2004-09-01
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September 1, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building on McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis, Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and County Attorney, Larry W. Davis.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. John Martin said before the Board makes a decision on the future of the Lane Auditorium it
should consider restoring the facility as a theater for drama and musical productions.
__________
Mr. David Blount, TJPDC Legislative Liaison, said he will soon start identifying issues for the next
session of the General Assembly. He said the legislative program is composed of action items and items
of most concern to localities, i.e., education, transportation, public safety and land use. The continuing
concerns section will look a lot like it has in previous years containing locally requested items. He asked
that the Board’s list of priorities be sent to him in the next couple of weeks. He then invited Board
members to a legislative seminar scheduled for September 15th.
_______________
Motionseconded
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. was offered by Mr. Bowerman, by Mr.
Boyd, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.6 and 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. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 5.1. Public hearing to include W A Wells property (Loc on Polo Grounds Road) in the
Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional areas to provide water service to existing structures
located on TM 46, Ps 23D & 23D1 on south side of Rt 643. (Public hearing was advertised in the Daily
Progress on August 16 and August 23, 2004.) (Defer public hearing until October 13, 2004).
By the recorded vote set out above, this petition was deferred until the Board’s meeting on
October 13, 2004.
__________
Item 5.2. Sheriff’s Compensation, request for increase.
It was noted in the staff’s report that during this year’s budget review, the Commonwealth’s
Attorney requested that the Board consider a supplement to the State-established salary for the position.
In addition, the Sheriff submitted a request for the same consideration in his budget submittal. After
discussion, the Board directed staff to review compensation in other localities for the Commonwealth’s
Attorney, Sheriff and Clerk of the Circuit Court and report back with the findings.
Each Constitutional officer agreed to conduct the research of other localities and provide that
information to the County Executive’s Office for review. The information includes data regarding the
compensation provided by other localities to their Sheriff. Unfortunately, no other counties in Virginia in
the population range from 70,000 to 99,999 (Albemarle’s population is 88,400) have a Sheriff’s Office
without primary law enforcement duties and jail responsibilities. In addition to Albemarle, the following
counties have no primary law enforcement and jail, but do Civil Process and Court Security:
?
James City County - population 52,000, does prisoner and mental transports, does not
supplement the Sheriff’s salary of $69,150. They are not an accredited office.
?
Prince George County - population 30,000, does not do prisoner or mental transports, does
supplement the Sheriff’s salary of $62,234 by $12,000 to $74,234. They are not an accredited
office.
?
Prince William County - population 332,000, does prisoner and mental transports, does
supplement the Sheriff’s salary of $100,933 by $19,000 to $119,933. They are an accredited
office.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Virginia City Sheriffs without primary law enforcement and jails in a comparable population range
of Albemarle with Court Security and Civil Processing are:
?
Charlottesville - population 40,000, does prisoner and mental transports, has no juvenile and
domestic relations court security, does supplement the sheriff’s salary of $69,150 by $7,593 to
$76,743. They are not an accredited office.
?
Colonial Heights - population 30,000, does prisoner and mental transports, does supplement the
sheriff’s salary of $62,234 by $1,500 to $63,734. They are not an accredited office.
?
Suffolk - population 72,700, does not transport prisoners, does transport mental patients, but
does supplement the sheriff’s salary of $76,834 by $7,655 to $84,489. They are not an
accredited office.
In addition to the information above the Sheriff felt it was important to share the following
information about the Albemarle County Sheriff’s Office:
1. One of only 50 state-accredited law enforcement agencies in Virginia.
2. Responsible for the transportation of all juveniles and adults for two jurisdictions related to
Juvenile and Domestic Relations courts, both Charlottesville and Albemarle, with a combined
population of over 128,400 people. Also, the office provides for the safety and security of two
J&D courts, three judges and a makeshift courthouse.
3. Operated by certified law enforcement deputies with advanced certification in civil process and
courtroom security. No other law enforcement agency in the region has that amount of
certification.
4. Sponsoring a 50 member, all volunteer reserve deputy program to complement other local, state
and federal agencies.
5. Sponsoring a 70 member state-certified all volunteer Search and Rescue team.
6. The authorized agency for “Project Lifesaver” to locate by electronic means lost persons suffering
from Alzheimer’s, dementia, Downs Syndrome, Autism.
7. Provides lifesaving use and training for defibrillators in the courtrooms and in the community.
8. Doing “Crime Prevention through Education” in the Charlottesville-Albemarle community.
9. Many other community-oriented programs and complementing the law enforcement efforts of the
Albemarle, Charlottesville and University of Virginia police as well as state and federal agencies.
Based on staff’s understanding of the Board’s intent to supplement the salary of Constitutional
officers and the data provided by the Sheriff, the Board may wish to consider a supplement to the Sheriff
of $5,748 retroactive to July 1, 2004 (to be consistent with the supplement provided to the
Commonwealth’s Attorney). As the information indicates, the State is due to provide an additional $4,320
increase to the Sheriff effective December 1, 2004.
(Ms. Thomas asked if all of the Board members are comfortable with giving the Sheriff a 14
percent increase in his annual compensation. She thinks everybody must feel a grave injustice has been
done in the past to give that kind of an increase to his salary. It seems like a lot to her.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the Board followed the procedure which had been laid out by comparing
it to other counties.
Ms. Thomas said that was rather ambiguous. She said Albemarle is the only county of a similar
size which has a sheriff’s department that went through the accreditation process, but it is still a big jump.
Mr. Dorrier said the Sheriff has a lot of volunteers working with his department.
Ms. Thomas said she did not want it to lead to poor morale. The Police Department had asked
the Board to check and compare the compensation in that department, and they were not happy with the
results.
Mr. Rooker said he understands the Board is providing a $4,000 supplement to the Sheriff’s
salary which was less of a supplement than that given by most of the other counties providing
supplements. The 14 percent raise is not being provided with all County money. The State has raised
the salaries of all sheriffs, so a large part of that increase is coming from State money. The Board
decided to do a study of the offices of the constitutional officers to determine if their salaries were in line
with like officers around the state. When the study was done, the Board determined that a $4,000
supplement to the local sheriff was appropriate. He supports the supplement.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized a supplement of $5,748 for the
Sheriff’s salary, retroactive to July 1, 2004, to be taken from the Board’s Reserve.
__________
Item 5.3. Adopt resolution designating segment of Allen Road (Route 666) from Route 664 to
end of state maintenance as Rural Rustic Road.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Board, at its March 17, 2004, meeting,
recommended both Gilbert Station Road and Allen Road (the portion of Allen Road [Route 666] from
Route 664 to the end of state maintenance) as pilot projects for the Rural Rustic Road Program. Rural
rustic roads are paved at a width based on reduced and flexible standards that leave trees, vegetation,
side slopes and open drainage abutting the roadway undisturbed to the maximum extent possible without
compromising public safety. Roads paved using rural rustic road standards are considerably less
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
expensive than traditional paving. The Board, staff and the public will be able to determine the full
implications of paving a road with rural rustic road standards when the two pilot projects are completed.
VDOT requires a resolution from the Board endorsing paving Allen Road using rural rustic roads
standards. Staff mailed a letter to every property owner along Allen Road between Route 664 and the
end of state maintenance to inform them of the project. The purpose of the letter was to inform residents
that VDOT would pave Allen Road using rural rustic road standards instead of traditional paving
standards. They were given until August 9, 2004, to contact the County if they objected to rural rustic
paving. Staff did not receive any opposition. If approved by the Board, VDOT will finalize a contract in
the fall that will allow both Gilbert Station Road and Allen Road to be completed in Spring, 2005. Staff
recommends that the Board adopt the required resolution designating the segment of Allen Road from
Route 664 to the end of state maintenance as a rural rustic road.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS
, during the 2002 session of the General Assembly, legislation was passed to
revise section 33.1-70.1 of the Code of Virginia, to allow for the improvement and hard-surfacing
of certain unpaved roads deemed to qualify for and be designated a Rural Rustic Road; and
WHEREAS
, such roads must be located in low-density development areas and have a
minimum of 50 vehicles per day (vpd) but no more than 500 vpd; and
WHEREAS
, this Board is unaware of pending development that will significantly affect
the existing traffic on the road; and
WHEREAS
, the citizens using this road have been informed that this road may be paved
under rural rustic road standards with minimal improvements; and
WHEREAS
, this Board believes that the segment of Route 666 (Allen Road) between
Route 664 and the end of state maintenance should be designated a Rural Rustic Road because
of its qualifying characteristics; and
WHEREAS
, the road segment aforesaid is in the Board’s six year plan for improvements
to its secondary system of state highways:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
, this Board hereby designates and requests
VDOT’s Resident Engineer to concur in the aforesaid road segment as a Rural Rustic Road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
, this Board requests that this road segment be hard
surfaced and, to the fullest extent prudent, be improved within the existing rights-of-ways and
ditch lines to preserve as much as possible the adjacent trees, vegetation, side slopes, and rural
rustic character along the road in its current state.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
_________
Item 5.4. Set public hearing on Routes 22/231 Through Truck Restriction.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that in 1995, the Board endorsed a resolution that would
restrict through tractor trailer traffic on Routes 22/231. This same resolution with some additional
emphasis on safety was endorsed by the Board of Supervisors on December 10, 2003. The Board
reaffirmed this same resolution at its meeting on June 2, 2004. The mixture of residential and commercial
truck traffic on these routes has long been a concern to the County and the residents that live along this
road. There have been numerous requests of VDOT and to the local state legislative representatives to
deal with this issue.
VDOT has informed the County that the original resolution and public hearing did not meet
VDOT’s Guidelines for restricting through trucks on primary highways. The public hearing notice for the
1995 public hearing did not include a description of the proposed through truck restriction and the
alternate route with the same termini. The resolution did designate U.S. Route 15 between Gordonsville
and I-64 as the alternate route, but this was not included in the public hearing notice. This issue was
brought to light by an existing through truck restriction in Frederick County that was successfully
challenged by the trucking industry. The public notice by Frederick County did not include the proposed
alternate route with the same termini as required by the Commonwealth’s policy. As a result of this
decision, VDOT is confirming that all outstanding through truck restriction requests have this information.
Staff recommends that the Board hold another public hearing on October 13, 2004, pursuant to
County public hearing guidelines and with a description of the proposed through truck restriction and the
alternate route with the same termini. Staff still intends to propose Route 15 as the alternate route.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board directed staff to advertise for a public
hearing on October 13, 2004.
__________
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Item 5.5. Authorize County Executive to sign agreement with the Thomas Jefferson Soil and
Water Conservation District (TJSWCD) for County stormwater permit compliance.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the County is permitted by the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) for operation of its storm sewer system (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System permit or MS4 permit). The County is mandated to have this permit under the Federal Clean
Water Act and is currently in Year 2 of a five-year permit cycle. This five-year permit has six elements
which must be addressed to assure the County’s storm sewer system is being operated in compliance
with the law. The six program elements for which the County must develop and maintain a program are:
(1) public education and outreach, (2) public involvement and participation, (3) illicit discharge control, (4)
construction site stormwater management, (5) post-construction stormwater management, and (6)
pollution prevention and good housekeeping at municipal operations. The Year 1 commitments were
satisfactorily completed and County staff is now working to assure compliance with the Year 2
requirements.
According to the stormwater master plan consultant’s report, annual costs to administer this
program are anticipated to range from $234,000 in Year 1 to $108,000 in Year 5 (costs drop through time
because higher costs are incurred to get programs up and running). The total expected costs over the
five-year permit cycle are $831,000 (after which point, the permit needs to be renewed). Staff was able to
administer the Year 1 program with existing resources through creative partnering and leveraging
elements from existing programs, which reduced anticipated costs. However, the requirements increase
in Year 2 and the need for additional resources, while anticipated, needs to be addressed to satisfy permit
requirements. As shown in the Stormwater Master Plan reviewed by the Board in July, funding the base
program (existing efforts plus newly mandated programs) would require between $100,000 and $240,000
above existing funding levels. These funds are needed for some combination of staffing, consultant
services and interagency agreements to satisfy permit requirements. Beyond this initial permit cycle, it is
anticipated that maintenance of these program elements will be required under the next MS4 permit. At
this time, it is not known if DEQ will add additional requirements to that future permit.
County staff has investigated alternatives for the County to meet its permit obligations in the most
cost-effective manner. Those included: additional staff, consultant services, expanded use of volunteers,
and interagency agreements that would allow other local or regional agencies to manage some of the
required programs for the County. After careful consideration, staff believes that using an interagency
agreement with the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District (TJSWCD) provides the most
cost-effective solution. Staff determined additional staff or consultant services would have significantly
higher costs. Staff was not confident that a program relying on volunteers would guarantee regulatory
compliance and, given the potential fines (up to $25,000 per day of violation), staff recommends a
solution that better assures compliance. For this reason, staff has been working with the Thomas
Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District (TJSWCD) to develop a plan where that agency supports
three of the six elements in the permit:
1. Public education and outreach on stormwater impacts
2. Public involvement and participation
3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination.
TJSWCD prepared a proposal to perform these duties. The following was recognized by staff in
recommending that TJSWCD perform these duties on behalf of the County:
?
TJSWCD already has an educational program that can be expanded to dovetail quite well with
the County’s permit commitments.
?
The district is familiar with Albemarle County government operations, staff and citizens, and has a
solid reputation in the community.
?
The district already receives general program support from the County (and surrounding
jurisdictions), and can leverage some of these funds toward helping with the new commitments in
their proposal. Approximately $10,000 from TJSWCD’s current County allocation of $73,000 can
be leveraged for the County agreement in the form of office space, utilities, clerical support,
supervision and training. TJSWCD’s total operating budget for fiscal year 2004-05 is
approximately $300,000, not counting grants and state cost-share funds.
Under the proposed agreement, TJSWCD would perform most of the essential functions and
labor-intensive tasks, while County staff verifies consistency with permit requirements. TJSWCD’s
proposal is for two years: $47,900 for the first year, and $48,000 for the second year, for a total of
$95,900. These funds are currently available in the Stormwater Control Fund and were anticipated to be
expended on permit compliance. Once an agreement is in place, staff anticipates the County should be
able to complete this five-year permit cycle without the need to hire additional staff for administration of
the permit, though it is anticipated that other consultant services will likely be required in Years 3 through
5 for assistance with program needs.
The County would administer the remaining three program elements. Two of those remaining
elements are existing programs (construction site stormwater management and post-construction
stormwater management). The last element -- pollution prevention and good housekeeping at municipal
operations -- is being addressed by General Services under a Strategic Plan objective (Goal 2.3: Provide
for environmentally-sensitive government operations at the local and regional level).
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Staff recommends that the Board approve the expenditure of $95,900 for the County’s agreement
with TJSWCD and authorize the County Executive to sign an agreement with TJSWCD in the amount and
for the services described herein, after it is approved by the County Attorney.
Discussion
(: Mr. Boyd asked about the recommendation section in Item 5.5. He questions the
amounts shown for the program. Mr. Tucker said the $95,900 is for two years. Staff is asking for
approval of that amount, but only one-half of it will be appropriated in this fiscal year.
Mr. Boyd said there is a five-year cost of $831,000 shown. He was trying to compare the cost of
the two alternatives. Mr. Tucker said they are completely different programs. The $95,900 is for the
County’s agreement with TJSWCD. The $831,000 is the estimate for the program over a longer period of
time for stormwater needs.
Mr. Rooker said it is not clear what the savings will be by using a Soil Conservation District
contract as opposed to doing the work in-house with County staff or a consultant. Mr. Tucker said it is a
matter of workload: can the work be done by the TJSWCD or should the additional workload be added to
the workload of existing staff. It just depends on what the Board would like to do.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the proposal is reasonable.
Mr. David Hirschman, Watershed Manager, said the $831,000 was the consultant’s estimate
based on the assumption that the County would hire staff to fulfill this require. Staff thinks that amount
can be lowered through a contract with the TJSWCD.
Mr. Boyd said he actually read the staff report to indicate the cost would be that high. There was
no dollar comparison. Mr. Tucker said because it is a five-year cost, staff does not have that comparison
yet.
Mr. Wyant said the TJSWCD is already set up for the education part, so the County would not
have to set up the program. Mr. Hirschman said that is right.
Mr. Boyd asked if this is a closed-end contract; is this contract for a specific dollar amount or is it
cost-plus. Mr. Hirschman said it is a specific dollar amount for two years. The County is already one year
into its MS4 permit so the contract could be renewed for an additional year or two.
Mr. Boyd asked if the $95,900 is an exact number for the two years. Mr. Hirschman said it is.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the expenditure of $95,900 for the
County’s agreement with TJSWCD, and authorized the County executive to sign an agreement
with TJSWCD after the agreement has been approved by the County Attorney.
__________
Item 5.6. Adopt Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the
Stormwater Master Plan.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Board has considered the Stormwater
Management Program in three work sessions this year:
?
On April 7, the Board learned about existing, mandated and expected stormwater programs, and
discussed level of service issues. The chief mandated program is a storm sewer permit
administered by the Department of Environmental Quality that requires the County to implement
six stormwater program elements.
?
On May 5, the Board heard a presentation on various funding options for the stormwater
program.
?
On July 14, the Board held a work session to discuss the funding options based on the level of
service desired for the program and instructed staff to return with a Comprehensive Plan
amendment to incorporate the stormwater master plan.
The Board can consider a Resolution of Intent in anticipation of acting on a stormwater financing
strategy as part of a more comprehensive discussion of urban infrastructure funding. In the meantime,
amending the Comprehensive Plan will allow an integrated approach to stormwater management, allow
the policies of the plan to be considered in conjunction with rezonings and special use permits in the
Development Areas, and facilitate implementation of the Plan’s strategies.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive
Plan to incorporate the Stormwater Master Plan for the Development Areas.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Intent:
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS
, Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, Natural Resources and Cultural
Assets, has a section on stormwater management;
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
WHEREAS
, stormwater management is a critical quality of life, public health and safety,
and environmental issue in the Development Areas of Albemarle County due to existing and
expected levels of development;
WHEREAS
, the Board of Supervisors has a strategic goal to “develop and implement
policies that address the County’s growth and urbanization while continuing to enhance the
factors that contribute to the quality of life in the County”;
WHEREAS
, a Stormwater Master Plan for the Development Areas has been completed
with County and State funding to assess and prioritize streams, identify watershed projects, and
identify funding options, and reports have been completed entitled “Stormwater Action Lists
Report for Stormwater Management Master Plan” (January 2004) and “Stormwater Master Plan
Funding Analysis” (April 2004);
WHEREAS
, the Board of Supervisors held work sessions on the Stormwater Master Plan
on April 7, May 5, and July 14, 2004;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT
for the purposes of further implementing
the Stormwater Master Plan, the Board of Supervisors hereby directs the Planning Commission
to prepare an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan by amending Chapter 2, Natural
Resources and Cultural Assets, that incorporates the Stormwater Master Plan into Chapter 2; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT
the Planning Commission shall hold a public
hearing on this proposed amendment, and make its recommendations to the Board of
Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
__________
Item 5.7. County of Albemarle 2003 Development Activity Report as prepared by the Department
received for information.
of Community Development,
__________
Item 5.8. Draft copy of Planning Commission minutes for June 8, June 15, June 29, July 13, July
received as information.
27 and August 10, 2004,
__________
received for information.
Item 5.9. VDOT Monthly Report for September 2004,
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Board-to-Board Presentation, School Board Chairman.
Ms. Diantha McKeel, Chairman of the Albemarle County School Board, was present to give the
presentation.
Ms. McKeel said the School Division is in the beginning stages of the Strategic Planning Process.
The school division’s strategic plan is about eight years old so it is being updated. Throughout this school
year, Ms. Lori Strumpf of Strumpf and Associates will engage the School Board and Division staff, along
with steering groups which are representative stakeholders from the community, in reviewing and
studying educational trend data in order to update the division’s strategic plan. The focus groups have
representation from a multitude of community organizations, including parent, religious organizations and
civic groups. Through this process, a new strategic plan will evolve reflecting the future direction of public
education for Albemarle County students. They hope to have this planning cycle completed by April,
2005.
Ms. McKeel said the School Division had a successful opening day of school. With nearly 12,300
students returning, the division is within 99.6 percent of its projected enrollment for the school year.
Enrollment will be finalized on September 30. Building Services worked hard to have the buildings and
grounds ready for the first day of school. The Transportation Department has 163 buses traveling nearly
11,220 miles daily.
Ms. McKeel said the preliminary SOL results have been received. Dr. Kevin Hughes has
reported that 25 out of the 25 Albemarle County Schools are now fully accredited. This is based on staff’s
analysis of preliminary SOL data.
Ms. McKeel said the School Division recently received information about the schools making
adequate yearly progress (AYP) under the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Yancey Elementary
School met Adequate Yearly Progress based on the guidelines set forth by the Department of Education
for small “n” schools. Three schools did not meet adequate yearly progress for this past year. Those
were, Albemarle High School, Monticello High School and Walton Middle School. The school division
had a press release which went into detail as to how much the sub-groups at those schools had
improved, but listed the reasons why those schools did not meet the AYP.
Mr. Boyd asked what that means to Albemarle schools. Ms. McKeel said there is no impact. The
School Division does want to obtain the requirements and improve sub-populations, but the division is not
at risk for having to transfer students to other schools, as has happened in the City.
Dr. Kevin Castner said it does put those schools on notice that the constant pattern could cause
consequences in the next two or three years. In each case, they are only one percentage point off.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Ms. McKeel said that several new administrators have been hired for the 2004-05 school year:
Dr. Matt Haas as Principal of Albemarle High School; Mr. Joseph Chris Dyer as Associate Principal at
Albemarle High School; Ms. Kim Cousins as Principal of Greer Elementary School; Ms. Jeanette Avery as
Principal of Yancey Elementary School; and Ms. Clare Keiser as Assistant Principal of Henley Middle
School. In addition, approximately 130 new teachers were hired for the school year, with about one-half
of these new hires being new to the profession.
Ms. McKeel said at its meeting on August 26, 2004, the School Board approved its biennial
School Board/Superintendent Priorities for 2004-2006.
Ms. McKeel said a new deputy clerk for the School Board has been hired. She is Ms. Christy
Sinatra.
Ms. McKeel said the School Division has established a new E-mail distribution system which is
similar to the County’s A-mail. All Board of Supervisor members have been signed up for the service.
Materials to be distributed through this system are the School Board meeting agendas and meeting
briefs, and special announcements/media releases. There is also a contest going on now for a name for
the service.
Ms. McKeel said for summer school this year, the division had 17 schools running
intervention/prevention programs as well as transition programs for 660 elementary students and 175
middle school students. Also, over 600 high school students attended summer school programs.
Ms. Thomas asked if a major part of that was for the drivers’ education program. Ms. McKeel
said at the high school level there are students taking drivers’ education courses and a good number of
students attended in order to take classes and get credits ahead of schedule. The majority of students in
the elementary and middle schools programs are there for interventions and remediation. She said there
was some confusion on the part of the public as to the transportation provided. If an elementary or
middle school student was required to go to summer school for some sort of intervention, then
transportation was provided by the division. The high school students, who were just taking classes for
extra credit or for drivers’ education, were not necessarily provided transportation. But, if any of these
students lived on a route where a bus was already going, they could catch a ride. This was done as an
effort to keep down costs.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board looks forward to meeting with the Supervisors on October 14
for a meeting to discuss employee compensation. The School Board will be meeting with the
Charlottesville City School Board on November 11 to receive an update on the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Fund for Public Education and to receive an update on the “Teachers for a New Era” grant being shared
with Charlottesville and the University of Virginia regarding teacher education.
Mr. Dorrier said it was mentioned that students were within 99.6 percent of what was expected.
He asked if that was spread evenly across the board in the school system. Ms. McKeel said “yes”, it was
the projection for the school division.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there are any anomalies. Ms. McKeel said there are some anomalies within.
Dr. Castner said a couple of elementary schools that are 30 students down, and a couple of schools are
25 over the expected enrollment, but those numbers are still in flux.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the high schools. Dr. Castner said the high schools look good. The area
that threw the division off the most was kindergarten. The division is down 120 students. That is an area
where the projections were based on data from five years ago. That is the most volatile area. The
enrollment in the middle and the high schools was almost correct. He thinks that after Labor Day they will
go over projections.
Mr. Boyd asked if that trend in kindergarten has been going on for a couple of years. Dr. Castner
said a lot of it has to do with housing. As housing gets pricier, there are not as many young families in the
County.
Mr. Boyd said that is why he was interested in that statistic. That is something this Board has a
lot to do with.
Mr. Rooker asked about the trend in grades 1 through 3. Are the numbers lower in elementary
school as well, or is it just kindergarten? Dr. Castner said next month he will furnish information on the
breakdown of students at each grade level. He does not have that information today. Once the student
is in the system, projections are better. The trend data is not as clear.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Ms. McKeel for the report.
_______________
Note
(: Mr. Bowerman said he had to leave the meeting in about ten minutes and asked if the
Board would discuss Agenda Item No. 7b next.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Chuck Proctor from the Residency Office to give a report on the transfer of
Mr. Jim Bryan to Richmond. Mr. Proctor said last Friday was Mr. Bryan’s last day in Charlottesville; he
has been transferred to VDOT’s Central Office in the finance section. He and Ms. Teresa Butler will be
filling in until the District Administrator appoints someone to take over the Residency.
_______________
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Agenda Item No. 7b. Transportation Matters: Sun Ridge Road Improvement Project (RIP-99-
001).
Mr. Tucker summarized the staff’s report, as follows:
The Sun Ridge Road Improvement Project consists of resurfacing of rough roadway and
installation of several culvert pipes to convey stormwater runoff. The roadway upgrades are necessary to
allow this privately-maintained public road to be included in the State system. At the project’s 1999
inception, staff valued Phase I at $25,000, but due to a variety of reasons including additional scope and
construction cost inflation, an additional $50,000 was approved by the Board at its July 7, 2004 meeting.
Staff then attempted to procure contractor services; however, the lone bid was valued at 115 percent of
funds granted for this project ($86,000). Staff attributes the lofty bid to a low supply of available local
contractors.
At the Board’s July meeting, two owners of three undeveloped lots located beyond the existing
terminus of Sun Ridge Road reiterated their 1999 request to extend the proposed Phase I project by an
additional 300 feet to allow for property road frontage. According to County Circuit Court Clerk records, a
public right-of-way does exist allowing for possible roadway extension. This additional roadway project is
known as Phase II.
At the Board’s August 4, 2004, meeting, Mr. Bowerman noted that additional funding might be
requested for this project. This item has been placed on the agenda for the Board’s discussion regarding
additional funding for Phase I and for consideration of additional funding to complete Phase II, based on
the feasibility assessment done by staff. Staff currently estimates that the cost of construction for Phase
II would be $75,000. If a change is to be made for this project, staff believes procurement of Phases I
and II together in the Fall will yield a greater economy of scale and more competitive bids.
Staff requests that the Board provide direction regarding the possible addition of Phase II to this
project. If Phase II is approved, a total project of $150,000 will need to be approved by the Board. If
Phase II is not added to the project, staff requests approval of an additional $11,000 to complete the
previously approved Phase I project. Based on the Board’s decision, staff will provide the appropriate
approval forms on the consent agenda at the next meeting. Staff would note alternative funding options
were previously provided to the Board as shown in the Executive Summary dated July 7, 2004.
Mr. Bowerman asked if these funds could come from Rural Addition funds. Mr. Tucker said “no”,
the funds would probably come from the CIP Fund Balance.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the CIP funds could be used and then be restored from rural addition
funds. Mr. Tucker said he did not think that was possible. He does not think the road would qualify for
rural addition funds.
Mr. Bowerman said the real issue is whether to extend the road 300 feet to the currently
undeveloped lots. He believes it would take 10 years to recoup the money from taxes paid by those three
houses. He is looking to the Board for direction. One thing mentioned in July was the possibility of a
cost-share situation since this would benefit three additional lots even though they are privately-owned
lots, and not owned by developers. Two people own the three lots. He does not know how the County
would go about doing it this way. Staff had said some sort of process would need to be adopted if this
were adopted as a policy. He asked that staff bring back some recommendation as to some way this
could be done.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the County faced the same situation concerning the dam in Key West
Subdivision.
Mr. Bowerman said they are both extensive projects.
Mr. Tucker said the Board talked about developing a policy for dealing with these situations, but it
has not been done at this time. A policy will be needed because he expects there will be other requests
in the future.
Mr. Rooker said he has received a copy of a report from the Albemarle County Service Authority
and they allocated the expense of putting in a new water system in Farmington through a note option so
the costs could be paid over ten years. That is something that could be looked at as a model. That was
a need to upgrade infrastructure in a private area.
Ms. Thomas said it was partly brought about because this Board was firm that it would not pick up
the cost at public expense. It took the homeowners a very long time to agree that this was something in
which they would share. She does not believe this would ever have happened if this Board had not
consistently said “no.”
Mr. Tucker said there are lots of alternatives that have not been analyzed yet. He thinks Mr.
Bowerman asked for the information because if the Board agrees, the project would probably be rebid as
a total project. He would not want the Board to adopt a firm policy on this matter until all issues had been
worked through.
Mr. Rooker said the Board needs to find a model that is workable and then use it on a consistent
basis.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks it is important to keep situations like this from coming up in the future.
Some tools need to be in place to deal with such situations. Mr. Tucker said most requests like this one
were created by things that occurred many years ago.
Mr. Bowerman asked if staff could make some recommendation at the day meeting in October.
Mr. Boyd asked if people can be forced to participate in shared agreements.
Mr. Davis said he does not believe so. Sun Ridge Road was never taken over by VDOT. The
road was dedicated to the County on the plat, but was never improved adequately.
Mr. Tucker said he will suggest that the Board defer this matter until November. If possible, he
will bring back a policy to discuss sooner.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Criteria Utilized to Rank Secondary Roads.
