilaterally change the categories allowed by the State. The Board could probably separate razed from destroyed A@A@ because those are two different categories. Ms. Thomas asked if the Board could take out razed and keep the remainder of the proposed A@ ordinance. Mr. Davis said the ordinance sets up two different categories on which taxes could be abated, so he believes that could be done. Mr. Martin said if the Board did that and someone torn down a structure, they would not receive a tax break until the next assessment. He thinks it is legitimate to not give the tax abatement to someone who torn down the structure versus giving the abatement to someone whose house is destroyed by fire. He suggested doing a combination and bringing the ordinance back on a consent agenda with the changed wording. Ms. Thomas said the Historic Preservation Committee could then look at the ordinance. Mr. Davis said if they object to the ordinance, then bring back the ordinance with only the second part. Mr. Rooker said he thought it would come back on the consent agenda with only the second category. Mr. Tucker said the Board can adopt that part of the ordinance right now. Mr. Rooker said he thought that is what Mr. Martin was suggesting. Mr. Martin said he was saying to let the Committee look at the ordinance, and if it is a problem bring the ordinance back on the consent agenda with the modification, and if it is not a problem, then bring the whole thing back. Mr. Davis said he did not know when that Committee will meet again. Mr. Dorrier said they have a meeting scheduled for February 11. Mr. Tucker suggested that either Mr. Breeden or Mr. Woodzell attend that meeting to explain the ordinance. _______________ Not Docketed: Mr. Martin asked that he be sent a copy of the work sessions on the budget. It was discovered that no Board member had received that schedule yet. Ms. Thomas said the last week in March there are two work sessions planned (Tuesday and Thursday). She said that whole week the Italians will be in Charlottesville, and that Wednesday may be a pot luck dinner at Monticello High School. There may be other events scheduled that week also. Mr. Martin said he hopes the budget work sessions are still scheduled for Monday and Wednesday. Mr. Tucker said he will have the schedule sent to the Board members. _______________ Agenda Item No. 18. Appointments. Mr. Bowerman offered motion to appoint/reappoint the following persons: Mr. Perkins nominated Mr. Dabney B. Sandridge to replace Mr. Albert O. Humbertson as the White Hall District representative on the Equalization Board; term to expire December 31, 2002. Mr. Bowerman nominated Ms. Diane LaSauce to complete the term of Mr. Jeff Bialy as the Joint City/County appointee on the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee; term to expire December 31, 2003. Ms. Tracy C. Hopper was appointed to complete the term of Mr. Dennis Rooker as the Planning Commission representative on the Fiscal Impact Committee; term to expire July 8, 2002. Ms. Janet I. Warren was appointed to serve on the Public Defenders Office Citizens Advisory Committee, replacing Kathleen T. Cornett who had resigned; term to expire on November 3, 2003. Mr. David T. Paulson was appointed to complete the term of Ms. Lorraine Whitley as the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) appointee to the Countys Housing Committee; term to expire = December 31, 2003. Mr. Robert R. Humphris was reappointed to serve as the Jack Jouett District representative on the Albemarle County Service Authority, new term to run from April 17, 2002, to April 16, 2006. Mr. J. Randolph Parker was reappointed to serve as the Samuel Miller District representative on the Albemarle County Service Authority, new term to run from April 17, 2002, to April 16, 2006. Mr. Donald J. Wagner was reappointed to serve as the Rio District representative on the Albemarle County Service Authority with the new term to run from April 17, 2002, to April 16, 2006. Mr. Rodney S. Thomas was appointed to serve as the Planning Commission representative on the Metropolitan Planning Organizations Technical Committee (Mr. Thomas takes the place of Mr. Rooker.) = Mr. C. Jared Loewenstein was reappointed to serve on the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transportation Advisory Committee (CHART), with the new term to expire April 3, 2003. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 48) AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 19. Approval of Minutes: August 8, September 27(A), October 3, November 7, November 14(A) and December 10(A), 2001. Mr. Dorrier said he had read the minutes of August 8, November 14(A), and December 10(A), 2001, and found them to be in order. Mr. Bowerman said he had read the minutes of October 3, 2001 (Pages 1-33, ending at Item #11), and had no corrections to report. Mr. Perkins said he had read the minutes of November 7, 2001, and had no corrections to report. Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the minutes which had been read. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 20. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on The Agenda. Ms. Thomas said Mr. David Blount has been reporting what is going on in the General Assembly to the Board by E-mail . Some members of County staff went this morning on three particularly troublesome proposals which were being heard at 7:30 a.m. She said staff has been working very hard to get responses back on various proposals. It has become almost a full time job for Ms. Lori Spencer. Mr. Tucker said there is an update on legislative items scheduled for next weeks Board meeting. = Ms. Thomas said if people just read the newspaper, they are not getting a true picture of what is happening to local government. It is being shafted royally. A@ __________ Mr. Martin said he saw a memo recently in which it was said that the Culpeper Detention facility is being closed. He knows the people in Culpeper are working hard to get that decision turned around. In that same memo it stated that there would be no more construction of detention homes. He asked if that would affect Albemarle Countys project. Mr. Tucker said Albemarle is okay, staff has been following this = change. __________ Mr. Perkins said he has a copy of a letter addressed to Mr. Bill Brent from Ms. Marlene Condon in which she talks about the water (drought) situation. He said more and more people have talked to him about this situation and he wonders if it is time for the Board to change its policy regulating water. He said Beaver Creek is down ten to 12 feet and yet water is still being discharged. He does not know the situation at Sugar