Mr. David Benish, Director of Community Development, said during review of the 2004-05 Six-
Year Secondary Road Priority List, the Board raised the issue of the criteria-based rating system and
asked staff to look into possible changes. The Board identified a few issues which the staff has
attempted to address with some modifications to the ranking system.
Mr. Benish said the Board had three specific concerns with the current system. In the staff report,
staff provided comments for each of these concerns. 1) The rating system should reflect the number of
residents on the road; 2) The cost of the project should factor into the ranking; and, 3) The length of time
a project is on the Priority List.
Mr. Benish said the current rating system has a criterion for the average daily traffic volume (see
Attachment A of the staff’s report). To address possible inaccurate results from a traffic count, staff has
added a category for the number of homes in the unpaved road (traditional and rural rustic roads)
category. A lot of these are public requests which are based on there being a public nuisance. He said
this is not a numerical, sophisticated type of weighting system which comes up with one score. It is a
relative rating system that takes equal type projects and evaluates them on a fair plane. It is a tool which
helps staff stay consistent as it looks at the rankings. It does not say one project is better than another. It
is up to the Board to weigh the community value and decide which project should come first. This ranking
system is used for about a dozen new projects each year. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the
system so it can be used as it reviews the Six-Year Plan, a process which is just beginning now.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there has been any coordination with VDOT on this rating system. Mr.
Benish said staff originally worked with VDOT on the process and it seems to have worked well. Staff
also worked with Mr. Wyant on the VDOT process.
Mr. Wyant said he participated with staff working on this process. He has been thinking this
could all be reduced to a flow chart where all criteria are shown. He thinks that would help the County
because of the funds which it does not have for the Secondary System.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this should be coordinated with VDOT. Mr. Wyant said “yes.” They have all
the information about the road. He would like to help staff develop a flow chart. He thinks it would make
decision-making by the Board easier.
Mr. Juan Wade, Transportation Planner, explained how staff arrives at the priority list. After
deriving that list, VDOT comes up with a financial plan.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks a flow chart is a good idea. He was concerned about the thought
process used by staff in putting together the list. He thinks the “growth management policy” is very
important to a number of issues. He asked if there was by-right development occurring in an area not
designated as a growth area, if that meant roads would not be paved in that area.
Mr. Benish said if there was an unpaved road in the development area, the first level of priority
would be to pave that road first. This last year, Polo Grounds Road (Route 643) wound up being a high
priority roadway even though most of it lies in the rural area. Staff felt it met the growth management
policy because it borders on the growth area. The principles being used to rank the roads allow staff to
make such judgments.
Mr. Boyd said rather then just presenting the Board with a priority listing of projects for the plan it
would help him to have the staff’s rationale for the sequencing. He knows staff must use some discretion,
but a note as to why a project is ranked a certain way would be helpful.
Ms. Thomas said she did not see the length of time on the list included as part of the criterion.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 10:05 a.m.) She thinks that would help the public, homebuilders
and a lot of people to understand the list.
Mr. Benish said when staff ranks a project, unless there has been a significant change in
circumstance, staff respects the priority of the project. Historically, it stays on the list and all new projects
are prioritized behind that project. Staff maintains the integrity of that original project which allows it move
sequentially through the process. There may be a way to reassess that as a factor. The sub-setting
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
system is one that tiers out into levels, so the history of the road has to be seen as the most important
thing; otherwise it is not reflected until breaking out the criteria.
Mr. Wyant said there could be growth in an area which required an improvement to the road, but
the Comprehensive Plan does not recommend making improvements in the rural areas.
Mr. Wade said that is something which is difficult to quantify. Last year the Planning Commission
looked at the whole process. They also looked at what other localities do in the way of prioritizing road
projects. He did not see any locality which included history on the priority list as part of their criteria.
Staff can look at it, but he thinks it would be difficult to have that as a criteria.
Mr. Benish said staff will look at the priority listing sheet during this next review. One thing that
came up last time was understanding justification of the request. There is a lot of data on that sheet, so it
is getting hard to follow. Staff will try to figure out a way to document justification for scoring. In the
comments section, staff will try to identify the intent of the project.
Mr. Rooker said he would like staff to consider factoring in volume and capacity ratios, at least in
major reconstructions and spot improvements. If a road is currently way over capacity ratios, something
needs to be done to improve that roadway. Also, he thinks key safety issues should be dealt with first.
Bridge replacements are a part of that category. He also questions whether the County could get
additional funds outside of Secondary Road funds for things like bridge replacements when they have
acute problems.
Mr. Chuck Proctor said that is not possible now. On primary roads, part of the money taken from
the budget this year went into the bridge maintenance budget. Right now, most of the bridge
replacements on primary roads are being funded with Federal money.
Mr. Rooker asked if there were a problem with a bridge on a secondary road if that money would
come out of the County’s Secondary Road budget. Mr. Proctor said “yes.” There is an effort to get
Federal money for secondary bridge projects. There was mention of taking that section of the budget and
moving it into a separate section in the Secondary Six-Year Plan.
Mr. Tucker said staff has a lot of work to do on this subject; it will be brought back to the Board for
further discussion next month.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7c. Transportation Matters not listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Chuck Proctor said the Route 29 southbound lanes at Hollymead are open. He has talked
with the contractor, and any more work requiring closing of lanes will have to be done at night so there
will not be traffic delays in those lanes. They will continue using lane closures in the northbound direction
because that does not seem to be a problem.
__________
Mr. Wyant said he is going to talk with VDOT about some drainage issues. He had several
citizens call him after they learned he had worked for VDOT.
__________
Mr. Wyant said he would like to discuss a sight distance and speed limit issue in the Advance
Mills/Earlysville area.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she had discussed with Mr. Jim Bryan the Tilman Road/Route 250 intersection.
He asked her to ascertain exactly what the neighborhood wanted. There was a fatal accident at that
intersection and then a serious accident just six weeks ago. There has been a neighborhood association
meeting and about 30 people were present. By a show of hands they favored a full traffic light. Then it
was mentioned that a traffic light will not prevent fatal accidents. People then thought about having a
traffic light on Route 250 causing more cut-through traffic on Morgantown Road. She said people are
certainly in favor of something being done about that intersection. Ms. Theresa Butler said information
was submitted to VDOT’s Culpeper office on June 1 and as soon as a response is received by her, she
will forward it to the Board.
__________
Ms. Thomas thanked VDOT for installing the special speeding fine signs on Morgantown Road.
She said they may be a little too discreet. The school has been asked to send notices home with their
students so all families using that road will be aware of this fine.
Mr. Boyd asked for feedback on measuring the effectiveness of the fine.
Mr. Wyant said the sight distance on Tilman Road at that intersection is not good. It might be
possible to make some other changes to help the situation.
Ms. Butler said Mr. Bryan had asked VDOT for an entire intersectional review; he did not limit the
possible corrections that might be considered.
__________
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Rooker thanked VDOT for its participation in signage for the Albemarle County Fair.
___________
Mr. Rooker said he had talked with Ms. Butler earlier today about sidewalk maintenance and litter
problems. Ms. Butler said VDOT has been actively meeting with residents regarding the litter problems
on Route 250 and Route 29. She said VDOT is short staffed, but it supplements its effort with contract
forces who only work two or three times a year picking up litter as they mow. To supplement this, she has
created a litter pick-up contract and it is in the process of being finalized. She said Mr. Rooker gave her
some recommendations as to the roads he would like to have included.
Ms. Thomas said when she was in California she noticed that they allow businesses to includes
their logos on signs. She thinks that might be more effective than the name of the company doing the
pickup, and she thinks that might encourage more companies to participate in the Adopt-A-Highway
program.
Ms. Butler said they recently contacted everyone who had adopted a route to see if they wished
to continue participating in the process. They are waiting for replies. They hope to join with the
Albemarle County Public Relations department to get some interest in the program.
__________
Ms. Butler said that during the next year the Hatton Ferry will be operable on Fridays, Saturdays
and Sundays which will allow some schools to participate because of its historical significance.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Key West Dam Repair Alternatives, Discussion of.
Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, said that in May of 2004 the Ridge Home Owners
Association of Key West Subdivision asked the County to find a remedy to address the potential failure of
a dam which supports a portion of Key West Drive that provides the primary means of access to 20
dwellings and the recreation center north of the Key West Drive/Northwest Lane intersection. Staff did
evaluate the condition of the dam and determined that there was no imminent threat of failure, but it
certainly needs to be repaired.
Mr. Foley said in June of 2004, information regarding the condition of the dam was presented to
the Board and staff was directed to explore possible alternatives to address the problem. Kimley-Horn
and Associates was retained to review existing conditions and provide possible options to address the
problem. What has been presented to the Board today is the result of the engineer’s work. They
identified five possible options to properly repair the dam. In addition to addressing concerns with the
dam, the road was also addressed. However, the road was not the primary concern of the residents who
brought this matter to the attention of the Board.
Mr. Foley said that recently staff and Mr. Boyd met with some residents of Key West to discuss
the options and get feedback from those residents. Based on their comments and staff’s review of the
alternatives, it was decided that this should not become a road project as well as a repair project for the
dam. Option 1 to improve the dam and upgrade the Key West Drive roadway for VDOT acceptance, and
Option 2 to drain the Key West Lake and upgrade the Key West Drive roadway for VDOT acceptance,
cost more than twice that of the other options. Also, Option 1 would require an additional access road
which would require an easement from a property owner who is not interested in providing an easement.
That additional access road would also have to be upgraded so it met some VDOT standard. There was
uncertainty as to whether DEQ would approve draining the lake as set out in Option 2. Draining the lake
would require that an easement be obtained from the property owners whose land extends into the
middle of the lake, and those property owners are opposed to that option. The community sees the lake
as an amenity and for that reason did not want to see that option pursued.
Mr. Foley then referred to the remaining options: Option 3 was to improve the dam but not
upgrade the Key West Drive roadway for VDOT acceptance, but to level control the structure with a riser
and trash rack; Option 4 was to drain the Key West lake but not upgrade the Key West Drive roadway for
VDOT acceptance, with the stream running through a culvert; and Option 5 was to improve the dam but
not upgrade the Key West Drive roadway for VDOT acceptance, but to level control with RCP barrel pipes
at the existing level. He said Option 4 has the same concerns about draining the lake, including the
possible difficulty of getting a permit, easements and opposition from the community. That leaves
Options 3 and 5 and the engineers did not recommend Option 5. Staff did discuss Option 5 which would
cost $50,000 less but there would be increased maintenance associated with the option.
Mr. Foley said that leaves Option 3. Staff wanted to give the Board a full range of options to
consider. Staff supports Option 3 and recommends implementation of Option 3. If the County spends
money to make the repair, the County would then become obligated to take care of the dam in the long
term. The residents support Option 3 and their support includes commitment to continue to maintain that
road so it would not become a County cost in the future.
Mr. Foley said staff discussed road dedications with the County Attorney. In this case he
basically determined that the County owns the road and the land underneath it including a portion of the
dam. If the County goes ahead with the projects, easements will have to be obtained just to work on the
dam. He said it is up to the Board to pick an option, but the larger policy question is how to proceed with
any one of the options in terms of paying the costs and the County’s position in the future.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Foley said staff had developed three alternatives. One would be to let the residents of the
subdivision be responsible for the project. They would need approvals from the County for the
construction, but they would be responsible for the construction and ongoing maintenance/operation of
the dam. Second, the County would do all of those things. The County would do the construction and
the ongoing maintenance/operation of that dam. Third would be for the County to enter into some kind of
a cost-sharing agreement with the residents. To some degree the residents are already committing to
continue maintaining the road, but the real focus is on the dam. It is staff’s recommendation to implement
Option 3. Staff is requesting directions from the Board on how to pay for the project.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the dam serves any functional purpose other than having a roadway across it.
Mr. Foley said it serves no purpose other than providing an amenity for the community. It basically just
allows access for those living in the subdivision to the clubhouse. There may be some people who use
the lake for boating activities.
Mr. Boyd said some citizens just entered the room so they missed the conversation about the
prior agenda item. It might be good to mention that project again since it is similar to this one. The Board
had discussed how to pay for that project on an ongoing basis when there is a community which has
problems with roads, ponds, etc. He said on that project, the Board sent it back to staff to come back with
some possible cost-sharing arrangement. He assumes this Key West project would fall in the same
category. Also, Mr. Rooker had related a story where residents in Farmington came together to share in
a project related to their water system.
Mr. Dorrier said that discussion concerned Sun Ridge Road and the Board will be discussing it
again in November. The Board is dealing with a policy decision on how to pay for these improvements.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Rooker had said earlier that the time to deal with road issues is when there is
acute danger. That concerns him in this case because there are school buses which cross this dam.
Also, a lot of kids ride their bicycles up and down the road.
Mr. Foley said as staff has been looking at infrastructure issues, it has looked at roads as a
separate item from other major pieces of infrastructure like a dam or a bridge. The criteria might be
different. Staff will focus on the road issues in the recommendations it returns in November. There might
be some unique considerations for dams, or bridges in subdivisions.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is any idea of how many dams there are in Albemarle County. Lakes
and ponds are increasingly popular in new subdivisions. She thinks there are a lot of dams which are 20
or 30 years old.
Mr. Foley said different subdivisions have different arrangements. Staff will have to do some
research to come up with assumptions on a range of costs.
Ms. Thomas said she believes that all ponds and lakes in Albemarle County are artificial. There
are only two lakes in the state of Virginia that are not artificial.
Mr. Dorrier asked how much control the County has over the creation of lakes and ponds. Mr.
Tucker said most of those are done through the TJSWCS as well as DEQ. Most are farm ponds. There
are not many lakes and ponds where there are roads. This situation in Key West is unique. Most roads
that are going below a dam could be in the State system. For the Hollymead Lake, that road was
approved after a great deal of time, but the County is responsible for the road if the dam ever washes out.
This road in Key West is unique because the right-of-way was dedicated to the County. That is how the
County became obligated. Staff will have to investigate to determine the number of such situations in the
County.
Mr. Boyd said if the County would be obligated to replace the dam in Hollymead, what is the
difference in this situation? Mr. Davis said at Hollymead, under current VDOT requirements VDOT only
accepts the road’s surface, and even before doing that, VDOT requires the County to enter into an
agreement with VDOT to maintain under the road surface or the dam. That is the only agreement the
County has of that type.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the Key West Association would make that same argument; they only
agreed to maintain the road and not the dam.
Mr. Rooker said this is a subdivision where initially people put in private amenities and what may
have been private roads at the time; some of those roads have remained private and some have been
dedicated and taken into the VDOT system. The Board, after discussing the situation with Sun Ridge
Road, needs to find a way to deal with these in a fair, equitable and consistent manner. There would then
be some model for handling future requests. Mr. Foley said earlier that staff assessed the dam in Key
West and found no imminent threat of collapse. If there were, the Board would need to deal with that
threat. He thinks it would be prudent to have this be a part of the recommendation the Board expects to
receive in November about Sun Ridge Road and a general policy to deal with these issues.
Mr. Boyd said there may be no imminent threat, but if there were a situation such as that which
occurred in Richmond this past week, would the assessment still be the same.
Mr. Rooker said that in that situation (12 inches of rain in eight hours), there would have been
problems all over the County.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Tucker said in Key West, if the dam washed out, there would be 22+ homes with no access to
their homes. In Hollymead, if the dam ever washed out, there are other means of access to their homes.
Mr. Dorrier said if the County is to be involved in paying for such projects, the County should also
have some input into the initial construction of these ponds. Mr. Tucker said when lakes are proposed in
subdivisions, the County is involved.
Mr. Davis said for a subdivision proposal today, staff would do everything possible to avoid
having a dam built.
Mr. Wyant said VDOT is not likely to ever take the road into the system because it does not want
the problem the Board is faced with today.
Mr. Boyd said he knows there are some people present who would like to speak.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board is pressed for time today. He asked if just one person from the Key
West group would like to speak.
Mr. Ken Sinclair thanked the Board for the professionalism and the care of County staff. They
have received personal visits a number of times from staff members. The responsiveness and
professionalism of the County’s approach to analyzing this problem and coming up with a solution has
opened his eyes as to how County government operates. He said that in looking toward the future they
commend the idea of having a plan in place for maintaining these things. One other thing that has not
been mentioned is the nature of the capacity of the residents in the area to deal with the problem. It really
is a county-sized problem in terms of the physics and the permitting because the entire scope of the
project requires the powers and resources of the County.
Mr. Sinclair said the Board should be aware of the resources available to the residents. There is
no community association with a declaration in place for the 200+ homes in Key West and there is no
enforceable means to come up with money to contribute to this process. He said that road existed as a
gravel road serving the 23 homes whose residents have to cross the dam to get to their homes, plus the
swim club. It was in existence when the subdivision was first platted in 1959, and 27 years later the
developer came to those who live at that end of the road and said he was willing to pave the surface if he
could be taken out of maintaining the pavement. At that time, 19 of the 23 homeowners at that end of the
road agreed to sign a declaration, which was then filed with the land records, saying they would maintain
the surface of that road. They have done so for these many years, and just resurfaced and patched the
bottom half of the road a few months ago.
Mr. Sinclair said the only Association in Key West is the 19 families which agreed to maintain the
paving 25 years after this thing started. It does not have any members from the broader Key West
community and it does not reflect the fact that the end of the road the County is focused on is used by
many public services and by hundreds of people going to the club. Also, it is an amenity for the six
homes that face that body of water. Only one of those six homes is a member of the road maintenance
association to which he referred. Only one of the six properties fronts on Key West Drive. The Key West
Club uses it a lot, but they are a cash poor community swim club looking to repair their 34 year old pool.
If the Board chooses to go forward with some project which does not bring the road up to VDOT
standards, he can say that with respect to maintenance of the road itself, the Association that has done
this for the last 18 years will continue to maintain the surface of the road.
Mr. Dorrier asked what the Board wanted to do with this request today.
Mr. Boyd said he understands Mr. Sinclair said this would be a tremendous burden on those few
people. He thinks there needs to be a policy and it should be done soon. As that policy is constructed,
he thinks the size of the neighborhood being affected and the number of people being affected should be
considered, as well as capability for enforcement. He agrees this is a county-sized problem.
Ms. Thomas suggested selecting Option 3 and letting staff go forward drafting the policy.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks that is the appropriate option.
Mr. Dorrier recognized Ms. Pat Keats.
Ms. Keats said that three months ago she brought this matter to the Board’s attention again. She
thinks it is impossible to assess imminent danger at this time. Looking at the pictures from the engineers
of the inside of those pipes, those pipes cannot be working. The bottoms are gone. Pipes are already
collapsing. The idea of pushing this dam project off for a policy decision is frightening to her. VDOT
looked at the drip line and there are root balls from the huge trees on this dam that are potentially across
the entire dam, and during this hurricane season, it would only take one tree to go down and rip the dam
out. Postponement for policy decisions scares her.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the engineers agree with Ms. Keats. Mr. Foley said he does not believe the
engineer’s report states that if a tree came out it would cause that kind of problem. If there were the
unexpected one hundred year flood, there are a lot of dams that would be at risk. It does not mean there
is no risk involved.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Rooker said even if staff starts working on this today, it would not be completed before the
end of hurricane season. There will clearly be something done before the next hurricane season, but it
will take six to eight weeks to develop the criteria.
Mr. Boyd asked what the Board would do if the dam had already washed out, and the Board was
facing that decision today.
Mr. Foley said if there are any significant events, or even mildly significant events, County staff
can inspect to be sure the dam is not deteriorating to the point of there being an imminent crisis. There
are some immediate measures that could be taken if that situation occurs. He said erosion is the real
issue. The pipes are not working as designed. It is in an overflow situation which is causing the erosion.
Staff can commit to monitoring that situation during this period of time.
Mr. Wyant explained some of his professional experiences with such structures. He said this
dam has been in place for fifty years, so he feels good about it. He will ask staff to look at what is
referred to as “value” engineering. He sees a lot of costs in the report that he does not believe are
necessary. The dam has been there for fifty years so there is a sound geological formation there that
works. Some value engineering should be done on the project by going line by line. He thinks Option 3
is the best option from a cost standpoint as well as from an engineering standpoint.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is anyway staff could escalate and concentrate on this project because it
is an earthen dam. Mr. Tucker said staff will try to have something ready for the October 6 meeting. It
might not be “the” policy that is adopted for all things.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it would be important to know how many situations are virtually
identical to this one in order to understand the scope of financial commitment the County might be making
in adopting a policy.
Mr. Wyant said if this dam goes out there should be a Plan “B”. He does not know what that plan
would be in this case. How would those people get to their houses in an emergency situation?
Ms. Laurel Olsen said she is a single mother with a child and they have to cross over the dam
every day. There is concern about the safety issue. She cannot comment on the financial conditions of
the other families on the street, but she cannot contribute to the process. As the Board considered this
problem it might want to consider the financial means of the other people on the street. It is a unique
situation, but she thinks it will have a bearing on whether it is reasonable to ask for a cost-sharing portion.
She heard that the pond belongs to the County. She said that on her property if she poses a public
threat, she is responsible to do something about it. She thinks that if the County owns the pond and most
of the dam, it also owns the problem.
Mr. Rooker said the County does not own the pond. Ms. Olsen said it is off of the County tax
rolls. Mr. Tucker said the properties adjacent to the pond go to the center of the pond, so the adjoining
property owners own that pond.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: To receive comments on an Ordinance to amend Chapter
15, Taxation, Article X, Real Estate, of the Albemarle County Code, by adding Section 15-1004, Property
exempt from taxation by classification, and Section 15-1005, Property exempt from taxation by
designation. The amendment would establish and continue in Albemarle County retroactive to January 1,
2003, the property tax exemption classification standards that existed by state law prior to the
amendment of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia effective January 1, 2003. The amendment also
would establish the process for eligible properties to apply for property tax exemption by designation.
(Public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on August 16 and August 23, 2004.)
Mr. Tucker said that in November, 2002 Virginia voters in a referendum approved an amendment
to the Virginia Constitution that shifted the responsibility for granting most property tax exemptions from
the General Assembly to the localities. Since then, the General Assembly has enacted Virginia Code §
58.1-3651 to outline the circumstances and procedures under which localities may grant property tax
exemptions. Though Virginia Code § 58.1-3651 effectively grandfathers property tax exemptions existing
as of January 1, 2003 (when the Constitutional amendment took effect), it does not address properties
seeking exemption after that date. Unless a property is constitutionally exempt (such as government,
religious, cemetery or educational property), any and all post January 1, 2003, exemptions must be
granted at the local level, either by designation (specifically naming the organization and property) or by
classification (exempting the general class or use of property).
Mr. Tucker said that in responding to this shift in tax-exempting authority, the Board has at least
three options. The first option within the Board’s discretion is to do nothing. A second option is to adopt a
local ordinance to address how properties desiring tax-exempt status may become exempt. A third option
would be to adopt some but not all of the pre-existing classifications. Staff recommends the second
option: the adoption of an ordinance to exempt all classifications of property that previously existed on
the state level. This approach maintains a continuity of how properties are treated for tax-exempt
purposes, and allows new property obtained by owners who would have qualified for tax-exempt status in
2002 by classification to qualify for tax-exempt status for the newly-acquired property. After holding the
public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the ordinance which continues Albemarle County’s
current policy for addressing tax-exempt properties retroactive to January 1, 2003.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Tucker said the County Attorney had passed around a copy of a new draft of the ordinance.
The language has not changed from what was included in the Board’s packet, but the code sections have
been corrected.
Mr. Davis said that rather than incorporating it into an existing article, after staff looked at the
ordinance, it made more sense from a codification standpoint to print a new Article 16 called “Property
exempted from taxation.” The text that was before the Board has been incorporated into two new
sections under this article.
Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motionseconded
was offered by Mr. Rooker, by Mr. Wyant, to adopt An Ordinance to Amend
Chapter 15, Taxation, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by adding Article XVI, Property
Exempted from Taxation, Sec. 15-1601, Property exempt from taxation by classification, and Sec. 15-
1602, Property exempt from taxation by designation.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
Note
(: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 04-15(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED
By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
15, Taxation, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Adding:
Article XVI Property Exempted From Taxation
Sec. 15-1601 Property exempt from taxation by classification
Sec. 15-1602 Property exempt from taxation by designation
CHAPTER 15. TAXATION
ARTICLE XVI. PROPERTY EXEMPTED FROM TAXATION
Sec. 15-1601 Property exempt from taxation by classification.
A. Pursuant to the authority granted in Article X, Section 6 (a) (6) of the Constitution of
Virginia to exempt property from taxation by classification, the following classes of real
and personal property shall be exempt from taxation:
1. Property owned directly or indirectly by the Commonwealth, or any political
subdivision thereof.
2. Buildings with land they actually occupy, and the furniture and furnishings therein
owned by churches or religious bodies and exclusively occupied or used for
religious worship or for the residence of the minister of any church or religious
body, and such additional adjacent land reasonably necessary for the convenient
use of any such building.
3. Nonprofit private or public burying grounds or cemeteries.
4. Property owned by public libraries, law libraries of local bar associations when
the same are used or available for use by a state court or courts or the judge or
judges thereof, medical libraries of local medical associations when the same are
used or available for use by state health officials, incorporated colleges or other
institutions of learning not conducted for profit. This paragraph shall apply only to
property primarily used for literary, scientific or educational purposes or purposes
incidental thereto and shall not apply to industrial schools which sell their
products to other than their own employees or students.
5. Property belonging to and actually and exclusively occupied and used by the
Young Men’s Christian Associations and similar religious associations, including
religious mission boards and associations, orphan or other asylums,
reformatories, hospitals and nunneries, conducted not for profit but exclusively as
charities (which shall include hospitals operated by nonstock corporations not
organized or conducted for profit but which may charge persons able to pay in
whole or in part for their care and treatment).
6. Parks or playgrounds held by trustees for the perpetual use of the general public.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
7. Buildings with the land they actually occupy, and the furniture and furnishings
therein belonging to any benevolent or charitable organization and used by it
exclusively for lodge purposes or meeting rooms, together with such additional
adjacent land as may be necessary for the convenient use of the buildings for
such purposes.
8. Property of any nonprofit corporation organized to establish and maintain a
museum.
B. The real and personal property of an organization classified in Virginia Code §§ 58.1-
3610 through 58.1-3622 and used by such organization for a religious, charitable,
patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural, or public park and playground purpose as set
forth in Article X, Section 6 (a) (6) of the Constitution of Virginia, the particular purpose for
which such organization is classified being specifically set forth within each section, shall
be exempt from taxation, so long as such organization is operated not for profit and the
property so exempt is used in accordance with the purpose for which the organization is
classified.
C. Property which was exempt from taxation on December 31, 2002, shall continue to be
exempt from taxation under the rules of statutory construction applicable to exempt
property at the time such property became entitled to exemption.
D. Exemptions of property from taxation granted under this section on or after January 1,
2003, shall be strictly construed in accordance with Article X, Section 6 (f) of the
Constitution of Virginia.
Sec. 15-1602 Property exempt from taxation by designation.
Property not granted tax-exempt status prior to January 1, 2003, can be granted tax-exempt
status by designation only by the adoption of an ordinance by the board of supervisors granting
the exemption. The adoption of such an ordinance shall be pursuant to the provisions of Article
4.1, Chapter 36 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia applicable to the exemption of property from
taxation by designation.
State law reference—Property exempt from taxation by classification or designation by ordinance adopted by local
governing body on or after January 1, 2003, Va. Code § 58.1-3651; Va. Code § 58.1-3606.
Pursuant to Enactment Clause 2 of Chapter 557 of the 2004 Acts of Assembly, this
ordinance shall be effective as of January 1, 2003.
__________
Note
(: At 11:00 a.m. the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:10 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Total Rewards Program, Report.
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, was present. (She used a PowerPointe
presentation during her talk.) She said that in June, 2003, the Board directed staff to begin review of the
County’s reward and performance system to ensure that they were aligned with its high performance
strategies for customer service. Those strategies are to provide effective, responsive and courteous
service to the County’s customers, improving processes and programs and the delivery of efficient and
effective County services. To study these issues, a cross-departmental team was formed, which
consisted of one member of the Board of Supervisors (Mr. Wyant), staff members from various
departments and a community representative. Today, staff would like to review the need for the Total
Rewards Program, to explain some of the strategies which were identified and evaluated during this
process and to recommend four strategies to help move forward.
Ms. White said it is expected that County employees will provide the highest level of performance
and service, so it is critical to make sure there is a system in place to link performance with rewards.
“Rewards” is not simply speaking about an increase in pay, or increasing awards, but the ability for the
public sector to have the flexibility to reward high performers with appropriate and timely rewards. At this
time, the current merit system does not reward for performance. The system does not reward team
values and accomplishments or allow people to grow based on their accomplishments and skills. It is
difficult to have pay based on someone’s changing responsibilities which may be temporary. The system
does not utilize other rewards outside of pay.
Ms. White said this proposal to adopt the total rewards program is a strategy for accomplishing
the Board’s strategic goal to provide courteous and effective service to the County’s customers. She then
introduced Mr. Dan Eggleston, one of the team members.
Mr. Eggleston said he was a team member and they went through a very good and thorough
process. They had help from a consultant, but they also looked at some best management practices of
other localities including Charlotte, N.C., and Chesterfield County. These localities are already doing
some of the things which will be recommended today. The team also validated some of the employee
surveys with the focus group. Over 86 percent of the people who responded to the survey said the
performance process needed to be revised.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Eggleston said Proposal No. 1 includes merit pay, as well as skill and competency awards
which are proposed for the next fiscal year’s budget and later a pilot program to include “broadbanding.”
The objective on the employee recognition program is to create a set of tools for managers and directors
to give “on-the-spot” awards to employees. They do not have that ability now. This will involve both cash
and non-cash awards. He said it is a simple process to implement and will give directors and managers
that flexibility. In order to qualify, an employee would have to have exceptional performance beyond the
call of duty; have helped to create a reduction in operating costs; have quality and/or a productivity
improvement; and, have excellence in creating safe work practices.
Mr. Eggleston said as to reward types, there could be non-monetary recognition with minimal cost
which could include thank you cards, letters of appreciation, a designated parking space, and
web/newsletter recognition. He said directors do this now, but they take the money out of their own
pocket. Time-off from work is valued higher by some employees than cash bonuses. This program
needs to be structured so that it gives results.
Mr. Eggleston said skill and competency levels are also referred to as “pay-for-value” by some
organizations. He said this is being done at this time on a trial basis in public safety and it is working well.
It is used in some of the benchmark localities, and it assigns values for certification of things employees
can do such as attain job-related skills, such as licensing, certifications or completion of formalized
training. Skill-based pay rewards are specific, specialized skills that improve an employee’s ability to
perform their job and provide increased value to the County.
Mr. Rooker asked if something like this were implemented, if it would be applied throughout the
organization. Mr. Eggleston said there are several options for having skill and competency-based
differentials. Before adopting something like this it would have to mean something to both the
organization and the employee.
Mr. Wyant said some of these could be countywide, but others would apply only to specific
departments.
Mr. Wyant said this program does not include the Schools. Mr. Tucker said this idea was moving
along so rapidly the Schools were not sure they wanted to join at this time. They will monitor what is
being done, and may join later.
Mr. Boyd said this could not be countywide because there may not be certification for every job
classification.
Mr. Eggleston said certain certifications are expected as part of a job. The certifications being
looked at in this program will have a higher value than the base certifications needed to perform a job.
He said another item looked at is “broadbanding.” Broadbanding is a compensation and classification
system that provides greater flexibility for career and skill development by grouping jobs into wide pay
bands. He said this could be applied in the case of an office associate position which had a wide range of
skills in certain departments. This would allow creation of a broader pay scale for that person based on
the complexities of the job. At this time there are a large number of reclassification requests because
there is not the flexibility to move certain positions such as an Office Associate I to an Office Associate II
to an Office Associate III. This would allow the directors and the Human Resources department to move
that person on the scale based on the complexity of the job.
Mr. Rooker asks who signs off on reclassification requests now. Mr. Eggleston said the County
Executive approves the request.
Mr. Dorrier asked if current employees are given preference for vacancies. Mr. Tucker said not
necessarily, normally vacancies are opened to everyone in the community.
Mr. Rooker asked what the process would be if broadbanding were adopted.
Ms. Lorna Gerome said broadbanding is a different pay structure, so anchors have to be
designed setting out at what point an employee would be moved upon acquiring skills or competencies.
There is a lot of development which goes into broadbanding, but it does allow more flexibility.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks broadbanding would solve a lot of the spot fixes being done now. The
idea is now new. It is widely used, including the University of Virginia, so he was surprised to hear it
would take three to four years to install the program in Albemarle. Initially he thought it would be better to
focus attention on that program rather than trying to do spot fixes.
Ms. Gerome said so much accountability is given to managers by broadbanding that other
structures, such as performance management, have to be tightly in place before the program can be
implemented.
Mr. Boyd asked if it is a training issue. Ms. Gerome said it is both training and communication.
Mr. Wyant said the team spent one whole session on this idea because it is something the team
wants to do, but implementation was the big drawback. That is why it was recommended to take place a
year or more in the future. Mr. Tucker said the Schools (classified employees only) may want to be a part
of this program. Ms. Gerome said it is being seriously considered; it does not need more assessment.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Ms. Gerome said she would speak about the current merit system. She said it is complex and
difficult to understand. There are four factors that go into the merit formula: an employee's performance
evaluation rating, an employee's salary in relation to the midpoint of their pay grade, the merit pool
percentage increase, and the available funding within their departmental pool. There are different funding
pools set up either by department or by division. There is no way an individual manager could tell an
employee the amount of his increase. There are a lot of weaknesses with the current plan. There is a
small pool amount and it does not adequately differentiate performance. Because there is a variable
pool, employees cannot see the link. Managers have no flexibility in rewarding with the current merit.
Performance ratings are inflated to maximize the increase. Human Resources ran some data this year
and found that a high number of employees are being rated as exceptional based on the limited amount
of funds in the pool.
Mr. Rooker asked how that situation is dealt with in any system. He said there was total
inconsistency among departments as to how they rated their employees. Ms. Gerome said training and
accountability, having a director meet with all of their managers and insure there is consistency, and
having the next higher level review the performance evaluation scores. That is the way accountability has
to be all the way through the organization so if a manager gives an exceptional rating, they need to be
able to justify that score to their supervisors. The team talked a lot about this.
Ms. Gerome said the current merit plan is not consistent with the joint Boards adopted strategy to
pay employees at market. The data they ran this year showed that some of the top performing
employees were not receiving a market increase. Employees above the mid-point who met expectations
got a little over two-percent where the market increase was three percent. The employees who did a
great job got about 3.4 percent. The team looked at a revised merit plan based on a matrix tied to a
market increase, tied to a base salary, and which also had a performance evaluation factor built in
showing where an employee was is in relation to mid-point.
Ms. Gerome then discussed the revised merit program in relation to the current merit program.
There are some things about the current program that the team wanted to keep. Accelerating employees
to the midpoint is important for purposes of retention. Tying a performance evaluation score in is a critical
factor. Having employees know the amount of their increase allows them to see the tie between
performance and reward. Keeping employees at market and adequately differentiating among
performance is necessary. She said the team believes the proposal will do those things. Budgeting will
be more complex with this option because they will have to use forecasting.
Mr. Boyd said he was bothered by the budgeting issue when he read the charts included with the
executive summary. He does not understand how this proposal will keep salaries at the midpoint. He
asked if market is midpoint. Ms. Gerome said “yes.” They try to accelerate the salaries of those
employees who are below the midpoint. One reason they are below midpoint is because they probably
do not have much experience.
Mr. Boyd asked how that would be different under this proposal. He asked if trying to adjust
salaries to the midpoint is what made the current merit plan process unfair. Ms. Gerome said the current
plan does accelerate employees to the midpoint.
Mr. Boyd said that uses up the money for those who give exceptional performance. Mr. Tucker
said it does.
Mr. Boyd asked if that is being done away with totally. Ms. Gerome said they are doing away with
the pool. Mr. Tucker said staff will be proposing a larger pool.
Mr. Boyd said that bothers him a little. There could be a 33 percent increase in the salary
allocation. Ms. Gerome said the strategy is to pay employees at market, and that was not being done
with the current funding of the program.
Mr. Boyd said he thought the County was paying at market, the existing system worked in that
regard.
Mr. Rooker said that is not 33 percent of total salaries, but 33 percent of the merit component.
Ms. Kimberly Suyes, Human Resources Director, said they want to pay for exceptional
performance. There needs to be a merit process that will allow that. If there is an exceptional performer
now who is over the midpoint, length of service is actually a detriment to them and they do not receive
what the Board wants them to receive. Specifically, one thing wrong with the present system is the
inflated evaluations. She said organizations have been successful in being sure that people are
evaluated correctly with the right processes in place. She said the three-point measure being used now
is not working because people are inflating and giving everyone three. A lot of that is because the pool is
not adequately funded. The evaluation system needs to be tweaked so it can better evaluate people’s
performance. But, people who are above midpoint because they have been employed longer are still
rewarded for that performance.
Mr. Boyd said he was not questioning the need, but did not see the difference between the two
systems and how that could be done. People will still top out on the pay scale eventually, unless there is
broadbanding. How is this new proposal going to help that?
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Ms. Gerome said the scale does move, so they would be looking at the percentage increase they
would receive because it would be fixed and tied to the market increase. She then referred Mr. Boyd to a
matrix included in the Board’s paperwork.
Ms. Suyes said only a half-dozen employees have reached the top of their pay scale.
Mr. Rooker asked the total amount allocated to merit pay last year. Ms. Gerome said it was
$663,000.
Mr. Dorrier said the meeting is running behind schedule. He asked that Ms. Gerome summarize.
Ms. Gerome said they are asking that the Employee Recognition Program be implemented in
January, 2005. They are asking for $20,000 for that expense. They ask that the Board approve the
Revised Merit Plan for implementation in FY 2005-06. They ask that the Board approve the development
of the Skill and Competency differentials for implementation in FY 2005-06, and approve continued
evaluation of Broadbanding with possible implementation in FY 2006-07.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the success of any performance or merit evaluation system depends
on consistency throughout the organization. There need to be checks and balances to keep people from
inflating scores.
Mr. Wyant said he saw data which showed inflation, so the managers would be responsible for
the proper administration of the program once it is in place.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the cost is estimated at an additional $250,000 a year. Ms. Gerome said that
is for the revised merit plan.
Mr. Rooker said the employee recognition component is estimated at about $50,000. Ms.
Gerome said that is for the fiscal year.
Mr. Boyd said his initial reaction is to move ahead with the employee recognition program. He is
not in favor of the change in the merit pay system at this time, but would rather see the broadbanding
accelerated, and the effort put into that component.
Ms. Suyes said that is a good point, but in order to put broadbanding into place, every position
will have to be accessed. There are more than 400 titles in this organization which has about 2,000
classified employees.
Mr. Boyd said the County has lived with its current system for a long number of years so one
more year of living with it does not bother him.
Ms. Gerome said broadbanding will not replace rewarding for performance as far as merit and
evaluation are concerned.
Mr. Rooker asked if broadbanding is put into place, if that would make it necessary to change the
merit plan. Ms. Suyes said the merit plan needs to be changed because the present plan does not work.
Mr. Rooker said that was not the question. Staff is proposing that the Board adopt the new plan
and then go to broadbanding in two years. Will the plan still work with the broadbanding?
Ms. Suyes said four separate things are being proposed. There is the employee recognition
component, the performance management component, classification of employees, and County support
of the employee’s professional development. The competency and skill and the broadbanding pieces go
together. However, the broadbanding piece is very separate from the performance component.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the over appraising of employees would be stopped by the broadbanding.
Ms. Gerome said they are not waiting for broadbanding before working on that problem.
Mr. Dorrier said this is a very complex program. Since one Board member is absent at this time,
he would suggest that this matter be deferred until the full Board is present before taking action.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Dorrier supports these recommendations. Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Wyant
both voiced support of the recommendations.
Mr. Rooker said he is comfortable with the recommendations. He thinks the Board needs to go to
a merit plan that is fairer than the current merit plan. The proposal would not take effect until FY ’06. He
thinks the Board needs to move forward with the recognition component and the merit component
reasonably quickly. However, he has no problem waiting for a month to take action.
Mr. Boyd said he is in favor of the recognition reward thing which is good. He is still worried
about the budgeting process based on the new set of criteria. He wonders if the Board will have to over
budget since it will not be based on a percentage of salaries, but based on forecasting.
Mr. Rooker said he assumes that the forecasted figure would be based on the upper amount and
the lower amount and the figure would be in the middle of those two amounts. As the budget now exists,
at the end of the fiscal year there are many categories that have funds remaining due to changes in
personnel during that year.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Wyant said he tried to figure how much this would cost by doing some averaging on total
salaries.
Mr. Boyd asked what would happen if the School Board decided it would like to implement this
type of program next year. Mr. Tucker said School staff said they wanted the County to act as a pilot
program before they decided to recommend the plan.
Mr. Rooker asked the number of classified employees for local government and the number of
classified employees for the school division. Ms. Suyes said there are about 800 classified employees in
the schools, with about 710 for local government, including the Jail.
motion
At this time, Mr. Wyant said he thinks this program needs to move forward and he offered
to approve the following staff recommendations: 1) Implement an Employee Recognition Program in
January, 2005 at a cost of $20,000 for the current fiscal year and an anticipated cost of $50,000 for FY
’06; revised Merit Plan for FY ’06; development of skill and competency differentials for implementation in
FY ’05-06; continued evaluation of broadbanding for implementation in FY ’06-07 (possible pilot in FY ’05-
seconded
06). The motion was by Ms. Thomas.
Mr. Rooker said his support of these proposals is based on the representation that a number of
objective factors will be adopted to build into the criteria for evaluation for qualification for merit.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Update on County Office Building (COB) Renovations.
Mr. Mike Staumbaugh, Head of General Services for the County, was present to give the staff’s
recommendations. Before beginning, he distributed to the Board members an update on the expected
move date for some departments to COB-South. He said it is anticipated that the facility will be occupied
by December with the first move of Social Services in September.
Mr. Staumbaugh said Moseley Architects was engaged to assist the Long Range Space Planning
Committee (LRSPC) in evaluating the long-term space needs at COB-McIntire and to create a Master
Plan for the facility. A ten-year planning horizon was established and an emphasis was placed on
physical and functional consolidation of the Community Development Department in the North Wing of
the building, with a separate ground floor entrance for central intake.
Mr. Staumbaugh said further progress hinges upon the long-term disposition of the current Board
Room (Room 241) and the Lane Auditorium. He then introduced Mr. Jay Moore from Moseley Architects
to give some alternatives as to how the auditorium could be reconfigured to serve as both a board room
and yet retain its large venue capacity.
Mr. Moore said they had looked at five different concepts ranging from the least disruptive to
more extensive modifications and the impacts those different approaches would have on seating capacity
and how the Lane Auditorium would function. Option 1 is essentially to make improvements to the
present lay-out of the auditorium. The dais would be in the same location but it would be updated and the
existing seating of about 550 seats including the balcony would be maintained. They looked at the
possibility of locating an AV control room in one corner of the stage; the stage is presently being used to
house supplies for the building. There is the possibility of having a closed session conference room with
an adjoining restroom in one corner of the stage. That is the least extensive change that could be made.
This change could be tailored to fit the budget. The Auditorium would not be much different from what is
there now, except for the improved dais.
The Board started to discuss a dais, and Mr. Tucker said a dais can be designed in anyway the
Board feels is appropriate. The purpose of the discussion today is to decide whether to make the Lane
Auditorium smaller, to leave it as it is at present, and whether the balcony should be used for some other
use. The broader question is whether the auditorium should be used for a smaller board room that would
be a permanent board room.
Mr. Moore said if the auditorium is to be used fulltime as a Board Room (Meeting Room), they
would design a modular dais which could be rolled back against the apron of the stage. When the stage
was being used for a performance, the dais would not be a visual distraction.
Mr. Rooker asked how often the current auditorium is used for performances on the stage. Mr.
Stumbaugh said churches meet in the auditorium every Sunday, and there are events there five to ten
times a month that require the large venue. The balcony is almost never utilized.
Mr. Tucker said he does not think any of the alternatives to be presented today actually change
the stage area itself.
Mr. Moore said all of the alternatives would preserve the stage area for use. The second option
addresses the issue of how to make the scale of the room more appropriate for week-to-week meeting
use. One way is to create vestibules on either side, rearrange the seating area at the rear of the room,
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
and then have something that could be moved to cover that seating area when it was not needed. In that
way, the scale of the room could be reduced. There would be the same dais lay-out. They could also
build a proscenium around the edge of the balcony and a curtain could be drawn across the balcony to
bring down the size of the room when the balcony area was not being used. He said this would bring
seating capacity down to about 424.
Mr. Moore said in Option 3 they looked at a way to keep some of the existing seating capacity
and the only way to do that would be to move seating for Board members up onto the stage. He
understands that is not an option that would be satisfactory to the Board members, and it would present
problems in the way of handicapped access and would provide only an additional 50 seats.
Mr. Moore said that in Option 4 they looked at using the space under the balcony in a different
way. In order to bring down the scale of the room, it could be shortened on the first level perhaps
providing better conference rooms with a restroom and a break area. There is the possibility of having
another meeting room which could be used for work sessions or by staff. There would be a generous
foyer to the auditorium. This option would bring seating down to about 327 including the seats in the
balcony. In this option there would also be the proscenium and the curtain for the balcony.
Mr. Moore said that in Option 5, which creates the most extensive degree of change, rooms
would be built under the balcony, the dais would be kept on the lower floor thus eliminating some of the
floor slopes and ADA access problems. It would allow Board members better circulation to the closed
session rooms by the side corridors (rooms which would be available for staff use), and space for the AV
control room. In Option 5 the curtains across the stage would be drawn during a meeting to bring down
the volume of the space. There would be the curtain across the balcony to close it off. When the room
was needed for performances, the curtain would be opened, the dais would be drawn back against the
front of the stage, and there would be columns forming a loggia in the rear of the room.
Mr. Rooker asked if in Option 1 the seats are lost because the meeting room is in the front of the
auditorium. Mr. Moore said that is correct.
Mr. Rooker asked if the decision is whether to have the dais on the stage or have it on the floor of
the auditorium, and whether the meeting rooms should be at the entry or just have a closed session room
at the back.
Mr. Moore said there really are two questions to be considered: the budget and the amount of
seating to be provided. There would be about 164 seats for a normal board meeting, while existing Room
241 has about 60 seats. He said the room would still have a very high ceiling, but the room would be cut
back to about two-thirds of its present size.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is a way to size the dais so it could be made smaller for small meetings,
and larger for big meetings. Mr. Moore said if it were a modular dais there would be a lot of flexibility as
to how it could be set up.
Mr. Boyd asked how many seats there are on the floor of the auditorium now. Mr. Moore said
there are 386, and there are another 150 seats in the balcony now.
Mr. Boyd said he never sees anybody using the balcony, and the room is never filled to capacity
at a Board meeting.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the issue is how many uses there are for the room other than Board
meetings that might need those extra seats. Also, who is using the auditorium now and how much of the
room do they use. How many performances are there in the room? He thinks 150 seats would be more
than adequate for almost any Board meeting.
Ms. Thomas said she learned many years ago that when there is going to be a contentious issue
on the agenda, the room needs to be larger than the crowd expected to attend the meeting. An
auditorium of the present size has only been important a few times, but this is a growing county.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Moore was ready to discuss the cost of this project. Mr. Moore said they
made their estimate based on the biggest degree of change, thinking that the project could be backed
down based on the other scenarios. The estimate is close to $1.1 million exclusive of any computer or
audio/visual equipment.
Mr. Rooker asked if that price includes new curtains. Mr. Moore said “yes.” It also includes new
air conditioning (a rooftop unit), new lighting, and new seats. It includes a new dais, painting everything,
building a proscenium around the balcony, and a motorized curtain around the balcony. This price
includes a new board room and a renovated auditorium. It also includes two new meeting rooms under
the balcony.
Mr. Dorrier asked the source of the pressure for doing this renovation project. Mr. Tucker said
staff had discussed with the Board the need to upgrade some room from a technological standpoint when
part of the staff is moved to COB-Fifth Street. This is one option. The Board has discussed on several
occasions other changes in the building to accommodate an improved Board (meeting) Room. The
auditorium needed to be upgraded and renovated; it is in dire circumstances at this time. He asked if the
Board members feel some rearrangement is needed in order to meet all the needs of the Board. Does
Note
the Board feel there is a need for the balcony to remain in the auditorium? (: Mr. Bowerman
returned to the meeting at 12:14 p.m.) Are all of the seats on the first floor needed? The Board only has
a meeting with an overflow crowd once or twice a year. Should the crowd be kept to the first floor and the
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
balcony renovated for additional space? That is the type of decision staff is asking the Board to make
today.
Mr. Rooker said the Board previously voted on an option to renovate the present Board Room at
a cost of approximately $300,000. The auditorium is in pretty bad shape and that needs to be taken care
of. Although the Board voted to go forward with a project for Room 241, one of the concerns was that the
Board would not get any additional seating. To him it makes a lot of sense to move Board meetings to
the auditorium.
Mr. Dorrier said he tends to agree. The Board never knows how many people will appear at a
public hearing.
Ms. Thomas asked if one of the decisions is whether the Board wants to have extra meeting
rooms in the back, or whether it wants the extra seating. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. That decision
does not have to be made today, but should be made soon.
Mr. Wyant said he thinks it will depend on the type of functions that will take place in the
auditorium, and the Board does not have that type of information today.
Mr. Rooker said he also thinks the Board needs more usage information. What other functions
take place in the auditorium?
Mr. Boyd said if it will be possible to change the room easily, he favors the idea.
Mr. Tucker said staff will bring back additional information in October.
_______________
Note
(: Mr. Tucker said the Board meeting is running so far behind schedule that the presentation
for the ACE Program, Agenda Item No. 13, will have to be really short. One thing staff does need a
decision on is the extension of the deadline. Staff could go ahead and set the public hearing date for
October 6, and the Board could hold its work session on the criteria after the hearing, if a work session is
needed. As to Agenda Item No. 14, Southern Urban Area “B” Study Presentation, Mr. Noah Schwartz
cannot attend this meeting this afternoon, so he needs to be heard before the Board takes a recess for
lunch. As to Agenda Item No. 13, Architectural Review Board (ARB) Sign Guidelines, he has spoken with
staff and this item can be moved to this afternoon’s agenda.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program Review Criteria.
Mr. David Benish, Director of Community Development, said he will be very brief. The ACE
program’s annual application cycle begins with an application deadline of July 1, a deadline that has
proved to be problematic. The ACE Committee recommends that the July 1 application deadline be
extended for the current application cycle to October 31, and that all other deadlines in the current
application cycle be correspondingly extended. It has become apparent that having the application
deadline fall in the summer is undesirable because many people are on vacation and the farming
community is extremely busy
Mr. Benish said the changes to the ordinance focus primarily on the ranking criteria and the
method for determining the purchase price. The changes in the ranking criteria would grant more
points for resources that are felt to be worthy of protection. The changes to the program focus on the
determination for purchasing and on multiple corporations, etc. Staff proposes that the Board set the
amended ordinance for a public hearing on October 6, 2004; that the ACE application deadline be
extended to October 31 for this year; and that all corresponding deadlines be extended accordingly.
Mr. Rooker asked that staff look at the proposal for C-corporations before the public hearing. He
does not want to create an unintended loophole.
Mr. Boyd said he is curious as to why the ordinance is means testing people’s income. Is the
philosophy to force people who have the means to donate their property? Is there historical data to show
that by means testing what the County has paid for conservation easements has actually removed more
development rights?
Ms. Thomas said this program has actually been saving family farms for the people who have
been struggling financially and who have been under intense pressure to subdivide their farms. Other
communities have had the type of backlash the Board thought it would avoid by putting in means testing.
The new board of supervisors in Loudoun County wiped out the program totally because some of the
money was going to wealthy people.
Mr. Boyd asked if consideration was given to just using it as a priority reason rather than means
testing the amount of money someone gets for their property, i.e., using a priority based on income.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks that is one of the best reasons the program is accepted so well by
the public. Also, the people who have applied have been the type of people the Board hoped would
apply. These are people who are hurting and need a way to get money now and don’t want to subdivide,
but that was their only other option.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Mr. Boyd said there must be fear there is some abuse now because this ordinance amendment
appears to be trying to shore up areas.
Ms. Thomas said the change came about because people kept applying for waivers.
Mr. Rooker said he was a member of the Planning Commission when this ordinance was
adopted. He had the same questions at the time, and they were thoroughly debated. It bothered him that
the County might be taking the ACE Program and turning it into some form of income redistribution.
Several people from the ACE Committee came forward and convinced him that their proposal was the
best one to try. If there is to be an extensive discussion of this ordinance, he thinks some of those people
would need to come to a Board meeting again and make a presentation.
Mr. Boyd asked if anyone has reviewed that decision. Does the Board feel comfortable with the
decision and is it based on any kind of statistical data.
Mr. Davis said Mr. Ches Goodall has some data he could present. However, if the County had
paid full value on the properties acquired, it would have cost a great deal more. More property has been
acquired by doing it this way.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board has been asked to set a public hearing.
Mr. Benish said staff will present some additional information at that time.
Mr. Wyant said he is a member of the ACE Committee and they have been working hard trying to
get people into the program. They have also talked to farmers who do not want to be in the program.
Mr. Tucker said staff proposes that the Board set the amended ordinance for a public hearing on
October 6, 2004, and that the Board extend the ACE application deadline to October 31 for this year, and
Motion
extend all corresponding deadlines accordingly. to this effect was offered by Mr. Rooker,
seconded
by Mr. Boyd, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NONE: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Architectural Review Board (ARB) Sign Guidelines, Work Session. Moved
to the afternoon session.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Southern Urban Area “B” Study, Presentation of Draft Report.
Ms. Susan Thomas of the Planning Department introduced Mr. Ken Schwartz from the
Renaissance Planning Group who was present to give the draft Southern Urban Area “B” study which
was commissioned by the City, the County and the University. It is one of a series of studies the three
jurisdictions have done since 1986 when the Three-Party Agreement was signed establishing the PACC.
She said this study concerns the JPA/Fontaine Avenue area. It is the second study done on this area.
The first study was done in 1988 and it needed to be updated because of transportation issues.
Mr. Schwartz made a PowerPointe presentation, and also noted that numerous maps were
posted on the wall for the Board’s review. He said this process took over a year and included many
components. There was also a Project Advisory Group appointed by the three jurisdictions. There were
two meetings in August with the Project Advisory Group and the PACC Technical Committee to get their
comments before taking the study to the PACC Policy Committee. He will show a framework plan today,
assessment of alternatives they considered in this process, and the engineering and other impact
implications associated with all of the other choices. There is some reference to transportation modeling.
They modeled these scenarios and also the by-right scenario which is to do nothing and just allow growth
to take place for the next 20 years without any infrastructure investments. He said he would answer
questions later.
Mr. Schwartz said everyone will recognize that this area of the community is in the southwestern
part of the City, with areas of the University contiguous. There are also development areas in the County,
and the topography and natural systems represent both an asset and a challenge. There is serious
limitation of interconnection in this area which was probably the single most important motivation for this
study. There are other dimensions to the study which are more subtle, but this one is “front and center.”
He said there are already traffic problems because of this limited interconnection. There are trends in the
study with faculty housing and there is the fundamental issue of the Fontaine Research Park, which is a
very successful development in the County, but is disconnected from its University home.
Mr. Schwartz said the meeting they held on November 8 with the community was successful.
There was a good turnout from both City and County citizens. It brought out impressions and
observations from the citizen’s standpoint about key challenges. People identified the importance of
planning for people and not cars, and the importance of options in the form of bike paths and transit.
There were comments from City residents about the importance of accommodating University faculty and
staff in close walking distance to their employment. There was appreciation shown for natural resources.
The Moores Creek trail system is treasured by many people.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Schwartz said a key element of the study is to identify opportunities for interconnections
including existing road systems and possible new systems. Provide for bikes and pedestrian
opportunities, and using the County’s concept and the City’s concept of the importance of neighborhoods,
build pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use neighborhoods that are compact in their form of development.
Mr. Schwartz said another issue which came through loud and clear from County citizens is the
relative lack of access to retail and services close to where they live. These comments came from
citizens in Redfields as well as those living further out.
Mr. Schwartz then referred to the Framework Plan which speaks to land use that could evolve
over time in conjunction with infrastructure investments. The railroad track is one of the major
impediments and challenges for Southern Area “B”. The spine of the area is Fontaine Avenue and
Jefferson Park Avenue. The Fry’s Springs corner lies in the City and is a key point of connection along
Fontaine and JPA. Within the County the main areas of interest are felt to be the Granger property to
south of Moores Creek, to south of the railroad tracks, to north of I-64, to the Fontaine Research Park and
to Trinity Presbyterian Church. He said the Granger property is ripe for development in a neighborhood-
based basis.
Mr. Schwartz said the key issue is how the land uses envisioned in the City, County and
University for the next 20 years take place in conjunction with infrastructure investments to make it work.
They examined a series of alternatives. They show five alternatives in their renderings and all of them
work to some degree of success.
Mr. Schwartz said an advantage to developing Area “B” in a coordinated fashion among the three
entities and with an attention to the balance of transportation and land use, is that there could be an
extension of the existing CTS and UTS transit systems in an area that is currently not served by transit.
Given the employment population as well as the evolving population of the Granger property, it would be
an advantage to have a transit circuit with a stop at the Granger property, and a stop at the Fontaine
Research Park. This would accommodate some of the movement without everyone depending on their
car. That loop could well go out Fifth Street Extended loop around Sunset Avenue Extended, and build
on the success of CTS and UTS today.
Mr. Schwartz said that in the transportation analysis they looked at two basic options. One option
involved what they called “the Fontaine-Sunset Avenue” connector. It connects those two roads. There
is another option which reopens the Sunset Avenue bridge in the City as a way of providing
interconnection as an alternative to the Fontaine-Sunset Avenue connector. They also looked at
engineering issues, environmental issues, built impacts, and transportation system impacts. They did this
assessment with the assistance of the firm of Kimberly-Horn who has worked for both the City and the
University. They provided insight into the feasibility and costing issues associated with these five
alternatives. Their assumptions about how the roads would be built involved a street system that
included accommodation for cars, trucks, etc., bike lanes, street trees and sidewalks.
Mr. Schwartz said he would explain the five options. Four of them involve going through the
Fontaine Research Park setting in different ways. One option goes through Sunset Avenue crossing
Moores Creek on a bridge that is currently closed. Alternative No. 1 is called “Fontaine West”. It bridges
Moores Creek over the Granger property. It crosses over Moores Creek, crosses over the railroad track
and joins up with Ray C. Hunt Drive and Forestry Drive.
Mr. Rooker asked if the owner of the Granger property participated in these meetings. Mr.
Schwartz said he believes a daughter attended at least one meeting. He said that half of the road joins
with an existing road and comes out through the existing entrance and exit of the Fontaine Research
Park. It has some challenges, particularly at that intersection which has a lot of left-hand turning traffic.
As a result, Kimberly-Horn looked at Option No. 2 which places a similar road at a different location
crossing Moores Creek further to the east, going across the railroad track, and coming up through the
middle of Fontaine Research Park as an urban boulevard. He said University representatives are not
enthusiastic about this alternative, although it was presented seriously as an alternative to consider
because it is wide enough to produce a tree-lined boulevard. There is the understandable perception that
this would bisect the Research Park. It has an advantage over Option No. 1 in that it clarifies that
troublesome intersection.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Research Park is built-out. Mr. Schwartz said it is nearly built-out according
to its current approvals from the County but there is additional development potential on that property.