Hollow, but he understands the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir is full. Ms. Condon also mentioned groundwater and the situation faced by people who have their own wells. Mr. Dorrier asked if there is to be a meeting soon to talk about water. Mr. Tucker said the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority is going to discuss the alternatives and make a recommendation to the Board and City Council. He thinks the overflow at Beaver Creek has been stopped. He said the County is going to get out information to the public about groundwater supplies, and the RWSA will get out information about conservation measures. Mr. Rooker asked about the groundwater study that is taking place at this time. Mr. Tucker said he does not know the status of that study. It is all tied in with the integrated resource planning effort in which the RWSA, the County and the City will be involved. Mr. Cilimberg said there have been two work sessions concerning groundwater. They are looking at groundwater as it relates to uses and density in the rural area, and how to deal with future development potential. Mr. Rooker said in December the Planning Commission had a work session, and was shown about seven different parts of a groundwater policy. At some point, they need to come before the Board to get funding so a decision can be made as to which components would be funded. He thinks it might be helpful for this Board to see that slide show so everybody can think about which parts should be funded. Ms. Thomas said she went to the Planning Commission work session for that very purpose. She was not sure about the funding, and the program, and its value. She still is not, but she is going to meet with someone to discuss it. She said that at the RWSA meeting, it was pointed out that the Observatory Mountain water treatment plant is only being used 12 hours a day because Sugar Hollow and Ragged Mountain are essentially as close to empty as they can get and still be used. Mr. Tucker said this problem is not unique to this community. The lack of rain has affected areas all up and down the eastern seaboard. February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 49) Ms. Thomas said from Georgia to New York City there are water shortages. Mr. Tucker said that in upper New York state their reservoirs are in worse shape because they are serving larger populations than their reservoir resources provide. There are now mandatory restrictions in Pennsylvania and New York. Ms. Thomas said the Board will hear about surface water in February, and there might also be a presentation on groundwater, and the funding questions will be dealt with by Mr. Tucker as he prepares the budget for next year in terms of doing the hydrogeologic study. Mr. Rooker said the Board might want to see the information on groundwater before dealing with budget issues. A judgment needs to be made as to what is worth putting money into, and what is not worth the expense. Mr. Hirschmann is going to prioritize the six component parts and make a recommendation as to how to get the most return for the investment. Mr. Tucker said the timing of when the Board sees that with the budget is probably not as critical because these types of studies will be funded from one-time money. It will not be part of the ongoing budget. At the end of this fiscal year, it is expected that the Board will have $2.1 million. __________ Mr. Martin said he would like to mention parking at the Juvenile Court. Basically, the City is willing to do what has been done in the past when funding capital items and that is a 50/50 split. But, to some extent, they are mentioning usage, and if they pay 50/50 that would put public parking there. He needs to know the possibility of this Board funding its share where parking would be provided for employees of the Juvenile Court. Mr. Tucker said he had showed to Mr. Martin a plan, and parking for the Juvenile Court may not be on the deck, but it may be surface parking. That will have to be negotiated with the City. The City would want to give the deck parking to the County, because that is where the costs are that will be split 50/50. He said that he and Mr. Martin might be able to work out with the City which parking is employee parking. Mr. Martin said in talking about 180 parking spaces, a lot of those will be taken up by sheriffs = vehicles and the commonwealths attorneys, and the judges. He assumes that would be 50/50. For = employees, it is probably between 20 and 40. Ms. Thomas asked if those spaces are calculated to cost $11,000 each. Mr. Tucker said only if they are on the parking deck. He said if Mr. Martin has the ability to negotiate, that will be brought back to the Board when the costs are known. Mr. Martin said he will discuss it as long as the Board does not say he should not do so. Ms. Thomas said she thinks there is a need to look at alternatives also. Whether to use parking elsewhere, and have a shuttle which is on call all the time, and whether that is more expensive. Mr. Martin said that would work for some people, but then there is a group of people who must be in and out of the building during the day, and that would not work for them. Mr. Perkins asked about the monthly fee for parking. Mr. Tucker said that will be looked at, but he thinks it is $5.00 a day. Ms. Thomas said the Board has not said it is totally out of the question, but she would like for the County to look at whatever alternative might be available. __________ Ms. Thomas said Mr. Samuel Fields spoke to the Board early this morning about dog kennel permits. He had called her when she was on a radio talk show, and she did not give him any encouragement at all, but said that when you live in the Rural Areas that is what happens. She asked if any Board member wanted to do anything with the request. Mr. Tucker said there is a difference between the kennel permit people get at the County and a commercial kennel. A special use permit is needed for a commercial kennel. Mr. Davis said he was talking about the kennel license which a person can obtain and it gives them a break on the cost of the dog license if one has more than five dogs. Generally, people with hunting dogs take advantage of that license provision. There is no regulation other than from the standpoint of a dog license. This is not a commercial operation. It was the consensus to take no action on this request. _______________ Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. ________________________________________ Chairman February 6, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 50) Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 09/11/2002 Initials: LAB