Mr. Boyd asked if this would impact the options of the Research Park. Mr. Schwartz said the idea
would be that whatever evolves among the three parties would allow for development that is mutually
beneficial. He thinks the University is interested in further development opportunities on that property. It
has been very successful. He said this option was not well-received by University representatives, but he
felt it was important that it be presented as an option. He said the option is similar in the way it crosses
the Granger property, and has the advantage of freeing up a portion of the Granger property so no road
goes through it and puts the Fontaine/Sunset connector east of the buildings. It preserves the central
lawn and the road utilizes the existing entrance and exit to the Fontaine Research Park. It shares some
of the same problems of mixing local and regional traffic which lead to another alternative.
Mr. Schwartz said Alternative No. 4 has the same alignment as Alternative No. 3 with one
difference in that the road comes out on Fontaine Avenue east of the Fontaine Research Park.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Mr. Rooker asked if there was any problem with the proximity of the two roads. Mr. Schwartz
said “no.” According to Kimberly-Horn it is workable and a potentially advantageous combination. The
Fontaine/Sunset connector serves a regional role, and the existing entrance would continue to serve the
Fontaine Research Park. How those intersections would evolve would require further study.
Mr. Rooker said there is a stop light at the entrance to Fontaine Research Park. He assumes
another light would be needed for that connector road. Mr. Schwartz said according to Kimberly-Horn it is
possible to have two stop lights, and also possible to look at other configurations for one or both of those
intersections. It also opens the opportunity for Stribling Avenue which lies in the flood plain to become
part of the extended Rivanna Trails system and possibly afford another way for bike and pedestrian
access into the University through another means.
Mr. Schwartz said Alternative No. 5 is a completely different strategy. It is called “Sunset Avenue
Bridge Reopened.” He said the bridge was closed and since that time a good deal of growth has
occurred in this part of the County. New housing is located along a hillside and there is Redfields
Subdivision with additional development further south. He said the bridge is currently closed but they
wanted to look at a strategy should the three entities agree to reopen that bridge. He said it is a workable
strategy to reopen the bridge, but it would require a new bridge being built, and that Sunset Avenue be
realigned in the City. It also lines up with Sunset Road which is fairly wide.
Mr. Rooker said he is a member of the PACC Committee and he has always had a problem with
the maps because they do not label most of the roads. He asked that the Board members be given maps
that show most of this area with labels for the major areas. Mr. Schwartz said the areas are labeled on
the framework plan, but they are hard to read. Mr. Rooker said the context maps he saw had writing that
was so small he could not read it.
Mr. Schwartz said Alternative No. 5 involves opening the bridge, improving an urban road grid
system in this portion of the City to accommodate the loads of traffic that would be imposed on this
portion of the community. Sunset Road would be used, along with a new road over the railroad track
which lines up with Piedmont Road. There is a way to connect across from Fontaine so that all of the
traffic does not have to rely on the JPA bridge. There would need to be improvements to Stribling
Avenue, and improvements to Sunset Avenue in the City. As to costs, all five of these alternatives are
close to each other in terms of magnitude. They range in cost of $7.0 million to $8.0 million, which does
not include land acquisition or engineering costs. This is simply the cost of construction. One of the key
variables among the five is the extent to which the private sector could be involved in funding
infrastructure investments. He said that Alternative No. 5 was rated in a number of categories, but is
flawed in one fundamental way. It is unlike Alternatives 1 through 4 where there is the potential for
development on the Granger and the University Real Estate Foundation properties, with that development
perhaps contributing a portion of the investment necessary to produce the roads and bridges.
Mr. Schwartz said they did traffic modeling with existing traffic counts. He said the traffic they
modeled on a regional basis had about 8000 vtpd in the Fontaine/Sunset Alternative. Comparing that
with the network system of opening the Sunset Avenue Bridge the number is closer to 9000. He said
there was one other piece that he forgot to mention in the framework plan which is important to the
County and that is the Southern Parkway. He said that Parkway is anticipated but not determined in its
final form. If and when the Parkway is constructed they believe there would be significant advantages to
lining it up with Sunset Avenue Extended. If the three entities provide significant amounts of money to
provide interconnections, it would make sense to have the connections work through as close to the
University as possible. There is the opportunity to do that. They looked at the road leading to the
Covenant School and the trailer park, but did not do a lot with the idea because the area actually lies
outside of Urban Area “B” but they think it should be considered in order to make any new road
connections work within and beyond the area itself.
Mr. Schwartz said that in conclusion he would mention something Susan Thomas said earlier.
During this month they will be talking with the County, the City and the University to show the results of
the work. There is an extensive report which has been produced in draft form. It contains more
information than that presented today. There are comments about housing and strategies. The
University may look at location-based mortgage support so staff and faculty could have housing close to
their work. There are also comments about parking. He thinks the report will now go to the Technical
Committee.
Mr. Tucker said the group agreed that this would go to the Technical Committee to look at the
report in depth and possibly make a recommendation to the PACC Committee. He said Alternatives No.
3 and No. 4 were discussed extensively. These alternatives are on the east side of the Research Park.
The University is adamant they do not want to split the Research Park. The other big issue is the Sunset
Avenue/Sunset Road connector through the City. He does not think the City will be very receptive to that
alternative.
Mr. Schwartz said he will meet with City Council in the middle of the month. The PACC
Committee asked them to rate the five alternatives according to various issues. This was done and the
best of the alternatives was Alternative 4. The least attractive was Alternative 5.
Mr. Wyant asked if the Southern Parkway will have limited access. Mr. Cilimberg said “no.” Mr.
Schwartz said the roads they have been looking at are two-lane roads with bike lanes.
Ms. Thomas said one point she thinks the University will want discussed soon has to do with the
Fontaine Research Park and whether the Board would consider allowing a greater density there. They
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
would be putting a large investment into this if any of the first four options were chosen. Not being a
charitable organization, how could they build roads just for the benefit of the community? One of the
ways they might be enthusiastic about it would be if the County would allow them to use the park more
intensively than it is currently being used. She thinks there have been “rumblings” among planners that it
is an old-fashioned type of research park with a lot of space that is not being used practically. She gave
the University her private thoughts and said that possibly the Board would look favorably on such a
request. The Park has been successful and it could probably contain some more mixed-use or office
buildings.
Mr. Rooker said if transportation linkages could be obtained as part of an expanded density, he
thinks it would make sense. There has been a lot of discussion about building dorms in that area. He
thinks it makes a lot of sense.
Mr. Schwartz said with additional development there is also the potential for structured parking
along with that development. That has real advantages to swing use of that parking from
daytime/weekday use to special events. He said they show two units of parking on the drawings because
those areas have good access to the new Fontaine/Sunset Road, and could serve multiple purposes.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Mr. Schwartz for this report.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
motion
At 1:05 p.m., was offered by Mr. Boyd that the Board adjourn into closed session
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to
boards, committees and commissions; under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff
pertaining to specific legal issues requiring legal advice relating to an inter-jurisdictional agreement; and,
under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding probable litigation pertaining to a
zoning decision.
seconded
The motion was by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Closed Session. At 2:10 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session.
Motion
was immediately offered by Mr. Boyd that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the
best of each Board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open
meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing
the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session.
seconded
The motion was by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments.
Motion
was offered by Ms. Thomas to:
Appoint Ms. Robin Mellen to the Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Committee.
Appoint Mr. Victor F. Stone, Jr., to the Community Mobility Committee.
Reappoint Mr. Raymond East to JAUNT with said term to expire September 30, 2007.
seconded
The motion was by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. STA 01-08 - Comprehensive Revision of the Subdivision Ordinance, Work
Session.
Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior Planner, said about four months ago, the Board received the
Subdivision Text amendments from the Planning Commission. Comments were taken from different
groups on the amendments, except for the part the DISC II Committee was working on, and that had to
do with urban improvements to streets. They have now finished work on that part, but have not finished
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
work on sidewalks and landscape strips. They have recommendations to make today and Mr. Steve
Runkle is present to make that report.
Mr. Steve Runkle said DISC II decided that waivers should only be granted at the Commission
level, not at staff level. Another general decision was that waivers should only be applicable where the lot
fronts the road and only be for single-family lots. Anything else would require an urban section. In their
written report DISC II listed seven considerations for granting a waiver. They are not all inclusive. He will
attempt to clarify the recommendations from his perspective, not from that of DISC II as a whole.
Mr. Runkle said in granting a waiver to the requirement for urban street improvements, the
Planning Commission should consider the following:
No. 1 is “The project size or street length and the types of lots to be served.” He said in this
instance less is better. If a street which is rural in nature is being extended to serve a few relatively large
lots, a waiver could be granted.
No 2 is “Whether the proposed street(s) or street extension connects into an existing system of
rural streets.” A potential infill site surrounded by a low density product with all rural infrastructure where
there is no known intent to improve that infrastructure in the future, would be an example where a waiver
could be granted.
Mr. Runkle said No. 3 is “Whether the street terminates in the development or at the edge of the
Development Area or is otherwise not expected to provide interconnections to abutting areas.” He said
for projects that are now in progress which were originated under old guidelines, no purpose would be
served to develop an interconnected street system.
For No. 4 which is “Whether the use of a rural cross-section at a particular location in the
Development Areas furthers the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, with particular emphasis on the
Neighborhood Model and Master Plans.” He said this relates to other goals of the Comprehensive Plan,
not to Neighborhood Model Principles. An example: in the Growth Areas there are streams which have
been designated not to be impacted, and there are greenways, etc. He could have land on either side of
that stream that was being developed in the Neighborhood Model concept, but the impact of crossing that
stream might be lessened by going back to a rural section design for that section of road that crosses that
stream.
Mr. Runkle said No. 5 is: “Whether the use of a rural cross-section would enable a different
principle of the Neighborhood Model portion of the Comprehensive Plan to be implemented more fully.”
He said this recognizes that there are potential conflicts among the principles of the Neighborhood Model
and there may be occasions where relaxing the urban infrastructure requirement would give a higher
enhancement than some of the other principles expressed in the Model.
No. 6 is: “Whether the proposed density of the subdivision into lots is consistent with the density
recommended in the Land Use Plan.” He said there was a strong desire not to provide a waiver
mechanism that would defeat the purpose of providing urban infrastructure in the Development Areas. It
is not the intent or desire to reduce densities or provide an incentive by a waiver process to reduce
densities in the Development Areas below that number desired in the Comprehensive Plan. It must be
recognized that the way waivers will be considered will provide occasions where the actual gross density
is less than the cited three units per acre stated in the Comprehensive Plan. DISC II would expect that as
Development Areas are master planned, those areas would be identified, that has occurred in some
areas in Crozet.
Ms. Thomas asked if it is DISC II’s suggestion that something like what Mr. Runkle just said
accompany each of these recommendations to give some guidance. Mr. Runkle said they have thought
about approaches that might clarify ways in which waivers would be considered. They have drawings to
illustrate some of these recommendations. Originally they got so specific with their examples that it
narrowed it down to the point that they would never be applicable. At some point, judgment has to be
exercised. They could give some graphic information to help clarify their recommendations.
Mr. Davis said there will have to be criteria set out in the ordinance that gives guidance to the
Commission. That is a legal requirement to make the ordinance valid. The next challenge for staff will be
trying to capture Mr. Runkle’s idea about when waivers are appropriate.
Mr. Rooker said in certain cases some of these waivers could compete with each other.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Runkle had said these waiver requests can be appealed to the Commission,
and he asked if they can also be appealed to this Board. Mr. Davis said if a waiver is denied by the
Commission, that decision can be appealed to the Supervisors in almost all instances. If granting of a
waiver were the basis for denial of a subdivision, then that decision could be appealed to the Board.
However, only the developer is allowed to file for an appeal.
Ms. Echols said staff has had some internal discussion as to the level of input the Board wants
from DISC II. Staff does not know if the Board wants DISC II to furnish the suggested wording, or based
on what DISC II has provided, the wording should come from staff.
Mr. Rooker said since the County Attorney had said staff would have to develop criteria, he would
suggest that staff draft the ordinance changes based on what Mr. Runkle said today, and then run that by
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
DISC II to be sure the language captures what they envisioned. Finally, that could come back to this
Board for review.
Mr. Davis said it does not matter how the criteria is developed, but the main issue is whether the
Board wants the waivers to be granted by the Planning Commission or to be granted at the administrative
level and how that would impact people who are developing using the Neighborhood Model.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the criteria will be set out for making administrative judgments. Mr. Davis
said that has to be set out in the ordinance regardless of who grants the waivers.
Mr. Dorrier said if that is the case, the thinks the Planning Commission already has enough work
without being involved in every waiver request.
Ms. Echols said DISC II recommended that there not be any administrative waivers because of
the level of judgment required by the waivers. DISC II discussed all the instances they could think of
where there might be an administrative waiver. After examining many examples, it was decided that
every case would need to be judged on its own merits; otherwise, if it were a “standard” waiver, it is not a
waiver at all, but a standard. For any unusual situations that might arise, DISC II felt it would be better for
those to be handled by the Commission. If the Board has a preference as to which way they should be
handled, staff needs to know that now.
Mr. Boyd said he thought there was to be language added to the Neighborhood Model. He asked
if the Board ever voted on and approved that specific language. The Board is talking about waivers, but
he does not know what they are being asked to waive. Ms. Echols said there were four areas which staff
brought to the Board and which have been discussed over the last few months. DISC II was the only
group that brought the Board substantive comments on everything except private streets. They felt that
what had been written was good, but some areas needed more work and that was in the waiver
language. If that is not what the Board intended, staff needs to know that now.
Mr. Boyd said he has heard objections from other groups. It was not just DISC II that had
comments on that language.
Mr. Rooker said after that meeting, the Board decided to send the issue to DISC II. He believes
that almost all of the comments had to do with curb and gutter. Now DISC II has brought back a
recommendation on how to deal with that issue.
Mr. Boyd said DISC II is saying to keep the language as proposed, but to allow for waivers.
Mr. Rooker said that is correct. Their comments were in response to presentations by various
groups. What they did was take different circumstances, and try to build a potential waiver to cover that
circumstance. That is what the Board is looking at today. He thought that was the only thing the Board
had not decided on and said to send it to DISC II. The Board could always hold a public hearing and
make other changes.
Mr. Boyd said he did not realize that because the Board sent back work on the exceptions the
only option was to build in waivers and not change the actual language of the ordinance.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks DISC II did exactly what the Board asked them to do and that was to
come up with some suggestions as to when a waiver could take place. The question before the Board is
whether DISC II should recommend specific ordinance language. She is impressed with all of the
meetings that DISC II held. They are all volunteers, and it is hard to come up with wording by a
committee. At this point, she thinks staff could draft the language based on the advice of DISC II. She
asked if that is the decision staff wants today. Ms. Echols said “yes.”
Ms. Thomas said that would be her suggestion.
Mr. Wyant said the DISC II recommendations presented today deal with all the topics the Board
has discussed. He thinks these address the questions the Board had in earlier meetings.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board agrees with the Planning Commission waiver process and
staff would draft ordinance language that would include the seven criteria presented by DISC II. He
asked if everybody agreed that the language would go back to DISC II for review before being returned to
the Board. That was the consensus.
Mr. Dorrier asked if staff wanted that in the form of a motion. Mr. Tucker said that is preferable.
motionseconded
Mr. Rooker said he would make a to that effect. The motion was by Mr.
Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
SP-2004-00021, Margaret Engle, Ballet School (Sign
Agenda Item No. 19. Public Hearing:
#30).
Request to allow priv Ballet School in accord w/Sec 22.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord which allows for priv
schools. TM 60, Ps 25A & 25B contains approx 5.6 acs. Znd C1. Loc on Rt 250W (Ivy Rd), approx 1/10
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
mile W of intersec of Ivy Rd & Rt 29/Rt 250 Bypass. Samuel Miller Dist. (Public hearing advertised in the
Daily Progress on August 16 and August 23, 2004.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report which is on file with the permanent records of the
Board of Supervisors in the Clerk’s Office. He said the Planning Commission heard the Margaret Engle
Ballet School Special Use Permit application on August 10, 2004. At that time, staff explained the need
to further refine the language of the conditions in order to ensure that they are enforceable and clearly
interpreted. The Commission recommended approval of the Special Use Permit and conditions with the
intent that the language of the conditions would be refined between the time they took action and the
Board’s hearing. Since the Commission meeting, Planning staff has worked with the owner and with
Zoning, Engineering and the County Attorney to refine the language of the conditions. The purpose of
these revisions has been to provide clarity and to ensure that the conditions are both feasible for the
owner and applicant and also enforceable for the County. Staff proposes the following conditions of
approval:
1. Maximum enrollment shall be twelve (12) students per class, with class start and end times
staggered on minimum one-half hour increments.
2. Hours of operation for the school shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and
9:00 a.m. to noon on Saturday, provided that occasional school-related events may occur outside
of these hours.
3. A pedestrian path for public use shall be constructed along the Route 250 frontage as shown on
the Concept Plan dated August 24, 2004, prepared by the County of Albemarle and based on the
site map prepared by Muncaster Engineering dated July 29, 2003. The path shall be maintained
by the property owner. The path shall be no less than five (5) feet in width, except where existing
landscaping or utilities prevent the full five (5) feet width. Subsurface shall be four (4) to five (5)
inches of crushed stone and the surface shall be asphalt, prime and seal, recycled pavement or
any other alternative hard-surface approved by the County Engineer. Upon request of the
County, the owner shall convey an easement to the County granting public access upon the
pedestrian path. This pedestrian path may be removed and the easement, if granted, may be
released when a sidewalk is constructed within the Route 250 West right-of-way. Such path shall
be constructed and available for public use or bonded prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the Ballet School.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has agreed to Condition No. 3 as it has been modified since the
Commission’s hearing.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Ms. Margaret Engle said she is the director and owner of the ballet school. She believes
everything has been covered.
Mr. Dorrier then opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion
was offered by Ms. Thomas to approve SP-2004-00021, Margaret Engle, Ballet School,
seconded
with the conditions listed in the Executive Summary and set out above. The motion was by
Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
Note
(: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Maximum enrollment shall be twelve (12) students per class, with class start and end times
staggered on minimum one-half (1/2) hour increments;
2. Hours of operation for the school shall be from 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM Monday thru Friday and 9:00
AM to Noon Saturday, provided that occasional school-related events may occur outside of these
hours; and
3. A pedestrian path for public use shall be constructed along the Route 250 frontage as shown on
the Concept Plan dated August 24, 2004, prepared by the County of Albemarle and based on the
site map prepared by Muncaster Engineering dated July 29, 2003. The path shall be maintained
by the property owner. The path shall be no less than five (5) feet in width, except where existing
landscaping or utilities prevent the full five (5) feet width. Subsurface shall be four (4) to five (5)
inches of crushed stone and the surface shall be asphalt, prime and seal, recycled pavement or
any other alternative hard surface approved by the County Engineer. Upon request of the
County, the owner shall convey an easement to the County granting public access upon the
pedestrian path. This pedestrian path may be removed and the easement, if granted, may be
released when a sidewalk is constructed within the Route 250 West right of way. Such path shall
be constructed and available for public use or bonded prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the Ballet School.
_______________
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Public HearingCPA-2004-003. Community Facilities Plan.
Agenda Item No. 20. : Proposal
to amend the Community Facilities Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, including sections on
overall service objectives, and sections pertaining to Police, Fire/Rescue, Schools and Library facilities.
(Public hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on August 16 and August 23, 2004.)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, said the Board held a work session on the
draft Plan on August 4, 2004, and suggested that several changes be made including a new Overall
Facility Objective related to potential development of mixed use sites/facilities. Another new addition is a
reference to the use of innovative “technologies and services” to make library services available to
residents. The remaining changes identified by the Board were related to clarifying wording within the
draft. Staff has made the changes suggested by the Board.
Mr. Benish said the other major changes related to the Fire/Rescue section of the Plan. One of
the directives was to take out current numbers and the status of conditions that might be subject to
change. He said references to stations which provide life support or advanced life support were deleted.
A sentence referencing the County’s fire contract with the City was deleted even though it is fundamental
to the County’s support system, but it is something that is subject to change. The other major question
concerning Fire/Rescue had to do with two standards. One sentence read: “When 365 calls per year are
received from the interim service area, a new station is recommended to be built in the area.” The other
sentence reads: “In addition, a threshold of 1000 calls per year can be used as a benchmark indicator of
full capacity of any fire/rescue station.”
Mr. Benish said that language might be confusing, but it actually refers to two different things. He
said when 365 calls are received, that is a threshold for placing a new station. For an existing station it is
time to look at that station for improvement when it reaches the 1000 threshold. He said the 1000
threshold does not necessarily mean a new station is needed since some stations now receive 2000 calls
per year. It means that it is reaching a capacity threshold and some planning needs to be done.
Mr. Rooker said No. 9 reads: “Construction of a new station should be based on the number of
calls emanating from the proposed service area for the new station.” There also was a sentence reading:
“In addition, a threshold of 1000 calls per year can be used as a benchmark indicator of full capacity of
any fire/rescue station.” He suggested changing the language in No. 9 from “should be” to “may need to
be.” It would then not sound as if it were a mandatory requirement. Mr. Benish agreed that was the
intent.
Mr. Wyant referred to language about the “average response time.” He said if there were a large
number of calls from people in the fringe areas, there would be no way to make that response time, and it
would indicate a station was needed in an area where the County could not provide that service.
Mr. Rooker said in speaking about the timing for construction of a new station, he thinks there
might be a sentence added saying: “Decisions on the construction of new stations should also be based
on whether or not the standard is being met in responding to calls.”
Mr. Wyant said to him it would mean that if the standard were not being met, there would need to
be a new station in that area.
Ms. Thomas said that on Page 2 it says: “Persons living in the rural areas should not anticipate
levels of public service delivery equal to service provided in Development Areas.”
Mr. Wyant said he thinks the response times were changed to deal with that sentence.
Mr. Benish said that was the way this was supposed to work. He mentioned a new change that
came from staff regarding response times. He referred the Board members to Page 14. He said
Planning and Fire/Rescue staff is recommending that there be no change to the new standard but that the
existing standard be retained. They have been looking at service standards and have attended some
workshops to determine how to establish those standards. They need to do some additional work before
finalizing this standard. They need a little more time, and he thinks that will be fine because there are
other areas of the plan which are still to be finalized.
Mr. Rooker said he had a couple of changes to mention. On Page 15, Item 6, he thinks the last
sentence (“The County should also program in the CIP necessary bike lane/paths within a quarter mile
radius of the site to provide adequate pedestrian linkages between the neighborhood and the library.”)
should be deleted.
Mr. Rooker said that on Page 16, Paragraph 9, change “should be” to “may need to be” and at
the end of that sentence put the words “and service objectives are not being met in that initial area.”
Then on Page 17, in next to the last paragraph there is a sentence reading: “Last year, the regional
library circulated over 1.9 million items, or about 10.5 per capita.” Instead of saying “last year” he would
suggest that the actual year be included.
Mr. Rooker said on Page 19, under Item 3, he would suggest taking out the second bullet
reading: “Minimum size for a branch library is 4,500 based on state standards” because that language is
repeated in the next bullet. On Page 20, Paragraph 11, delete second sentence reading (“The County
should also program in the CIP necessary bike lane/paths within a one-quarter mile radius of the site to
provide adequate pedestrian linkages between the neighborhood and the library.”) because it is a repeat
sentence in that paragraph. On Page 22, under paragraph entitled “Bicycle Facilities” in the last sentence
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
where it says “to provide pedestrian linkages between”, it should say “to provide adequate linkages
between the neighborhood and the school.”
Mr. Rooker asked if the School Board had reviewed the school component of this plan. Mr.
Benish said “yes.”
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak,
the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion
was offered by Mr. Rooker to adopt CPA-2004-03, the Albemarle County Community
seconded
Facilities Plan, 2004, with the changes discussed today. The motion was by Ms. Thomas.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
Note
(: The changes recommended in various sections are set out below.)
Under FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES
Page 16
9. Timing for New Station Construction. Construction of a new station should be based on the
number of calls emanating from the proposed service area for the new station. Based on the
Insurance Service Office (ISO) standards, a new station should be may need to be constructed
when 365 calls per year are received from the proposed service area for the new station and
service objectives are not being met in that area.
Page 15
6. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access. Where appropriate, provide sidewalks, walkways, and/or trails
to connect the station site to the neighborhood(s). Consider the need to program in the CIP
necessary walkway improvements within a one-quarter mile radius of the site to provide adequate
pedestrian linkages between the neighborhood and the facility, based on the community’s
potential usage of the station (meetings rooms, etc.). In addition, bicycle parking shall be
provided. The County should also program in the CIP necessary bike lane/paths within a ¼ mile
radius of the site to provide adequate pedestrian linkages between the neighborhood and the
library.
Under LIBRARY SERVICES
Page 17
Last year, the regional library circulated over 1.9 million items, or about 10.5 per capita. Include
the year in this statement
Page 19
Delete second bullet under Item 3 as follows:
3. Buildings.
?
Most branch libraries will be full-service facilities with similar offerings.
?
Minimum size for a branch library is 4,500 based on state standards.
Page 20
11. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access. Provide sidewalks, walkways, and/or trails to connect the
library site to the neighborhood(s). The County should program in the CIP necessary
walkway improvements within a one-quarter mile radius of the site to provide adequate
pedestrian linkages between the neighborhood and the library. In addition, bicycle parking
shall be provided. The County should also program in the CIP necessary bike lane/paths
within a one-quarter mile radius of the site to provide adequate pedestrian linkages between
the neighborhood and the library.
Under SCHOOLS
Page 22
Bicycle Facilities: Bicycle access and facilities (bike trails and racks) should be incorporated into
the design of the school. The County should program in the CIP or the Six Year Secondary Road
Construction Plan the necessary bike facilities improvements within a one-quarter mile radius of
the site to provide adequate pedestrian linkages between the neighborhood and the school.
(The adopted Plan is set out below:)
Community Facilities Plan
INTRODUCTION
Community facilities provide a location for necessary and desired services for County residents and are
important components in supporting and enhancing the quality of life in Albemarle County. The facilities
covered within this plan include police, fire and rescue protection services, schools, libraries, parks and
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
recreation, government administration services, and solid waste facilities. Highway and transportation
facilities and sewer and water utilities are not covered in this plan. Separate planning processes are
already in place for these facilities.
The provision of community facilities can influence where and when development will occur; therefore,
they are important tools for managing growth. The importance of the provision of public services and
facilities is recognized within the growth management goal for the County:
Protect and efficiently utilize County resources by:
A. Emphasizing the importance of protecting the elements that define the Rural Area:
1) Agricultural and forestry resources
2) Water supply resources
3) Natural resources
4) Scenic resources
5) Historic and cultural resources
6) Limited service delivery
B. Designating Development Areas where a variety of land uses, facilities, and services are
planned to support the County’s future growth, with emphasis placed on infill
development.
Community facilities are provided to residents in the County in a number of different ways. Some facilities/
services are provided entirely by the County (schools, police), some are volunteer stations, while others
are a combination of County and volunteer (fire). Someare regional in scope (libraries), while still others
are provided jointly by the County and City (solid waste disposal facilities). In the case of Parks and
Recreation facilities, separate facilities are provided by the City and County, but are made available for
use by all residents in the entire area, including outlying Counties. Some park facilities are also provided
jointly by the City and County (Darden TowePark and Ivy Creek Natural Park).
Because of the high cost involved in providing community facilities and the potential impact to the
County's growth pattern, it is important to have a comprehensive and systematic planning process. This
process should promote an efficient provision of services and facilities that is consistent with current
needs and with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for future development. This plan will serve as a
framework for community facility development decisions. It will permit a better evaluation of service and
facility performance and needs, and a more objective review of competing demands for new and
expanded facilities so that the resources are used in areas of highest need. It is to be used to assist
agency administrators and elected officials in determining the capital project needs and priorities, and
timing for facility development. It establishes what the County determines to be the adequate level of
service for community facilities. "Level of service" defines what County residents consider as necessary
and desirable. To do this, service objectives and standards for provision of facilities are established. This
Plan is an element of the County’s Comprehensive Plan and, like the Comprehensive Plan, will be
reviewed on a regular basis.
The County’s Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the County's role in providing necessary new and
amended ordinances, regulations, support services and infrastructure for development, and more efficient
use of Development Areas, including more urban and pedestrian oriented development styles. It must be
recognized that the desired increase in density and more urban model for development recommended in
the Development Areas will also require an increased commitment by the County for public infrastructure
improvements and community facilities and services.
FACILITIES PLANNING
The Comprehensive Plan facilities planning goal states:
Strongly support and effectively implement the County’s growth management priorities in the planning
and provision of transportation, public facilities and public utilities.
Residents of the County expect high quality facilities and services. It is recognized that the provision of
such facilities and services significantly affects the location, timing, and extent of development.
By their very nature, public facilities are capital-intensive, requiring significant funding not only for the
initial development of the facility, but also for its continual maintenance and operation. It is becoming
increasingly difficult for communities to find adequate fiscal resources to pay for new or improved
facilities, as well as maintenance of existing facilities. Therefore, to provide facilities in a fiscally
responsible and equitable manner, adequate planning is necessary to ensure that the highest benefit is
provided to the citizens in exchange for the cost required providing the service. The policies, objectives,
and strategies presented in this chapter outline an active process to assure this success.
The Nature of Public Service Delivery
The County's growth management goals are to be supported through the appropriate provision of
transportation, public utilities, and public facilities and services to designated Development Areas. The
provision of fire, rescue, and police protection, roads, utilities, school bus service, and other governmental
activities and functions to a large, dispersed rural population is viewed as inefficient and contrary to the
overall public interest in guiding new development to the designated Development Areas.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Emphasis is placed on providing a level of public service delivery that will support development in, and
direct development to, designated Development Areas. To accomplish this, services and facilities will be
provided at a much higher level in the Development Areas than in the Rural Areas. Those persons living
in the Rural Areas should not anticipate levels of public service delivery equal to services provided in the
Development Areas.
Capital Improvements Program
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) serves as the major financial planning guide for County
expenditures towards capital facilities and equipment over a five-year period. It is primarily based on the
physical needs of the County as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. It is one of the primary tools used
to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Albemarle County adopted its first CIP on March 5, 1978. The CIP
is reviewed annually by the Planning Commission, as authorized by Virginia Code § 15.2-2239, and is
approved by the Board of Supervisors.
The CIP establishes a five-year funding schedule for the purchase, construction or replacement of the
physical assets of the community. A capital project typically requires a minimum expenditure of $20,000
and has a useful life of a minimum of ten years. County departments and affiliated agencies initiate their
capital project requests, which span the five-year period of the CIP. A CIP Technical Committee reviews
all requests. This Committee then makes recommendations to the Planning Commission, which
subsequently makes its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for adoption as part of the County’s
budget.
In conjunction with the CIP process, the County develops a comprehensive long-range capital needs
assessment that forms the basis for the county’s five-year capital improvement plan. This needs
assessment is updated every other year as part of the CIP process when departments are asked to
submit capital requests spanning a ten-year planning period.
Population Growth and Service Demand
Population growth and the distribution and characteristics of the population will affect the demand for
community services and facilities.
Population-
The County’s population for 2000 is estimated at 84,186 (U.S. Census) with an annual average growth
rate of 2.1%. This rate of growth is consistent with other high growth localities in Virginia. The Weldon
Cooper Center for Public Service estimates the 2002 population of the County at 86,700. With the
County and City (40,099) combined, the area population is 124,285 (2000). The combined population is
important to recognize because many County and City facilities are used by residents from each locality,
impacting available capacities. The projected 2010 population for the County is 97,200 (136,800 County-
City combined).
Distribution of Population-
As of July 2003, there are total of 34,403 dwellings in the County, 22,820 are single family detached
(66%), 1,129 are single family attached (6%), 2,172 are townhouses (3%), 6,076 (18%) are multi-family
and 1,893 (6%) are mobile homes. The Development Areas consist of approximately 5 percent of the
total land area of the County.
Fifty-one (51) percent of dwellings are located in the designated Development Areas and 49 percent are
located in the Rural Areas. Generally the western half of the Rural Areas (Rural Areas 1 and 3) contain a
little over 60 percent of all the dwellings located in the Rural Area.
Age-
Age distribution is important in assessing the need for public services and the impacts can be different for
the various services.
AGE 1990 1990 2000 2000 % change
total % of total Total % of total 1990-2000
<5 4,655 7 4,961 6 7
5-19 14,670 22 16,271 19 11
20-24 6,361 10 9,159 11 44
25-44 23,559 35 24,487 29 4
45-64 12,197 18 19,388 23 59
65+ 5,403 8 9,920 12 84
TOTAL 66,845 100 84,186 100 26
One of the more significant trends is that the population is aging, with the elderly (65+) increasing by
4,517, or 84% from 1990. This aging trend is consistent with the national baby boomer trend. Also, the
experienced workforce cohort (45-64) grew by 59% from 1990 to 2000. The school age cohort (5-19)
grew at a moderate rate (11%) from 1990, from 14,670 to 16,271 in 2000. Also, the “young family” cohort
25-44 has remained fairly stable in total numbers, with only a 4 percent change from 1990 to 2000 (as a
percentage of the total population it has decreased from 35% to 29%
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Income-
Income levels can indicate the type and extent of services that are demanded. While a higher income
level may generally mean a lesser need for essential social and human resources, populations consisting
of higher income tend to demand a higher level of community services and facilities such as libraries,
parks, and schools. Median family income for Albemarle County in 2000 was $63,407, which was 17
percent higher than the median income for the rest of the State ($54,169). Per capita income for the
County was $34,143, 9 percent higher than the per capita income statewide ($31,210).
Educational Attainment-
As with income, educational attainment can be used as an indicator of the level of services demanded
from the population. The higher the educational attainment, the less need for essential human and social
services, but the greater demand/expectation of other services (libraries, parks and recreation, etc). The
County has an extremely high level of educational attainment. Fifty-three (53) percent of the county
population has at least an associates degree, while the state level is 35 percent (47 percent of county
residents have bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 29 percent for the state).
OVERALL FACILITY OBJECTIVES
There are a number of general objectives which are common to all community facilities. Other service
objectives established within specific facility sections are to be utilized in conjunction with these objectives
in evaluating facility need and design.
Objective:
Community facilities should be equitably provided for all County residents based on cost-
effectiveness. Levels of service will vary based on the area of the County. Those in the outlying Rural
Area should not anticipate levels of service delivery equal to those provided in the Development Area.
Objective:
The location of new public facilities should be within the County’s Development Areas so as to
support County land use policies. Development Areas such as Communities and Villages will serve as
service center locations for the Rural Areas. Only in cases where it is not possible to locate a new facility
in the Development Area due to physical constraints, or the nature of the facility, and/or service(s)
provided, will public facilities be allowed in the Rural Area.
The location of community facilities can be an important factor in determining where development can
and will be accommodated. Therefore, the provision of community facilities must be carefully coordinated
with the land use plan to ensure the adequate provision of facilities and services to accommodate existing
and anticipated development. The primary focus of the land use plan is to encourage development in the
Development Areas; the necessary facilities should be provided to support this pattern of growth. In
certain cases it may not be appropriate, or possible, to provide facilities solely in the Development Areas
due to the nature of the service or other unique circumstances. However, the priority is to provide the
highest level of service to the Development Areas.
Objective:
Give priority to facilities which address emergency needs, health and safety concerns, and
provide the greatest ratio of benefit to the population served.
Objective:
Priority shall be given to the maintenance and expansion of existing facilities to meet service
needs.
Maintenance of existing facilities is of primary importance. No benefit is gained if new facilities are
provided while existing facilities deteriorate and become substandard. Also, in meeting new service
needs, consideration should be given to whether the existing facilities can provide an adequate level of
service through modification of them.
Objective:
All sites should be able to accommodate existing and future service needs. All buildings,
structures and other facilities shall be designed to permit expansion as necessary.
Objective:
Related or complementary services/facilities should be located together when possible.
There are distinct advantages for both the service providers and the public when related and supporting
facilities are in a central location. Operational economies are achieved, capital facility and development
costs are reduced (buildings, parking and accessory facilities can be shared), and cooperation and
support between personnel can be provided in some cases.
Objective:
Schedule funding of community facilities through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP),
based on the adopted Community Facilities Plan.
Objective:
All community facilities shall be in conformance with County regulations, site development
standards, and policies to the greatest extent feasible.
County projects are expected to meet all County development regulations and procedures, consistent
with any other like type of development project. County projects should further strive to achieve or meet
all other appropriate development standards and policies established/encouraged by the County
(stormwater/water quality, critical slope management, building form/orientation, amount/location of
parking, pedestrian/ bike accessibility, others). Public projects should be examples of good development
and should be models to demonstrate the type of development the County wants to see.
The County has adopted as part of its Comprehensive Plan a new model for development within the
designated Development Areas. Referred to as the “Neighborhood Model,” it supports a change in the
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
form of urban development from what currently exists. It recognizes that, if the Development Areas are to
be the primary areas receiving residential growth, density must be increased to at least the low end of the
density scale that is recommended on the land use plans for the individual Development Areas. To
achieve that density and to provide the supporting services to support and contribute to a quality
environment, the form of development must change and that form must be more urban and less
suburban. The application of Neighborhood Model principles will be an important component in planning,
locating, siting and designing community facilities. A separate section of this document, “The
Neighborhood Model” provides further information regarding its relation to facilities planning.
Objective:
Determine the value of maintaining existing but obsolete facilities and sites for the potential re-
use for other services/facilities prior to their disposal.
Consideration should be given to the re-use of public facilities/sites for other public uses, if no longer
viable for its original service/facility. It is costly and often difficult to purchase property and site public
facilities in new locations. Prior to disposing of public properties, a review of the site/facilities potential for
other public uses or reservation of the property for future use should be considered.
Objective:
Community facilities should be designed and constructed with a commitment to providing
facilities that are environmentally responsible.
By addressing environmental responsibility in the design and development of community facilities, the
County will create facilities that protect ecosystems, enhance biodiversity, improve air and water quality,
reduce solid waste, and conserve natural resources.
Objective:
Community facilities should be designed and constructed with a commitment to occupant
health and community benefits.
By addressing occupant health and community benefits in the design and development of community
facilities, the County will be creating facilities with improved indoor air quality, improved thermal and
acoustic environments. These facilities will enhance occupant comfort and health, and contribute to the
overall quality of life.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL
The Neighborhood Model impacts community facility planning and development in varied ways, but for
the most part it impacts the relative location of the facility within the designated Development Area, and
the location and design of the facility on-site. The Neighborhood Model has relatively limited impact on
the management and operation of the service.
The following is a description of what the model offers and the goals for Neighborhood and how these
may relate to facilities planning and development.
What the Neighborhood Model Offers
The Neighborhood Model seeks to change the form of development from a pattern of sprawling, isolated
buildings to a more compact and interconnected design. The Neighborhood Model:
1. Accommodates walkers, bikers, and public transportation so that mobility can be a reality for the
elderly, the young, and those with limited access to automobiles. All public facilities should be
designed and/or located to accommodate multi-modal transportation options, including walkways,
bike facilities and transit access, if available.
2. Makes open space integral to overall design so that residents and workers can walk to a public
park, experience preserved natural areas, and enjoy public gathering spaces.
Greater emphasis will be placed on strategic location of open space areas and their design to make them
more accessible to neighborhood residents. There will be a greater potential smaller-scale public park
and open space areas will be dedicated to the County for operation as part of future development activity.
Also see #12, below.
3. Keeps buildings and spaces at a human scale so that street views are attractive and pedestrian
friendly.
Building size and orientation on the site (and to the street and neighborhood) should be in keeping with
the character of the neighborhood to the extent possible and appropriate. As a general rule, buildings
should be oriented to the street, with parking relegated internal to the site and away from the street.
4. Incorporates varying densities and gradually allows for an overall increase in density in the
Development Areas to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Not directly related to facility development. However, on-site development density should be taken into
consideration to avoid lower density/sprawling site development which under-utilizes sites and does not
create or contribute to compact, walkable neighborhood development.
5. Contains a mixture of residential and non-residential uses so residents have convenient access to
work, to services, and to entertainment.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Public facility sites do not need to be mixed-use in character. It should be recognized that public facilities
contribute to the mixed-use character of neighborhoods. Therefore, strategic location and siting of
facilities can contribute to creating mixed-use neighborhoods.
6. Requires interconnected streets within developments and between developments so that
pedestrians can walk easily to many destinations, traffic has alternative routes, and car trips are
reduced in number and length.
Interconnected streets should be considered and accommodated as part of site development to the
greatest extent feasible and as appropriate for the neighborhood and the facility.
7. Moves off-street parking out of sight and encourages on-street parking.
This should be applied to the facility site design to the greatest extent feasible.
8. Mixes housing types and markets so that a full range of housing choices is offered within the
neighborhood.
Typically, this would not be applicable to facilities development. However, should opportunities be
offered/presented to provide housing as part of a facility development should it should be considered for
its appropriateness. Mixing of housing and public facilities is not necessarily discouraged.
9. Emphasizes re-use of sites.
This is already a long-standing objective in the Community Facilities Plan.
10. Adapts development to site terrain so that natural topography can be preserved.
This should be given strong consideration in site selection and site/building design. Public facilities
should strive to meet this to the greatest extent feasible. It is recognized that grading and site alterations
will occur with facility construction, but efforts need to be made to seek a sustainable balance with better
grading and preserving natural topography. Two important focus points should be protecting important
open space/resource areas (streams, significant wooded areas, etc.) and the character of the finished
grading (steepness, ability to maintain, vegetate and avoid erosion).
11. Maintains a clear boundary between Development Areas and Rural Areas.
Some facilities may be appropriate to locate at the edges of the Development Areas. The
recommendations for the Development Area boundaries, or edge treatments, will be articulated in future
Master Plans for each Development Area.
12. Provides for neighborhoods to have a designated center to bring diverse and continuous activity
to a neighborhood.
Public facilities may be established and function as neighborhood centers and/or opens space areas,
particularly parks, libraries, and schools but also facilities like fire departments and county offices
because of the meeting room/public gathering function. New public facilities will likely be encouraged to
locate in existing neighborhoods centers, if feasible.
The Neighborhood Model Goals:
Goals for the Neighborhoods are as follows:
?
Centers – Neighborhoods within the Development Areas will have centers or focal points for
congregating. These may include schools, parks, places of worship, civic centers, or small
commercial and social areas. Such features will be an easy walk for most residents in the
neighborhood,
?
Open Space – Each Development Area will offer opportunities for public and private outdoor
recreational areas for active and passive recreation.
?
Network – A network of streets, bikeways, pedestrian paths, and bus routes will connect new
neighborhoods as well as existing residential areas and nonresidential districts.
?
Mixed Uses – Neighborhoods will contain a true mix of uses, including residences, shops, and
places of employment, as well as civic, religious, and cultural institutions.
?
Building Placement and Scale – Consideration will be given to massing, height, setbacks, and
orientation of buildings so that these characteristics enhance the public realm. In particular,
garages will be less dominant at street view than houses.
?
Alleys – Where topography permits, alleys will provide rear access to parcels, allowing for and
facilitating the provision of garages and utilities to the rear of houses.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
?
Relegated Parking – Parking for the automobile will not result in an excessive amount of paved
area; parking on the street will be the norm, and the preference will be for parking lots to be
located to the rear and/or sides of buildings.
?
Variety of Housing Types – Each neighborhood will possess a variety of housing types
accommodating a range of incomes. Affordable units will be dispersed throughout the
neighborhood and will be visually indistinguishable from other units.
?
Appealing Streetscapes – As the fundamental element of public space within the neighborhood,
the street will make the neighborhood inviting with street trees and landscaping. Sidewalks or
paths that connect houses to each other and to centers and common areas will be the norm.
Walks will connect sidewalks to front doors and main entrances.
?
Transportation Options – Convenient routes for pedestrians, bicyclists, buses and other transit,
including light rail, will augment the street network. Public transit stops will be located within each
Development Area. Walking to them will be safe and convenient. Waiting for transit will be
comfortable and a normal part of activity in the neighborhood.
FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE PLAN
In the following sections, the plan establishes specific service objectives and standards for the provision
of public facilities for each of the agencies listed below:
1. Police Department
2. Fire and Rescue Services
3. Library Services
4. Schools
5. Parks and Recreation (UNDER REVIEW)
6. County Government Administrative Offices/Services (UNDER REVIEW)
7. Solid Waste (UNDER REVIEW)
POLICE DEPARTMENT
The Albemarle County Police Department was established in May 1983 and has primary responsibility for
law enforcement in the County. The Department has a total of 137 employees, including 108 sworn
officers. The County currently maintains its police headquarters in a single, centralized location in the
County Office Building. All patrol units are quartered at this location. Presently, there are no substations
located in the County. Instead, the department utilizes satellite offices within service sectors to provide
support space for officers to address administrative functions.
Each officer is individually assigned a police car on a take home basis. This policy increases police
visibility throughout the County and improves response time to emergency calls and public safety
responsibilities. Support staff occupancy of the main headquarters is a maximum of 21 people during the
day shift, including administrative, support, and investigative personnel.
The following objectives establish a methodology for providing an adequate level of police service to
County residents.
SERVICE OBJECTIVES
1. Achieve an average response time of five minutes or less to all emergency calls 85 percent of the
time in the designated Development Areas.
2. Achieve an average response time of ten minutes or less to all emergency calls in the Rural Area
of the County.
3. Provide a level of service of one and one-half (1.5) officers per 1000 residents.
.
4Locate police Satellite Offices within all designated police service Sectors of the County.
5. Provide new facilities in a manner that accommodates anticipated service demands and the
needs of the current and future staff.
6. Maintain and upgrade, as necessary, headquarters and other support facilities to meet the
standards outlined in this Plan.
SERVICE/FACILITY STANDARDS
The nature of most police work focuses on mobile police operations. Therefore, the greatest need for
facility space is related to administrative and operational support and training functions. There are no
nationally accepted standards for such facilities, but the County has adopted the following as our local
standards. These standards should be used in conjunction with the Overall Service Objectives (p. 5) of
the Plan and the Service Objectives from the preceding page.
Sectors/Beat System.
1. Maintain an effective and efficient Sector/Beat system that facilitates
meeting the identified response time standards.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
The primary service objective for police services is to achieve a five-minute response time to all
emergency calls 85 percent of the time in the Development Areas (average 10 minutes to Rural
Area). The Police Department patrols are performed based on a Sector/Beat System.
Satellite Offices.
2. Provide a minimum of one (1) satellite office in all sectors.
?
Desirable size is 250 to 500 square feet, consisting of standard office space and a
secured storage area, if possible.
?
Satellite offices should be provided in all fire/rescue stations, unless established in
another public facility/ location.
?
The location should be within a designated Development Area whenever possible or a
well defined existing rural crossroad, commercial/residential concentration, or village.
?
The satellite office should be in a location which allows response from the site to meet
response time standards
Satellite offices provide a location for patrol offices to conduct administrative functions while on
duty, without having to return to police headquarters. This convenience keeps the officer in the
patrol sector, thereby improving overall response time. Field offices are not intended to function
as full service sub-stations. The offices will not be regularly manned and services to the public
will not be regularly provided from these locations. However, they will provide a physical
presence in the area in which they are located, and allow for the future potential of limited office
hours and services to be provided.
Headquarters
3. . Provide a centrally located headquarters facility to serve Police Department
operations and administration. The location should provide for quick access to major roads
accessing all parts of the County. The site should be compatible with the surrounding area,
preferably within a neighborhood center, commercial concentrations, and to residential areas
Police headquarters is located at the County Office Building, Fifth Street facility, located on Fifth
Street, just south of the I-64 interchange. This location was established in 2004, and provides
adequate space to meet current and anticipated needs for the next fifteen to twenty years. The
Department’s approach for management of operations is to establish a single headquarters
facility. All operations are located in this facility, with field patrols provided through the
sector/beat system. Full service substations are not proposed at this time based on this
management concept. Patrol officers are (or will be provided) with satellite offices within each
Sector to provide them space “in the field” to support administration functions.
Training Facilities.
4. Provide, or insure availability of, training facilities including firing range
academic facilities classroom/training rooms.
Manpower.
5. One and a half (1.5) officers per 1,000 residents shall be provided.
Sustainability:
6.
Structures - Community facilities should be designed and constructed with a commitment to
providing facilities that are environmentally responsible. By addressing environmental
responsibility in the design and development of community facilities, the County will create
facilities that protect ecosystems, enhance biodiversity, improve air and water quality, reduce
solid waste, and conserve natural resources.
Employee health - Community facilities should be designed and constructed with a commitment
to occupant health and community benefits. By addressing occupant health and community
benefits in the design and development of community facilities, the County will be creating
facilities with improved indoor air quality, improved thermal and acoustic environments. These
facilities will enhance occupant comfort and health, and contribute to the overall quality of life.
MAP J: ALBEMARLE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT SECTOR/BEAT SYSTEM
FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES
The purpose of the Fire Department is to safeguard the community against the damaging effects of fire,
and in some cases, provide emergency medical (EMS) first response services. The Rescue Squad is to
provide both emergency and medical assistance and ready access to hospital care for those in need. The
service functions of the two organizations sometimes overlap in response to distress calls and, therefore,
the two services will be discussed together in this plan in regards to their major capital needs.
In order to accomplish the Fire Department's primary purpose requires the training and deployment of
paid and volunteer fire fighters for fire prevention and fire suppression. There are eight fire companies in
the County and two in the City of Charlottesville. The Ivy station is operated by the City, but is located in
the County. These companies are listed below:
Ridge Street Fire Department (City) Charlottesville Fire Department Headquarters
250 Bypass Fire Department (City) Station #1
East Rivanna Company #2
North Garden Company #3
Earlysville Company #4
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Crozet Company #5
Stony Point Company #6
Scottsville Company #7
Seminole Trail Company #8
Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Fire Station #9 (provides airport services only)
Ivy Road Fire Department (City) Station #10
Monticello Company #11
Rescue service in the County involves deployment of paid and volunteer personnel and equipment in
response to emergency medical needs and provides rescue equipment as well as facilities. Due to the
rescue squads’ extended response time to many portions of the County, the County’s career staff provide
advanced life support services out of certain fire stations participating in a “first responder” program.
Currently, there are three rescue squads providing services to the County, two squads are located in the
County and one in the City. These rescue squads are listed below:
Western Albemarle Rescue Squad (WARS)
Scottsville Rescue Squad
Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad (CARS)
The Regional Emergency Communications Center (ECOC), located on Ivy Road, dispatches all
emergency calls to County fire departments, rescue squads and the region’s police departments.
SERVICE OBJECTIVES
1.Achieve an average response time (how long it takes once the call is dispatched from ECC until a
fire apparatus arrives on scene) to fire emergency calls of five minutes or less in the Development
Areas and thirteen minutes or less in the Rural Areas.
2. Achieve an average response time (from time the call is dispatched from ECC to time an EMS
staffed vehicle arrives on-scene) to rescue emergency calls of four minutes or less in the
Development Areas and thirteen minutes or less in the Rural Areas.
3. Construct fire and rescue stations at strategic locations throughout the County to help achieve
desired response times to all emergency calls and increase the level of service.
4. Provide firefighting and rescue equipment as needed to meet the characteristics of particular
service areas.
5. Encourage joint fire and rescue stations at new locations when possible.
6. Maintain and utilize the current emergency response data collection system in order to provide
the County with sound information to anticipate demand for services, subsequent staffing, and
new equipment and facilities.
SERVICE/FACILITY STANDARDS
As stated above, the primary objectives of the County are to achieve desired response times and
increase levels of service in all areas of the County.
Response time is defined as the amount of time between receipt of an alarm at the station and the arrival
of the first engine or ambulance at the scene. The service and facility standards below help ensure that
average response times can be achieved and adequate service is provided to the County. These
standards should be used in conjunction with the Overall Service Objectives of the Plan and the
Fire/Rescue Service Objectives from the preceding page.
Location of Site.
1.
?
Stations are to be located in designated Development Areas in a manner that allows
desired response times to be achieved. Locating stations at or near the periphery of a
Development Area will allow both the Development and Rural Areas to be better served.
In certain circumstances, in order to provide adequate protection of the public, stations
may be located in the Rural Area.
?
The location and design of the station should be consistent with the general intent for the
facility as described in the Comprehensive Plan-Neighborhood Master Plans.
?
In general, a good location is a site that has direct access to a collector road, located
within .5 mile from an arterial road. The fire and rescue departments should control any
traffic signal lights located at the collector/arterial road intersection(s) during emergency
calls.
?
A station should not be located such that its equipment would be immediately hindered
during response by steep grades, crossing restricted bridges or railroad crossings.
?
Do not locate a facility directly on heavily traveled roads that are frequently congested
due to the potential conflicts with entering traffic flow. A site close to high volume
intersections may prevent equipment from leaving the station because traffic is backed
up waiting for a signal to change. However, it may be possible to address these issues
through the use of “station controlled” traffic signals along such road corridors.
?
Stations should be located in centers, or commercial/service areas/industrial areas.
Locations near or adjacent to neighborhoods may be acceptable; however, potential
noise and traffic conflicts must be adequately addressed.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Size of Site
2. . The useable area for a fire station is a minimum of two acres. The useable area for
a rescue squad site is a minimum of one acre. Larger sites may be needed depending on
ultimate building program and perceived expansion needs.
Parking
3.. Adequate parking should be provided to support the overall use of the building. Meeting
room usage is potentially the single highest traffic/parking generator in the facility. On-street
parking and cooperative parking with adjacent uses could be utilized to meet parking needs,
particularly overflow and meeting related parking. Parking areas should not be located between
the building and street, to the extent feasible.
Building.
4. Each new fire and rescue station should include the following facilities:
1) Living quarters (w/ kitchen, wash rooms, etc.)
2) Chief's office
3) Radio room
4) Storage area
5) Exercise area
6) Training space/Apparatus area
7) Meeting room (serving 50-100 persons)
8) Police Department satellite office space (500 sq. ft.)
?
Generally, 700 square feet of apparatus space is needed for each major fire vehicle and
350 square feet for each rescue squad vehicle to accommodate for vehicle storage and
free circulation around the apparatus.
?
Provide satellite office space for police department within all new or renovated stations
(see Police section of the Community Facilities Plan). The space should consist of a
general office space and include a small, secure storage area. Separate access is
desirable, but not necessary.
?
Provide meeting room space within all new and renovated facilities.
?
The station should be oriented to the street and brought forward to the extent feasible
and practical. Because of unique characteristics with fire/rescue stations (bay and apron
access needs, site circulation needs, etc.), the building and parking area’s relationship to
the street may need to be more flexible.
Sustainability:
5.
Structures - Community facilities should be designed and constructed with a commitment to
providing facilities that are environmentally responsible. By addressing environmental
responsibility in the design and development of community facilities, the County will create
facilities that protect ecosystems, enhance biodiversity, improve air and water quality, reduce
solid waste, and conserve natural resources.
Employee health - Community facilities should be designed and constructed with a commitment
to occupant health and community benefits. By addressing occupant health and community
benefits in the design and development of community facilities, the County will be creating
facilities with improved indoor air quality, improved thermal and acoustic environments. These
facilities will enhance occupant comfort and health, and contribute to the overall quality of life.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access.
6.Where appropriate, Provide sidewalks, walkways, and/or trails
to connect the station site to the neighborhood(s). Consider the need to program in the CIP
necessary walkway improvements within a ¼ mile radius of the site to provide adequate
pedestrian linkages between the neighborhood and the library, based on the community’s
potential usage of the station (meetings rooms, etc.). In addition, bicycle parking shall be
provided.
Vehicle Numbers.
7. (Fire Stations) In determining if a fire station is adequately equipped, fire
fighting capability must be determined. The most common method to determine this is by
calculating fire flow and fire suppression capability. Fire flow is the estimated amount of water
needed to extinguish a fire in a structure and is usually defined as needed gallons per minute
(GPM). Fire suppression capability is an expression used to define how much fire fighting power
can be placed into action to fight a fire. It includes determining the amount of apparatus,
personnel and equipment needed to effectively serve an area based on the characteristics of the
service area. Other factors to consider include population characteristics (existing/potential), land
uses (existing/potential), total area covered, density of development, terrain, and threats to
human life and property. Mutual aid agreements with other stations should be considered for
providing certain types of specialized equipment such as aerial trucks.
(Rescue Stations) The number and type of rescue vehicles shall be related to the squad’s
service area characteristics. The service area characteristics such as the number of calls and
type of calls shall be evaluated annually to determine if each station is adequately equipped. Also
total area covered, density of development, unique population and land use characteristics, and
terrain should be considered. Mutual aid agreements with other stations should be considered for
providing certain types of specialized equipment such as heavy duty rescue trucks (auto
extraction) trucks, scuba units, and rescue boats.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Circulation
8.. Traffic patterns within the station should be carefully considered and allow personnel
to reach the apparatus room from all parts of the building with minimum confusion during an
alarm. Provisions should be made to accommodate future apparatus such as aerials and
platforms, which require more height than the standard pumper. Traffic circulation should be
designed to allow fire or rescue vehicles to enter on one side of the station and exit on the other
side in order to avoid backing.
Timing for New Station Construction
9.. Construction of a new station should be based on the
number of calls emanating from the proposed service area for the new station. Based on the
insurance Service Office (ISO) standards, a new station may need to be constructed when 365
calls per year are received from the proposed service area for the new station and service
objectives are not being met in that area.
Service Capacity for Existing Stations.
10.A threshold of 1000 calls per year can be used as a
benchmark indicator of full capacity of any fire/rescue station. Once this threshold is met,
improvements or modifications will need to be made to provide for balanced service among all the
stations (new station, revise service area, etc.) or to the allow station(s) to function effectively
above 1000 calls per year. However, this is not the sole method to determine the need for
upgrades or enhancements to fire/rescue services. Other factors, or unique
issues/circumstances related to the station/service area, may create the need for improvements
to existing stations or establishment of new stations before the 1000 call threshold is reached.
MAP K: COUNTY VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANIES AND RESCUE SQUADS
LIBRARY SERVICES
Public Library services are provided to the County by the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library System
0MRL). Members of this regional system include Albemarle, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson counties, and
the City of Charlottesville. The entire regional system consists of eight facilities plus one bookmobile,
which provides service to the region. The facilities include (See Map #7):
Central Library/Headquarters, Charlottesville (29,000 sq. ft.*)
Gordon Avenue Branch Library, Charlottesville (12,384 gross square feet [gsf])
Northside Branch Library, Woodbrook (15,572 gsf)
Crozet Branch Library, Crozet (1,864 gsf)
Scottsville Branch Library, Scottsville (3,900 gsf)
Greene County Branch Library, Stanardsville (7,400 gsf)
Louisa County Branch Library, Mineral (15,000 gsf)
Nelson County Branch Library, Lovingston (4,000 gsf)
*NOTE:
GSF for the Main Library is 42,100. The total assignable area is 29,000 square feet due to the
particular construction/design of the building (unusually thick walls, large columns, and mezzanine)
In addition to the JMRL system services, the University of Virginia Library and Piedmont Virginia
Community College resources are available to the general public. Any resident of the County may obtain
a University library card, and use the facilities and check out books. However, while the University
provides an excellent opportunity for residents to have available an additional source of services and
information, a state educational institution should not be expected to provide primary public library
service to County residents. An academic library's mission and role is oriented to a different client group,
.
namely students and faculty, and is uniquely different from the mission of a public library systemIt
should also be noted that the public school system libraries, while not available to general public use, do
provided a service to a certain population group and reflect a major county investment in library services.
JMRL conducted a facility planning study in 2001 (Jefferson-Madison Regional Library, Albemarle County
Facility Planning Study, dated June 1, 2001). Much of the assessment provided in that study and
standards established in the study are still valid. This study noted that public libraries are in the process
of changing with the information age. This is putting pressure on the library to find space for computers
and new media (books on tape, CD’s, videos, DVD’s, etc.) alongside an ever-increasing quantity of
books. “Based on trends seen in library systems around the country, space use has been impacted by
changes in technology, but the overall space needs have not changed significantly. While more people
are accessing electronic forms of literature, there is something of a trade-off between computer space
and book space. The best information to date about the amounts of space needs, resulting from
technology changes, is the amounts of space devoted to various uses can be expected to change, but
overall amount of space needed is not expected to change appreciably.”
The County’s building space requirements have traditionally been slightly higher (minimum 0.7 square
feet per resident) than the recommended state standard (0.6 square feet per resident). This is due to
the high demand for service experienced in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. The information on the
Albemarle resident’s usage of libraries in the Albemarle County Community Profile, 2003, is reflective of
this demand. Last year (2003), the regional library circulated over 1.9 million items, or about 10.5 per
capita. The national average for libraries of comparable size is 6.9 items per capita. Library use at the
Regional Library has increased by 31 percent since 1997. There are currently 106,553 active borrowers,
meaning that 60 percent of residents have used their cards within the past 3 years. Over 10,000
Albemarle County residents use the library’s Internet computers per month.
Due to the shared use of existing libraries by the City and County residents, overall facility demands will
be based on the combined population of Charlottesville and Albemarle.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
SERVICE OBJECTIVES
Location -
1. Libraries should be provided in the designated Development Areas. Locate library facilities in a
manner that provides the most convenient access possible to residents within the designated
service area. Services to the Rural Areas shall be provided from facilities located within the
Development Areas and by the Bookmobile service. Other such alternative outlet
facilities/services (such as small kiosks/outlets with network connections to the library system)
which do not require significant capital outlays for buildings may be considered as alternative
methods for providing service to the Rural Areas, if consistent with the County’s Growth
Management and Rural Area policies.
Collection -
2. Provide three (3) books/materials per capita. All collections will include a variety of electronic
media, including CD’s, books, and tapes.
Building Space -
3. Provide a total library space of 0.7 gross square feet (gsf) per resident in the Albemarle -
Charlottesville area. This is measured as the aggregate space of all buildings in the County. It
should be recognized that the state’s minimum library space standard (Library of Virginia
standard) is 0.6 gsf. Due to the level of service experienced in the County, it is most desirable to
strive to achieve the 0.7-gsf level; the state standard should be considered the minimum
acceptable standard.
4. As a general target, library facilities should be provided at a rate of one for every 20,000
residents. However, size of existing structures, use of alternative service techniques, and actual
demand for services will affect the number of facilities provided.
Service area -
5. Specific service areas should be identified for each library facility.
6. Desirable travel time to the library facility for 75 percent of the service area should be ten (10)
minutes for Development Area residents and 20 minutes for Rural Area residents.
7. Bookmobile. Maintain existing service to the outlying areas, especially those areas that require
outreach service. Ensure that the bookmobile is maintained and replaced when necessary.
SERVICE/FACILITY STANDARDS
The standards below attempt to ensure that library structures meet the needs of the County residents.
These standards should be used in conjunction with the Overall Service Objectives of the Plan and the
Service Objectives from the preceding page.
Location of Site
1. . Locate library facilities within neighborhood centers, downtown areas, or other
commercial/service area concentrations. Locations in or at the edge of residential neighborhoods
may also be considered an appropriate location. Library location/design should be consistent with
the general intent for the facility as described in the Comprehensive Plan-Neighborhood Master
Plans.
Alternative Service Space
2. . Prior to making a major investment in buildings and resources,
alternative facilities such as leased space in commercial/office areas (store front space),
temporary modular structures, kiosks, or other public institutional areas shall be evaluated and
utilized. These sites shall be utilized until it is determined that adequate demand for the service
exists and the type of permanent facility needs to be provided is determined. Both leased space
and modular facilities can be considered a long-term facility option, if those types of facilities
prove to meet long term needs and are cost efficient.
3. Buildings.
?
Most branch libraries will be full-service facilities with similar offerings.
?
Due to construction and operational cost efficiencies, generally libraries will be between
15,000 and 30,000 square feet in size. Smaller facilities may be appropriate, given the
needs of the service area and the relationship of the facility to other library facilities.
Minimum size for a headquarters library building shall be 25,000 square feet.
?
Single story storage structures are preferred due to construction cost, operational
efficiencies and security. However, multi-story structures are seen as a viable option to
allow a location on a smaller infill site, or to address topographic and/or other site
constraints.
Books/Indoor Facilities
4. . JMRL standards of total collections, resource materials, special rooms,
staff space and public seating space shall be utilized.
?
Collection Size. Provide three (3) items per capita (books, books on tape, CD’s, videos,
DVD’S, etc.).
?
Public Seating. Three (3) seats per 1000 residents. A variety of seating choices will be
provided for adults and children. Lounge seating for casual reading, study tables, and
computer stations will be provided. A quiet study room may be provided depending on
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
need. A separate children’s program room may be provided based on the characteristics
of the service area. Seating meeting ADA requirements shall also be provided.
?
Staff Work Areas. Staff areas should be adjusted to each branch’s need. Public service
desks as well as staff workrooms should be large enough to handle peak loads.
?
General Meeting Room Space. Meeting room space should be provided based on a
minimum of ten (10) sq. ft. per seat (Library of Virginia standard), minimum of one for a
library of less that 15,000 sq. ft., minimum 2 for a library larger than 15,000. Additional
meeting rooms may be provided depending on the needs within the service area.
Meeting space will support programs for both adults and children.
Size of Site
5. . The site should be large enough to provide a sufficient square or rectangular library
footprint, the required parking, future expansion needs, and allowances for setbacks, zoning
requirements and suitable landscaping. A target minimum size is 2 acres, with more acreage
potentially needed for larger facilities. Smaller sites may be appropriate depending on the
character of the site, building design, and ability to use alternative parking schemes.
Parking
6.. Adequate parking should be provided to support the overall use of the building. ADA
parking requirements shall be met. The actual amount of parking for each library should be
determined as part of the building program. The quantity will be determined by the building size,
population served location, availability of public transportation and other factors. In high volume
locations with limited transportation alternatives, 1 space per 300 gross floor area may be
necessary. On-street parking and cooperative parking with adjacent uses should be utilized as
ways to meet parking needs. Parking areas should not be located between the building and
street, to the extent feasible.
Accessibility
7.. The site shall be easily accessible by auto, transit service (where available),
bicycle, and pedestrian by sidewalk.
Neighborhood Compatibility
8. . The library should be compatible with surrounding adjacent
properties and neighborhoods, both for existing and future land uses. Other factors in considering
compatibility include traffic impacts and quality and character of surrounding development
(architectural design, scale, landscaping, maintenance, etc).
Visibility.
9. A prominent location is required to attract and encourage use of the library. The site
shall be located where people can access it and conduct other activities in the same trip.
Available street frontage, building placement, location relative to employment/service/activity
centers; existing traffic volumes shall be considered in evaluating visibility.
Environment
10. . The relationship of the building to the topography of a site shall be such that
grading and development costs are minimized. The library site should not disturb any
environmentally sensitive resources located on the site such as streams, wetlands and steep
slopes. The environmental resources on the site are not to be extensive enough to alter or restrict
the design of the building structure. The soil and subsoil conditions on the site are to be both
adequate for supporting the building and vegetation.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access.
11. Provide sidewalks, walkways, and/or trails to connect the
library site to the neighborhood(s). The County should program in the CIP necessary walkway
improvements within a ¼ mile radius of the site to provide adequate pedestrian linkages between
the neighborhood and the library. In addition, bicycle parking shall be provided.
Infrastructure
12. . Public water and sewer service to the site is desirable at the time of acquisition.
Roads providing access to the site should be designed to accommodate the expected traffic flow.
All necessary road improvements to accommodate a library such as turn lanes,
acceleration/deceleration lanes, signal light, etc. shall be installed at the time of construction.
Lighting.
13. On-site lighting (for parking, fields) should be the minimum necessary to provide for
adequate safety and security.
Sustainability:
14.
Structures - Community facilities should be designed and constructed with a commitment to
providing facilities that are environmentally responsible. By addressing environmental
responsibility in the design and development of community facilities, the County will create
facilities that protect ecosystems, enhance biodiversity, improve air and water quality, reduce
solid waste, and conserve natural resources.
Employee health - Community facilities should be designed and constructed with a commitment
to occupant health and community benefits. By addressing occupant health and community
benefits in the design and development of community facilities, the County will be creating
facilities with improved indoor air quality, improved thermal and acoustic environments. These
facilities will enhance occupant comfort and health, and contribute to the overall quality of life.
MAP L: JEFFERSON MADISON REGIONAL LIBRARIES
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
SCHOOLS
A high quality education system is important to Albemarle County. The overriding goal for the County is to
provide educational opportunities for each student to achieve the highest level of achievement possible
consistent with his or her capabilities, aptitudes, and interests.
Schools play a vital role in the County's development and careful consideration must be given to the
location and development of schools in order to be consistent with not only the goal of providing
educational opportunities to all children, but also the growth management goals of the County.
There are a total of 26 public schools in Albemarle County, including sixteen elementary, five middle, and
four high schools including the Murray High School and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical Center
(CATEC) (See Map #X).
An objective of this Community Facility Plan is to provide adequate parks and recreational facilities
through the utilization of school facilities. The result is the non-duplication of many recreation facilities,
saves the County on costs associated with providing land and recreational facilities, and provides for the
more effective use of existing public facilities. Therefore, it is important that schools sites are adequately
sized to function effectively as Community and District Parks (See Parks and Recreation Section). This
plan does provide for greater flexibility in elementary school design by allowing for a smaller school site
based on providing additional “community park” facilities at other locations within the community and not
at an elementary school.
Presently, the School Board and the Parks and Recreation Department have an agreement whereby the
schools purchase the land, provide grading, and install major sports facilities related to school activities
such as football and baseball fields and the track. The Parks and Recreation Department then provides
funding for the remainder of the facilities required based on the standards outlined in the Parks and
Recreation section of the plan.
The objectives and standards below attempt to ensure that all facilities will meet the needs of the County.
These standards should be used in conjunction with the Overall Service Objectives (p. XX) of the Plan.
SERVICE OBJECTIVES
1. Establish service areas for existing schools and identify those geographic areas not effectively
served as the basis for identifying overall school facility needs.
2. New schools should be located within the designated Development Areas to support the County’s
growth management policies. The existing schools located in the Rural Area are intended to be
maintained and upgraded/expanded as necessary in order to continue to serve rural residents.
3. School location and design should be consistent with the general intent of the facility as described
in the Comprehensive Plan-Neighborhood Master Plans.
4. Locate schools on sites meeting the optimum number of general location criteria:
?
Places elementary schools within neighborhoods and at neighborhood edges. Locates
middle and high schools between neighborhoods in the Development Areas because of
their size.
?
Maximizes safe and convenient access to pedestrian and road networks
?
Is compatible with adjoining planned and existing land uses. Locations near industrial
and major commercial developments are less desirable, but not necessarily prohibited
sites.
?
Is served by public water and sewer, and adequately served by police/fire and rescue
services.
?
Is aesthetically pleasing physical qualities and appropriate engineering/developability
features (soils, topography, floodplain, wetland, etc.)
5. Strive for parity in school facilities throughout the County.
6. Provide adequate classroom space and facilities to serve school enrollment. In addition, provide
/
adequate recreationalathletic facilities on a school site to serve the students and provide
Community or District Park level services as identified in the Parks and Recreation section of this
Plan. The school division will make school, park, and recreational facilities available for
community and public use, after meeting its responsibilities to students.
7. Provide new school facilities and the expansion of existing facilities over the next ten years in a
manner that corresponds to that outlined in “The Long Range Plan for Albemarle County
”
Schools.Discourage the use of modular facilities as permanent facilities, as they are not seen
as an appropriate long-term solution for overcrowding. However, periodic use of modular
facilities during periods of enrollment fluctuations or prior to expansion or development is viewed
as a normal practice and economic necessity.
8. Identify land needed for school expansion and new schools and reserve these sites as soon as
feasible for future use. Utilize a standard school site selection procedure.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
9. Encourage innovative alternatives to address new facility needs, including potential cooperation
with the City.
STANDARDS FOR ALL SCHOOLS
There are certain standards that apply to elementary, middle schools and high schools. These include
the following:
Building Location
: School design and development should reflect the desire to achieve parity, cost
efficiencies and timeliness of construction. Building and site design should also be sensitive to the
character of the site and neighborhood setting. School buildings should be designed to fit the terrain of
the site and transition into the surrounding neighborhood to the greatest extent physically and
programmatically feasible. The school building should be oriented to the public street when physically
and programmatically feasible to encourage pedestrian access and connectivity to the surrounding
neighborhood.
Buildings:
While single story structures are preferred for operational and program efficiencies, multi-
story structures are considered a viable option to address site development issues, and/or expansion
needs. Buildings oriented to the street are generally encouraged, but ultimate location and orientation of
the building should also be sympathetic to the existing (or future) character of the surrounding
neighborhood, physical characteristics of the site, and issues of site efficiency and security.
Walks:
Provide sidewalks, walkways, and/or trails to connect the school site to the neighborhoods. The
County should program in the CIP necessary walkway improvements within a ¼ mile radius of the site to
provide adequate pedestrian linkages between the neighborhood and the school. On site, walkways are
to directly connect streets, bus loading zones, parking areas and auxiliary facilities to main building(s).
Bicycle Facilities
: Bicycle access and facilities (bike trails and racks) should be incorporated into the
design of the school. The County should program in the CIP or the Six Year Secondary-Road
Construction Plan the necessary bike facilities improvements within a ¼ mile radius of the site to provide
adequate linkages between the neighborhood and the school.
Driveway: Driveways are to provide access and control traffic to loading areas, parking areas and
building service entrances and should be strategically located and designed to minimize vehicular and
pedestrian conflicts on the public street. Multiple access points to a site may be considered appropriate
based on site design issues. Entrances should be designed in a manner that allows for the construction of
right and left turn lanes at the intersection with a public road.
Parking:
To the extent physically and programmatically feasible, parking areas should be located no
closer to the street than the school building. It is recognized that there may be characteristics of certain
sites which affect the ability to fully implement this standard. Efforts should be made to meet parking
requirements, particularly for overflow needs, through alternate means including designing internal roads
to accommodate parallel parking, recognition and use of available on-street parking, and cooperative
parking agreements with adjacent uses
Bus and Student Loading Zones:
Bus loading zones are to be designed to accommodate all buses
anticipated at one time. The bus parking area should be designed in connection with the loading zone,
independent of driveways and designed so that backing is unnecessary. Designated bus spaces control
signs are also recommended. It is desirable to have a student drop-off/pick-up zone that is separated
from the bus loading zone and parking area.
Surrounding Land Use:
Locations near industrial and major commercial developments are less
desirable, but not necessarily prohibited sites.
Lighting:
On-site lighting (for parking, fields) should be the minimum necessary to provide for adequate
safety and security.
Environmental:
The relationship of the building to the topography of a site shall be such that grading
and development costs are minimized. To the extent feasible, school construction should not disturb any
environmentally sensitive resources located on the site such as streams, wetlands and steep slopes. The
environmental resources on the site are not to be extensive enough to alter or restrict the design of the
building structure. The soil and subsoil conditions on the site are to be both adequate for supporting the
building and vegetation.
Sustainability:
Structures - Community facilities should be designed and constructed with a commitment to providing
facilities that are environmentally responsible. By addressing environmental responsibility in the design
and development of community facilities, the County will create facilities that protect ecosystems,
enhance biodiversity, improve air and water quality, reduce solid waste, and conserve natural resources.
Employee health - Community facilities should be designed and constructed with a commitment to
occupant health and community benefits. By addressing occupant health and community benefits in the
design and development of community facilities, the County will be creating facilities with improved indoor
air quality, improved thermal and acoustic environments. These facilities will enhance occupant comfort
and health, and contribute to the overall quality of life.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
Infrastructure:
Public water and sewer service to the site is desirable at the time of acquisition. Public
roads serving the school site shall be adequately designed to accommodate expected traffic flow. All
necessary road improvements to accommodate a school such as turn lanes, acceleration/deceleration
lanes, signal lights, crosswalks, etc. shall be installed at the time of construction.
SERVICE/FACILITY STANDARDS
Below are recommended service facility standards that should be utilized to ensure that educational
facilities and services are being provided equally throughout the County. These standards should be
used in conjunction with the Overall Service Objectives (p. 5) of the Plan and the Service Objectives from
the preceding page.
Elementary School
The standards below attempt to ensure that all new facilities developed will meet the elementary school
needs of the County.
1. Location of Site: Sites shall be selected and acquired where sufficient population growth is
anticipated. Seventy-five percent of the students are to live within 2.5 miles radius of the facility.
.
Whenever practical, schools are to be located on a collector or local streetExisting schools
located in, and largely serving, the Rural Area are not expected to meet this standard.
2. Size of Site: The usable area for an elementary school site shall be a minimum of 12 acres.
However, smaller sites may be viable depending on initial school capacities, alternative building
design concepts and location of parking, field areas, off- site storm water facilities or other
features.
3. Enrollment: Rated Capacity should not exceed 600 students.
:
4. ParkingParking area should be based on faculty and staff size, and school/public assembly and
recreational use. The most significant generator of parking is school events and gym use for
assembly and/or recreational activities.
5. Recreational Facilities: Elementary Schools are intended to provide a diversity of recreational
opportunities for the school population as well as provide Community Park level of services to the
surrounding area. In an effort to ensure that there is flexibility in design standards to allow
schools to be designed to better fit within the neighborhood it is located in, two levels of
recreational facilities standards are established for elementary schools to meet Community Park
standards. The “Neighborhood” level school provides the minimum level of recreational/athletic
facilities recommended to adequately serve the student population and surrounding
neighborhood. The “Community Park” level school provides for a higher level of recreational
facilities, and will require a larger site to accommodate.
The following should be provided at each school:
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FACILITIES
NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL “COMMUNITY PARK” SCHOOL
Facility Amount Size Amount Size
Gymnasium 1 8,000 sq. ft. 1 8,000 sq. ft.
Hard Surface Area* 2 14,000 sq. ft total 2 14,000 sq. ft. total
Multi-purpose Field 1 81,000 sq. ft. 2 126,000*** sq. ft.
Baseball/Softball Field 0 N/A 2 135,000 sq. ft.
Basketball Court 0 N/A 1 5,000 sq. ft.
Playground/tot lot 2 14,000 2 14,000 sq. ft.
Track**/measured loop N/A As space permits 1 Around field area
TOTAL
117,000 sq. ft. 302,000 sq. ft.
* Including 2 basketball goals
** Can be accomplished in different ways at elementary schools
***1 field @ 81,000, 1 @ 45,000 sq. ft.
Middle School
The standards below attempt to ensure that all new facilities will meet the middle school needs of the
County, as well as achieve “Community Park” level service function (See Parks and Recreation section).
1. Location of Site: Sites shall be selected and acquired where sufficient population growth is
anticipated. Seventy-five percent of the students are to live within five miles radius
2. Size of Site: The usable area for a middle school site shall be a minimum of 25-30 acres.
3. Enrollment: Rated capacity should not exceed 900 students.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
4. Parking: Parking area should be based on faculty and staff size, and school/public assembly and
recreational use. The most significant generators of parking are school events and gym use for
assembly and/or recreational activities.
5. Recreational Facilities: Middle Schools are intended to provide a diversity of recreational
opportunities for the school population as well as District level park services to the surrounding
community. The following should be provided at each school:
The following should be provided at each school:
MIDDLE SCHOOL FACILITIES
Facility Amount Size (sq. ft.)
Gymnasium* 1 10,000
Hard Surface Area 1 3,600
Multi-purpose Field 2 162,000
Baseball/Softball Field 2 135,000 (250 ft. x 250 ft.)
Basketball Courts (2 full courts) 2 12,000
Tennis Courts 2 12,500 (100 ft. x 46 ft.)
Playground/tot lot** 1 2,500
Jogging/walking trail/track 1 As space permits
Asphalt track/Loop 1 Around multi-purpose field
TOTAL
246,000
*When capacity exceeds 850 pupils, an additional 5,000 sq. ft. should be provided.
**May be provided when recommended by Dept. of Parks and Recreation, based on community need.
High School
High Schools offer a wide range of educational opportunities and extra-curriculum activities. The stand-
ards below attempt to ensure that all new facilities developed will meet the high school needs of the
County and address District level park services.
1. Location of Site: Sites shall be selected and acquired where sufficient population growth is
anticipated. Seventy-five percent of the students are to be within seven radius miles of the
school. Whenever practical, school sites shall be located on a major collector road with good
visibility.
2. Size of Site: The usable area for a high school site shall be a minimum of 45 acres.
3. Enrollment: Rated capacity 1,500 students.
4. Parking: Parking area should be based on faculty, staff and student size, and school/public
assembly and recreational use. The most significant generators of parking are schools events,
including gym and stadium use for assembly and/or recreational activities.
5. Recreational Facilities: High Schools are intended to provide a diversity of recreational
opportunities for the school population as well as District level park services to the surrounding
community. The following should be provided at each school:
The following should be provided at each school:
HIGH SCHOOL FACILITIES
Facility Amount Size (sq. ft.)
Gymnasium 1 18,000
Auxiliary Gym 1 8,000
Hard Surfaced Area 0 0
Multipurpose Field 5 363,000
Basketball Courts 2 12,000
Stadium Game Field 1 180,000
w/Track
Softball Field 1 62,500
Baseball Game Field 1 130,000
Tennis Courts 8 7,200
Playground/Tot Lot* 0 2,500
Cross Country Track 1 N/A
Jogging/Walking Trail 0 As space allows
TOTAL
811,500
*May be provided when recommended by Dept. of Parks and Recreation, based on community need.
PARKS AND RECREATION
(UNDER REVIEW)
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
Parks and Recreation services are provided by the County under the administration of the Albemarle
County Parks and Recreation Department. Facilities provided by the County are available for use by
residents of the City and adjacent localities. Facilities provided by the City of Charlottesville are available
for County residents, with Pen and McIntire Parks being two of those most frequently visited (see Map K).
The provision of parks and recreation facilities can serve to achieve a variety of community objectives.
-
Two of the most common purposes are: (1) the provision of activityrelated recreation opportunities; and,
(2) the preservation of significant environmental or historic resources.
Recreation facilities are provided through a hierarchy and are classified by their function and services
provided. The classifications include: 1) Neighborhood; 2) Community; 3) District; and 4) County.
New park facilities, especially Community and District Parks, should be located within the Development
Areas, whenever practical, to support the County’s Land Use Policy. Outlying development areas such as
Communities and Villages, as well as existing school sites, will serve as park service centers for portions
of the County located in the Rural Area. Because the County contains a large land area, there are
portions of the Rural Area that are located outside a Park’s recommended service area. The outlying
Rural Areas should not anticipate an equal level of park service that is provided in and around
Development Areas; therefore, the location of new parks to serve the outlying Rural Area, with the
exception of County Parks is not recommended.
The private sector, the City of Charlottesville, and the University play a vital role in meeting the
recreational needs of the County. These groups provide a number of tennis courts, basketball courts, tot
lots, swimming pools and other recreational facilities. Cooperative efforts between these groups and the
County should be encouraged to satisfy the recreational needs of the County.
Service Objectives
1. Provide recreational opportunities in those areas not effectively served, especially in or
near Development Preserve and provide access to and within areas identified in the
Albemarle County Open Space Plan for public use.
2. Utilize County school facilities as an integral part of providing recreational opportunities to
County residents.
-
3. Provide recreational facilities Countywide, based on the standards recommended in this
Plan.
4. Upgrade facilities in Albemarle County that do not meet the standards outlined in this
Plan to provide a full range of recreational opportunities to their service area in a
-
complementary and nonduplicative fashion.
5. Upgrade facilities in Albemarle County that do not meet the standards outlined in this
Plan to provide a full range of recreational opportunities to their service area in a
-
complementary and nonduplicative fashion.
6. Emphasize maintenance and enhancement of existing facilities.
Recommendations
-
• Provide Communitylevel park service to the eastern portion of Neighborhood 3 by
upgrading facilities at Darden Towe Park.
-
• Provide Districtlevel park service to the Scottsville Community by upgrading Totier Creek
Park and/or Scottsville Elementary.
• Ensure that existing parks and recreation facilities are adequately maintained to permit
their continues productive and safe use.
• Upgrade and repair existing facilities at the elementary, middle and high schools to
ensure that the sites are functioning effectively as Community and District Parks.
• Construct public access facilities around and within sites indicated in the Open Space
Plan for public use and ensure safe and efficient use of the area.
• Encourage the maintenance and enhancement of existing public access points to the
Shenandoah National Park.
• Conduct an evaluation on the indoor recreational needs of the County. Consider
providing indoor recreational facilities based on the results of the needs assessment
conducted by the County.
• Conduct an evaluation of the Bartholomew property on State Route 641 and Preddy
Creek to determine the most appropriate uses for the property.
COUNTY GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
(UNDER REVIEW)
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
The Albemarle County Office Building is the focal point for general governmental business in Albemarle
County. As such, attention must be given to providing adequate space and establishing an environment
which creates efficiency in operation and a sense of pride and ownership in local government for the
people of Albemarle County (see Map K).
Service Objectives
1. Centralize government administrative services near population/employment centers in
the City and/or in Development Areas of tee County to effectively provide efficient
operations and convenient locations for the general public.
2. Provide a standard of office space per employee. Additional space needs may be met by
one or more of four options:
a. Construct additional space at the existing central site.
b. Provide satellite facilities in one or more highly populated Development Areas of
the County.
c. Lease nearby, office space.
d. Purchase additional building(s).
3. Provide ancillary space needs in conjunction with the provision of new space.
4. Provide additional space in accordance with need. Do not defer provision of new space to
a point where unsatisfactory conditions exist. Maximize flexibility in space design to
maximize opportunities to use/modify/expand/reduce internal space.
5. Evaluate existing space in the current building and eliminate inefficient design which may
allow for additional office space.
6. Provide adequate space to allow departments that relate closely in responsibility and
activities to locate in the same structure. Within the structure, location of such
-
departments should be primarily based on their operational interrelationships to assure
they can function efficiently and serve the public effectively.
7. Design any new facilities constructed on the existing site to be functionally and
aesthetically complimentary to the existing structure.
Recommendations
• If deemed appropriate, provide additional office space either through leasing, purchasing,
or construction of a new building. If future additional space is provided, the existing office
building should be reconfigured, as necessary, to accommodate anticipated office space
demand of remaining departments. If additional office space is provided at the existing
site, a master plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors shall be utilized as a guideline
for siting, designing, and landscaping new buildings.
• Subject to review, retain the Police Headquarters at the County Office Building site with
the provision of additional space needs to address the current deficiency as a high
priority. All possible options to satisfy the department’s space needs should be reviewed.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
(UNDER REVIEW)
Solid Waste Management addresses collection and disposal of domestic solid waste for residences,
institutions, businesses, and industries, and also includes inert construction debris, brush, yard waste and
vegetative debris. It does not include wastewater treatment or hazardous waste facilities. However,
hazardous waste is a solid waste management issue and will need to be addressed.
The recommendations of the Solid Waste section of the Community Facilities are currently under study by
the Solid Waste Task Force. The recommendations of this section may be amended based on the
findings and recommendations of the Solid Waste Task Force.
Landfills
Disposal for the City, University and County is provided through the Ivy landfill. This landfill is located on
Route 637 in Ivy, approximately eight (8) miles southwest of the City. The landfill uses a single linear
through motion for disposing of garbage and separating out construction debris, white goods and metals,
tins and brush for separate disposal and recycling. It has a total of 300 acres with approximately 100
acres used to date. The Ivy landfill was previously owned and operated by the City and County. However,
in the interest of efficient operation the City and County created the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
(RSWA) to operate this and future landfills, recycling centers, and disposal centers.
Currently, RSWA’s main responsibility is to operate the Ivy landfill, which was conveyed to them by the
City and County. The RSWA is also responsible for ensuring the Ivy landfill adheres to the Virginia
Department of Waste Management regulations. The RSWA is not authorized directly or indirectly to
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
collect solid waste in the City or County. The RSWA may set up transfer stations and transfer waste
between facilities.
At the Ivy landfill, approximately 32% of the waste comes from Charlottesville, with the remainder, about
68%, from Albemarle County and the University of Virginia.
Transfer Stations
A transfer station is any solid waste storage or collection facility at which solid waste is transferred from
collection vehicles to haulage vehicles for transportation to a central solid waste management facility for
disposal, incineration, or resource recovery. The Board of Supervisors does not endorse the use of
transfer stations in the County at this time. Instead, the Board has endorsed the use of private haulers to
provide the transfer service.
Recycling
Recycling is a part of the solid waste management system in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. The
RSWA is responsible for processing recyclables received through local programs. The Rivanna Solid
-
Waste Authority operates two voluntary dropoff recycling centers in the Charlottesville/Albemarle Area.
These centers are located on McIntire Road near the Albemarle County Office Building (McIntire Center)
and at the Ivy Landfill.
Albemarle County helps subsidize a curbside recycling program through willing private refuse haulers. So
far, over ten private refuse hauling companies have begun to participate and serve both single family and
apartment customers.
Service Objectives:
1. Local initiatives should be generally reflective of the State of Virginia’s hierarchy for solid
waste management activities: source reduction, reuse, recycling, resource recovery,
incineration, and landfills.
2. Develop a solid waste program that adheres to the rules and regulations of the Virginia
Waste Management Act.
3. Develop an efficient and environmentally sensitive solid waste management program.
Ensure solid waste generated in the County is collected, processed and disposed of in a
manner beneficial to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the County.
4. Explore and participate in solid waste disposal methods and programs which will cost
effectively increase the life expectancy of the existing landfill. This should include study
of all solid waste activities listed in service objective #1.
5. Continue to support the use of private haulers in the collection and transfer of solid waste
material in the County.
6. Establish a comprehensive household hazardous waste program for the County.
7. Increase understanding of the need for solid waste management and increase the
participation of individuals, businesses and institutions in waste reduction.
8. Analyze possible economic savings and other benefits by evaluating various financing
methods including City/County, private or regional funding.
Recommendations
• The County should utilize a combination of solid waste management activities discussed
in this section. This program should increase the participation of individuals, businesses
and institutions in source reduction and reuse.
• Initiate a study to locate a new landfill site. This study should be in conjunction with other
jurisdictions and the possibility of a Regional Landfill should be considered.
-
• Determine the most costeffective and beneficial method to collect recyclables and
implement this program immediately to ensure the County adequately meets State
mandates for recycling.
• Develop a data collection program that ensures accurate reporting of recycling activities
and allows the data to be used for accurately projecting future waste stream.
• Develop and implement an integrated education program for all aspects of the waste
stream in consultation with the City, University, RWSA, private sector and other
interested groups. This education program should promote the purchase and use of
recyclable materials.
_______________
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
Agenda Item No. 21. CPA-2003-006, Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Work
Session.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on August 10, 2004, recommended approval of the
draft Rural Areas element of the Comprehensive Plan. He said many different individuals and
organizations provided invaluable comments during the Commission’s work sessions. Today, staff will
outline for the Board the process which will be followed for its work sessions.
Ms. Joan McDowell, Planner, said she will make a PowerPointe presentation to introduce this
element of the Comprehensive Plan. She said the draft Rural Areas element of the Comprehensive Plan
has evolved over many years. Contributions from individuals and organizations such as the
Agricultural/Forestal Industries Support Committee and the Rural Areas Focus group were invaluable in
development of the Plan, as was the work of former Planner, Mary Joy Scala. Staff also held four public
input sessions in the rural areas during the winter months of 2002 and 2003. She said the purpose of the
work session today is to allow the Board to decide on a process for the review of the proposed Rural
Areas Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Staff thinks it is desirable to hold these work sessions on a
regular monthly schedule until their completion.
Ms. McDowell said staff has set up the following schedule for this review:
Work Session No. 1. Discuss the process and timeline; finalize the list of key issues set forth in
the Comprehensive Plan for discussion at subsequent work sessions; review and discuss the trends in
the Rural Areas, some of which are set forth in the Introduction of the Comprehensive Plan, and all of
which will be included in a Power Point presentation.
Work Session No. 2. General overview of the draft Plan; Discuss key issues such as: Guiding
Principles; Funding priority for easements; Agricultural support; and Density.
Work Session No. 3. Continue discussion of key issues such as: Central water/sewer; Rural
Preservation Developments; Crossroads Communities; Additional Uses; Land Use Tax; and
Implementation priorities (per objectives and strategies of the Strategic Plan),
There would then be a public hearing held, followed by another work session before taking final
action.
Ms. Thomas asked if Ms. McDowell wanted comments from the Board members now as to
whether they agree with the key issues listed. Ms. McDowell said “yes.”
Ms. Thomas said she had one suggestion. She thinks the impact on roads and traffic from
greater population growth in the rural areas needs further consideration. The Eastern Planning Initiative
has some good figures on what happens when there is scattered development.
Mr. Rooker asked if Ms. Thomas was suggesting putting in something about transportation in the
guiding principles.
Ms. Thomas said she was suggesting it be added under the key issues the Board will be
discussing.
Ms. McDowell said the Planning Commission added a section entitled “conservation uses.” One
of the most controversial issues has to do with density and development, and rural preservation
development. The Commission has asked that RPDs be mandated and with few exceptions that is the
way land would be subdivided in the rural areas. Another key issue is the phasing of development under
this plan. Development would not just be initiated by the landowner and subdivided. The County would
interject some slowing down of subdivisions.
Ms. Thomas asked under which key issue that would be discussed. Ms. McDowell said because
it is part of rural preservation development and subdivision in general, a separate discussion could be
added for phasing.
Mr. Tucker suggested using the guidelines for work sessions as set out above. If there are other
issues to add, if Board members will contact Ms. McDowell between now and the October meeting, they
can be added, rather than trying to do it now.
Mr. Cilimberg said transportation will be added to the list.
At this time, Ms. McDowell made a PowerPointe presentation consisting of maps and charts of
the rural areas: a copy is on file in the Clerk’s Office.
Mr. Dorrier thanked all those who had worked on this draft of the Comprehensive Plan.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Policy Regarding Community Development Authorities (CDAs), Work
Session on Consideration of a policy.
Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, said that over the past several months the Board has
reviewed the use of Community Development Authorities (CDAs) as a means to address major
infrastructure development in the County. CDAs are “corporate body politics and corporate and political
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
subdivisions of the Commonwealth” created by a locality by ordinance upon petition of the landowners
within the proposed area to be included within the CDA. CDAs represent one mechanism to pay for and
finance infrastructure that is necessary to meet the increased demands placed upon a locality as a result
of development.
Mr. Foley said the use of a CDA has been proposed by the North Pointe Development as a
component of its proposed rezoning for the purpose of financing its infrastructure. There is a significant
difference between the North Pointe proposal and the CDAs proffered in two earlier rezonings (Albemarle
Place and Hollymead Town Center). The prior proffered CDAs would provide the County a new method
for funding capital improvements, such as regional transportation improvements, by creating a special tax
district. The North Pointe CDA would be used to fund typical development costs and proffered
improvements by assessing all the properties within the development an amount to pay for tax-exempt
bonds used to finance those development related improvements. The North Pointe CDA is effectively a
means to reduce development costs and pay for proffered improvements while the previously proffered
CDAs were a means of addressing regional impacts created, in part, by that new development.
Mr. Foley said the questions before the Board are: If and when is it appropriate to use CDAs to
facilitate development and, should the County share in the benefit derived from the approval of a CDA by
requiring it to assist in paying for the infrastructure that supports the County’s implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan’s master planning initiatives?
Mr. Foley said the recent discussion and consideration of CDAs has focused primarily on how a
CDA is formed and its potential uses, rather than when use of a CDA is appropriate or desirable in
Albemarle County. In other localities, CDAs have been used as a tool or incentive to attract development
by providing a financing mechanism that reduces overall development costs. During recent discussions,
members of the Board and staff have suggested that the use of a CDA should be reserved for
improvements that go above and beyond the typical improvements expected in a rezoning to offset the
impact of the development. Clarifying the County’s position on the appropriate use of a CDA is important
because it could significantly affect North Pointe’s approach to its pending rezoning application.
However, it is also important in a broader sense because of the potential use of CDAs as a means to
address urban infrastructure needs in general.
Mr. Foley said based on the County’s current land use and economic development policies, staff
believes the use of CDAs should be reserved as one tool to help finance infrastructure that is necessary
to implement area master plans that have been adopted as part of the County’s Comprehensive Plan. In
areas where a master plan has not been approved, staff would recommend that CDAs be considered on
an exceptional basis and only after any pending zoning actions have been decided. Staff believes that
the use of a CDA should not facilitate development outside of the County’s master planning process.
Mr. Foley said it will still be necessary to determine what types of improvements that should be
financed by a CDA. Many improvements should continue to be development costs paid for by
developers. However, improvements that are above and beyond what would typically be expected to be
provided by a developer could be addressed by utilizing the advantages of CDA financing. If a property is
already zoned and the proffers determined, improvements above and beyond that which support the
Neighborhood Model principles might be a good use of a CDA. An example would be structured parking
offered as a way to enhance what the development has already proposed to do. Determining what
should be expected to offset the impact of any particular development would remain part of the rezoning
process, but guidance from the Board would be necessary to define what is clearly above and beyond
what is typically expected to be a developer paid cost of development.
Mr. Foley said staff recommends that the Board adopt a policy to limit the use of developer
initiated CDAs to the following situations: Projects implementing an approved master plan that is part of
the County’s Comprehensive Plan; and, exceptional projects that are only considered after all zoning is in
place and which demonstrate that a CDA is necessary to accomplish the infrastructure improvements for
that area that are consistent and necessary to implement the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Foley said if the Board agrees with this proposed policy, it will be necessary for staff to
present the Board with additional information and analysis regarding what might be considered “typical
improvements”, those that would normally be expected to be paid for by a developer without the use of a
CDA and “special improvements” that would be appropriate to be financed by use of a CDA. Defining
these improvements will be a necessary component of a final CDA policy.
Mr. Foley said the North Pointe development is the subject of the next discussion on the agenda
today. If the Board adopts this policy, the current North Pointe development would either need to go back
through a master planning process to meet the first recommendation, or the rezoning would need to be
presented to the Board without being contingent on a CDA
Mr. Dorrier asked if staff had reviewed CDAs in other localities around the state. Mr. Foley said
staff looked at those and found that in almost all cases CDAs were used as an incentive for development
rather than as a way to promote the form of development. Staff sees that as significantly different from
Albemarle’s land use policies.
Mr. Davis said in the Washington Post yesterday it was noted that a substantial new development
in Loudoun County has filed an application to use a CDA for residential development. They anticipate
there will be four additional, large residential developments proposing CDAs. That is different than how
they have been used up to this point.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
Mr. Boyd said he did not realize CDAs could be used for residential development. He thought
CDAs could only be applied to commercial developments. Mr. Davis said they can be applied to any
property.
Mr. Boyd said in the Executive Summary there is a sentence which says: “During recent
discussions, members of the Board and staff have suggested that the use of CDAs should be reserved
for improvements that go above and beyond typical improvements expected in a rezoning.” Mr. Boyd
said he is not one of those board members who are convinced of that nor does he agree with that
statement. He does not know what the typical expected improvements are or how they are evaluated.
He knows some previously approved projects were used as guidelines, but he does not know of any
policy which talks about expected improvements.
Mr. Foley said in the Executive Summary staff started with a chart which said “typical” or “above
and beyond.” They felt the approach presented today is a better one. This would only apply to No. 2
where the Board had already approved zoning. Staff recognizes that only some Board members made
that comment.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks it is appropriate to discuss CDAs. He would not want to restrict them with
a policy. He thinks statements in the executive summary would take away the Board’s options. At this
time, he is not interested in being restrictive at all in discussions.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that soon the Board needs to decide with respect to North Pointe under
what circumstances it will consider a CDA for that project. He said the focus on CDAs came about
because of North Pointe. The approved proffers for CDAs for Hollymead Town Center and Albemarle
Place were proffers by the developer who agreed to make contributions beyond what their other proffers
provided. They were not to be used as a way to finance those proffers. It was a way for them to
contribute to additional infrastructure in the future, particularly along the Route 29 corridor. For North
Pointe, the Board has a situation where the proffers for a rezoning have been made contingent upon
Board approval of a CDA. It is not a CDA based on tax increments like Albemarle Place and Hollymead
Town Center, but a CDA which would be used to fund the proffers, and a lot of them appear to be
infrastructure for the development. He thinks it is possible that Albemarle Place and Hollymead Town
Center might be interested in using CDAs to fund infrastructure if the Board is going in that direction.
After the fact, they might want to go back and fund some of their proffers and some of their infrastructure
with CDAs. At some point he thinks the Board must focus on the circumstances under which those types
of CDAs will be allowed in the County. Otherwise, he does not think the discussion of North Pointe can
go forward.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board is talking about developing a policy before it deals with North Pointe.
He thinks the Board needs to look at what it wants before dealing with a policy.
Mr. Rooker said he thought the Board had told staff to bring back recommendations on the use of
CDAs of the kind North Pointe wants recognizing that whatever is decided would also be applicable to
other developments. The Board has to be reasonably fair in its application of its policies. If the Board
moves forward with North Pointe with the concept that a CDA will be used for infrastructure, he thinks it
should only be done using a policy that is applicable across-the-board for developments. That is how the
Board got to this point. He thinks Albemarle Place would like to use a CDA to build structured parking.
Hollymead Town Center would probably like to use a CDA to finance some of their infrastructure. He
thinks the Board needs to make a decision about the use of CDAs before applying them to North Pointe.
Mr. Wyant asked if the CDAs for Albemarle Place are to be used for off-site work.
Mr. Rooker said they made a series of proffers which totaled millions of dollars without regard to a
CDA. As an additional proffer they agreed to participate in a CDA which would be a twenty-five cents tax
increment with the money being used for public improvements.
Mr. Wyant said he thinks the County is mainly interested in improvements off-site. The
developers are going to pass that cost to the people within their development, so the cost of parking
structures and additional lanes on their roads will be passed on. He thinks that having a CDA to do that is
up to the developer.
Mr. Rooker said the kind of CDA the Executive Summary is talking about is different from the
CDAs approved for Albemarle Place and Hollymead Town Center. The CDA requested by North Pointe
would require a legislative act by the Board to create each CDA and the Board would appoint the
members of the CDA who would act somewhat as a separate political body. It has not been done in the
County before, and that is why the Board is looking at how to do that.
Mr. Boyd said this policy does not address the issue of how to set up things, how they are
structured, or how to approve that process. He disagrees with Mr. Rooker saying the Board asked the
developer to go back and give a non-CDA proposal, which he thinks they have done. The Board now has
two options, one with a CDA and one without a CDA. He does not see any reason to set up this policy
before going through that discussion. He does not think North Pointe hinges on this policy decision. He
asked if they had given the County a proposal that does not include the CDA.
Mr. Foley said staff is in the process of clarifying what proffers would be offered if there were no
CDA. On October 6th staff will bring to the Board two clear plans, one with and one without a CDA for
North Pointe, each with its own set of proffers.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
Mr. Boyd said North Pointe has done what the Board asked them to do so he does not see any
reason to establish this policy before moving forward in that process. This policy seems like a restrictive
use of CDAs and he does not want to close the Board’s options at this point.
Mr. Rooker said the County has never had a policy concerning CDAs. The question is, under
what circumstances the Board wants to allow the use of CDAs. Board members may make additional
suggestions to go along with what staff has presented.
Mr. Boyd said that is why he is not ready to vote on a policy at this time.
Mr. Wyant asked if Mr. Boyd is concerned because the master plan for that area has not been
done.
Mr. Boyd said part of what is being recommended by staff is that the Board not make any
decisions on properties which have not been master planned. Mr. Foley said that is correct; only if the
zoning has been approved first.
Mr. Boyd said he is not ready to put that type of fence around something he does not know
enough about.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the Board should look at the CDAs in Loudoun County where
applications were just made yesterday. He thinks the Board should study what is happening outside of
Albemarle before developing this policy which will be an important policy for the County and which might
decide development for years to come.
Mr. Rooker said he does not disagree and thinks the Board should take whatever time is
necessary to develop the policy. He will point out that with respect to North Pointe there could easily be
the “chicken or the egg” problem. Personally, he will not support a North Pointe application which has a
substantial number of the proffers based on a CDA when the Board has not yet established a policy for
circumstances under which it might approve CDAs. The decisions to rezone property and to set up and
approve a CDA are two separate legislative decisions. Without some clear guidelines under which the
Board might approve a CDA, it would be difficult for him to consider an application by North Pointe which
is contingent upon a CDA. North Pointe may present another application which is not contingent upon a
CDA and the Board can judge that application on its individual merits. He does not know how the Board
could approve a rezoning with the idea that if a CDA were ever put into place, there would be things
which would make it work. The decision to adopt a CDA is an entirely separate legislative decision by
this Board.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees, but he looks at a CDA as a financing mechanism for infrastructure the
Board wants, not what the developer wants. In some cases, it might help the developer and the County.
That is why he pushed the Board to get a non-CDA proposal from North Pointe, so the Board could
compare the two. The Board could receive a proposal without a CDA which set out a certain amount of
infrastructure, but which had financing such as a CDA or some sort of private/corporate partnership, so
that amenities could be added. There are several ways that could be handled, but CDAs seem to be the
best thing available at this time. His problem is the statement about what is expected of the rezoning in
order to offset its impact. He does not know that the “expected rezoning” should be. Part of the fiscal
impact of North Pointe is very positive. Looking at the fiscal impact of other projects approved recently,
there is a negative.
Mr. Rooker said every residential development is fiscally negative, and almost every commercial
development is fiscally positive.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to mention Mr. Boyd’s financing mechanisms. She said if an
applicant came with a rezoning and said their proffers would only work if they got their financing
mechanism in order, but they wanted the rezoning anyway, the Board would not take the proffers under
that circumstance. Her concern about CDAs is the possibility of creating a CDA, and being asked to
approve a rezoning which is a permanent action, on the suggestion that the financing mechanism may
come through. She thinks there has to be something more definite about a CDA before she is willing to
replace the words “financing mechanism that may come through” with the word “CDA.”
Mr. Boyd said that is why the Board asked North Pointe to give an alternative proposal that did
not include CDAs. He asked if that proposal has been presented to staff. Mr. Foley said staff will have
that for the Board on October 6th.
Ms. Thomas said it comes back to what the Board has said about the proposal. The CDA would
only be approved by the Board if it produced things over and above what would ordinarily be required.
The Board would not accept a proffer based on tentative plans.
Mr. Boyd said the financing mechanism is very unusual. What the Board has is a group of people
who said they are willing to be taxed, but they cannot tax themselves so they need the CDA.
Mr. Davis said the analysis is difficult. If a CDA were approved for North Pointe, it would not be
used just to finance the extra Route 29 improvements. North Pointe would do a CDA which would
finance a lot of the internal improvements as well as the external improvements since that would generate
the tax savings because the interest saved on financing would generate a cash bonus for that developer
to use. If the Board allows a developer to use a CDA, how much would they save on typical developer
costs? That is part of the staff’s struggle in analyzing this. If the developer uses a CDA, he will save
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
money because it is tax exempt financing paying for typical development costs. Then it will also pay for
things which are special costs that are above what the developer would be expected to pay for. The
Board has to balance how much money the developer saves by using that mechanism for typical
developer costs. The Board needs to make sure he invests that money into infrastructure that supports
the needs of the County. The developer should not profit from using a CDA development financing
technique simply to escape other typical development costs.
Mr. Boyd said he has a different view of this matter. He does not care what it costs the developer
to do it, only what the County will get out of it. If the County is going to get extra school sites, library sites
and improvements to roads in the outlying areas, he does not care if the developer saves money. He
thinks it needs to be compared as to “the deal” for the County.
Mr. Davis said staff does not disagree, but thinks how much more the County would get out of it
should be dependent on how much money the developer saves on the infrastructure.
Mr. Wyant asked if comparing North Pointe to the previously approved developments is the cause
of the concern. He asked why the Board should worry about the amount of money the developer might
save. He said people are in business to make a profit. He asked if there is some way to take the interest
the developer saves and put that into the infrastructure. He knows the County has the two previous
developments, and he has a little bit of a problem when they are compared against this one. He thinks
the Board should approve something which is not illegal and which will help the County.
Mr. Dorrier said the savings would be passed to the consumer.
Mr. Wyant said if someone can come up with an innovative way to help the Board make this
decision, he would be in favor of that.
Mr. Foley said when this tool is offered, will the County expect some benefit which meets the
goals of the Neighborhood Model? If that tool does not provide extra benefits to help the County achieve
those goals, the Board may not want to use it. Otherwise, it would simply save development costs for the
developer and not use those savings for public purposes.
Mr. Rooker said when this discussion began months ago, he said he did not care if the developer
found a way to save himself money. He cares that the Board be evenhanded with respect to different
proposals. He said the Board should not approve a development that does not pay for its impacts in a
meaningful way. If the Board is going to analyze North Pointe with and without a CDA, the Board needs
to understand under what circumstances the Board would approve a CDA. He said on October 6th the
Board is to get proposals with and without a CDA. He does not know whether he will support the
development. He will be “up in the air” looking at those proposals if he does not understand the
circumstances under which this Board might approve the CDA proposal.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees with what Mr. Rooker is saying. This has nothing to do with saying the
Board cannot look at a CDA proposal until it does this or that. He does not think a policy is necessary in
order for the Board to look at the value of a CDA in relation to North Pointe. Without having gone through
the process of looking at proposals with and without a CDA, and the cost benefit of having a CDA, he is
not ready to “box us in” with a policy that says the Board can only look at CDAs under certain
circumstances.
Mr. Wyant asked if the Board “skirted by” what Mr. Boyd said. What does the Board normally
expect and what is above and beyond that?
Mr. Bowerman said the Board is in the position of creating value with somebody. A legislative act
like a rezoning creates value for somebody. What is the public value derived from doing it? The Board
needs to look at that issue and see if it would be creating a public benefit.
Mr. Wyant asked how to define “public value.”
Mr. Dorrier said as long as the Board is within the confines of the law that is what the Board can
do and not be restricted further by a policy that is narrower than the law. The Board cannot go back to
Hollymead Town Center and Albemarle Place.
Mr. Rooker said he believes those developers will come back to the Board if a policy is adopted.
Whether or not the Board adopts this policy today, it will be part of his thought process as an individual
Board member when he looks at a proposal that involves a CDA. If he does not see a material public
benefit from the granting of a CDA, he will not vote in favor of that CDA. He thinks this is an attempt to
outline the kind of public benefit the Board might consider appropriate for approving a CDA.
Mr. Foley said staff will bring information back to the Board so it can decide what is “typical” and
what is “above and beyond.” The plans brought to the Board on October 6th will show what is not
included when the CDA is taken out.
Mr. Boyd said he is still not in favor of this recommendation.
Mr. Foley said staff met with Mr. Rotgin on Monday and was able to clarify the review that will
have to occur in order to give the Board those two plans on October 6th.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
Mr. Boyd said his point is that the policy being proposed is not going to change one iota how he
would look at it. He asked Mr. Rooker if he was saying that if the Board had a policy which said it would
not look at areas which had not been master planned, he would not be able to truly analyze the North
Pointe proposal. The other issue is it only being done at the rezoning time.
Mr. Rooker said there are two things in the policy. Mr. Boyd read the first one, but not the second
one. The second one says “Exceptional projects are only considered after all zoning is in place which
demonstrates that a CDA is necessary to accomplish the infrastructure improvements for that area that
are consistent and necessary to implement the Comprehensive Plan.” To him that is a fairly broad
guideline, but it is a guideline under which the Board might consider whether it is appropriate to approve a
CDA.
Mr. Boyd said that says the Board will not consider a CDA at the same time as it is considering
zoning, and he does not agree with that yet.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think the Board has the authority to grant a zoning approval
contingent upon a CDA.
Mr. Tucker said the second item is trying to separate the land use issue from the funding and
financing issue, the CDA.
Mr. Davis said if the Board does not follow this recommendation and wants to consider the North
Pointe proposal, and if the Board wants to consider the CDA which relates to that development, the
process would be to hold the public hearing on North Pointe, reach a consensus that it is a project the
Board is in favor of, defer it, have the Community Development Authority (CDA) put together, hold a
public hearing on the CDA, adopt it first, and then consider the formal adoption of the rezoning. That is
the only way he would recommend that the Board ever adopt a rezoning that is dependent upon a CDA.
The CDA really has to be in place first because of several technical reasons.
Mr. Boyd asked if that is what occurred at Short Pump.
Mr. Davis said that for Short Pump the zoning was already in place, and then they came forward
with the support of Henrico County because they were trying to encourage economic development by
locating that Short Pump development where it is. They were competing with Richmond and other
jurisdictions for that development, so they approved the rezoning, and then subsequently approved the
financing as an incentive to the developer.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is any pre-consensus approach that the two could be done together. He
asked if they would have done the development without the CDA. Mr. Davis said the developer may not
have done it at all, but there were no proffers that he had to do the improvements.
Mr. Rooker said his only concern is that when the Board gets to the end of North Pointe, this
same discussion will arise. If the Board cannot reach a consensus now as to the appropriate
circumstances for a CDA, how will it reach a consensus for North Pointe.
Mr. Boyd said he still does not feel comfortable with this policy for CDAs. He is not saying a
policy should not be considered after North Pointe is finalized, but he thinks it would be a good process to
go through to educate the Board members.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the Board still has work to do on the question of CDAs. Since CDAs
have been applied for in Loudoun County, he thinks the Board needs to find out what is going on, and
how other CDAs around the state are being used.
Mr. Rooker said what was said earlier is that the CDAs in Loudoun are for purely residential
development. He thinks they are offering that as a further incentive for developers to create residential
development in Loudoun County.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board has a combination residential/commercial development with North
Pointe with a library site and school site being proposed. He asked if that is what is going on in Loudoun?
Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Davis if the zoning already exists in the Loudoun County situation and they
are simply requesting the financing of that infrastructure. Mr. Davis said according to the article in the
Washington Post, they are proposing new residential development with rezoning of the area, and the
CDA is being proposed “to help growth pay for itself” by putting tax-assessed increment financing on top
of the areas that they would rezone. That is a new approach to how a CDA has been used anywhere
else in the state. The closest thing before was a mixed-use development which is just now getting put
together and financed in Hanover County. It is not the same as what is being proposed in Loudoun.
Mr. Foley said it was just pointed out to him that that CDA is only being considered as part of a
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Mr. Davis said it was unclear in the article. He thinks they are opening up new areas to
development that previous boards of supervisors had closed.
Mr. Rooker said it does not seem that the Board is going to reach a consensus on this today. He
asked if there is any information that any Board member needs about CDAs generally. The Board has
gotten a legal memo on CDAs. At some point, the Board will need to deal with this issue. In fairness to
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
Albemarle Place and Hollymead Town Center and perhaps other developers who are currently making
investments, if the Board is going to develop a policy that says the Board will approve CDAs under certain
circumstances, it should be done so they understand what the policy is and under what circumstances
they might come to this Board. Today there is no such policy, and accordingly he does not know that any
other developer would understand the circumstances under which they might qualify.
Mr. Dorrier said there is a law which says that CDAs are legal and can help fund infrastructure.
He thinks the Board can use the maximum extent of that law. If it is good for the County and it is good for
the public, and if it provides libraries and schools at a reasonable cost, then he thinks the Board would be
wrong not to look at and consider it.
Mr. Foley said there has been a lot of information given to the Board about CDAs. Staff had
prepared this Executive Summary in a way that said there is a principle on which the Board will have to
make a decision in terms of whether it is a tool for getting some additional public benefit. Staff can find
more information if the Board wants to direct staff on what type of information that should be. Staff feels
the Board has to decide based on what it knows now.
Mr. Boyd said he does not need more information, but what he is trying to say is that he would
like to work through the process of doing a CDA or not doing it, and then after the Board has some
hindsight, the Board can begin to set policy. Until the Board actually works through the mechanics and
finds out what is best for the County and its citizens by actually doing one of these, that is the point in
time when there needs to be a policy.
Mr. Foley said the one positive thing about the work session on October 6th is that staff is
working with the applicant and they have talked about what information the Board needs for that meeting.
Staff has to clearly show what the applicant thinks is above and beyond what would otherwise be
expected for his development. The Board will have to decide whether it agrees with that or not. Before,
staff has not been able to even break it apart so the Board could see what the applicant thinks is above
and beyond what he would otherwise have to do.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Update on North Pointe Rezoning.
(Note: The Executive Summary is set out below to help clarify the conversation:
“The Board last held a work session for this project at its meeting on June 2. At that time, staff
and the applicant had a large number of unresolved issues. The Board directed staff to work at resolving
those differences before bringing this request back. Since that time, staff and the applicant have spent a
considerable amount of time working together in an attempt to resolve differences on the development
layout and proffers. Through that work the number of unresolved issues has been reduced. However,
staff will need direction on the issues that remain unresolved. These items are:
On the issue of the development layout, staff has worked with the compromise layout accepted
by the Board’s committee and attempted to address the issues that remained with that layout. At
this time, there are two major issues related to the design layout that staff and the applicant have
been unable to resolve. Those issues are related to layout consistency with ARB
recommendations and modifications to the mixed use part of the development referred to as the
“library block.
On the issue of the proffers, a decision on the proposed Community Development Authority
(CDA) remains a critical factor. Without knowing if the CDA will be approved, the applicant has
been unwilling to provide proffers that staff believes are critical to the consideration of this
application.
In discussing a CDA policy with the Board, staff recommended that a CDA be considered only
with rezonings for projects that are developed under a master plan that is part of the Comprehensive
Plan. For projects that are not developed as part of a master plan, staff recommends the rezoning or
special use permit be considered without any reliance on a CDA. The plan and proffers would have no
reliance on a CDA as part of the considered land use decision. In applying staff’s CDA recommendation
to the North Pointe development, any proffers contingent on the CDA would need to be removed from the
proffers. After the rezoning is approved, the Board would then consider what additional benefits are
appropriate as part of the CDA petition.
Staff received revised proffers on August 20 that reflect development with a CDA. Based on
meetings with the applicant, staff had anticipated receiving proffers two weeks before this date and it was
not possible to review the proffers in time for this meeting. This is also compounded by the fact that a
second plan was submitted that does not have either the elementary school site or the library site. Staff
understands this plan would be used if the CDA is not considered with the rezoning and a set of proffers
related to this plan will still need to be submitted. Effectively, by considering two plans and two sets of
proffers, with and without a CDA, staff is being asked to review two applications. This doubles the
workload and assures that at least one review will be unnecessary. As such, staff hopes to delay
additional review of the proffers until a decision is made on the CDA. This will allow staff to focus on a set
of proffers that reflect the Board’s intentions on the CDA. Given the late date at which these proffers
were received and the need for a decision on which set of proffers should be reviewed, staff does not
believe it is possible to have the application ready for public hearing by October 13. At best, staff will be
in a position to provide the Board a work session on October 6 on the proffers that are reviewed. At that
work session, staff believes the Board could set a date for a public hearing.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
Staff has reviewed the layout that includes a school site and a library. The applicant has also
submitted a plan that does not include a school site or a library, but staff believes the layout issues with
both plans are the same. With regard to the development layout, the Board’s committee made two
recommendations that staff believes have not been adequately addressed. First, the applicant has not
revised the layout to reflect the ARB’s recommendations. Second, staff has concerns regarding
modifications to the library block, also known as the downtown block. As previously directed by the
Board, staff has not focused on the “big box” issue, but has attempted to verify consistency with the
remaining ARB recommendations. Staff’s remaining concerns with the layout have largely been
satisfactorily addressed, though some minor modifications that should be easily accommodated are still
needed.
Staff recognizes many of the ARB recommendations can be managed at the time of site plan, but
staff believes certain recommendations must be addressed with the rezoning. Staff believes the following
ARB recommendations (using ARB numbering of recommendations) related to the site and grading need
to be addressed with the rezoning:
#10. Preserve some of the existing trees and terrain along the EC (Entrance Corridor) and
revise the placement of structures accordingly to establish a more coordinated streetscape.
#16. In areas where existing wooded areas are not retained adjacent to the EC, provide a
continuous planting area along the EC with a minimum width of 25 feet. Provide in the planting
area a mix of shade, screening and ornamental trees, and a mixed selection of shrubs with a
planting height of 36”. The landscape area shall not be reduced to accommodate utilities
(overhead or underground), future road widening or other site elements.
#17. Delete all rows of parking adjacent to the EC right-of-way.
#19. Provide more substantial landscape buffers along the perimeters of parking areas visible
from the EC.
#20. Provide a continuous planting bed no less than 7’ in width and free of utilities, along walls
visible from the EC for Buildings #5, 10, 14, 19, 30, 31, 32, and 36 without reducing landscape
area along the EC or in the parking lot travelways.
#21. The stormwater management facilities shall project the appearance of landscaped water
features rather than maintenance areas. Such features shall be landscaped to achieve
integration with the surrounding development.
With regard to the library block, staff’s main issue is whether relegated parking has been
adequately achieved. Staff believes the development layout accepted by the Board’s committee was a
compromise that balanced an acceptance of the applicant’s desire for “big box” development with parking
in front, against the opportunity to have a Neighborhood Model friendly “downtown” mixed use area. This
is the area surrounding the proposed library location and referred to as the “library block.” Staff direction
to work on improving the library block came as part of DISC II’s recommendation. This area includes a
mixed use of retail, office and residential uses, and is the part of the plan that best exemplifies features of
the Neighborhood Model. In particular, staff believes the applicant’s layouts have not shown adequate
consideration for the concept of relegated parking in this area. Staff continues to believe the compromise
for the big boxes was based, at least in part, on the concept that this area could be designed to provide
better consistency with the Neighborhood Model. Staff has shared with the applicant several alternative
layouts that would provide for the same parking while better utilizing relegated parking.
It should be noted that staff’s recommendation for denial of this rezoning has not changed and,
based on what is currently being considered, is not anticipated to change. While the compromise
satisfied concerns with the layout, staff noted other concerns that remain unresolved. Those include the
likelihood of stale zoning for the commercial part of this development and consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, especially the Neighborhood Model. As such, staff does not anticipate changing its
recommendation for this rezoning application.
Finally, it should be noted that the County is now starting the Northern Area Master Plan process,
which includes this property. Given staff’s recommendation on a CDA policy, the applicant may wish to
consider withdrawing the current application and participating in the Northern Area Master Plan process.
Using the staff’s recommended CDA policy, it would then be possible to incorporate the CDA into the
planned rezoning once the Northern Area Master Plan is completed. Also, for both staff and the
developer, relying on a master plan would resolve many of the concerns that have made this a difficult
process.
Staff’s recommendations are:
1. Staff requests that the Board concur with staff’s recommendation that the plan and proffers
remove any reliance on a CDA. The Board could then consider a future CDA separately from the
land use decision.
2. Staff requests that the Board delay setting a public hearing for this application and schedule an
October work session to review the proffers. A public hearing date could be set at that work
session.
3. Staff requests that the Board concur with staff’s recommendation that the applicant modify the
library block to address the issue of relegated parking to staff’s satisfaction.
4. Staff requests that the Board concur with staff’s recommendation that the applicant modify the
development layout to address the ARB recommendations, excluding the recommendation on
limiting the size of the “big box.”
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said staff will have two sets of plans and
two sets of proffers for the Board at a work session on October 6. The one issue regarding the layout of
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
the development applies to both of scenarios. The first issue has to do with the library block. He pointed
to the area of the library block shown on a large map posted on the wall. One of the nice things about
this plan earlier in the year was this area the County was getting as a kind of compromise for the big box
development happening in other parts of the property. Staff has been working with the applicant hoping
to get a library block that is a destination that embraces elements of the Neighborhood Model.
Mr. Graham then showed a drawing by staff and said the difference between the two is the issue
of relegated parking. This would allow the buildings to be “shoved up onto the street front” in order to
create a “downtown” feeling.
Mr. Rooker asked if both plans show the same number of parking spaces. Mr. Graham said
“yes.” The other issue has to do with a parking lot. Staff thinks a retaining wall will be needed and that
means the storefronts will be separated from the street. The staff’s drawing captures more of what it
wants to do with that area.
Mr. Graham said staff thought the plan should go to the ARB for its recommendation so that was
done in April. When this was discussed previously, staff had a clear understanding that the big box
recommendation should not be used. Staff has not pursued that and has tried to integrate the other ARB
recommendations into the layout. Staff thinks there are a number of items that will be lost if not obtained
during the rezoning process; things the ARB cannot require. Some would also be difficult for the ARB to
do anything with if they were part of a proffered layout.
Mr. Graham said in June there was a long list of issues. Staff believes that most of those issues
have been resolved. Whatever guidance the Board can give staff today on the remaining items would
help it greatly.
Mr. Rooker asked about the ARB’s No. 21 which states: “Stormwater management facility shall
project the appearance of landscape water features rather than maintenance areas. This feature shall be
landscaped to achieve integration of the surrounding development.” He asked if the applicant did not
agree to that. Mr. Graham said the applicant has not committed to anything in that regard. The response
from the applicant has been that these are all issues that should be addressed at time of site plan
approval rather than during a rezoning.
Mr. Wyant asked that Mr. Graham point out on the map where the water features would be
located. Mr. Graham said from the Entrance Corridor (EC) it would be very visible. Mr. Wyant asked if
Mr. Graham has looked at elevations on this plan. Mr. Graham said one would be looking down at it from
the road. Until it is known how the parking lot grading and everything else works, one would not know
how much will be seen. Mr. Wyant said he thinks the critical part will be the buildings along the front.
Driving at 55 miles per hour on Route 29 the library section will not be seen, so screening along Route 29
will be essential. Mr. Graham said that is the reason for the ARB’s recommendation.
Mr. Rooker asked if No. 20 which states: “Provide a continuous planting bed no less than seven
feet in width and free of utilities along walls visible from the EC for Buildings #5, 10, 14, 19, 30, 31, 32,
and 36 without reducing landscape area along the EC or in the parking lot travelways” refers to the
buildings right along Route 29. Mr. Graham said it would apply to the buildings with walls right along the
entrance corridor.
Ms. Thomas asked if staff wanted Board comments about the library block scheme. Mr. Graham
said staff would like Board guidance about that matter.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the main difference has to do with relegated parking. Mr. Graham said that is
correct; there are some other differences but that is the primary difference.
Ms. Thomas asked that Mr. Graham describe the uses of the buildings in more detail. Mr.
Graham said there are buildings on both sides which are shown for retail on the first floor. The hill drops
from top to bottom so there are mixed levels. You would enter the building on the second floor from the
east side and on the first floor from the west side. That allows the uses in the building to be split.
Ms. Thomas asked that Mr. Graham point out the library site. Mr. Graham said the library site
has been shifted and the park space has been put on the front. That is why staff thinks it is getting close
to a design which creates that sense of place. There is the essence of the old downtown square with the
library and the main public building, with the retail surrounding it.
Ms. Thomas said people used to think that parking lots were a fairly benign thing to walk across,
but increasingly there are accidents in parking lots. With an aging population, it is nice to be able to walk
without going through the parking lot to get to other facilities. She likes staff’s recommendation to have it
more welcoming to the walker.
Mr. Boyd said the change seems to be in the building behind the library on the other side of the
park.
Mr. Rooker asked the use of that building. Mr. Graham said it will be retail. Mr. Rooker asked if it
is a one-story building. Mr. Graham said it is to be two-stories.
Ms. Elaine Echols, Planner, said the new Senior Planner, Sean Dougherty, helped with the staff’s
plan. There is a driveway going into that building. What he had in mind was the possibility of the parking
being depressed somewhat in that area, if not moved to a different site. His concept was to allow parking
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
at that location if necessary, but have the stores front on the street with pedestrian access. If the stores
were to front the street in “A” (the street that fronts the library), you cannot see those store fronts. Staff
tried to modify that design to make it a more functional area as well as a more pedestrian-friendly area.
Mr. Dorrier said if there were no further questions for staff at time, he would ask Mr. Rotgin to talk
about the library.
Mr. Rotgin said he would like to talk first about the Community Development Authority (CDA). He
listened to what everybody said under Agenda Item No. 22. He came away with the idea that in order to
use a CDA for a funding mechanism for a private development, the County should get some benefit from
that CDA in terms of infrastructure whether it is onsite or offsite. That will be his challenge between now
and October 6th. They talked to staff about this last Monday and staff has an alternate plan and a
statement of what the alternate proffers should be. They hope to have a list showing benefits pro and con
for the October 6th meeting.
Mr. Rotgin said Mr. Graham said there were only two issues concerning the design. He said
there were 45 issues on Ms. Echols’ list when they began this process last May and there are only two
issues on that list now. He said this is actually a better plan. Referring to the library, he said Ron Keeney
has talked with the applicant for several weeks about the library area. In that area there are residences
on the top floor, offices in between, and retail on the lower level. They know that in order for the retailers
to be successful, they must have proximate parking. That is the thing he wants to preserve, but there are
some topographical issues. They are dealing with five-foot contours at this time. That needs to be
reduced to two feet or less.
Mr. Rotgin said they have created something in this area which is different from the rest of North
Pointe and other commercial communities. North Pointe is located in the country eight miles from
downtown Charlottesville. They are trying to provide a downtown area in this development. They do not
have the density to accomplish what everybody wants. These are to be three and four-story buildings.
That is a tough economic challenge to make work in this market. If the University’s North Fork Research
Park is successful and there are a lot of employees there, plus more people in the area in general, there
might be enough people to make North Pointe successful.
Mr. Rooker asked which of the buildings will be three stories tall. Mr. Rotgin indicated on a
drawing the buildings which will be two-story, three-story or possibly four-story. He indicated an area
where there is a two-story change in grade. He also indicated how people would access the buildings
from one side on ground level and on the other side on the second level. He said a recommendation for
a street grid came from the ad-hoc committee. The street grid enables them to make that change in
grade without having to do as much grading as was initially anticipated.
Mr. Rotgin said he would like to say a couple of words about the ARB. He thinks the Board asked
the ARB last Spring to give its opinion of the layout embraced by the ad-hoc committee. He said Mr.
Davis has brought up a statement he (Mr. Rotgin) made last Spring and he thinks there is an incorrect
perception that he refused to do what the ARB asked for. He did say last Spring that they are aware of
the requirement for ARB approval, and he is confident they will be able to satisfy their suggestions. While
they recognize that ARB approval is part of the site plan approval process, they will not be applying for
site plan approval until all site plan and engineering details are completed. That includes the more
defined topography as well as applications to the Corps of Engineers and the Department of
Environmental Quality for permits. They must have agreements in place with their major users, and those
users have to have their own architects and landscape planners ready to work with the ARB. It is not
practical, not fair, and there is no precedent to impose significant ARB conditions on North Pointe at this
stage of the process. He said Ron Keeney has some more detailed points he can discuss about that. He
understood what Mr. Rooker said about being able to make the pond look like an amenity.
Mr. Rotgin said North Pointe is a work in progress. They have a long way to go. They appreciate
staff’s cooperation. The issues have been “whittled” down to two, and he thinks they can be resolved
although the library may be a challenge. He said the new County designer gave Mr. Keeney some
suggestions on moving the library and enlarging the park, but they have to find a way to get proximate
parking. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Rooker said he understands the general concern about ARB requirements being imposed at
this point. He asked which things are problems for the applicant.
Mr. Rotgin said driving past North Pointe one would not realize that lumber has been removed
from the site. They left trees along the frontage of that property because they thought that was the
responsible thing to do. Even though they did that good deed, it does not go unpunished.
Mr. Rooker said that is the first point. What about the second one calling for a continuous
planting area along the EC with a minimum width of 25 feet. Mr. Rotgin said they left a minimum of ten
feet everywhere along the boundary with Route 29 where they show landscaping. Looking at the white
area (in here), there will be a significant area between where the edge of pavement will be after the
improvements are made in the Highway Department’s right-of-way; sometimes there is 50+ feet in
addition to the places where they have 25 feet. In the past, they negotiated agreements with the Highway
Department in order to landscape within Highway Department right-of-way. They will work with the
Highway Department, and to the extent they will let them plant in the right-of-way; they will make that an
attractive landscape area.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
Mr. Rooker said that means they will expand that area up to 50 feet. Mr. Rotgin said they will
expand it up to whatever area the Highway Department will allow them to expand it.
Mr. Rooker asked if that is a minimum of 10 feet based on what is on the North Pointe property.
Mr. Ron Keeney said they have established a minimum of ten feet on their property; that has to do with
the hedgerow and other things along the edge of the parking. A significant additional space will be
available for major landscape, some of which they left and some they will enhance to improve the visual
buffer regardless of where the property line actually lies.
Mr. Rooker asked if they are willing to say that will be a minimum of ten feet up to 50 feet if the
right-of-way is available from VDOT for planting. Mr. Keeney said the property zigzags so in order to
have a uniform line they must deal with the zigzag. If they are able to average the buffer, they will end up
with a significant buffer. They are guaranteeing 10 feet, but they believe it will average 20 to 25 feet. Mr.
Rotgin said they will do that.
Mr. Rooker said the next issue is to delete all rows of parking adjacent to the Entrance Corridor
right-of-way. Mr. Rotgin said that is a challenge. They moved buildings up toward Route 29, but they
have to get circulation around the buildings for tractor trailer access. Here, they have a double-loaded
parking bay which is the most efficient parking available. They understand the ARB wanted to take out
one row of parking which leaves them with a travelway and one row of parking. That is not very efficient.
Somewhere they have to go back and pave area that is not paved now. He asked Mr. Keeney if they can
get an agreement from the Highway Department to landscape that area (that area is 40 or 50 feet), does
not that issue go away? Mr. Keeney said that is up to the ARB. They are asking them to arbitrarily
remove that line of parking. If there is another row of parking immediately behind it, what is the point of
removing one if you will just see the next one?
Mr. Wyant said there will be total screening along there. Mr. Keeney said there will be the band
of screening they have been talking about. The issue is about that one row of parking. The ARB
apparently does not want parking at the end of the curb that faces Route 29. The ARB is willing to have a
travel lane but they do not want parking.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the parking will be seen. Mr. Keeney said they do not believe it will be
seen because there will be a planted hedgerow immediately at the curb that comes up to the three-foot
line, and then there will be substantially bigger landscaping as one moves toward Route 29.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Cilimberg if how the parking is ultimately configured adjacent to the
Entrance Corridor is an issue the ARB has the power to deal with at the time of site plan approval. Mr.
Cilimberg said it has been staff’s experience that if it is not set out in the zoning decision, then it is not
that definite at the ARB level. Because it was not clarified and set out in the decision on the Hollymead
Towne Center, it took twice as long to finalize that site plan through the ARB. You spend the time now, or
spend it later. He said it is good to know what the applicant feels might address the ARB’s issues. He
has no idea if what the applicant has said today will work in terms of the ARB’s review of the project.
Relying on right-of-way as an area of landscaping is relying on something that can be taken away by
VDOT. He is not sure the ARB has ever relied on the VDOT right-of-way as a way to guarantee
landscaping is maintained. Comments should be requested on those concepts.
Mr. Rotgin said that right-of-way for the Blue Ridge Shopping Center was not part of the ARB’s
consideration because they agreed to include it. Mr. Don Wagner said they got a planting agreement with
VDOT to be able to plant into the right-of-way in that case. The parking lot along Route 250 is three or
four feet below Route 250. The land is lower and they planted in that area, so you might be able to only
see the top of a vehicle in the parking lot.
Mr. Wyant asked if there was an agreement that should it ever have to be removed, that they
would have to do some other planting. Mr. Wagner said there was no such agreement.
Mr. Rotgin said they think they can shield that parking. They think the ARB will understand that.
He said Mr. Graham said on Monday, and he was right, that the Hollymead Towne Center site plan was
“a train wreck.” He does not know what happened, but it got accomplished through the process. The
next issue was to provide more substantial landscape buffers along the perimeters of the parking areas.
He is not quite sure what the ARB is talking about. He said that in the parking areas there are some extra
wide planting strips. Those are low-impact development features. What they are trying to do is introduce
considerably more green area into the parking areas where water will actually drain through and be
filtered before it gets into the storm sewer system before it goes into the pond. This is not something they
have done before; this is new.
Mr. Rotgin asked Mr. Keeney what would happen if they made this parking like the County has on
its property where there are blocks with grass growing through it. He said that is a possibility.
Mr. Rotgin said the final issue (which is the more important of the issues) is that they do not know
how to define what each building face will look like. They have told potential users of those sites that they
will have to break up the ends so they do not look like one monolith wall. He does not know how that will
be accomplished.
Mr. Rooker said that is fine if it is something the ARB has the power to require based upon the
plans submitted at that time. The ARB has raised issues they think are important. If the Board does not
deal with them now, there is concern that the ARB may not be able to deal with them later. He said Mr.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
Rotgin has said there may be other ways to deal with the visibility issue at that time. That is fine if the
Board can be assured that someone will have the power to deal with the issue at that time.
Mr. Rotgin asked if it was dealt with for Hollymead.
Ms. Elaine Echols said that is one of the problems that existed. Some things were not worked out
at the rezoning and the “train wreck” occurred because the commitments were not there to do the things
the ARB wanted to see done. She feels certain the 22 points in the ARB letter are their attempt to try and
avoid “duking” it out at the site plan stage. That is part of the reason they asked for the changes to either
be made now or the commitments be made now.
Mr. Boyd said the problem is the practicality of dealing with the points now as opposed to when
they have their architects ready to deal with the issues.
Ms. Echols said staff had hoped the applicant would address those issues in a certain way, not
necessarily in the detail that would be on a site plan. Staff would like to know at the rezoning stage that
there will be 25 feet to work in, or that they will get the things requested. When the plan was taken to the
ARB, it was their recommendation that the zoning be conditioned on these things. Staff explained to
them that a zoning cannot be conditioned, and they asked what kind of commitments they could get that
these things would be addressed in the way they have asked them to be addressed. Staff said the only
way they know that commitments could be made would be through the proffers.
Mr. Rotgin said they have provided those 22 items to the users of two of the sites, so they know
what is expected. They are in the process of asking them to send back their elevations for their best
architectural design anywhere in the country.
Mr. Rooker asked again about Item 20 for continuous planting. Mr. Rotgin said that issue is
probably the most onerous. It requires them to come to the end of that building and put in a seven-foot
landscape strip. They do not have the room to do that. That is why he has said there may be other ways
to do that. They have room for a one or two-foot that would allow plants to grow and be espaliered
against the walls. The architect may come in and work with the ARB and decide he wants to do offsets in
that big wall, or put in false windows so it looks like a storefront. It is difficult to make a commitment at
this time, but they do acknowledge that the ARB is a requirement which must be met for site plan
approval.
Mr. Rooker said he is concerned that the ARB has the authority at that time to require that kind of
planting strip. Mr. Rotgin asked if the ARB has the legal authority to do anything it is doing. Mr. Rooker
said they do. Mr. Rotgin said it has tremendous moral persuasion authority.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Rotgin will commit to either that or comparable planning for aesthetic
features. Can they come up with something? Mr. Rotgin said he thinks they can.
Ms. Thomas said the value to the thing being called the “continuous planting bed” is that one of
the strengths of ARB review along Route 29 from the viewpoint of the person driving along is the amount
of continuity. At many banking facilities and car dealers much closer to town there are shrubs of a similar
height. That gives one the feeling of an entrance corridor. She finds things such as a continuous planting
bed to be an important aspect of what the ARB is charged to do.
Mr. Rotgin said he agrees with that, but they are talking about “right here” and not up on the road.
Continuous planting along the road is correct. Nobody can see what is here. That building is way below
grade.
Mr. Rooker said architectural features on the building may turn out to be more important.
Mr. Wyant said you will not be able to see anything down low because there are the other plants
which screen it. It is a nice thought, but you will not see that.
Mr. Tucker asked if the HVAC will be on top of the building. Mr. Rotgin said it will probably be on
top and have screens around it.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Mr. Rotgin for being present.
Note
(: At 4:45 p.m. the Board recessed, and reconvened again at 4:55 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Architectural Review Board (ARB) Sign Guidelines, Work Session (deferred
from the morning session).
Ms. Margaret Maliszewski, Planner, summarized the Executive Summary. She said these
revisions to the ARB Sign Guidelines significantly expand those in the current overall ARB sign
guidelines. She said the expansion includes additional explanatory information and clarifications
regarding guidelines and policies the ARB has applied consistently over the past several years. For
example, they indicate that signs with no lighting or with indirect illumination are more appropriate for the
Entrance Corridors. The revision to the guidelines gives expanded information to explain the reasoning
and policy in greater detail.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
Ms. Maliszewski said the ARB reviewed wall signs for appropriate placement on buildings using
the broad guidelines regarding compatibility, traditional architecture, scale, etc. This revision supplies
specific written information regarding appropriate placement of signs as well as extensive illustrations to
clarify their policies and the intent of those guidelines. To make all of the guidelines consistent, the
proper guidelines would also require modification to the ARB’s guidelines for signs on fuel pump
canopies. That change has been outlined in Attachment B. It deletes the guidelines that say signs on
fuel pump canopies shall not be illuminated.
Mr. Rooker said that on page 5 of the proposed guidelines there is mention of “harmonious
colors.” He asked if it would be possible to create a list of the colors which the ARB feels are harmonious
colors. Ms. Maliszewski said that is possible, but there are a couple of issues involved. She said these
are guidelines and not an ordinance. She does not think it is possible to create a completely
comprehensive list. They could create a list of some examples.
Mr. Rooker said on page 8 it also mentions a “proportioning system.” He asked if some
numerical proportionate guidelines could be attached to the guidelines. He thinks the more specific the
guidelines are, the better so people will know what they are likely to get approved. Ms. Maliszewski said
there was a sentence on page 8 at one time, but it was taken out. It could be put back in.
Mr. Boyd said when putting in specifics he thinks it would be important to note that they are not all
conclusive. He does agree that it is a good idea.
Ms. Thomas said these are in addition to what is set out in the Sign Ordinance. She is impressed
with these guidelines and thinks they will be very useful.
Mr. Dorrier said if there was nothing further from Ms. Maliszewski at this time, the Board needs to
discuss the guidelines and give recommendations.
Mr. Boyd asked if these guidelines are subject to a public hearing.
Mr. Davis said the ordinance provides that guidelines are promulgated by the ARB and ratified by
the Board. There is no other process required beyond that. For a final document to be adopted, if the
Board makes changes in the draft, that would need to go back to the ARB for their acceptance and then
come back to the Board for ratification.
Mr. Boyd said he is surprised that someone from HighTech Signs is not here today. He asked
how they feel about these guidelines. Ms. Maliszewski said they were at the ARB’s meeting last June
and made some verbal comments. There is a letter from HighTech attached to the executive summary
the Board received.
Mr. Tucker said someone called earlier in the week about this work session. He thinks they were
considering whether they might have some legal response to these guidelines. But, nothing has been
heard from them since that time.
Mr. Bowerman asked what Mr. Tucker meant by “legal response.” Mr. Tucker said it is their
reaction to the proposal.
Mr. Boyd said all of the Board members got an e-mail from them.
Mr. Davis said he can provide the Board with some information. If the reference is to the Center
for Public Expression, he has spoken with Mr. Josh Wheeler and they are not adversary in this process.
They have indicated that over the next month or so they will try to provide some comment on this, but it
would be more in the policy guidance than legally challenging. Their policy is to have less government
regulation, so they may have some suggestions that the County should regulate less in this area. He did
not anticipate having any legal opposition to promulgating or ratifying these guidelines.
Mr. Boyd asked if their objection is to these guidelines, or to the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Davis said
as far as he knows, they do not have any objections.
Ms. Thomas said she ran across some information put out by the American Planning Association
that was fairly amusing. It shows diagrams of the fronts of buildings and preferred signs, and things to
avoid. It is almost identical to what is shown in these guidelines, and the only thing that is amusing is that
it is dated 1989. Although the County might think it is “cutting edge” sometimes, according to the people
who put out the literature, the County is just putting together the kind of visual guidelines that have been
in effect for a long time in other places.
Mr. Davis said in the past the objection to these guidelines by people in the community was the
unlimited discretion of the ARB. Legally, staff does not believe that is true. These revised guidelines go a
long way to give people a reasonable expectation as to what can be submitted and approved by the ARB,
and the guidelines and limits the ARB uses to consider these types of approvals. He thinks this is a
superior step forward to address those issues. He encourages the Board to move ahead and not wait
longer than the normal public process takes.
Mr. Boyd asked if this just creates a book which is available to the public. Ms. Maliszewski said it
will be available online as well.
Mr. Wyant said this is a big improvement over the current guidelines.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
Mr. Rooker said in the wall sign section, on page 22, fourth paragraph, it says “The sign shall not
overcrowd the architectural element, the wall, or the sign area.” He asked if there could be some outer
limit proportions to serve as guidelines. Ms. Maliszewski said a lot of those types of signs are proposed in
a “sign ban area.” She said in reference to the illustrations the letters might be 18 inches high, and
usually it is recommended that there be three to four inches of blank area above and below the lettering.
She asked if describing something like that would meet Mr. Rooker’s concern.
Mr. Rooker said that would be fine.
Mr. Boyd said he likes Mr. Rooker’s suggestions. Does that mean these guidelines have to go
back to the ARB? Mr. Davis said the Board could make these changes, hold a public hearing, and then
send them back to the ARB and bring them back to the Board for adoption. In the alternative, the Board
could make the suggested changes assuming these would be the only changes made so they could be
adopted on the public hearing day. Mr. Tucker said this would keep the guidelines from going back to the
ARB more than once.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the latter process is the better process.
Ms. Thomas said neon signs have been prohibited to be inside looking out through the window.
She thinks that is in the regular Sign Ordinance and she found that to be a really dated provision that is
widely disregarded and also seems unnecessary. Ms. Maliszewski said neon is addressed in these
guidelines. It used to say “exposed” neon.
Ms. Thomas said it does refer to “exposed” neon. Ms. Maliszewski said neon is often used in the
interior of channel letters and that is okay, but neon that just forms the sign itself is prohibited in the ARB
guidelines.
Mr. Davis said it is not prohibited in non-ARB locations. There can be exposed neon, and it is
sometimes seen inside doors. But, in the entrance corridors, exposed neon is frowned upon.
Mr. Wyant said these guidelines pertain to the entrance corridors where the ARB has jurisdiction.
Mr. Davis asked when the ARB can look at these recommended changes. Ms. Maliszewski said
they meet next Tuesday. Mr. Davis said if the ARB could promulgate the supplements to these
guidelines, the Board could ratify them at its public hearing.
Motion
was offered at this time by Mr. Rooker that the Board hold a public hearing on these
seconded
guidelines on October 13, 2004. The motion was by Mr. Wyant.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said since Albemarle County has an Olympic silver medal winner, she had hoped
the Board could take notice of that fact, and at least send a letter of congratulations. This is for Kimberly
motion
Severson and her horse Winsome Andante “Dan”. She then offered to adopt a resolution of
seconded
congratulations. The motion was by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Boyd said he understands the meeting with the School Board will be held on October 14. He
will not be able to attend that meeting.
__________
Mr. Boyd said the County is getting ready to draft a Master Plan for the Route 29 North area. He
has been watching the Pantops area “explode” with growth and there is no master plan for that area. In
seeing the number of proposals coming before the Board for housing on Pantops, he wonders if the
Board should reconsider the next direction for a master plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is an RFP out for a consultant to do the northern development area; it
has received a response. That plan is being aligned with the 29 Corridor transportation studies, the third
phase of 29H250 Study. The Planning Commission has initiated a resolution of intent to do a framework
level plan of Pantops and staff has begun work on that. There will be a public meeting next month to
make people of aware of what is being done. They are trying to handle that at staff level, with the study
focusing on transportation/land use relationships. Staff is trying to fit this into its work schedule.
Mr. Boyd said he has received a lot of comments about Pantops.
September 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 65)
Mr. Cilimberg said that after several years of just sitting in VDOT’s Office the suggestion for a
Route 250 Eastern Corridor study has just come back to the County. They will try to wrap that into this
whole discussion because that study is dated now in terms of data.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. Adjourn to September 8, 2004, at 4:00 p.m.
At 5:20 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr.
seconded
Wyant, by Mr. Rooker to adjourn this meeting until September 8, 2004, at 4:00 p.m.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the Board of
County Supervisors
Date: 09/07/2005
Initials: DBM